[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 75 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4485-H4487]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3494, CHILD PROTECTION AND SEXUAL 
                    PREDATOR PUNISHMENT ACT OF 1998

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 465 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 465

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3494) to amend title 18, United States Code, 
     with respect to violent sex crimes against children, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee

[[Page H4486]]

     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against the amendments printed in the report are 
     waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill of amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 465 is a structured rule to provide for 
consideration of H.R. 3494, the Child Protection and Sexual Predator 
Punishment Act.
  This common-sense legislation responds to the menace of sex crimes 
against children, including those facilitated by use of the Internet.
  As is customary, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. The rule makes in order the Committee on the Judiciary's 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and all points of order 
against it are waived.
  As my colleagues know, the Committee on Rules prefers to provide open 
rules for consideration of legislation by this House. However, in the 
case of H.R. 3494, the committee felt it was necessary to structure the 
debate process to ensure that the laudable goals of this legislation 
are not jeopardized by controversial amendments dealing with a host of 
criminal issues unrelated to the bill's purpose.
  Proof of the Committee on Rules' good intentions is evident in the 
rule before us. The committee allowed every Member who filed a germane 
amendment the opportunity to offer it on the House floor. These 10 
amendments, offered by both Democrats and Republicans, are printed in 
the Committee on Rules report.
  The amendments may be offered in the order printed by the Member 
designated in the report and will be debatable for the time specified, 
equally divided between a proponent and an opponent. All points of 
order against the amendments are waived. They are not subject to 
amendment, nor are they subject to demand for division of the question.
  To provide for expeditious consideration of the bill, votes may be 
postponed and reduced to 5 minutes, as long as the first vote in any 
series is a 15-minute vote.
  Finally, the rule provides the minority with another opportunity to 
change the bill through a motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. Speaker, for most of us, the Internet has opened up an exciting 
world of opportunity where we have almost instant access to vast 
resources that can enhance education and facilitate communication among 
our citizens. Many parents and teachers are eager to share this 
valuable tool with our Nation's children. But, sadly, criminals have 
also recognized an opportunity in the appeal of the Internet. Sexual 
predators have found a window through which they can prey upon our 
children.
  These predators can safely hide behind their computer screens, create 
a fictional identity, and make direct contact with our children. These 
young victims cannot possibly know that instead of making a friend, 
they are communicating with an adult who is hoping to lure them into a 
life-altering, illegal sexual experience.
  We are not sure how many pedophiles are stalking our children through 
their computers, but we do know that these incidents are becoming more 
and more common. We must act to protect our children from this 
sickening practice.
  The legislation, which this rule makes in order, will prohibit 
contacting a child over the Internet for the purposes of engaging in 
illegal sexual activity. It will also outlaw using the Internet to 
knowingly transfer obscene materials to a child. These commonsense 
provisions are long overdue.
  Several months ago, I was shocked to read that an incarcerated child 
molester was convicted of trafficking in child pornography on the 
Internet while he was still in prison. It is unacceptable that 
prisoners have the privilege of using Internet resources and are 
finding ways to reach beyond prison walls to continue their attacks on 
the most vulnerable in our society.
  I authored language that prohibits unsupervised access to the 
Internet by Federal prisoners, and encourages States to do the same. I 
want to thank the Committee on the Judiciary for including this 
provision in their bill.
  There are a number of other commonsense provisions in this bill, as 
well. It authorizes the court to detain child sex offenders while they 
await trial, it permits the FBI to immediately initiate an 
investigation in a kidnapping case, and it allows for a Federal 
investigation of serial murder offenses when States or localities 
request such assistance.
  The Child Protection Act does not stop at Internet crimes. The bill 
recognizes that it is when children are lured to meet their predator, 
face to face, that the most heinous crimes occur. Children who have met 
with their stalkers have been kidnapped, photographed for pornography, 
raped, beaten and worse.
  Through tough penalties and prison sentences, H.R. 3494 cracks down 
on these crimes as well. For example, the legislation doubles the 
maximum prison sentence for repeat sex offenders who commit the Federal 
crime of transporting a person for sexual activity. The bill mandates 
life in prison for serial rapists and double prison sentences for 
abusive sexual contact with children under the age of 12.
  These strong sentencing provisions are important, because the 
recidivism rates for sex offenders and pedophiles are 10 times higher 
than that of other criminals. Frankly, chances are that these predators 
will strike again. Yet child molesters serve prison sentences averaging 
less than 3 years.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to wait to offer these basic 
protections to our children. I urge my colleagues to support this fair 
and balanced rule so that we can begin debate on this important 
legislation. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule. It will allow for the 
consideration of H.R. 3494, the Child Protection and Sexual Predator 
Punishment Act. As the gentlewoman from Ohio described, this rule 
provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, some of the most horrible crimes committed are sexual 
offenses against children. It is fitting that laws require severe 
penalties against offenders. However, the technology of computers and 
the Internet have gotten ahead of the law. This bill is an attempt to 
catch up by providing new penalties for crimes against children that 
involve the Internet. This

[[Page H4487]]

bill will help protect children from pedophiles who stalk children on 
the Internet. It will also crack down on child pornography on the 
Internet.
  I wish we could go further and eliminate children's access to 
pornography through the Internet, especially in schools and public 
libraries. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to come up with 
more protective laws that pass a constitutional test. We must find a 
way. Too many people who promote pornography in this country hide 
behind the first amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules heard stirring 
testimony from Members who support this bill. There is strong sentiment 
in the House for tougher sentences for people who use the Internet to 
prey on children. Regretfully, this is a restrictive rule. It permits 
only 10 floor amendments. I do note, though, that the Committee on 
Rules did make in order all germane Democratic amendments submitted to 
the Committee on Rules. A completely open rule would permit more full 
debate on this important bill. However, under the circumstances, it is 
important for the House to move forward in the process and take up the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Dunn).
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the rule for today's 
consideration of the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment 
Act. With the passage of this act, we will send a strong message to 
sexual predators and pedophiles all across this Nation: Make no 
mistake, sex crimes against children will not be tolerated.
  This rule makes in order several important amendments that will 
further strengthen an already strong bill, ensuring that we leave no 
doubt of Congress' desire to put a stop to Internet sex crimes. This 
important legislation, introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum) and myself, is for mothers and dads throughout this country 
who are doing everything they can to keep their children safe and 
innocent, but may not be aware of the pedophiles who are cruising the 
Internet.
  In an era where the boundaries of our communities are increasingly 
irrelevant, pedophiles are using the anonymity of the Internet to pose 
as minors and befriend vulnerable children who are unknowingly lured 
into very dangerous situations. That is why the McCollum-Dunn bill is 
so critical to families across America. This legislation helps law 
enforcement crack down on those who enter the safety of our homes to 
prey on our unsuspecting children. By creating new punishment for cyber 
predators, we will give our communities the tools they need to beat 
back those who use the Internet to satisfy their deviant behavior.
  I ask my colleagues to help stop cyber predators in their tracks. 
Support this rule and support the McCollum-Dunn bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity 
to speak on this important issue. I am strongly opposing the 
restrictive rule imposed up on us by the Rules Committee. This bill is 
a crucial step in the fight to protect our children from crime and 
violence, yet the rule under which this bill is made is far too 
restrictive and limits us from doing as much as we can to keep our 
children safe.
  Crime on the Internet is an especially invasive and terrifying crime. 
Our children can be terrorized while they are seemingly safe inside our 
homes, in our living rooms, and in front of our family computers. We 
must increase penalties for those enticing or coercing any person under 
the age of 18 through the Internet to engage in sexual activity.
  This Congress must send a message that this type of criminal activity 
will not be tolerated by our criminal justice system. As chair of the 
Congressional Children's Caucus, I believe our children are our future 
and must be nurtured, protected and guided. How can we protect them? By 
making sure that those people who are out to harm them and exploit them 
are restricted from their access to our children.
  Under current law, the Federal Government has the burden of proving 
that a pedophile ``persuaded, induced, enticed or coerced'' a child to 
engage in a sexual act. However, this new legislation, H.R. 3494 would 
create a new federal offense to use the phones, mail or Internet to 
contact some one for the purpose of committing rape, child sex abuse, 
child prostitution or statutory rape.
  It would also create a separate new federal offense for using the 
mail or Internet for knowingly transferring obscene material to a 
minor. I introduced an additional amendment to this legislation which 
would further protect our children from the types of predators who may 
be currently lurking behind our family computer screens. However, due 
to the restrictive rule, this amendment which could strengthen this 
legislation and further protect our children from Internet violence, 
will not make it to the floor today.
  This amendment would have directed that the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation conduct a study of computer-based technologies and other 
approaches that could help to limit the availability to children of 
pornographic images through electronic media including the Internet and 
on-line services.
  What could be more important to all of us than protecting our future 
and our children? Any amendment which seeks to keep our children safe 
from sexual predators and child abusers is for the benefit of all of 
our communities.
  My colleague, Representative Slaughter has introduced a similar 
amendment, a good amendment to protect our children by authorizing the 
National Institute of Justice to conduct a study of persistent sexual 
predators and report to Congress on their results.
  I am happy to see that my colleagues have offered legislation which 
has been made in order, yet, the restrictive rule under which they have 
been offered will prevent many good plans to protect our children from 
ever reaching the floor! H.R. 3494, and additional amendments to this 
legislation would be a start to effectively preventing a predator from 
initiating a harmful relationship with a child for illegal sexual 
activity, and to subjecting children to damaging pornographic material 
that our children can currently access.
  In December of 1996, the FBI announced that it had executed search 
warrants in 20 cities as part of an ongoing nation-wide investigation 
into the use of computer online services and the Internet to lure 
minors into illicit sexual relationships.
  We have all heard far too many horror stories involving child 
pornography and sexual abuse on the Internet. In May, in Illinois, a 
nine year old began getting strange phone calls at night. After her 
parents searched the Internet, they discovered that someone had posted 
Internet messages saying that their daughter was sexually active and 
wanted to have sex with other men. The messages included their home 
telephone number and said the child could be reached 24 hours a day. 
Current law does not prevent children from being exposed to sexually 
explicit material on the net, but hopefully this law will allow us to 
prosecute those who seek to commit such damaging and dangerous acts 
against children.
  We must and should act directly to protect our young people from the 
scourge of child predators seeking to harm them through Internet 
communication, and we must act now!
  I hope that you, my colleagues will support this legislation and 
oppose the restrictive rule under which we are required to observe, 
while we strive to support our nation's families and children by 
protecting them from pornography and predators on the Internet.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________