[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 94 (Friday, June 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8087-S8092]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have delayed bringing up this matter until 
an appropriate time when I would not necessarily inconvenience all of 
my colleagues with the very important amendments that I have had a part 
in developing as a member of the committee of jurisdiction, the 
Commerce Committee.
  I will be back on the floor on this matter, though, next week before 
the vote or votes are held on the matter on which I wish to address the 
Senate today. There has been a great amount of behind-the-scenes 
activity. There has been a great amount of activity on the Internet 
system, and I am here today to outline the measure that I will offer as 
a substitute to the measure that was reported unanimously out of the 
Commerce Committee, called the Exon decency bill with regard to the 
Internet.
  I cannot think of a more appropriate means of bringing this to the 
attention of the Senate and the American people than in our debate and 
eventual enactment of the telecommunications legislation, which is the 
most far-reaching legislation dating back to 1934. Obviously, everyone 
knows of the dramatic developments in telecommunications since 1934. It 
is about time we do something.
  But as we are doing this, and with the many important factors that we 
have considered and deliberated on for a long, long time, including 
last year when the Commerce Committee had extensive hearings on the 
whole matter and scope of telecommunications, what we should do and 
should not do, what we should try to do, and what we can do--
unfortunately, the Senate adjourned before that bill was reported out 
of the Commerce Committee last year and was considered and enacted into 
law.
  When Senator Pressler took over as the very distinguished chairman of 
the Commerce Committee this year, Senator Pressler, rightfully, in 
company with the Democratic leader on the Commerce Committee, Senator 
Hollings, moved very aggressively on, once again, bringing forth a 
piece of legislation not distinctly different from the legislation that 
we reported after extensive hearings and deliberations and brought to 
the floor last year.
  So here we are, Mr. President, making some very significant changes. 
One of the things this Senator feels we should properly address, and 
will address and, hopefully, act on in a fair and reasonable fashion, 
with full understanding, absent of outlandish claims and charges, is 
the matter of trying to clean up the Internet--or the information 
superhighway, as it is frequently called--to make that superhighway a 
safe place for our children and our families to travel on.
  Mr. President, at this time, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record and held at the 
desk. I will formally call it up for consideration sometime next week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator has that right.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, earlier this week, I circulated a ``Dear 
Colleague'' letter which explained the revisions in the communications 
decency provision. In title IV of the telecommunications reform bill, 
as my colleagues know, title IV includes legislation that I have worked 
on for about a year to make the Internet and other aspects of the 
information superhighway safer for our families and for our children to 
travel.
  It seems an appropriate time to explain these revisions and file my 
amendment so that it may be printed in the Record, as I have just asked 
for and received consent for--primarily, for the convenience and review 
of my colleagues before we debate this matter further next week and 
eventually come to a vote.
  Mr. President, some basic rules of the road need to be established. 
As the information superhighway rolls up to the front door of every 
household and school and library in America, this bill will bring 
exciting, revolutionary, and new information technologies within the 
reach of every American. There has not been anything that I think is 
more exciting that has ever been developed than the information 
superhighway and what it is going to do to make more information and 
more education readily accessible to any who seek it.
  I have said on many occasions that I happen to believe the whole 
computer Internet system is the most important, the most revolutionary 
development since the printing press. Eventually, I predict, it will do 
as much good for circulation of information as the printing press. I 
support the development of this so very, very strongly.
  I simply cite that there are some dangerous places, Mr. President, on 
the information superhighway. I think that while we are creating this 
as an important part of our new telecommunications bill, we who are 
charged with the responsibilities to pass laws that are reasonable and 
proper should emphasize a little in our thinking what is proper and 
what is not proper. [[Page S8088]] 
  It is my intention to point out to the U.S. Senate some of what I 
think is highly improper, what I think is eroding the society and will 
continue to erode the society of America, unless we have the courage to 
stand up and do something about it, despite the minority of naysayers 
in the United States of America who do not want to change anything.
  Mr. President, the Snowe-Rockefeller-Exon-Kerrey amendment that 
assures that schools and libraries will gain affordable access to the 
digital world, including the Library of Congress, the great 
universities, and the museums, will remain in place.
  The Communications Decency Act is proposed in the context of this 
information revolution that is exploding in our society. Just as we 
modernize the rules which apply to the telecommunications industry, we 
need to modernize the rules which apply to the use of their products 
and their services that are going to be distributed in a form that we 
never even imagined previously.
  Unfortunately, the current laws, which clearly protect young and old 
users from harassment and obscenity and indecency, are woefully out of 
