[Senate Report 113-126]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 262
113th Congress } { REPORT
1st Session } SENATE { 113-126
_______________________________________________________________________
VIOLENT CONTENT RESEARCH ACT OF 2013
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 134
December 17, 2013.--Ordered to be printed
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-010 WASHINGTON : 2013
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred thirteenth congress
first session
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK WARNER, Virginia DAN COATS, Indiana
MARK BEGICH, Alaska TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
ED MARKEY, Massachusetts RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
Ellen Doneski, Staff Director
John Williams, General Counsel
David Schwietert, Republican Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel
Calendar No. 262
113th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 113-126
======================================================================
VIOLENT CONTENT RESEARCH ACT OF 2013
_______
December 17, 2013.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Rockefeller, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 134]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 134) to arrange for the
National Academy of Sciences to study the impact of violent
video games and violent video programming on children, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and recommends that
the bill (as amended) do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of S. 134, the Violent Content Research Act of
2013, as reported, is to direct the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to commission a
comprehensive study and investigation by the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) on the possible connection between exposure
to violent video games and violent video programming and
harmful effects on children. An NAS report on its findings
would be due to the FCC, FTC, HHS, and Congress no later than
15 months after the study is commissioned by the sponsoring
agencies and department.
BACKGROUND AND NEEDS
There is a broad field of research examining the impact of
violent media content on aggression in children and
adolescents. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has
stated that media violence is a public health issue. The AAP's
policy statement on the issue begins as follows: ``Exposure to
violence in media, including television, movies, music, and
video games, represents a significant risk to the health of
children and adolescents.''\1\ In reaching this conclusion, the
AAP cites American and cross-cultural studies, field
experiments, cross-sectional studies, and longitudinal studies
involving children, teens, and young adults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Academy of Pediatrics, Media Violence, Council of
Communications and Media, Pediatrics (Nov. 1, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal agencies also have reached a similar conclusion. In
a 2007 report on violent television programming and its impact
on children, the FCC agreed with the views of the then Surgeon
General that there was ``strong evidence that exposure to
violence in the media can increase aggressive behavior in
children, at least in the short term.'' The FCC went on to
detail the state of the research at that time on the effects of
violent video programming, noting that ``a significant number
of health professionals, parents, and members of the general
public are concerned about television violence and its effect
on children.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Federal Communications Commission, Violent Television
Programming And Its Impact On Children (April 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2012, a special commission appointed by the
International Society for Research on Aggression released its
findings about the state of the research into the impacts of
media violence. The report found that ``exposure to violent
media can increase not only aggressive behavior in a variety of
forms, but also aggressive thoughts, aggressive feelings,
psychological arousal, and decrease prosocial behavior'' and
further found that the ``effects are remarkably consistent
regardless of the type of medium, age, gender, or where the
person lives in the world.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ International Society for Research on Aggression, Report of the
Media Violence Commission (May 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the findings in these reports, there is not
universal agreement on the impacts of such media violence on
children. In 2011, the Supreme Court overturned a California
law banning the sales of certain violent video games to
minors.\4\ A key element of that decision was the finding by
the majority of the Court that scientific literature
demonstrating the ill-effects of video game and media violence
on children was not persuasive. While studies may suggest a
correlation between violent video games and aggressive
behavior, the majority of the Court argued that causation had
not been demonstrated. In addition, the Court's majority
contended that the effects on children from video violence are
small and indistinguishable from the effects of other media
that enjoy full First Amendment protection (e.g., aggression
resulting from reading Lord of the Flies, The Odyssey, or even
comic books.) Some research has backed up these arguments with
findings that either the impact of violent media is dwarfed by
other factors--such as family violence--or that any impacts
media violence may have on short-term aggression do not
translate into real-world violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For instance, in 2008, researchers conducted two studies
examining the relationship between exposure to violent video
games and aggression and found ``no link, either causal or
correlational . . . between violent-video-game playing and
aggressive or violent acts.''\5\ The lead researcher on that
2008 study, Christopher Ferguson of Texas A&M University, has
also raised questions concerning the validity of other research
exploring possible links between exposure to media violence and
aggression. His 2009 meta-analytic review of existing studies
on the impact of violent media on aggressive behavior found
publication bias in this field, and concluded that ``the
perception of the strength, consistency, and generalizability
of existing media violence research may be greatly
overstated.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Christopher J. Ferguson et al., Violent Video Games and
Aggression: Causal Relationship or Byproduct of Family Violence and
Intrinsic Violence Motivation?, Criminal Justice and Behavior (March
2008).
