Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 139 (Wednesday, October 7, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 7, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9902-H9911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION ACT

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3783) to amend section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934
to require persons who are engaged in the business of selling or
transferring, by means of the World Wide Web, material that is harmful
to minors to restrict access to such material by minors, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 3783

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Child Online Protection
Act''.

TITLE I--PROTECTION FROM MATERIAL THAT IS HARMFUL TO MINORS

SEC. 101. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--
(1) while custody, care, and nurture of the child resides
first with the parent, the widespread availability of the
Internet presents opportunities for minors to access
materials through the World Wide Web in a manner that can
frustrate parental supervision or control;
(2) the protection of the physical and psychological well-
being of minors by shielding them from materials that are
harmful to them is a compelling governmental interest;
(3) to date, while the industry has developed innovative
ways to help parents and educators restrict material that is
harmful to minors through parental control protections and
self-regulation, such efforts have not provided a national
solution to the problem of minors accessing harmful material
on the World Wide Web;
(4) a prohibition on the distribution of material harmful
to minors, combined with legitimate defenses, is currently
the most effective and least restrictive means by which to
satisfy the compelling government interest; and
(5) notwithstanding the existence of protections that limit
the distribution over the World Wide Web of material that is
harmful to minors, parents, educators, and industry must
continue efforts to find ways to protect children from being
exposed to harmful material found on the Internet.

SEC. 102. REQUIREMENT TO RESTRICT ACCESS BY MINORS TO
MATERIALS COMMERCIALLY DISTRIBUTED BY MEANS OF
THE WORLD WIDE WEB THAT ARE HARMFUL TO MINORS.

Part I of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``SEC. 231. RESTRICTION OF ACCESS BY MINORS TO MATERIALS
COMMERCIALLY DISTRIBUTED BY MEANS OF WORLD WIDE
WEB THAT ARE HARMFUL TO MINORS.

``(a) Requirement To Restrict Access.--
``(1) Prohibited conduct.--Whoever knowingly and with
knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or
foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any
communication for commercial purposes that is available to
any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to
minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not
more than 6 months, or both.
``(2) Intentional violations.--In addition to the penalties
under paragraph (1), whoever intentionally violates such
paragraph shall be subject to a fine of not more than $50,000
for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day
of violation shall constitute a separate violation.
``(3) Civil penalty.--In addition to the penalties under
paragraphs (1) and (2), whoever violates paragraph (1) shall
be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for
each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of
violation shall constitute a separate violation.
``(b) Inapplicability of Carriers and Other Service
Providers.--For purposes of subsection (a), a person shall
not be considered to make any communication for commercial
purposes to the extent that such person is--
``(1) a telecommunications carrier engaged in the provision
of a telecommunications service;
``(2) a person engaged in the business of providing an
Internet access service;
``(3) a person engaged in the business of providing an
Internet information location tool; or
``(4) similarly engaged in the transmission, storage,
retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any
combination thereof) of a communication made by another
person, without selection or alteration of the content of the
communication, except that such person's deletion of a
particular communication or material made by another person
in a manner consistent with subsection (c) or section 230
shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the
content of the communication.
``(c) Affirmative Defense.--
``(1) Defense.--It is an affirmative defense to prosecution
under this section that the defendant, in good faith, has
restricted access by minors to material that is harmful to
minors--
``(A) by requiring use of a credit card, debit account,
adult access code, or adult personal identification number;
``(B) by accepting a digital certificate that verifies age;
or
``(C) by any other reasonable measures that are feasible
under available technology.
``(2) Protection for use of defenses.--No cause of action
may be brought in any court or administrative agency against
any person on account of any activity that is not in
violation of any law punishable by criminal or civil penalty,
and that the person has taken in good faith to implement a
defense authorized under this subsection or otherwise to
restrict or prevent the transmission of, or access to, a
communication specified in this section.
``(d) Privacy Protection Requirements.--
``(1) Disclosure of information limited.--A person making a
communication described in subsection (a)--
``(A) shall not disclose any information collected for the
purposes of restricting access to such communications to
individuals 17 years of age or older without the prior
written or electronic consent of--
``(i) the individual concerned, if the individual is an
adult; or
``(ii) the individual's parent or guardian, if the
individual is under 17 years of age; and
``(B) shall take such actions as are necessary to prevent
unauthorized access to such information by a person other
than the person making such communication and the recipient
of such communication.
``(2) Exceptions.--A person making a communication
described in subsection (a) may disclose such information if
the disclosure is--
``(A) necessary to make the communication or conduct a
legitimate business activity related to making the
communication; or
``(B) made pursuant to a court order authorizing such
disclosure.
``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
following definitions shall apply:
``(1) By means of the world wide web.--The term `by means
of the World Wide Web' means by placement of material in a
computer server-based file archive so that it is