date with this new challenge and this new opportunity. The current law 
is drafted in the technology, primarily, of the telephone, dating back 
to 1934. Our efforts today, and in the coming weeks, bring closer the 
day of technological convergence. Soon the concept of a telephone will 
be as relevant as today's concept of the telegraph.
  The principles that I have proposed in the Communications Decency Act 
are simple and constitutional. Telecommunications devices should not be 
used to distribute obscenity, indecency to minors, or used to harass 
the innocent.
  The revisions offered to the committee-reported bill are in response 
to concerns raised by the Justice Department, the profamily and 
antipornography groups, and the first amendment scholars. If anyone 
would take the time to look through them and study them, I think most, 
but not all, would conclude that they are reasonable and proper.
  I have also had a great deal of cooperation from the online service 
providers. The online service providers, of course, are those 
entrepreneurs who have assisted us in providing services to the many 
outlets that are anxious to have their services in America. These 
service providers are key members of this new industry.
  Certainly, what we are trying to do here is to only craft and put 
into law some of the provisions that have been in existence for a long, 
long time, way back to 1934, to make sure that the same restrictions 
that were necessary and have been placed into law, and have been held 
constitutional time and time again by the courts, have a role to play 
in the new Internet system and how that Internet system reacts, as best 
explained on this chart, which I will get to in a few moments.
  So I have had good cooperation from many, many people who are truly 
experts in this area, including members of the telephone industry who 
have worked and operated without problems under very similar, if not 
identical, restraints in the law that everyone thought had been good.
  The proposed revisions that I have submitted to the desk that passed 
unanimously out of the Commerce Committee, follow closely the confines 
of several Supreme Court cases. I am very confident that this 
legislation will withstand a constitutional challenge.
  I am not interested, Mr. President, in passing a piece of legislation 
here, and then say, ``Look what a good job we did,'' and then have that 
matter in the very near future declared unconstitutional by the Supreme 
Court. We would have to start all over again.
  I assure all from the beginning, I have put out the hand of 
cooperation to all parties--even those most opposed to any action 
whatever in this area--and I find that there are a great number of 
well-intentioned people who shudder at the thought of passing any kind 
of legislation in this area.
  They are not bad people. I just do not think they fully understand, 
as I think I do and as I think 9 out of 10 Americans do, when they find 
out what is going on, on the information superhighway today.
  Mr. President, a few days ago I had a remarkable demonstration, in 
more detail than I had even fully known, of what is readily available 
to any child with the very basic Internet access. I want to repeat 
that, Mr. President: Of what is readily available to any child with the 
basic Internet access. It is not an exaggeration to say that the worst, 
most vile, most perverse pornography is only a few click-click-clicks 
away from any child on the Internet.
  I have talked to so many people about this and had so many interviews 
and read so much material. There have been many experiences during 
these last few months, people have told me of the fact that they knew 
nothing about what was on the Internet with regard to what I was 
concerned about.
  Only last week I had a journalist who was doing a story on this who 
conceded--this was a woman--when she started writing this story she was 
extremely skeptical of what my motives were and whether there truly was 
a problem. It just happened that very recently, though, during the 
process of writing the article that she was doing for a national 
publication, she put her computer at home on the Internet system and 
was sitting with her 8- or 9-year-old daughter one evening.
  She said, ``Senator, I got my eyes opened very wide, very quickly.'' 
She said, ``I was astonished at what I came across accidentally. Even 
more astonished when I started doing even preliminary searches of what 
we were getting into. Finally, I recognized it was not something I 
wanted my daughter to see, let alone me sharing it with her.''
  I did a television show on this subject. Half the people that called 
in were very upset that I was not for free speech, I wanted to violate 
the Constitution.
  The most rewarding of those who supported it was a call out of the 
blue from an obviously very young person who identified himself as a 
12-year-old boy. He said, ``Senator Exon, I want to salute you for 
doing this. I am a 12-year-old. I am completely literate on the 
computer. I have seen and observed the material that you are talking 
about. It is common talk among all of us my age and younger, and, of 
course, older, in school.'' He said, ``I appreciate the fact you are 
trying to do something about it, because someone has to.'' That word 
from a 12-year-old really meant more to me, Mr. President, than all of 
the brickbats that have been thrown my way from, basically, people that 
I think are uninformed in what this Senator is trying to do.
  The fundamental purpose of the Communications Decency Act is to 
provide much-needed protection for children. Throughout the process of 
refining this legislation, I have held out the hand of friendship and 
understanding and cooperation to those who have had different ideas, 
and I have made revisions in many instances that I think are very 
appropriate and help in our effort rather than hurt us.
  I responded to the concerns raised over the last several months and 
those raised earlier today by my friend and colleague from the State of 
Vermont, Senator Leahy. I have publicly and privately expressed support 