\6\ Christopher J. Ferguson and John Kilburn, The Public Health
Risks of Media Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review, Journal of Pediatrics
(May 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With video game interactivity increasing, and the sources
for video programming expanding to online, mobile, and on-
demand platforms, it is important to have a respected, neutral,
expert third party to take a comprehensive look at the state of
the research on violent content and its impact on the well-
being of children. As proposed in S. 134, the NAS's independent
view on the current state of research and a research plan for
future research in this area could inform research by other
organizations, including the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and provide guidance to lawmakers.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
On January 24, 2013, Senator Rockefeller introduced S. 134,
the Violent Content Research Act of 2013. The bill is co-
sponsored by Senators Blumenthal, Coburn, Heller, Johanns,
Klobuchar, and Pryor. The bill is nearly identical to
legislation introduced by Senator Rockefeller in December 2012,
with Senators Blumenthal, Coburn, Hutchison, Johanns, and
Lieberman as cosponsors.
The Committee held an executive session on July 30, 2013,
during which S. 134 was considered. Senator Rockefeller
submitted a substitute amendment to S. 134, which was adopted
by voice vote. The Committee ordered that S. 134 be reported as
amended (in the nature of a substitute).
ESTIMATED COSTS
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
S. 134--Violent Content Research Act of 2013
S. 134 would direct the Federal Trade Commission, the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Department of
Health and Human Services to request the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study to determine whether exposure
to violent video games and programming has a harmful effect on
children's behavior that can be distinguished from other
factors. S. 134 also would direct the agencies to request the
NAS to make a report on the results of the study available to
each agency as well as the Congress.
Based on information from the NAS, CBO estimates that
implementing the provisions of S. 134 would cost $850,000 over
the 2014-2018 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary
amounts. The bill does not establish a process for determining
how this cost would be split among the three agencies; the net
discretionary cost of implementing S. 134 would depend on that
allocation because one agency, the FCC, is authorized to
collect fees sufficient to offset the cost of its regulatory
activities each year. The portion of the report's cost that is
allocated to the FCC would be offset by those fees, assuming
appropriation actions consistent with the agency's authority,
which would reduce the bill's net cost. Enacting S. 134 would
not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-
go procedures do not apply.
S. 134 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CB0 staff contact for this estimate is Susan Willie.
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
REGULATORY IMPACT
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
Because S. 134, as amended, does not create any new
programs, the legislation will have no additional regulatory
impact, and will result in no additional reporting
requirements. The legislation will have no further effect on
the number or types of individuals and businesses regulated,
the economic impact of such regulation, the personal privacy of
affected individuals, or the paperwork required from such
individuals and businesses.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the
rule.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
The short title is the ``Violent Content Research Act of
2013.''
Section 2. Study; National Academy of Sciences
This section would direct the FCC, FTC, and HHS to enter
into an agreement with the NAS to conduct a comprehensive study
and investigation of whether there is a connection between
exposure to: (1) violent video games and harmful effects on
children that are distinguishable from the effects caused by
other factors; and (2) violent video programming and harmful
effects on children that are distinguishable from the effects
caused by other factors.
With respect to both violent video games and violent video
programming, the NAS would be asked to examine whether exposure
causes children to act aggressively or causes other measurable
harm to children, if there is a disproportionately harmful
effect on the behavior of certain identifiable groups of
children (including children already prone to aggressive
behavior), whether there is a harmful effect that is
distinguishable from the effect produced by other types of
media, and whether any measurable harm identified in the study
has a direct and long-lasting impact on a child's well-being.
With respect to violent video games, the NAS also would be
asked to consider whether current and emerging characteristics
of such games have a unique harmful effect on children given
their concretely interactive nature.
The NAS would further identify any gaps in the current
state of research on violent video games and violent video
programming which, if closed, could provide information
regarding any causal connection between exposure to violent
video games or violent video programming and harmful effects on
children's behavior. The NAS report on its results in the study
and investigation would be due to Congress, the FCC, FTC, and
HHS within 15 months of when arrangements are completed by the
sponsoring agencies and department.
Given the 15-month timeframe in the bill, the Committee
expects that the NAS would convene a panel of experts to
evaluate the state of existing research and take other steps,
as appropriate, to consider the required contents of the study
set forth in the Act.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the
bill as reported would make no change to existing law.