Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Sure.

Mr. HATCH. Let the Senator go, and then Senator Sessions.

Mr. HATCH. That is fine. We would start with Senator Collins on our side for 5 minutes, and then on your side, and then back on our side.

Mr. HATCH. Sure. If they need more time to study it--

Mr. HATCH. Let me make this suggestion. I hope it will be found acceptable to colleagues on the other side. Since they are studying this amendment--and have had it for over an hour --since they are studying this amendment and need to finish their studies, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins be permitted to proceed for 5 minutes and that Senator Sessions be permitted to proceed for 10 minutes, and if Senator DeWine is here, let him get his until 5 o'clock.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we yield a minute to each, if it is all right. Do you want more?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to do that. I suppose the Senator from South Carolina wants to end the debate, and then I will yield back whatever time I have remaining at that time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cochran be given 10 minutes; immediately following Senator Cochran, Senator Boxer be given 10 minutes; and immediately following Senator Boxer, Senator Sessions be given 10 minutes. Then I will be prepared to yield back the remainder of our time as soon as the Senator from South Carolina is through.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I should put all Senators on notice that we are just about out of time for debate with regard to the Hollings amendment on his side and I have somewhere near 42 minutes on our side. I intend to yield back some of that time so we can go to a vote on this matter. I understand Senator Cochran wants to take about 10 minutes to speak on this amendment. I will take a few minutes now. I rise to explain why I will ultimately move to table the Hollings amendment today. I struggled with this decision because there is much to be commended in my dear friend's amendment. I have a lot of respect for him. He knows that. I think it is important we work to make our culture safer for our families and for children, and that we make entertainment choices more family friendly. No question about it. We should certainly work to make television entertainment, which is so ubiquitous, less coarse, especially when children are watching. Having said that, I do have a number of concerns with this amendment. Members of the satellite television industry, which we are working to make more competitive with cable, have expressed concerns with this amendment. Because much of the fare on satellites is delivered nationally, they will have difficulty complying. If a satellite carrier picks up programming on the east coast, where much programming originates, it will likely be out of compliance, given that fare appropriate for later hours on the east coast will be beamed simultaneously across the time zones to viewers on the west coast, and across the country, where obviously it will be earlier. Additionally, opponents of this amendment have raised constitutional concerns. Although I have not had an opportunity to review or visit all of these constitutional issues, I do not believe that the constitutional concerns are clearly right or that opponents have an open-and-shut constitutional case. I do believe the issues bear careful consideration. Most of all, I must vote to table this amendment because of a commitment I made to my colleagues in 1997 in connection with getting the voluntary television ratings and V-chip systems in place. At that time, I was approached by a number of colleagues to sign a Dear Colleague letter taking a stand against regulating television ratings, content, or scheduling until those systems had time to get underway. That Dear Colleague letter is dated July 8, 1997, and was signed by Senators Lott, Daschle, McCain, Leahy, as well as myself, and other Republicans and Democrats. I made that commitment then and I believe I need to honor it now. Some may believe that an earlier amendment which I supported had a similar impact. The Brownback-Hatch-Lieberman amendment allowed the industry to develop a voluntary code of conduct but did not impose any regulations on the industry. It also was a comprehensive amendment and had much greater application than the television ratings, content, and scheduling at issue in the V-chip and ratings process. It applied to television, movies, music, video games, and the Internet. At that time yesterday, I recognized my earlier commitment and raised and distinguished it. Therefore, although I find much to commend in the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, because of my prior commitment to forbear from supporting legislation or recommendation concerning television ratings, content, or scheduling, I believe I must honor that pledge to my colleagues and vote to table the Hollings amendment. There is a lot of very bad programming on television in our country today. I think the satellite viewership problem is a big problem. To make someone liable because they have to carry the satellite transmission at a time that fits within the time constraints of this amendment on the west coast--coming from the east coast, it may be in compliance, but the west coast may not be, and the satellite transmitter will be liable--is a matter of great problematic concern to me. I share the same concern my friend from South Carolina shares with regard to what is being televised and on the airwaves today, especially during times when young people are watching. On the other hand, I have a very strong commitment to uphold the first amendment and to be very reticent to start dictating what can and cannot be done on network television or on television, period. As for cleaning up the media, we did have the Brownback-Hatch- Lieberman amendment. Senators Brownback and Lieberman have worked long and hard to come up with some solutions that hopefully will be voluntary, that hopefully will resolve these questions. That amendment yesterday was adopted overwhelmingly. It requires the FTC and Department of Justice to do a comprehensive study of the entertainment industry. It seems to me that is a very reasonable, important thing to do and we ought to get that information before we make any final decisions in this area. Also, it had a provision asking the National Institutes of Health to study the impact of violence and unsuitable material on children and child development. That brought a lot of angst to a number of people. Having the FTC look into these things brought a lot of angst to a lot of people. I might add, having the Department of Justice do it has caused a lot of concern. I think that amendment, including its other provisions on antitrust, will go a long way toward cleaning up the exposure of minors to violent material. I would like to see that work and I would like to see these studies done before we go this drastically to a solution in the Senate. At the appropriate time I will move to table the amendment, and I hope my colleagues will support the motion to table with the commitment from me--and I think others will make it, too--that we will continue to revisit this area, because we are all concerned. It is not only the province of those who are for this amendment; all of us are concerned about what is happening to our children in our society today. I see that Senator Cochran has arrived. I yield 10 minutes to Senator Cochran.

Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Vermont.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this Hatch-Leahy amendment, which is aimed at limiting the negative impact violence and indecent material on the Internet have on children. As I noted last evening, this amendment does not regulate the content. Instead, it encourages the larger Internet service providers, the ISPs, if you will, to provide, either for free or at a fee not exceeding the cost to the service providers, filtering technologies that will empower parents to limit or block the access of minors to unsuitable materials on the Internet. We simply cannot ignore the fact that the Internet has the ability to expose children to violent, sexually explicit, and other inappropriate materials with no limits. A recent Time/CNN poll found that 75 percent of teenagers from 13 to 17 believe the Internet is partly responsible for the crimes that occurred in Littleton, CO, at Columbine High School. The amendment respects the first amendment of the Constitution by not regulating content but ensures that parents will have the adequate technological tools to control access of their children to unsuitable material on the Internet. I honestly believe that the Internet service providers that do not already provide filtering software to their subscribers will do so voluntarily. They will know it is in their best interests, and I believe the market will demand it. A recent survey reported in the New York Times yesterday found that almost a third of on-line American households with children use blocking software. In a study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, 60 percent of parents said they disagreed with the statement that the Internet was a safe place for their children. According to yesterday's New York Times, after the shootings in Colorado, the demand for filtering technologies has dramatically increased. This indicates that parents are taking an active role in safeguarding their children on the Internet. That is what this amendment is all about--using technology to empower parents. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield the floor and hope we can go to a vote.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. This morning the Senate will resume consideration of the juvenile justice legislation. Pending is the Hatch-Leahy amendment with a vote to take place at approximately 9:40 a.m. Following the disposition of the Hatch-Leahy amendment, Senator Hollings will resume debate of his television violence amendment with 2 hours of debate remaining on the amendment, with the time for a vote to be determined. It is hoped that significant progress can continue to be made on this important legislation. Therefore, Senators can expect votes throughout today's session of the Senate. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this next amendment along with Senator Leahy, my friend and colleague, which I have developed with the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. This amendment is largely aimed at limiting the negative impact to children from violence and indecent material on the Internet. At the outset, let me note this amendment does not regulate content. Instead, it encourages the larger Internet service providers to provide, either for free or at a fee not exceeding the cost to the ISP, the Internet service provider, filtering technologies that would empower parents to limit or block access of minors to unsuitable material on the Internet. We cannot place all the blame for today's culture of violence on the Internet. But we also cannot ignore the fact that this powerful new medium has the ability to expose children to violent, sexually explicit, and other inappropriate materials with no limits, not even the time-of-broadcast limits that are currently imposed on television broadcasters. Indeed, a recent Time/CNN poll found that 75 percent of teens aged 13 to 17 believed the Internet is partly responsible for crimes like the Columbine High School shootings. This amendment respects the first amendment of the Constitution by not regulating content, but ensures that parents will have the adequate technological tools to control the access of their children to unsuitable material on the Internet. Let me say that many Internet subscribers already have such tools provided to them free of charge. For example, the largest Internet service provider currently provides its 17 million subscribers with such filtering technology as part of their standard service. I honestly believe that other ISPs, or Internet service providers, who do not already provide filtering software to their subscribers will do so voluntarily. They will know it is in their best interests and that the market will demand it. That is why this amendment will not go into effect if, within 3 years, the service providers end up offering such technologies voluntarily. This is what we would like to do. We think it is a fair amendment. We think it is something that should be done, and we think responsible Internet service providers should be willing to do this, and I am very, very pleased to offer this with my esteemed colleague who has worked very, very hard on all software Internet issues.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator from Idaho yield some time?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his excellent remarks. He has been a major player in this matter from the beginning. I really appreciate what he has been doing. I appreciate the cooperation we have had from colleagues on both sides of the aisle because this is an important bill. This is going to make a difference as to whether we have, time after time, incidents such as we had in Littleton, CO, or whether we are going to do something about it. This bill will do an awful lot about it, although nothing is going to stop people who have an emotional disturbance from perhaps doing things we cannot contemplate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent with respect to the Brownback amendment on culture that the amendment be laid aside and no amendments to the amendment be in order prior to the vote on or in relation to the amendment. I further ask consent that Senator Lautenberg be recognized in order to offer an amendment regarding gun shows under the same terms as outlined above, and the amendment be laid aside, and Senator Craig then be recognized to offer an amendment regarding gun shows, and there be 90 minutes equally divided for debate on both amendments, under the same terms as outlined above. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the debates the amendments be laid aside, with votes occurring beginning at 4 p.m., in the order offered, with 5 minutes prior to each vote for explanation.