for Senator Leahy's study. But not as a substitute for or at the 
expense of these critical provisions which are designed to allow 
children and families to share and enjoy the many wonderful benefits of 
the information revolution that are taking part on the Internet.
  The reason that I am concerned is that I am afraid that there are 
some of my colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle that 
might be tempted by Senator Leahy's efforts, that have been primarily 
sponsored, as I understand it, by the Clinton administration people, 
primarily in the Justice Department.
  What the Clinton administration and the Justice Department is trying 
to do is punt--punt like in football. We happen to know something about 
football in Nebraska. I would simply say that any time Nebraska has a 
fourth down and 37 yards on our own 3-yard line, they always punt. But 
this is not a time to punt on this important matter, if it concerns my 
colleagues as much as it does me.
  I think if they will take time to study it, most of my colleagues 
would agree that we cannot punt. Even though it is third down or fourth 
down and 37, we better act.
  In response to the concerns that have been raised by the Justice 
Department [[Page S8089]] and others, the Exon revision drops the 
bill's definition of ``knowing'' and the so-called ``predominant 
defense issue.''
  The remaining defenses are narrow and streamlined and limited to the 
new revised section 223. A new section is added to assure that no other 
Federal statute will be limited or affected by the Communications 
Decency Act.
  I want to repeat that, Mr. President: The new section is added to 
assure that no other Federal statute will be limited or affected by the 
Communications Decency Act.
  This is important to many Members and pro-family groups. The current 
dial-a-porn statute would be left untouched and unamended by the 
decency provisions. We have made that clear.
  Furthermore, the bill's narrow, streamlined defenses would not apply 
to the current dial-a-porn law or any other Federal statute. We are 
leaving that measure that has been heavily debated, on which there have 
been court cases alone, to stand exactly like it is.
  The Exon Decency Act does not touch it.
  With these revisions, decency provisions pose no risk to any current 
or future dial-a-porn, obscenity, or indecency prosecution. The State 
preemption provision in the committee-reported bill is clarified, in 
that its application is limited to commercial activities and consistent 
with the interstate commerce clause. This provision will assure that 
businesses and nonprofit services and access providers know that State 
and Federal rules and obligations with respect to the Communications 
Decency Act are consistent and are predictable. This assurance is 
critical to any interstate enterprise.
  In addition, new language is added to this provision to assure that 
the State preemption provision in no way limits State authority over 
activities not covered by the Communications Decency Act. In other 
words, State child endangerment or delinquency statutes will in no way 
be adversely affected by this legislation.
  The heart and the soul of the Communications Decency Act are its 
protection for families and children. The distribution of obscenity and 
indecency to minors by means of telecommunications devices would be 
covered by new sections in the revised language. Unlike the current 
dial-a-porn statute, there would be no noncommercial loophole in the 
new provisions. I am saddened to report that there is a great deal of 
grossly obscene and indecent material on the Internet available to 
anyone free of charge. The decency revisions strengthen the committee-
reported bill by providing clear, constitutional, and much-needed 
protections for users of the telecommunications services.
  I look forward to discussing this critical piece of legislation as 
the Senate further considers the telecommunications reform bill, as I 
indicated earlier, next week.
  Mr. President, given the floor debate will be a key part of the 
legislative history for these new provisions, I ask unanimous consent 
that a section-by-section analysis, as well as the text of my 
amendment, be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The Chair had previously given authority for those to be printed. I 
am asking that they be printed following the conclusion of my remarks 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. EXON. I also ask that a copy of an Omaha World-Herald article, 
which appeared in the Seattle Times, entitled, ``Police Cruise the 
Information Highway'' appear in the Record, also following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. EXON. I send those to the desk for action, as has been agreed to.
  Mr. President, let me, if I might at this juncture, go into a little 
further discussion as best I can, and as I think decency would allow me 
to proceed. This is the blue book. This is a sample of what is 
available today free of charge: Click, click, click on the computer, on 
the information superhighway. This will be available for any of my 
colleagues who are not familiar with what is going on on the Internet 
today, to have a firsthand look at the listings of materials that are 
available free of charge and pictures of what is being shown. To give 
an idea, let me read through some of the listings that appear on the 
bulletin boards.
  The computer is a wonderful device for arranging, storing, and making 
it relatively easy for anyone to call up information or pictures on any 
subject they want. That is part of the beauty of the Internet system. 
This is on some of these bulletin boards, and there is such a long list 
it would take a big binder to cover all of them, but let me read 
through what is in the form of pictures that have been taken on 
computer screens on the Internet. I have several pages of them here. I 
am going to just go through some of them and tell you any child who can 
read--and of course anyone else, too--could click onto this kind of an 
index that tells them what to do to punch in very easily to any of 
these types of things.

       Multimedia erotica; erotica fetish; nude celebrities; 
     pictures black, erotic females; pictures boys; pictures 
     celebrities; pictures children; pictures erotic children; 
     pictures erotica; pictures erotica amateur; pictures erotica 
     amateur females; pictures erotica amateur males; erotica 
     animal; erotica auto; erotica bestiality; erotica bestiality, 
     hamster, duct tape; bestiality, hamster, duct tape; [two of 
     those] erotica black females; erotica black males; erotica 
     blondes; erotica bondage; erotica breasts. Here is a good 
     one: Erotica cartoons; erotica children; erotica female; 
     erotica female, anal; erotica fetish; erotica fury; erotica 
     gay men; erotica male; erotica male, anal; erotica Oriental; 
     erotica porn star.

  This goes on and on and on--so much repetition. But it is startling, 
page after page after page, on screen after screen after screen--free, 
free of charge, with a click, click, click.
  The blue book will be available to any who want to see how bad this 
is. I hope if any of my colleagues are not familiar with it, they 
become familiar.
  Mr. President, I draw the Senate's attention to the chart that I have 
before me. I have been here in the Senate for 17 years. I think this is 
the second time I have ever used charts. We never had charts in the 
Senate until we had television. But now we talk to our American 
citizens, many of whom watch us very religiously from their homes 
throughout the Nation, as much as we do to our colleagues on the floor.
  To try to explain this as briefly as I can, and I certainly do not 
claim to be an expert at it, the Internet system here in the center is 
the information system and the information system explosion that I have 
been talking about. When we look at what is good about this system, it 
is the Internet, the information, and all the multitude of good that is 
coming out of this today and is going to be further exploding in the 
future.
  Then we have people at home on the Internet and children at home on 
the Internet. Under the system that the Exon Decency Act would provide 
and protect is this kind of a system with those at home, the children, 
having direct and full access to the Internet. After they get on the 
Internet, there would be a degree of protection
 to keep them from going on to the pornography bulletin boards.

  That is what I am talking about here. The child at home, the adult at 
home could get on the Internet and they could go to the Library of 
Congress, the museums or any of the other magnificent sources of 
information we have. But anyone who pollutes that system over here on 
the pornography bulletin board would be subjected to the restraints in 
the law that the Exon decency provision tries to put in place.
  Let me describe this for just a moment, if I might, and emphasize 
once again that we have today laws against--and providing fines and 
jail terms--people who misuse the telephone system to promiscuously 
spread pornography.
  We also have in like manner in that regard laws prohibiting the use 
of United States mail for pornography.
  Obviously, Mr. President, under the present law we do not put the 
innocent mailman in jail for delivering pornography, which is prevented 
by the law, from one place into a home.
  This is a way that I would like to see, and I think most people would 
like to see, the Internet operate. But that is not the way the system 
works today and is the reason for the Exon decency provisions.
  This is the way it works, Mr. President. You will notice in the 
previous chart that there are lines connecting these entities. On this 
chart, I simply say to you this is the way it is today. This is the way 
it is today where either [[Page S8090]] the child or the adult at home 
enters the Internet system and is automatically connected with an 
additional click to the pornography bulletin board which is the 
material in the blue book and everything that I connected with it that 
I call smut. They are all connected together.
  I happen to feel, if we make law the Exon decency bill, the Exon 
decency bill would not prevent or eliminate people from seeking the 
pornography bulletin board, and if they are adults and if the material 
on that is designed for and dedicated to adults, whom I would basically 
describe perhaps for these purposes as someone 18 years of age or more, 
then they could seek out the pornography bulletin board, and any of the 
people on the Internet, who have been claiming that Senator Exon's bill 
wants to close them down, if they want to watch pornography on the 
Internet, should have that right. I agree. I do not like it but I 
agree. It would be unconstitutional I think if we tried to eliminate 
that totally.
  What I am trying to do with the Exon Decency Act is make the Internet 
like this rather than the direct connection accidentally to this 
system.
  Over here in the pornography bulletin board we have entrepreneurs, 
entrepreneurs who are seeking money, cash money-making opportunities. 
They have facilities to where you dial into these bulletin boards, and 
they will through a credit card system allow you to subscribe whenever 
you want to the whole galaxy of things that they have, some of which I 
read out of the blue book. And that would continue, that would be 
allowed for adults under the Exon Decency Act.
  What would be prevented under the Exon Decency Act is that these 
people who make lots of money, hundreds of millions of dollars selling 
smut, people on this pornography bulletin board, not unlike the Library 
of Congress, if I dare use that example, have a complete library of 
anything and everything that you could possibly imagine that you might 
see in an adult bookstore. If it is pocketed over there where it is 
very difficult to reach and you have to pay for it, that is one thing. 
But that is not the way it is.
  What do these entrepreneurs over here do, Mr. President? What they do 
is to use the free access, without charge advertising with the best of 
some of their pornographic, obscene material, and they put it over here 
on the Internet with their printing press. That is a printing press and 
everybody has one. They can enter their computer, and they can take off 
anything that is in the Internet and store it, if they have the proper 
equipment. And people do.
  Let me emphasize once again what I am trying to do, Mr. President, is 
to stop these people over here essentially from using teasers, not 
unlike coming attractions that we see when we go to the movies--best of 
the coming shows that will be here 2 weeks from today. And obviously 
when you get into movies you see some of the most violent explosions on 
previews of things to come.
  When they, the pornographers over here, the money-making 
pornographers enter the free system of advertising, you do not even 
have to pay the price of going in and sitting down in a seat at a movie 
theater. What they do is take the best and most enticing pictures of 
whatever they want to sell that particular day or that particular week 
and they enter it over here on the Internet. They are posted on the 
bulletin board. And those are the ones, those are the pictures, those 
are the articles that are freely, without charge, accessible to very 
young children and to anyone else who wants to see them.
  Among other things, the Exon bill would prevent the money makers over 
here--and many of them are perverts but very smart perverts--from 
advertising free on the Internet system to pollute, in the view of this 
Senator, our children and our grandchildren.
  Simply stated, Mr. President, I have tried to summarize this as best 
I can in the 20 or 30 minutes' time I have taken of the Senate today, 
and I will be talking more about it next week as we come to a vote on 
this matter. I hope that most of my colleagues would recognize and 
realize that this is not the time to punt. This is the timely way to 
take action with regard to the telecommunications measure before us. I 
say today, as I have said before to my colleagues and all others 
outside the Senate who have an interest in this, many of them 
legitimate, I invite once again, if there is any particular problem you 
have with the Exon language, come let us reason together. I am not an 
unreasonable individual as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in 
the Senate recognize.
  There has been nothing that has concerned me more in my 8 years as 
Governor of Nebraska and my 17 years of having the great opportunity to 
serve my State in the Senate, there is nothing that I feel more 
strongly about than this piece of legislation, because I think it is 
more than just a piece of legislation. It is a time I suggest to step 
up to the plate and not offer excuses, not go along with those who say 
I wish to do what I wish to do, when and in whatever form I want, and I 
do not care what it might do to others.
  I am going to do everything I can to see that a constitutional remedy 
is offered. If it is offered exactly as I am recommending or will 
recommend in future, if changes are in order, will that stop all of 
this and end the problem? No, it will not. It is too big for that. We 
still have obviously pornography through the mails, yet we have laws 
against it. We have pornography on the telephone. I guess that we do 
not have, though, anywhere near the stalking that is going on with 
regard to children by deviants. The newspapers have been full of that 
material very recently. And there are many hundreds of cases that take 
place all of the time that never reach the press, for obvious reasons.
  I simply say, Mr. President, that this Senator is very dedicated to 
this cause.
  I have no ill will toward those who do not agree with me, but I hope 
that after studying this they would at least agree that there is a 
problem that we should do something about.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
                               Exhibit 1

                             Amendment 1268

       Beginning on page 137 line 12 through page 143 line 10, 
     strike all therein and insert in lieu thereof:
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof:
       ``(a) Whoever--
       ``(1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or 
     foreign communications
       ``(A) by means of telecommunications device knowingly--
       ``(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
       ``(ii) initiates the transmission of,

     any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other 
     communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or 
     indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass 
     another person;
       ``(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a 
     telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or 
     communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and 
     with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person 
     at the called number or who receives the communication;
       ``(C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly 
     or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at 
     the called number; or
       ``(D) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly 
     initiates communication with a telecommunications device, 
     during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to 
     harass any person at the called number or who receives the 
     communication; or
       ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility 
     under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by 
     paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for
      such activity,

     shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more 
     than two years, or both.''; and
       (2) Section 223 (47 U.S.C. 223) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(d) Whoever--
       ``(1) knowingly within the United States or in foreign 
     communications with the United States by means of 
     telecommunications device--
       ``(A) makes, creates, or solicits, and
       ``(B) initiates the transmission of or purposefully makes 
     available,

     any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other 
     communication which is obscene, regardless of whether the 
     maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the 
     communications; or
       ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility 
     under such person's control to be used for an activity 
     prohibited by subsection (d)(1) with the intent that it be 
     used for such activity;

     shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more 
     than two years or both.
       ``(e) Whoever--
       ``(1) knowingly within the United States or in foreign 
     communications with the United States by means of 
     telecommunications device-- [[Page S8091]] 
       ``(A) makes, creates, or solicits, and
       ``(B) initiates the transmission of, or purposefully makes 
     available,

     any indecent comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, 
     or other communication to any person under 18 years of age 
     regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed 
     the call or initiated the communication; or
       ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility 
     under such person's control to be used for an activity 
     prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used 
     for such activity,

     shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more 
     than two years or both.
       ``(f) Defenses to the subsections (a), (d), and (e), 
     restrictions on access, judicial remedies respecting 
     restrictions for persons providing information services and 
     access to information services--
       ``(1) The provision of access by a person, to a person 
     including transmission, downloading, storage, 
     navigational tools, and related capabilities which are 
     incidental to the transmission of communications, and not 
     involving the creation or editing of the content of the 
     communications, for another person's communications to or 
     from a service, facility, system, or network not under the 
     access provider's control shall by itself not be a violation 
     of subsection (a), (d), or (e). This subsection shall not be 
     applicable to an individual who is owned or controlled by, or 
     a conspirator with, an entity actively involved in the 
     creation, editing or knowing distribution of communications 
     which violate this section.
       ``(2) It is a defense to prosecution under
        subsection (a)(2), (d)(2), or (e)(2) that a person did not 
     have editorial control over the communication specified in 
     this section. This defense shall not be available to an 
     individual who ceded editorial control to an entity which 
     the defendant knew or had reason to know intended to 
     engage in conduct that was likely to violate this section.
       ``(3) It is a defense to prosecution under subsection (a), 
     (d)(2), or (e) that a person has taken good faith, reasonable 
     and appropriate steps, to restrict or prevent the 
     transmission of, or access to, communications described in 
     such provisions according to such procedures as the 
     Commission may prescribe by regulation. Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to treat enhanced information 
     services as common carriage.
       ``(4) No cause of action may be brought in any court or 
     administrative agency against any person on account of any 
     activity which is not in violation of any law punishable by 
     criminal or civil penalty, which activity the person has 
     taken in good faith to implement a defense authorized under 
     this section or otherwise to restrict or prevent the 
     transmission of, or access to, a communication specified in 
     this section.
       ``(g) No State or local government may impose any liability 
     for commercial activities or actions by commercial entities 
     in connection with an activity or action which constitutes a 
     violation described in subsection (a)(2), (b)(2), or (e)(2) 
     that is inconsistent with the treatment of those activities 
     or actions under this section provided, however, that nothing 
     herein shall preclude any State or local government from 
     enacting and enforcing complementary oversight, liability, 
     and regulatory systems, procedures, and 
     requirements, so long as such systems, procedures, 
     and requirements govern only intrastate services and do not 
     result in the imposition of inconsistent rights, duties or 
     obligations on the provision of interstate services. Nothing 
     in this subsection shall preclude an State or local 
     government from governing conduct not covered by this 
     section.
       ``(h) Nothing in subsection (a), (d), (e), or (f) or in the 
     defenses to prosecution under (a), (d), or (e) shall be 
     construed to affect or limit the application or enforcement 
     of any other federal law.
       ``(i) The use of the term `telecommunications device' in 
     this section shall not impose new obligations on (one-way) 
     broadcast radio or (one-way) broadcast television operators 
     licensed by the Commission or (one-way) cable service 
     registered with the Commission and covered by obscenity and 
     indecency provisions elsewhere in this Act.''.
       On page 144, strike lines 1 through 17.
                                                                    ____

   Section by Section Analysis--Exon Revisions to the Communications 
                              Decency Act

       Section 223(a) of the Communications Act is amended to 
     modernize its application to new technologies and to codify 
     Court and FCC interpretations that this section applies to 
     communications between non-consenting parties. This revision 
     would make Section 223(a) Constitutional on its face. Section 
     223(a) would become the key Federal telecommunications anti-
     harassment provision.
       Sections 223 (b) and (c), the current law ``dial-a-porn'' 
     statute provisions are left untouched. The ``dial-a-porn'' 
     statute remains drafted in the technology of the telephone. 
     This ``overlap'' remains as an ``insurance policy'' against 
     challenges to new sections.
       A new Section 223(d) is added. Whoever knowingly by means 
     of telecommunications device ``makes, creates or solicits'' 
     and ``initiates the transmission of or purposefully makes 
     available'' an obscene communication could be subject to 
     penalty.
       A new Section 223(e) is added. Whoever knowingly by means 
     of telecommunications device ``makes, creates or solicits'' 
     and ``initiates the transmission of or purposefully makes 
     available'' an indecent communication to a minor could be 
     subject to penalty.
       The section (f) defenses of the Committee-reported bill are 
     narrowed, and streamlined. Similar defenses exist in the 
     current ``dial-a-porn'' statute. These new defenses are 
     necessary because information service providers are not 
     common carriers and the total absence of defenses would 
     expose the statute to Constitutional invalidation.
       Defense (f)(1) (the access defense) is narrowed from the 
     Committee-reported bill. This defense can not be used by one 
     owned, controlled or a conspirator with a violator of this 
     section.
       Defense (f)(2) (the editorial control defense) is narrowed 
     and not available to one who cedes editorial control to 
     another likely to use that control to violate this section.
       Defense (f)(3) (the good faith defense) is narrowed and the 
     illustrative list of options in the Committee-reported bill 
     is dropped. The FCC would determine by regulation ``good 
     faith, reasonable and appropriate'' steps to restrict access 
     to prohibited communications.
       Defense (f)(4) assures that service providers will not be 
     prosecuted for implementing a defense which is not a 
     violation of law.
       The State pre-emption provision in Section (g) limited to 
     ``commercial'' activities and savings language is added to 
     assure that States retain full rights to prosecute activities 
     not covered by this section.
       A new section (h) is added to assure that the 
     Communications Decency Act in no way adversely affects 
     prosecutions under other federal laws.
       And finally, a new section (i) is added to clarify that 
     one-way broadcasters and cable operators already covered by 
     other obscenity and indecency provisions in the 
     Communications Act of 1934 as amended incur no new 
     obligations under this section.
                               Exhibit 2

              [From the Omaha World-Herald, June 8, 1995]

                   Police Cruise Information Highway

       Police in Fresno, Calif., have a quick and dirty way to 
     show parents how easily their children find sexually explicit 
     material over computers: They bring parents in for show and 
     tell.
       Surfing the Internet, police have unearthed sexually 
     graphic conversations, photographs and X-rated movie clips, 
     complete with audio.
       ``(Parents) come up and go, `What? Computers can do 
     that?''' said Ken Diliberto, a network-systems specialist who 
     helps detectives in Fresno, one of few cities whose police 
     departments are using sophisticated methods to catch 
     computer-aided criminals.
       A Maple Valley, Wash., youth's disappearance for 18 days 
     after meeting a San Francisco teen in an America Online 
     ``chat room'' for gays and lesbians startled parents and 
     raised questions about just what can happen in cyberspace.
       Just as pedophiles and stalkers exist in society, there are 
     electronic predators, police and prosecutors say. Though 
     parents warn children not to talk to strangers on the street, 
     few are as vigilant with people their kids meet via computer.
       ``There's nothing from the message itself that tells you 
     anything about the person,'' said Ivan Orton, a King County, 
     Wash. senior deputy prosecutor who handles technology crimes.
       ``You've got nothing but the words, and lots of people 
     adopt different personas when they go on-line,'' he said. 
     ``Men become women. Women become men. You don't know who 
     you're dealing with.''
       The FBI has pursued charges against people who transmit 
     pornography, including child pornography, on-line, or who 
     entice children with e-mail messages to cross state lines for 
     sexual purposes.
       Diliberto and Fresno detectives suggest that parents be 
     aware of their children's computer use.
                  Attention Surprises On-Line Runaway

       Maple Valley, WA.--When Daniel Montgomery took a bus to San 
     Francisco to meet a friend he had encountered on-line, he 
     figured he might get some attention from his parents.
       But Daniel, who turned 16 Monday, had no idea he'd draw the 
     attention of the nation.
       ``I didn't think it was going to get this big'' he said, 
     clicking the mouse of a computer in his Maple Valley house 
     Tuesday. ``I don't know, maybe it was stupidity.''
       Nearly three weeks after he disappeared to meet a mystery 
     person called Damien Starr, fueling speculation of abduction 
     and pedophilla, Daniel explained publicly that his departure 
     was neither a kidnapping nor a luring. Instead, he said, it 
     was something closer to running away with the encouragement 
     of an on-line friend.
       Sitting at the computer where he first communicated with 
     Starr in a gay-and-lesbian ``chat room'' on America Online, 
     Daniel said his friend was not an older man looking to 
     exploit him sexually but rather a teen-ager, 16 or 17, who 
     had been kicked out of his own house because he was gay.
       While he would not reveal Damien Starr's real name or say 
     much about the three men in their 30s who live with Starr in 
     a San Francisco apartment. Daniel did say none of them tried 
     to harm him in any way.
       Daniel, who described his adventure as an ``uninformed'' 
     vacation, said he was never hurt or in danger.
       ``I want people to understand there was nothing but 
     friendly contact,'' he said.

  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair. [[Page S8092]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for 15 additional minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pressler). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________