[[Page H9903]]

publicly accessible, over the Internet, using hypertext
transfer protocol or any successor protocol.
``(2) Commercial purposes; engaged in the business.--
``(A) Commercial purposes.--A person shall be considered to
make a communication for commercial purposes only if such
person is engaged in the business of making such
communications.
``(B) Engaged in the business.--The term `engaged in the
business' means that the person who makes a communication, or
offers to make a communication, by means of the World Wide
Web, that includes any material that is harmful to minors,
devotes time, attention, or labor to such activities, as a
regular course of such person's trade or business, with the
objective of earning a profit as a result of such activities
(although it is not necessary that the person make a profit
or that the making or offering to make such communications be
the person's sole or principal business or source of income).
A person may be considered to be engaged in the business of
making, by means of the World Wide Web, communications for
commercial purposes that include material that is harmful to
minors, only if the person knowingly causes the material that
is harmful to minors to be posted on the World Wide Web or
knowingly solicits such material to be posted on the World
Wide Web.
``(3) Internet.--The term `Internet' means the combination
of computer facilities and electromagnetic transmission
media, and related equipment and software, comprising the
interconnected worldwide network of computer networks that
employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol or
any successor protocol to transmit information.
``(4) Internet access service.--The term `Internet access
service' means a service that enables users to access
content, information, electronic mail, or other services
offered over the Internet, and may also include access to
proprietary content, information, and other services as part
of a package of services offered to consumers. Such term does
not include telecommunications services.
``(5) Internet information location tool.--The term
`Internet information location tool' means a service that
refers or links users to an online location on the World Wide
Web. Such term includes directories, indices, references,
pointers, and hypertext links.
``(6) Material that is harmful to minors.--The term
`material that is harmful to minors' means any communication,
picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording,
writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or
that--
``(A) the average person, applying contemporary community
standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and
with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is
designed to pander to, the prurient interest;
``(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner
patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or
simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or
simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd
exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast;
and
``(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value for minors.
``(7) Minor.--The term `minor' means any person under 17
years of age.''.

SEC. 103. NOTICE REQUIREMENT.

(a) Notice.--Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 230) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ``or 231'' after
``section 223'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(e) and (f), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection:
``(d) Obligations of Interactive Computer Service.--A
provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time
of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of
interactive computer service and in a manner deemed
appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that
parental control protections (such as computer hardware,
software, or filtering services) are commercially available
that may assist the customer in limiting access to material
that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or
provide the customer with access to information identifying,
current providers of such protections.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 223(h)(2) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(2)) is amended
by striking ``230(e)(2)'' and inserting ``230(f)(2)''.

SEC. 104. STUDY BY COMMISSION ON ONLINE CHILD PROTECTION.

(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a temporary
Commission to be known as the Commission on Online Child
Protection (in this section referred to as the
``Commission'') for the purpose of conducting a study under
this section regarding methods to help reduce access by
minors to material that is harmful to minors on the Internet.
(b) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 19
members, as follows:
(1) Industry members.--The Commission shall include--
(A) 2 members who are engaged in the business of providing
Internet filtering or blocking services or software;
(B) 2 members who are engaged in the business of providing
Internet access services;
(C) 2 members who are engaged in the business of providing
labeling or ratings services;
(D) 2 members who are engaged in the business of providing
Internet portal or search services;
(E) 2 members who are engaged in the business of providing
domain name registration services;
(F) 2 members who are academic experts in the field of
technology; and
(G) 4 members who are engaged in the business of making
content available over the Internet.

Of the members of the Commission by reason of each
subparagraph of this paragraph, an equal number shall be
appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and
by the Majority Leader of the Senate.
(2) Ex officio members.--The Commission shall include the
following officials:
(A) The Assistant Secretary (or the Assistant Secretary's
designee).
(B) The Attorney General (or the Attorney General's
designee).
(C) The Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (or the
Chairman's designee).
(c) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a study to
identify technological or other methods that--
(A) will help reduce access by minors to material that is
harmful to minors on the Internet; and
(B) may meet the requirements for use as affirmative
defenses for purposes of section 231(c) of the Communications
Act of 1934 (as added by this Act).

Any methods so identified shall be used as the basis for
making legislative recommendations to the Congress under
subsection (d)(3).
(2) Specific methods.--In carrying out the study, the
Commission shall identify and analyze various technological
tools and methods for protecting minors from material that is
harmful to minors, which shall include (without limitation)--
(A) a common resource for parents to use to help protect
minors (such as a ``one-click-away'' resource);
(B) filtering or blocking software or services;
(C) labeling or rating systems;
(D) age verification systems;
(E) the establishment of a domain name for posting of any
material that is harmful to minors; and
(F) any other existing or proposed technologies or methods
for reducing access by minors to such material.
(3) Analysis.--In analyzing technologies and other methods
identified pursuant to paragraph (2), the Commission shall
examine--
(A) the cost of such technologies and methods;
(B) the effects of such technologies and methods on law
enforcement entities;
(C) the effects of such technologies and methods on
privacy;
(D) the extent to which material that is harmful to minors
is globally distributed and the effect of such technologies
and methods on such distribution;
(E) the accessibility of such technologies and methods to
parents; and
(F) such other factors and issues as the Commission
considers relevant and appropriate.
(d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the enactment of
this Act, the Commission shall submit a report to the
Congress containing the results of the study under this
section, which shall include--
(1) a description of the technologies and methods
identified by the study and the results of the analysis of
each such technology and method;
(2) the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission
regarding each such technology or method;
(3) recommendations for legislative or administrative
actions to implement the conclusions of the committee; and
(4) a description of the technologies or methods identified
by the study that may meet the requirements for use as
affirmative defenses for purposes of section 231(c) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (as added by this Act).
(e) Staff and Resources.--The Assistant Secretary for
Communication and Information of the Department of Commerce
shall provide to the Commission such staff and resources as
the Assistant Secretary determines necessary for the
Commission to perform its duty efficiently and in accordance
with this section.
(f) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate 30 days
after the submission of the report under subsection (d).
(g) Inapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not
apply to the Commission.

SEC. 105. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This title and the amendments made by this title shall take
effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

TITLE II--CHILDREN'S ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION

SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Child.--The term ``child'' means an individual under
the age of 13.
(2) Operator.--The term ``operator'' means any person
operating a website on the World Wide Web or any online
service for commercial purposes, including any person
offering products or services for sale through that website
or online service, involving commerce--

[[Page H9904]]

(A) among the several States or with 1 or more foreign
nations;
(B) in any territory of the United States or in the
District of Columbia, or between any such territory and--
(i) another such territory; or
(ii) any State or foreign nation; or
(C) between the District of Columbia and any State,
territory, or foreign nation.

For purposes of this title, the term ``operator'' does not
include any non-profit entity that would otherwise be exempt
from coverage under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
(3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Trade Commission.
(4) Disclosure.--The term ``disclosure'' means, with
respect to personal information--
(A) the release of personal information collected from a
child in identifiable form by an operator for any purpose,
except where such information is provided to a person other
than the operator who provides support for the internal
operations of the website and does not disclose or use that
information for any other purpose; and
(B) making personal information collected from a child by a
website or online service directed to children or with actual
knowledge that such information was collected from a child,
publicly available in identifiable form, by any means
including by a public posting, through the Internet, or
through--
(i) a home page of a website;
(ii) a pen pal service;
(iii) an electronic mail service;
(iv) a message board; or
(v) a chat room.
(5) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an
agency, as that term is defined in section 551(1) of title 5,
United States Code.
(6) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' means collectively the
myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities,
including equipment and operating software, which comprise
the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ
the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any
predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol, to
communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.
(7) Parent.--The term ``parent'' includes a legal guardian.
(8) Personal information.--The term ``personal
information'' means individually identifiable information
about an individual collected online, including--
(A) a first and last name;
(B) a home or other physical address including street name
and name of a city or town;
(C) an e-mail address;
(D) a telephone number;
(E) a Social Security number;
(F) any other identifier that the Commission determines
permits the physical or online contacting of a specific
individual; or
(G) information concerning the child or the parents of that
child that the website collects online from the child and
combines with an identifier described in this paragraph.
(9) Verifiable parental consent.--The term ``verifiable
parental consent'' means any reasonable effort (taking into
consideration available technology), including a request for
authorization for future collection, use, and disclosure
described in the notice, to ensure that a parent of a child
receives notice of the operator's personal information
collection, use, and disclosure practices, and authorizes the
collection, use, and disclosure, as applicable, of personal
information and the subsequent use of that information before
that information is collected from that child.
(10) Website or online service directed to children.--
(A) In general.--The term ``website or online service
directed to children'' means --
(i) a commercial website or online service that is targeted
to children; or
(ii) that portion of a commercial website or online service
that is targeted to children.
(B) Limitation.--A commercial website or online service, or
a portion of a commercial website or online service, shall
not be deemed directed to children solely for referring or
linking to a commercial website or online service directed to
children by using information location tools, including a
directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link.
(11) Person.--The term ``person'' means any individual,
partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative,
association, or other entity.
(12) Online contact information.--The term ``online contact
information'' means an e-mail address or another
substantially similar identifier that permits direct contact
with a person online.

SEC. 202. REGULATION OF UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE ACTS AND
PRACTICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE COLLECTION AND
USE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM AND ABOUT
CHILDREN ON THE INTERNET.

(a) Acts Prohibited.--
(1) In general.--It is unlawful for an operator of a
website or online service directed to children, or any
operator that has actual knowledge that it is collecting
personal information from a child, to collect personal
information from a child in a manner that violates the
regulations prescribed under subsection (b).
(2) Disclosure to parent protected.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), neither an operator of such a website or
online service nor the operator's agent shall be held to be
liable under any Federal or State law for any disclosure made
in good faith and following reasonable procedures in
responding to a request for disclosure of personal
information under subsection (b)(1)(B)(iii) to the parent of
a child.
(b) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate
under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, regulations
that--
(A) require the operator of any website or online service
directed to children that collects personal information from
children or the operator of a website or online service that
has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal
information from a child--
(i) to provide notice on the website of what information is
collected from children by the operator, how the operator
uses such information, and the operator's disclosure
practices for such information; and
(ii) to obtain verifiable parental consent for the
collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from
children;
(B) require the operator to provide, upon request of a
parent whose child has provided personal information to that
website or online service--
(i) a description of the specific types of personal
information collected from the child by that operator;
(ii) notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
opportunity at any time to refuse to permit the operator's
further use or maintenance in retrievable form, or future
online collection, of personal information on that child; and
(iii) a means that is reasonable under the circumstances
for the parent to obtain any personal information collected
from that child;
(C) prohibit conditioning a child's participation in a
game, the offering of a prize, or another activity on the
child disclosing more personal information than is reasonably
necessary to participate in such activity;
(D) require the operator of such a website or online
service to establish and maintain reasonable procedures to
protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of
personal information collected from children; and
(E) permit the operator of such a website or online service
to collect, use, and disseminate such information as is
necessary--
(i) to protect the security or integrity of its website;
(ii) to take precautions against liability;
(iii) to respond to judicial process; and
(iv) to provide information to law enforcement agencies or
for an investigation on a matter related to public safety.
(2) When consent not required.--Verifiable parental consent
under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) is not required in the case of--
(A) online contact information collected from a child that
is used only to respond directly on a one-time basis to a
specific request from the child and is not used to recontact
the child and is not maintained in retrievable form by the
operator;
(B) a request for the name or online contact information of
a parent or child that is used for the sole purpose of
obtaining parental consent or providing notice under this
section and where such information is not maintained in
retrievable form by the operator if parental consent is not
obtained after a reasonable time;
(C) online contact information collected from a child that
is used only to respond more than once directly to a specific
request from the child and is not used to recontact the child
beyond the scope of that request--
(i) if, before any additional response after the initial
response to the child, the operator uses reasonable efforts
to provide a parent notice of the online contact information
collected from the child, the purposes for which it is to be
used, and an opportunity for the parent to request that the
operator make no further use of the information and that it
not be maintained in retrievable form; or
(ii) without notice to the parent in such circumstances as
the Commission may determine are appropriate, taking into
consideration the benefits to the child of access to
information and services, and risks to the security and
privacy of the child, in regulations promulgated under this
subsection; or
(D) the name of the child and online contact information
(to the extent necessary to protect the safety of a child
participant in the site)--
(i) used only for the purpose of protecting such safety;
(ii) not used to recontact the child or for any other
purpose; and
(iii) not disclosed on the site,