Mr. HATCH. All time is all yielded back?

Mr. HATCH. And you can reemphasize it, if you could. Look, one of the things that has always bothered me about Washington, and especially the Congress of the United States, is no matter how much money you put up that is reasonable, there is always going to be somebody who says we have to spend a lot more. Generally, it does come from the other side of the floor. In this particular case, we have just shown you how we double the prevention moneys for the next 5 years, each year, over what they are today and how they have gone up. They will go up about five times what they were in 1994. Now look, today, before this bill passes, let me show you the imbalance in the law right now. We are spending $4.4 billion on juvenile prevention programs--117 programs. That is what we are spending. That is going to be spent whether this bill passes or not. We are going to add another $547 million to that. It will bring it up to about $5 billion that we are spending on juvenile prevention. One of the problems I have with the amendment of Senator Leahy--he says it is not a substitute. That is fine. But one of the problems I have with his amendment is he is only spending 8.9 percent on the accountability side of the equation, where we spend 40 percent in our bill. Look how much we are currently spending: zero dollars for juvenile law enforcement or accountability. You wonder why kids are in trouble today. We made the case. The troubles begins at age 7; they escalate until age 14\1/2\, when it is too late, and they then go to court. That is what accountability is going to do. It will help to make them accountable up to age 14\1/2\, and hopefully the prevention moneys will work then, because you will have both sides of the scale, admittedly not an awful lot for accountability in comparison, but we will have accountability money and we will have even more prevention money. I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Alabama, who has made this case over and over. But what never ceases to amaze me is, whatever money we put in these programs, there is always going to be someone who wants to spend a lot more. The point we make is there is a lot more there now, and we are going to add a lot more. And we do not need to add $400 million for each year for the next 5 years. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. I want to yield some time to my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee. We are both thinking of the same thing. If I could just take a minute.

Mr. HATCH. How much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. HATCH. Then I move to table and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: My understanding is the Lautenberg amendment is next and there are 5 minutes to be equally divided before I make a motion to table.

Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote.