Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I move to table the amendment.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that immediately following this vote, Senator Thurmond be recognized for up to 5 minutes for debate and Senator Hollings then be recognized as under the previous order for up to 30 minutes under his control for debate on his TV violence amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may suggest the absence of a quorum without it being charged to either side.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I enjoyed listening to my colleague and I appreciate his efforts. Before I move into the substance of Senator Leahy's substitute, which is essentially an amendment, I note that we have had very little time to study and consider this amendment. We saw this amendment, which is 211 pages long, for the first time yesterday. The Senate has held no hearings--none whatsoever--on this amendment, nor has the amendment ever been referred to the committee as a bill or otherwise. Consequently, not only has the Senate not considered Senator Leahy's substitute, no outside groups in law enforcement or the juvenile justice communities have had the opportunity to examine this amendment. Having said that, that doesn't mean we should not consider it at this time. By contrast, the Judiciary Committee has worked on S. 254 and its predecessor, S. 10, for more than 2 years. The Youth Violence Subcommittee, under the leadership of Senators Sessions and Biden, has held numerous hearings on S. 254 and its predecessor. These hearings have examined S. 254 from different angles and perspectives. A variety of experts have testified in favor and in detail about this bill. S. 254 is the most thoroughly considered juvenile crime legislation in my 23 years in the Senate and service on the Judiciary Committee and it has bipartisan support, as we saw yesterday on the vote. Senator Biden, the ranking member of the Youth Violence Subcommittee, one of the leading Senators on crime issues, supports S. 254. We appreciate the efforts he has made. Moreover, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Boy and Girl Scouts, and the National Collaboration for Youth, among other organizations, have examined S. 254 in detail. These groups have written letters of support for S. 254. Needless to say, these groups have not endorsed Senator Leahy's substitute, because they have not had a chance to consider the amendment. I don't mean to imply that this substitute does not contain some good proposals. In certain ways it is similar to S. 254. For example, I commend Senator Leahy for including funds for juvenile prosecution and drug treatment, but funding for these purposes is already in S. 254. In fact, virtually every basic fund for prevention is in S. 254. Also, this substitute changes procedural reforms to the Federal prosecution of juveniles that are very similar to S. 254, the bill before the Senate. Again, we address this area in the underlying bill. In particular, the substitute contains a reverse waiver that allows Federal district court judges to reverse any Federal prosecutor's decision to prosecute a juvenile as an adult. Under both S. 254 and Senator Leahy's substitute, the juvenile defendant must prove by ``clear and convincing evidence'' that he or she should not be tried as an adult. In short, there is much in the Leahy substitute that Senators will have the opportunity to vote for when we pass S. 254. Despite some positive provisions, the Leahy substitute is, in my opinion, badly flawed. For example, the Leahy substitute changes the provision to encourage and assist States to upgrade and share juvenile criminal records. One of the major features of our juvenile justice bill is improving criminal records sharing--I might add, that is a uniquely Federal role--but the Leahy amendment does not improve juvenile records in a meaningful way. It would effectively strike the provisions governing the upgrading and improving of juvenile felony records. This is an important part of our bill. We found that if we don't keep these records, people don't realize when violent juveniles reach the age of maturity, or of majority, they don't realize what these young people may have done with regard to violence in their youth. In addition, the Leahy substitute is not a balanced approach toward the accountability program. It provides only $150 million for accountability programs, such as graduated sanctions and detention for juveniles, out of an annual authorization of $1.86 billion in that bill, in that substitute. In other words, only 8.9 percent of the total funding goes to accountability programs. We all want prevention, but accountability is important, too. I have worked long and hard to remedy what some have thought in the past to be a failure to have enough prevention in these bills, as we are concerned about accountability. So we have made those changes on S. 254 to try to make this a more bipartisan bill for all Members to support. We need to support and encourage a full range of graduated sanctions from the earliest acts of delinquent behavior to help ensure that early acts of delinquency do not grow into more serious problems. This chart indicates that the earliest acts of delinquent behavior start at age 7, the green line. That is the average age where behavioral problems really come into focus and start with young people. They continue to grow worse as they get older if there is no effective intervention. The underlying bill, unlike my colleague's substitute, recognizes this and addresses it thoroughly. Although we showed this chart yesterday, it is worthwhile going over it again and again. People need to understand the history and the probabilities of misbehavior by young people. Minor problems of misbehavior generally start at age 7, usually because of broken families or the lack of a father in the home, with the mother doing her best to try to help the children but having to work generally or, if not working, on welfare. It starts then. It isn't necessarily the child's fault. So we need to do what we can to intervene at that time when we have some of these minor behavior problems. That includes both correction and enforcement. Now, moderately serious problem behavior really starts gaining focus at 9.5 years. As a child grows to 9.5 years old, if that child has not been helped between 7 and 9.5, you start to get moderately serious problem behavior. Then it becomes serious delinquency by almost 12 years of age, or 11.9 years of age. Then the first court contact generally, for index offenses--in other words, offenses that are quite serious--happens really at about 14.5 years of age. This is important stuff, because we have to balance both sides of this equation, not just prevention but accountability as well. If we do not expect young people to be accountable and we don't put the resources into helping them be accountable, they are going to get to 14.5 years and we are going to be left with a hoped-for prevention that really isn't going to work in many cases. It may work, but we almost guarantee it will work if we can require a certain aspect of accountability during these years of age, 7 to 14.5. That is one of the things we are trying to do in this bill. This is not a partisan bill. This is not a bill that is a triumph of Republican principles over Democrat principles. We have taken the best from both parties and tried to mold it together into a bill that really will work and make a dent in some of these problems that really are despoiling our society. Prevention programs are not effective unless there are some accountability measures to reinforce them. Providing only 8.9 percent for accountability measures is not a balanced approach. S. 254, by contrast, provides approximately 40 percent for accountability programs. We balance the two. By the way, we are spending an extra half billion dollars, if we pass the Leahy substitute, an extra half billion dollars on top of what we are spending, which is a monumental amount of money, over $1 billion, $1.1 billion in the Hatch-Biden-Sessions bill. It is important we do the accountability aspects of this. On what does Senator Leahy's amendment propose spending funds? In enforcement, it authorizes rural drug training, grants for State courts and prosecutors, and the Byrne Program. All of these are generally worthy programs, and I commend the Senator for recognizing them. Indeed, I have been a vocal critic of the recent efforts of the Clinton administration to cut funding for some of these very same programs. What of the $200 million the Leahy amendment purports to spend on more police officers in schools? This is in reality just an extension of the existing COPS Program, and it is not targeted at juvenile crime. Some COPS funding can of course be used for school security. In fact, Republicans last Congress, led by Senator Campbell, amended the COPS Program to allow its grants to pay for school security officers. But to call this general reauthorization a program dedicated to cops in schools is a bit inaccurate. What is left of the Leahy amendment? Prevention, which of course we all agree is important, no question about it. The Hatch-Biden-Sessions amendment the Senate adopted yesterday increases our bill's commitment to prevention to $547.5 million per year, as this chart indicates. Just so we all understand this, from the juvenile crime prevention standpoint, the funding of the OJJDP prevention programs, you can see that in 1994 we spent $107 million on these juvenile justice delinquency prevention programs--$107 million, which many in that year thought was quite a bit of money. I did not. Senator Leahy did not. I don't think Senator Biden did. But the fact is it was $107 million. We have in 1995 jumped to $144 million, and in 1996 as well. Then in 1997 we went to $170 million; then in 1998, $201.7 million. We have been bringing it up gradually. But look, in our bill we put it up to $267.6 million. As we have gradually worked hard to do, we put it up. Then in our bill, starting in the year 2000, we go all the way up to $547.5 million. We double the money in this bill. That is a lot of money. And we ought to make sure that money works. We should not get into a contest of throwing money at these problems and saying that is going to solve them. We have a balanced bill here that takes care of the accountability aspects, about 40 percent of our bill, and about 60 percent is for prevention. Those green lines, from 2000 through 2004, represent almost $600 million a year on top of other prevention funds we already have in other programs. So it is not as if we are letting prevention down. In fact, we have balanced it so we have both accountability and prevention. I might add, our prevention is more balanced than that in the Leahy amendment. Mr. President, $850 million of Senator Leahy's amendment's ``juvenile crime prevention'' is focused exclusively on crime prevention. I think that is important, but we do that as well. And $400 million of that funding is not even dedicated to the juvenile drug problem. So that bothers me a little bit, too. We are now working on a juvenile drug bill. Yesterday, we got into a little bit of a hassle on the floor because Senator Robb and Senator Kennedy and others wanted to add SAMHSA money, mental health moneys, to this bill. We provide that our prevention moneys can be used for mental health, but we do not try to rewrite in the bill the whole of mental health legislation in this country. We are going to do that later. I will help them do that, because I am as concerned about mental health issues as Senators Kennedy and Robb and the others who voted for that. But that is not the purpose of this bill, when we provide that is one of the alternatives, one of the options that State and local governments will have in resolving this. It is the same thing with juvenile crime prevention and drug prevention. We provide for that in this bill. Moreover, this substitute, the Leahy substitute, is not narrowly focused on the problem we should be debating, and that is juvenile crime. Indeed, of the advertised $3.581 billion over 3 years, by my count, only $1.6 billion, or 45.6 percent, is dedicated to addressing juvenile crime. We would like to make this bill be a juvenile justice/juvenile crime bill, and not make it a big social spending bill, when we have other programs that literally can be beefed up for those purposes. I am not necessarily against doing that in other programs, but this bill is balanced and we want to keep it that way. So of the advertised $3.581 billion over 3 years, only $1.6 billion, or 45.6 percent, is dedicated to addressing juvenile crime. My omnibus crime bill, the 21st Century Justice Act, which is S. 899, is a comprehensive approach to our general crime problem. But the bill we are debating today is a juvenile crime bill, and that ought to be our focus, our total focus. If we can pass this bill, we will do more to solve and resolve juvenile crime problems than almost anything we have done in history. That is why it is such an important bill, especially when we have had to go through some of these very difficult times that this country has gone through recently. In short, the Leahy substitute is no substitute for the effective comprehensive approach to juvenile crime proposed in the underlying Hatch-Biden-Sessions bill. So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, as much as it is well intentioned, as much as I respect my colleague. I really do respect my colleague, who works very hard on the Judiciary Committee. I know he is sincere in presenting these matters. But I want this bill to be balanced. I want it to be tough and lean-- and work. We have added plenty of money, as you can see. We are jumping those funds dramatically in 1 year to where we have very significant amount of funds. We have doubled them, in essence. There will be people around here, no matter how much money you spend, who will always want to spend more. There comes a time when you have to do what is best under the circumstances and what is right under the circumstances. That is what will get this bill through both Houses of Congress and will do what really needs to be done for our young people in this society who are troubled and who have difficulties and whom we can save if we pass this bill. We can prevent some of the things that have happened in the past that have literally disrupted our society and hurt so many people. Finally, S. 254 is supported by real people who took the time to get involved in juvenile justice. For example, more than a year ago, I received a letter from a woman named Cris Owsley in Sunnyside, WA. She wrote about how her son, Shaun, was knifed to death by a 15-year-old attacker in January of 1997. Shaun was just 2 days past his 18th birthday, and he was murdered at his birthday party. Shaun's parents are courageous people. They took their grief and turned it into activism. Working with other parents and the State legislature, they became advocates for laws that would appropriately punish juveniles like the murderer who killed their son. Then they contacted me and asked what they could do to promote reform nationally. I invited them to Washington last summer where they joined me and others on the Judiciary Committee and numerous law enforcement groups to urge passage of this juvenile crime bill. I am sure they will approve the amendment we adopted yesterday, the Hatch-Biden-Sessions amendment. They have set up a web site to advocate the passage of S. 254. That is how much it means to them and, really, millions of parents across this country. I close my remarks with this exhibit. This box that I have contains more than 1,000 letters in support of S. 254 generated by these folks. These are real people who have endorsed this bill. Given their support, I urge the Senate to reject the Leahy substitute and support S. 254, and let's get this done. I hope we can move this ahead today and get it done today, because the sooner we get this bill passed, the more likely we are going to have greater tools and greater efforts to resolve some of these problems that are tearing our society apart. This is an extremely important bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that will make a difference, and I think we ought to do this as quickly as we can. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the next amendment, the Brownback amendment on code of conduct, no amendments be in order to the amendment for 30 minutes after it begins.

Mr. HATCH. As we work out the difficulties. We are trying to have an interim period of time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like briefly to respond to the distinguished minority leader's comments. I agree with the Senator from South Dakota that we need long term solutions to the problem of youth violence. S. 254, a comprehensive package designed to combat youth violence through multiple approaches--like prevention and accountability programs--is a long term, but flexible, approach to assist the States in curbing youth violence. My colleagues across the aisle want more funding dedicated to prevention programs, despite the funding increases approved yesterday in the Hatch-Biden-Sessions amendment. In addition, the Federal government, according to a 1999 GAO study, spends over $4 billion annually on 117 prevention programs. The Robb amendment was wisely tabled, since it added an additional $1 billion to Federal programs that already exist. S. 254 and the pending Republican amendments already address programs to steer youth away from a life of crime. For instance, S. 254 has a unique mentoring program that utilizes college age adults and retired couples that are matched to troubled juveniles and their families. By giving the juveniles proper guidance, communities can prevent youngsters from choosing to commit crime. Furthermore, although there were some similar provisions between the Leahy substitute amendment and the underlying bill, the devil is always in the details. Upon close inspection, this amendment was not an adequate substitute for the most thoroughly considered juvenile crime legislation in my 23 years in the Senate. First, the Leahy amendment duplicated programs that are already in S. 254. My bill gives the Attorney General greater discretion to prosecute violent juvenile offenders that commit Federal crimes in adult court, and streamlines the process to do so. S. 254 already has a flexible accountability block grant that provides funding for a system of graduated sanctions to hold violent and repeat offenders responsible for the crimes inflicted on their victims. Since S. 254 provides a comprehensive package to fight juvenile violent crime, the Fraternal Order of Police supports the bill. Second, the Leahy amendment was not narrowly focussed on the problem we should be debating--juvenile crime. Indeed, of the advertised $3.581 billion over three years price tag, by my count only $1.632 billion, or 45.6 percent, is dedicated to addressing juvenile crime. In the law enforcement category, the imbalance is even more startling. Of the $1.684 billion the amendment claimed to spend on juvenie crime law enforcement, only $150 million, or 8.9 percent, is targeted at reducing juvenile crime. This $150 million is for juvenile and violent offender incarceration. I certainly agree with Senator Leahy that we need to provide assistance to States and local governments for secure juvenile detention. But, we need to fully support and encourage a full range of graduated sanctions from the earliest acts of delinquent behavior, to help ensure that early acts of delinquency do not grow into more serious problems. According to the OJJDP, the earliest acts of delinquent behavior start at age seven, and continue to get worse if there is no effective intervention. S. 254, unlike my colleague's amendment, recognizes this, and addresses it. So what did the Leahy amendment propose spending funds on? In the enforcement area, it reauthorizes Rural Drug Enforcement and Training, grants for state courts and prosecutors, and the Byrne program. Now, all of these are generally worthy programs. Indeed, I have been a vocal critic of recent efforts by the Clinton Administration to cut funding for some of these same programs. And my crime bill, the 21st Century Justice Act (S. 899) is a comprehensive answer to our general crime problem. But the bill we are debating today is a juvenile crime bill, and that should be our focus. And what of the $200 million the Leahy amendment purports to spend on more police officers in schools? This is, in reality, just a two year reauthorization of the existing COPS program. Some COPS funding can, of course, be used for school security. In fact, I supported the bill by Senator Campbell we enacted last Congress to amend the COPS program to allow its grants to pay for school security officers. But to call this general reauthorization a program dedicated to cops in schools is a bit inaccurate. What is left of the Leahy amendment then? Prevention. Which, of course, we all agree is important. The Hatch-Biden-Sessions amendment the Senate adopted yesterday increases our bill's commitment to prevention to $547.5 million per year. And, I might add, our prevention is more balanced than that in the Leahy amendment. $850 million of the Leahy amendment's ``juvenile crime prevention'' is focussed exclusively on drug prevention. And $400 million of that funding isn't even dedicated to the juvenile drug program, which I agree is in dire need of attention. In short, the prior Democratic amendments are no substitute for the effective, comprehensive approach to juvenile crime proposed in the underlying Hatch-Biden-Sessions bill. This bill, and the amendments we will offer, address our juvenile crime problem in four key areas. These include: (1) prevention and enforcement assistance to state and local government; (2) parental empowerment and stemming the influence of cultural violence; (3) getting tough on violent juveniles and enforce existing law; and (4) safe and secure schools. So far, the amendments to this serious juvenile crime package have been simple calls for increased spending and rhetorical trinkets. So while I respect the minority leader's views on this issue, I must disagree with his conclusions. Mr. President, before we begin the Brownback amendment debate, I ask unanimous consent the distinguished Budget Committee chairman be granted 7 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we keep the status quo with regard to no amendments to this amendment until 12:30.

Mr. HATCH. I hope everybody can be recognized, but I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 I be permitted----

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent to keep the status quo until 12:30 and then at 12:30 I retain the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to not speak at this particular time and have somebody from the Democrat side speak.

Mr. HATCH. We also have to reserve 10 minutes for Senator DeWine.

Mr. HATCH. We will go beyond 12:30. I think he can come after that.

Mr. HATCH. Or amendments, and that I get the floor as soon as Senator DeWine has concluded with his speech.

Mr. HATCH. We keep the status quo of not opening it to second- degrees.

Mr. HATCH. But the floor would be yielded to me.

Mr. HATCH. I may well offer a second-degree at that time. We would prefer not to have any amendments to this, but that is what I may very well do.

Mr. HATCH. Parliamentary inquiry: Just so we know, I am to speak for how many minutes?

Mr. HATCH. Fifteen minutes divided equally between the Senator from California and the Senator from Massachusetts?

Mr. HATCH. And then 10 minutes for----

Mr. HATCH. Then the floor would be yielded back to me?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I first want to commend Senator Brownback for his initiative to curb the exposure of our youth to violence. I recognize that as early as last year Senator Brownback and I, and I have to add my dear friend from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and others, had developed legislation designed to encourage television broadcasters to join forces and develop a code of conduct for responsible programming. That legislation is part of the amendment being offered today, and it addresses the broader concern that our children are exposed to too much violence, too much obscenity, and too much filth--whether through television, in movies, in modern music, or in video games. Let me say for the record that I hope that as the new V-chip is implemented in televisions, our concern for the pervasive exposure of children to violence on the tube will be alleviated. Again, I commend my colleague for his leadership in efforts to encourage the broadcast media to exercise responsibility. I commend my colleague from Connecticut as well. They have been two great leaders on these subjects. There are others who deserve credit as well. Mr. President, I do not take the floor to attack the entertainment industry. It is well known that I work very closely with people in the entertainment industry, trying to make sure that their intellectual property needs are taken care of, and others as well. Indeed, it is just one part of a more complex problem. I do hope we can encourage the industry to work with us to do what is best for our children in America. As my colleagues know, I have long supported the creative industry, as evidenced by continued efforts to ensure strong intellectual property rights that protect the creative products of these industries. Why can't this industry, which is a source of so much good in America, do more to discourage the marketing of filth to children? Why shouldn't the industry help fight the marketing of violence to young people? Study after study indicates that prolonged exposure of children to ultra-violent movies and video games increases the likelihood for aggression and aggressive conduct on their part. As President Clinton noted in his radio address last week, the two juveniles who committed the atrocities in Littleton played the ultra-violent video game Doom-- that is this right here--the ultra-violent video game Doom obsessively, over and over and over. In addition, the 14-year-old boy who killed three in the Paducah, KY, school killing in 1997 was also an avid video game player. In fact, the juvenile had never fired a pistol before he accurately shot eight classmates. Let me give one typical example of how these games are advertised. This chart back here is a page from a video game company's web site. It is promoting a new video game called Turok 2--Seeds of Evil. This ad describes this game as--if you can read those words--``the undeniably, certifiably el numero uno death match Frag fest because we know what you want.'' Now, this last sentence bears repeating: ``Because we know what you want.'' The ad describes ``over 24 devastating weapons'' and exclaims that players may ``unload twin barrels of ricocheting shotgun shells'' and ``blow enemies clean away'' with the scorpion launcher. And worst of all, it urges players to ``send brains flying'' with something the gamemakers call a ``skull drilling cerebral bore.'' How much more graphic can this get? They emphasize how ``real'' the games are, too, with ``real-time flinch generation.'' ``Enemies flinch and spasm differently, depending on which body part you hit.'' Absent here is any realistic depiction of the consequences of real violence. This is just one example of the irresponsibility of these games being marketed and accessible to our kids. It is pathetic when you stop and think about it. I might add, given there is evidence that extremely violent or otherwise unsuitable material in movies, music, and video games have negative effects on children, many are concerned about how these products are marketed and sold. Do these industries specifically target products to minors that, according to their own guidelines, are unsuitable to minors? I think the American people deserve an answer to that question. As I testified before the Senate Commerce Committee last week, I was troubled to learn that according to the National Institute on Media and the Family, some manufacturers of video and computer games are marketing ultraviolent video games rated for adults only to children. In 1998, the National Institute on Media and the Family conducted a thorough study of the video and computer game industry. Some of the findings were very disturbing. For example, lurid advertisements for violent video games are aimed directly at children. The advertisement for the video game Destrega states: ``Let the slaughter begin,'' while the advertisement for the video game Carmageddon states: ``As easy as killing babies with axes.'' These and similar advertisements appeared in recent gaming magazines that are targeted to teenagers. Moreover, an advertisement for Resident Evil 2, a violent video game rated for adults only, was featured in the magazine Sports Illustrated for Kids. Few people would argue that cigarettes, alcohol, or X-rated, or NC-17 rated movies should be advertised in children's magazines. Why should such violent video games--games the industry itself has found unsuitable for children--be advertised and marketed to children? I think we need an answer to that. Nor is the problem of marketing violence to children limited to video games. In recent years, the lyrics of popular music have grown more violent and depraved. And much of the violence and cruelty in modern music is directed toward women. Here is one of the recent violent things. This is Eminem, and it is directed, in large measure, toward violence and cruelty toward women. As Senator Brownback noted on the floor two weeks ago, the group Nine Inch Nails had a commercial success a few years ago with a song celebrating the rape and murder of a woman. This is not an isolated example. Hatred and violence against women in mainstream hip hop and alternative music are widespread and unmistakable. Consider the singer Marilyn Manson, whom MTV named the ``Best New Artist of the Year'' last year. Some of Manson's less vulgar lyrics include: ``Who says date rape isn't kind''; ``let's just kill everyone and let your god sort them out''; and ``the housewife I will beat, the pro-life I will kill.'' Other Manson lyrics cannot be repeated here on the Senate floor. The weekend after the Colorado shootings, a 12-year-old boy whom I know, bought a Marilyn Manson compact disc from a local Washington area record store, even though it was rated for adult content. Ironically, the warning label on the disc was covered by the price tag. Here is the disc, and here is the way the warning label was covered. The tag covered the warning label, clearly making it easier for kids to buy these products. This indicates that these record warnings are not being taken seriously. Consider Eminem, which I mentioned before, the hip hop artist featured frequently on MTV who recently wrote ``Bonnie and Clyde''--a song in which he described his killing his child's mother and dumping her body into the ocean. Many of his songs contain violent, troubling lyrics with the misogynistic message. Despite historic bipartisan legislation by the State and Federal governments, it is stunning how much modern music glorifies acts of violence, sexual and otherwise, against women. This music is what many children are listening to. This music is marketed to our youth, and we should not ignore the fact that violent misogynistic music may ultimately affect the behavior and attitudes of many young men toward women. One might argue that these groups are not embraced by the entertainment industry. How, then, would the industry explain a 1998 Grammy nomination for Nine Inch Nails and a 1999 nomination for Marilyn Manson? It is one thing to say these people can't produce this material; it is another thing for the industry to embrace it. Many Americans were justifiably outraged when it was discovered that tobacco companies marketed cigarettes to children. I believe we should be equally concerned if we find that violent music and video games are being marketed to children. Limiting access to ultraviolent music and video games to children does not raise the same constitutional concerns that a general prohibition on such material would entail. For example, while some can reasonably contend that the first amendment protects certain X-rated material, no one can reasonably argue that the Constitution prohibits restricting such material to children. Now, that is why one provision of this amendment--a provision I developed with Senators Lieberman, Harkin, and Kohl--directs the FTC and the Department of Justice to examine the extent to which the motion pictures, recording, and video game industries market violent, sexually explicit, or other harmful and unsuitable material to minors--including whether such content is advertised or promoted in media outlets in which minors comprise a substantial percentage of the audience. The report will also examine the extent to which retailers, and in the case of motion pictures, theater owners, have policies to restrict the sale, rental, or admission of such unsuitable material to minors-- and whether the industry requires, monitors, or encourages the enforcement of their respective voluntary rating systems by retail merchants or theater owners. Mr. President, I do want to note that over the years each of these industries has taken some positive steps in developing voluntary labeling systems that provide notice to parents about unsuitable content of certain products. But as I have said before, it is important to see if such standards are enforced at the retail stage, and also see if, despite their standards, the industry targets unsuitable materials to minors. I also want to take a few moments to discuss another provision of this amendment that provides a limited antitrust exemption to the industry in order to empower them to develop effective enforcement procedures for their voluntary guidelines. This provision is different from the provision developed by Senator Brownback, which relates to the development of a code of conduct. For years, I and others in Congress have searched for solutions for limiting the negative impact exposure to violent or sexually explicit content--whether in motion pictures, television, songs, or video games--has on our children. This provision of the amendment is designed to achieve this objective by empowering the respective industries to develop and enforce responsible guidelines without the fear of liability under our antitrust laws. It will allow manufacturers and producers to agree among themselves to refuse to sell their products to retail outlets who do not follow the industry's standards and guidelines--if the industry chooses to do that. Mr. President, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am mindful of the first amendment concerns that could be raised by attempts on the part of the Federal Government to broadly regulate content, on the Internet or over the other media. But I do believe that we must do what we can do to promote responsibility on the part of the film industry, the recording industry and the entertainment software industry in meeting the needs of children. This amendment does that. Over the years each of these industries has taken positive steps in developing voluntary rating systems that either provide notice to parents about unsuitable content of certain products, or attempt to restrict the sale of unsuitable products to adults or mature audiences. Unfortunately, it appears that adequate and effective enforcement of these guidelines at the retail level is lacking. For instance, there is little enforcement effort that ensures children under the age of 17 are in fact prohibited from viewing NC-17 rated movies--or that children are not allowed to purchase music or video games which are purportedly intended for sale to adults. The inquiry by the FTC and DOJ directed by this amendment will further be helpful in this regard. I believe that the enforcement of the voluntary standards is necessary to make the system work. Proper enforcement will protect the integrity of the overall self-regulatory system. If the industry chooses to exercise responsibility and refuse to sell its product to a retailer who does not follow the industry code of conduct, it should be able to do so--without the fear of antitrust laws. Here is how this provision of the amendment works: to the extent that the antitrust laws might preclude the motion pictures, recording or video game industries from developing guidelines and procedures for their respective industries to limit the sale of unsuitable material to children, this amendment fixes that. It provides industry with limited fixes that. It provides industry with limited exemption from the antitrust laws in order to give them the freedom to develop and enforce voluntary enforcement mechanisms without the fear of antitrust liability or government regulation. But with this amendment I hope to encourage industry to limit the sale to minors of material, whether it is music, movies, or video games, which the industry itself deems unsuitable for children. Again, it is important to underscore that this provision does not tell industry to do or not to do anything. It simply gives them the power to join forces in order to develop enforcement mechanisms without the risk of liability under the antitrust laws.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, as an original cosponsor of this amendment.

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

Orrin Hatch

Speeches

Manage analytics