if the operator uses reasonable efforts to provide a parent
notice of the name and online contact information collected
from the child, the purposes for which it is to be used, and
an opportunity for the parent to request that the operator
make no further use of the information and that it not be
maintained in retrievable form.
(c) Enforcement.--Subject to sections 203 and 205, a
violation of a regulation prescribed under subsection (a)
shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair
or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section
18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
57a(a)(1)(B)).
(d) Inconsistent State Law.--No State or local government
may impose any liability

[[Page H9905]]

for commercial activities or actions by operators in
interstate or foreign commerce in connection with an activity
or action described in this title that is inconsistent with
the treatment of those activities or actions under this
section.

SEC. 203. SAFE HARBORS.

(a) Guidelines.--An operator may satisfy the requirements
of regulations issued under section 202(b) by following a set
of self-regulatory guidelines, issued by representatives of
the marketing or online industries, or by other persons,
approved under subsection (b).
(b) Incentives.--
(1) Self-regulatory incentives.--In prescribing regulations
under section 202, the Commission shall provide incentives
for self-regulation by operators to implement the protections
afforded children under the regulatory requirements described
in subsection (b) of that section.
(2) Deemed compliance.--Such incentives shall include
provisions for ensuring that a person will be deemed to be in
compliance with the requirements of the regulations under
section 202 if that person complies with guidelines that,
after notice and comment, are approved by the Commission upon
making a determination that the guidelines meet the
requirements of the regulations issued under section 202.
(3) Expedited response to requests.--The Commission shall
act upon requests for safe harbor treatment within 180 days
of the filing of the request, and shall set forth in writing
its conclusions with regard to such requests.
(c) Appeals.--Final action by the Commission on a request
for approval of guidelines, or the failure to act within 180
days on a request for approval of guidelines, submitted under
subsection (b) may be appealed to a district court of the
United States of appropriate jurisdiction as provided for in
section 706 of title 5, United States Code.

SEC. 204. ACTIONS BY STATES.

(a) In General.--
(1) Civil actions.--In any case in which the attorney
general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of
the residents of that State has been or is threatened or
adversely affected by the engagement of any person in a
practice that violates any regulation of the Commission
prescribed under section 202(b), the State, as parens
patriae, may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents
of the State in a district court of the United States of
appropriate jurisdiction to--
(A) enjoin that practice;
(B) enforce compliance with the regulation;
(C) obtain damage, restitution, or other compensation on
behalf of residents of the State; or
(D) obtain such other relief as the court may consider to
be appropriate.
(2) Notice.--
(A) In general.--Before filing an action under paragraph
(1), the attorney general of the State involved shall provide
to the Commission--
(i) written notice of that action; and
(ii) a copy of the complaint for that action.
(B) Exemption.--
(i) In general.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with
respect to the filing of an action by an attorney general of
a State under this subsection, if the attorney general
determines that it is not feasible to provide the notice
described in that subparagraph before the filing of the
action.
(ii) Notification.--In an action described in clause (i),
the attorney general of a State shall provide notice and a
copy of the complaint to the Commission at the same time as
the attorney general files the action.
(b) Intervention.--
(1) In general.--On receiving notice under subsection
(a)(2), the Commission shall have the right to intervene in
the action that is the subject of the notice.
(2) Effect of intervention.--If the Commission intervenes
in an action under subsection (a), it shall have the right--
(A) to be heard with respect to any matter that arises in
that action; and
(B) to file a petition for appeal.
(3) Amicus curiae.--Upon application to the court, a person
whose self-regulatory guidelines have been approved by the
Commission and are relied upon as a defense by any defendant
to a proceeding under this section may file amicus curiae in
that proceeding.
(c) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil
action under subsection (a), nothing in this title shall be
construed to prevent an attorney general of a State from
exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by
the laws of that State to--
(1) conduct investigations;
(2) administer oaths or affirmations; or
(3) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of
documentary and other evidence.
(d) Actions by the Commission.--In any case in which an
action is instituted by or on behalf of the Commission for
violation of any regulation prescribed under section 202, no
State may, during the pendency of that action, institute an
action under subsection (a) against any defendant named in
the complaint in that action for violation of that
regulation.
(e) Venue; Service of Process.--
(1) Venue.--Any action brought under subsection (a) may be
brought in the district court of the United States that meets
applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391
of title 28, United States Code.
(2) Service of process.--In an action brought under
subsection (a), process may be served in any district in
which the defendant--
(A) is an inhabitant; or
(B) may be found.

SEC. 205. ADMINISTRATION AND APPLICABILITY OF ACT.

(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided, this title
shall be enforced by the Commission under the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.).
(b) Provisions.--Compliance with the requirements imposed
under this title shall be enforced under--
(1) section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1818), in the case of--
(A) national banks, and Federal branches and Federal
agencies of foreign banks, by the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency;
(B) member banks of the Federal Reserve System (other than
national banks), branches and agencies of foreign banks
(other than Federal branches, Federal agencies, and insured
State branches of foreign banks), commercial lending
companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, and
organizations operating under section 25 or 25(a) of the
Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 601 et seq. and 611 et. seq.),
by the Board; and
(C) banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (other than members of the Federal Reserve
System) and insured State branches of foreign banks, by the
Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation;
(2) section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1818), by the Director of the Office of Thrift
Supervision, in the case of a savings association the
deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation;
(3) the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.)
by the National Credit Union Administration Board with
respect to any Federal credit union;
(4) part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code,
by the Secretary of Transportation with respect to any air
carrier or foreign air carrier subject to that part;
(5) the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181 et.
seq.) (except as provided in section 406 of that Act (7
U.S.C. 226, 227)), by the Secretary of Agriculture with
respect to any activities subject to that Act; and
(6) the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. (2001 et seq.)
by the Farm Credit Administration with respect to any Federal
land bank, Federal land bank association, Federal
intermediate credit bank, or production credit association.
(c) Exercise of Certain Powers.--For the purpose of the
exercise by any agency referred to in subsection (a) of its
powers under any Act referred to in that subsection, a
violation of any requirement imposed under this title shall
be deemed to be a violation of a requirement imposed under
that Act. In addition to its powers under any provision of
law specifically referred to in subsection (a), each of the
agencies referred to in that subsection may exercise, for the
purpose of enforcing compliance with any requirement imposed
under this title, any other authority conferred on it by law.
(d) Actions by the Commission.--The Commission shall
prevent any person from violating a rule of the Commission
under section 202 in the same manner, by the same means, and
with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all
applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into
and made a part of this title. Any entity that violates such
rule shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the
privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade
Commission Act in the same manner, by the same means, and
with the same jurisdiction, power, and duties as though all
applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade
Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part of this
title.
(e) Effect on Other Laws.--Nothing contained in this title
shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission
under any other provisions of law.

SEC. 206. REVIEW.

Not later than 5 years after the effective date of the
regulations initially issued under section 202, the
Commission shall--
(1) review the implementation of this title, including the
effect of the implementation of this title on practices
relating to the collection and disclosure of information
relating to children, children's ability to obtain access to
information of their choice online, and on the availability
of websites directed to children; and
(2) prepare and submit to Congress a report on the results
of the review under paragraph (1).

SEC. 207. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Sections 202(a), 204, and 205 of this title take effect on
the later of--
(1) the date that is 18 months after the date of enactment
of this Act; or
(2) the date on which the Commission rules on the first
application for safe harbor treatment under section 203 if
the Commission does not rule on the first such application
within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, but
in no case later than the date that is 30 months after the
date of enactment of this Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) each will control 20 minutes.

[[Page H9906]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

General Leave

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material on this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3783, the Child Online
Protection Act. Last month the Committee on Commerce overwhelmingly
approved this bill. The bill as adopted would simply make it illegal to
sell pornography to minors on the World Wide Web unless and until an
adult verification system is in place.
Let me make it clear, the bill does not try to control the sale of
that material to adults. Neither does it say one cannot sell it to a
minor for whom an adult says it is okay. It simply says that insofar as
the sale of material to a minor, that the producer of that product
cannot do so without the consent of the parents in an adult
verification system that actually works.
It directs the FTC to promulgate regulations within a year of the
date of the act prohibiting commercial websites and online operators
from collecting personally identifying information from children 12 and
under, unless certain requirements are met. This is an FTC agreement
that has been reached and supported and already adopted on the other
side that we have added by amendment to this bill.
Further, the public posting of children's identifying information in
chat rooms and other online forums may pose safety concerns, and the
bill simply protects against those things happening.
The bill requires four simple things. It requires ample notice to
make sure that operators provide clear, prominent, understandable
notice on their sites of what information they are collecting from
children, how they will use it, and disclosure practice for that
information.
Second, it states that operators must obtain parental consent; and
third, that operators must prohibit inducements to provide personal
information from the children by games and contests; and that operators
must disclose the specific types of information collected to a parent,
and offer the parent the opportunity to opt out of future use of that
information.
For those who are still denying that the legislation is not needed, I
ask them to go back to their offices and surf the net for a few
minutes. If Members take a few minutes, Members will see that H.R. 3783
really attempts to solve a real, not a perceived, problem.
If Members go to an Internet search engine such as Yahoo, type in
``porn'' or ``sex'', under porn I am told we will receive more than
105,000 matches, and under sex, receive 670,000 matches. Within seconds
Members can retrieve information from any one of these hits, and they
will display, in many cases, pornographic material.
Some sites will have warnings, 18 or older. Other sites ask for
credit cards or information prior to entering, but virtually all the
sites contain teasers that display sexual behavior, in an attempt to
lure us into that site, us or our children. Imagine, now, a Member's 8-
year-old son or daughter is accessing that same information.
The bill that we are considering today makes an honest attempt,
without interference with the first amendment, to provide that our sons
or daughters will not easily access this information without our
consent. It is effective because it focuses on the commercial seller of
pornography, and it uses a constitutionally already verified protection
phrase, ``harm to children,'' rather than the obscenity phrase that was
attempted in the 1996 act and was rejected by the Supreme Court.
In short, H.R. 3783 attempts to address all the issues raised by the
Supreme Court. It has a narrow prohibition, tighter definition, and a
realization that the applicability of the law may change as technology
is involved.
I want to particularly commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley),
the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and
Consumer Protection, who is the principal author and who has worked so
diligently with all members of the committee to make sure it came out
with unanimous consent, and with conditions and language that we think
is supportable in any court challenge.
I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for his
leadership on this issue. He knows, as we all know, that this is a real
problem, and this bill attempts to solve it in a real simple but
meaningful way.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage Members to support H.R. 3783, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we bring to the floor the Child Online Protection
Act, the bill that has been introduced by my good friend, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood),
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton), under the leadership of the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley).
The legislation that we are bringing to the floor also includes the
child privacy protection provisions similar to those of my bill, H.R.
4667, the Electronic Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 1998.

{time} 1615

As many know, Senator Bryan has similar child privacy legislation
moving through the Senate, and hopefully we can enact children's
privacy legislation before Congress adjourns this year.
I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and the
gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Oxley) and others for agreeing to add this provision here at the
end of this session.
The first part of the legislation we consider this afternoon is
designed to protect children from Internet fare that is inappropriate
for them. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is content out
on the Internet that is harmful to children and that they ought not to
have access to such on-line fare from their computers.
In the previous session of Congress, the Communications Decency Act
provision of the Telecommunications Act established a national
indecency standard that the Court struck down because it was overly
vague and broad, and I agreed with that decision. I opposed the
Communications Decency Act out here on the floor.
The standard in the bill before us today is ``harmful to minors,''
much narrower than the Communications Decency Act. Yet like the CDA,
the bill would propose a national standard rather than a community-
based standard of what harmful to minors means.
The legislation before us raises a number of difficult policy
questions such as whether a policy of community-by-community-based
standards of harmful to minors is at all possible in a global medium,
whether the Internet requires national treatment for what is harmful to
minors across the country.
The legislation also tacitly determines that filtering or blocking
software cannot do the job of protecting minors, and, therefore, the
government needs to step in and regulate access to certain Internet
content.
I have long believed that technology can offer a solution to some of
the problems that technology itself creates. Software filtering
technology and other blocking technology can help to provide parents
some tools for shielding children from inappropriate on-line fare.
In addition, I believe that other solutions may also help to mitigate
against minors gaining access to Websites that parents want to shield
from young children. I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for
going to great lengths to listen to the concerns that many of us have
and thank him for the adjustments that he has made in the legislation
to meet some of those concerns.
While many of us still have concerns over the scope and the timing of
some of these provisions, I hope that as we proceed and further discuss
these provisions with our friends in the Senate, we can address how we
define the scope of those entities that are providing inappropriate
content and properly distinguish them from those entities that

[[Page H9907]]

are solely conduits for accessing that information; further talk about
alternatives such as filtering; and perhaps address the timing of when
certain provisions become effective; and adjust the commission in the
bill to make its membership more bipartisan and reflective of the
bipartisan manner in which this body deals with telecommunications
issues generally.
Mr. Speaker, the second part of the bill, as the chairman of the
subcommittee has pointed out, addresses the issue of child privacy on
the Internet. The issue of privacy in the Information Age, and in
particular children's privacy protection, is quite timely as the Nation
becomes ever more linked by communications networks such as the
Internet.
It is important as we tackle these issues now, before we travel down
the information superhighway too far and realize perhaps that we made a
wrong turn, that we had a chance to build in protection for kids before
this technology took too much control over the lives of kids across our
country.
In general, I believe that Congress ought to embrace a three-part
comprehensive policy of privacy for children in our country:
Number one, that every parent should have knowledge about information
which is being gathered about children in our country. As we know, many
of these Websites attach cookies, attach this technology which allows
them to gather the information about children without the knowledge of
those children or parents. I believe that every family should know when
information is being gathered about their children.
Secondly, notice that those companies, that those individuals plan on
reusing that information for purposes other than that which was
originally intended by the family, by the children.
And thirdly, that the family, that the consumer, that the children,
have a right to say no, that they do not want this information to be
reused other than that purpose for which the family had, the children
using the Internet at that time.
These provisions in this bill are very consistent with those larger
principles. The Senate has included language that is nearly identical;
not quite, but very close in their bill. It gives us a chance to deal
with this children's issue, this privacy issue, and I would hope that
the full House today would adopt the bill in its entirety.
I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the
subcommittee, again for his graciousness in helping us to add that
provision.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, just to make everyone clear on the fact that
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is the principal author
of these on-line privacy provisions, and they come, as he has pointed
out, with full recommendation of the FTC and many consumer and family
and children's support groups around America. I have a long list.
I also wanted to add that the provisions do include a safe harbor
provision which says to the industry that if they can come up with a
better provision, they can submit it to the FTC, and that would be the
one that would be used. That is a very good type of provision that we
like to include in this type of Internet legislation.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just think it is good
electronic ethics for Website operators to know that they have a
responsibility to children in our country. They should obtain parental
consent. And I thank all who have helped to work on that issue, the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Bliley) the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). On our side, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and his staff have worked with us very
closely to craft this in a way which we believe does really meet this
very great concern that is rising across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Oxley) the principal author of the main part of this legislation
which protects against pornography and children on the Net.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Child On-line
Protection Act and as an advocate for a child's right to explore the
World Wide Web without exposure to graphic pornography.
Currently more than 60,000 Websites featuring sexually explicit and
obscene material are available to unsuspecting children. While the
Internet can be a positive tool for the education and entertainment of
our children, it can also be a window to the dark world of pornography.
Minors can readily access obscene material intentionally or
unintentionally and be lured into dangerous situations. Children cannot
safely learn in a virtual red light district.
Common sense and 40 years of research in the field of child
development clearly demonstrate that exposure to sexually explicit
material is detrimental to the healthy psychological development of
children.
Current law does not prevent adult Websites from providing sexually
explicit images to children. Commercial distributors of pornography
offer free teaser pages to lure potential customers into viewing more.
A child may innocently search for key words like ``dollhouse,''
``toys'' or ``pet,'' and be led into numerous sexually explicit sites.
That is why COPA enjoys broad bipartisan support today, and I
specifically would like to express my appreciation to my original
cosponsor, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), as well as
the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), the gentleman from
Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) for bringing this bill to the floor today,
the ranking member of my subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Manton), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has added
the protections also in the privacy side that we applaud, and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). Their input allowed us to clarify
the intent of H.R. 3783 and eliminate any vagueness.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) particularly deserves
particular recognition for helping to refine the bill to protect
Internet service providers for liability for content which they do not
produce.
I also want to express my support for Chairman Bliley's addition of
child privacy protection language to the bill and express my sincere
thanks to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his good
work in this area.
Mr. Chairman, COPA employs the constitutionally tested ``harmful to
minors'' standard recognized and upheld in Federal courts for more than
30 years. It only applied to material which is not protected speech for
minors under the First Amendment.
COPA requires commercial on-line pornographers to take steps to
restrict children's access to adult material on the Web by requiring
adult verification, such as an adult access code, PIN number, credit
card numbers, or new technologies such as digital signatures when they
become available.
COPA does not, and I want make this very clear, does not restrict an
adult's ability to access pornographic Websites and does not apply to
content with redeeming value or regulate content. The bill merely
proposes that Web porn be treated in the same manner as the print
media.
Unfortunately, the Web is awash in degrading smut. There are
literally thousands of sites dedicated to every manner of perversion
and brutality. This is nothing less than an attempt to protect
childhood. I urge all Members to join us in supporting this
legislation.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Manton) coauthor of the bill.
Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation, as
amended. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and to urge all of
my colleagues to support its passage.
The Internet is one of our society's most valuable educational tools
and an exciting entertainment medium for children. It allows them to
access information and learn about the world in

[[Page H9908]]

a way no past generation has experienced. Unfortunately, it can also be
a dangerous place for children who either knowingly or unwittingly
stumble across pornographic material.
We can all agree that children should not have access to pornography
via the Internet, but how to achieve this end while upholding the First
Amendment rights of adults is a delicate task. I believe the Child On-
line Protection Act will go a long way toward protecting children, but
do so in the least restrictive manner, ensuring the rights of adults
are not compromised.
Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses a very serious problem. With
estimates that close to 28,000 pornography Websites exist today, it is
clear that we must act to keep such material from our children.
I would like to thank both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for all of their hard
work in bringing this legislation before us today.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support the Child On-line Protection
Act.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, and I also rise to support the Child On-line Protection
Act. In the Greenwood house, we have a small room. It is the playroom.
And as my two little daughters, Laura and Katy, have grown up, it has
been kind of fun to watch the transition of the toys in their playroom.
When we got our computer, we put it in the playroom, figuring that as
time goes by and they grow, they will shift from the toys and spend
more time with their studies and computers. At any given time, I can
walk in the playroom and see one of my daughters on the computer and
another playing with her dollhouse or maybe some of her toys inspired
by Disney movies.
As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) said, the terrible problem is
that if my daughter sits at the computer and types in a word like
``dollhouse'' or ``toys" or ``Disney'' even, she could find herself at
the direct access to pornographic sites.
The Communications Decency Act was our first effort to try to stop
this problem, a problem that every parent in America wants us to
address. Of course that was struck down first by a circuit court in my
area, Philadelphia, and then by the Supreme Court. So, we looked for a
new standard, and we found the standard that meets the Court's
guidelines in H.R. 3783.
The principle is very simple. The First Amendment certainly protects
the right of people to have any kind of literature in their adult
bookstores, but it certainly does not mean that proprietors can open an
adult bookstore in a mall and display their merchandise on the windows
of their store visible to shoppers, including children, in the store.
It is common sense. That is what this legislation does on the Web.
There are adult movie theaters, so-called adult movie theaters, where
there are pornographic films, but the purveyors of those films cannot
display their videos on the marquee visible to people on the sidewalk.
This legislation, by simply requiring adult access to these sites, is
consistent with the First Amendment rights outlined by the Supreme
Court and certainly consistent with the will and the wishes of every
parent, including this parent, that our children be protected from that
material and that it be accessible only by adults with the correct code
or Visa card.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the legislation.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague
from Massachusetts on the privacy protections here. They are very, very
important.

{time} 1630

I wish they were coming up as a separate bill, because they are
attached to a bill which I believe will be found unconstitutional and
which ought not to be passed.
Obviously, it is important to try to protect minors from being
exploited and abused and exposed to inappropriate material on the
internet. But it is important to do that in a way that does not
interfere with the constitutional right of adults to communicate with
each other. The operative part of this bill, on page 4, says it is a
crime to make any communication for commercial purposes available to
any minor. That does not mean that the communication was aimed at the
minor: to make it available to a minor. That means an entity is held
responsible for anybody who has access to the internet.
Now, here is the problem we have. We have in this country a great
deal of free speech. If we are writing or speaking or communicating
ideas in a nonelectronic context, we have more freedom in America than
in any other country. But we began in the 1930s, because of the limited
radio spectrum, a second doctrine on freedom of expression. Freedom of
expression does not fully apply, we said, if it is electronically
communicated. Well, the courts are no longer maintaining that strict
definition, because the basis, the limited spectrum, the notion of the
public interest, does not quite control.
We are in danger now of having two separate standards because,
clearly, this standard where we would be committing a crime if we made
any communication for commercial purposes available to a minor, that
was harmful to a minor, that would not obviously even be offered for a
newspaper, for a magazine or for a book. And the notion that we should
give a lesser standard of constitutional protection for freedom of
expression because it is electronically communicated is not only
mistaken, but given that we will increasingly communicate with each
other electronically, it will erode our freedom.
In the definition of harmful to a minor it says obscenity or another
category. This bill specifically says it regulates nonobscene material
if the material appeals on the whole to prurient interests. And, again,
it does not only deal with material aimed at minors. If we put
something on the web that is not obscene, and it has an appeal to
prurient interests and is then judged harmful to minors, we can be
guilty of a crime. This will further erode the notion of freedom of
speech.
So I welcome the privacy protections here, and I understand the
importance of trying to protect children, but doing it in a way that
says, and let me be very clear that this is what this says, nonobscene
material that is constitutionally protected, because the bill
explicitly says it is banning obscene material and nonobscene material
if it is harmful to minors. If we put that on the web and a minor sees
it, we can be criminally liable even if we were not even making any
efforts to try to aim it at the minor.
This is far too broad. I believe it will be held unconstitutional.
That is why the Justice Department asked us to hold off. I think it
would be a grave error to do this today.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just to respond.
First of all, I want to point out that the harmful to minor standard
was upheld in 1969 by the Supreme Court itself and that 48 States have
such standards in their State laws. Five circuit courts have already
examined those and approved those as constitutional, and that is the
standard used in this bill.
Secondly, I would point out that the owners and producers of these
sites are liable only if they are commercial operators who do not put
in filtering devices where parents can say yes or no. If in fact the
filtering device is in place, and the parents say it is okay for our
children to see this stuff, so be it. It simply requires, if someone is
going to go into the commercial business of putting material that is
harmful to minors under that Supreme Court standard on the internet,
that that material must contain a filtering device so that parents have
the ability to say yes or no.
That is the sum and substance of the bill. And, again, I would urge
its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington State
(Mr. White).
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I have four children, they are 14, 12, 9 and
7. They use the internet all the time. And I can

[[Page H9909]]

tell my colleagues we do have a real problem in terms of their access
to pornography that might exist on the internet.
I would also say, however, that a law is not always the best way to
solve these problems. And I think we know our laws do not apply in
Amsterdam. They sometimes breed a false sense of security. And, even
worse, they sometimes lock us into the wrong technology, technology
that is obsolete and will not do as good a job as technology that might
come along in the future.
So I think it is no secret to my friends on the committee that I
would have preferred to wait a year to let the technology community
really give us their input on this bill. The committee felt otherwise,
and I know many of my colleagues feel otherwise. And, frankly, working
together, we have produced a very good bill.
The main improvement that I see in this bill, and one that we should
focus on, is we call for a commission made up of 16 members from the
technology community and 3 members of government who will report to us
in 1 year as to whether this is the best way to solve this problem, or
whether there are other technologies out there that we are not aware of
that might do a better job of helping us solve this problem.
So with that improvement, I think this bill is a good bill, deserves
our support, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin) has 9 minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey) has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time and I rise vigorously to support this
legislation. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton), the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and as well the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell).
This legislation did not come through the House Committee on the
Judiciary, but I think that we can always consider ways to ensure its
constitutionality. My real concern is the children of America. As a
chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, and one who has
interacted frequently in my local community as a former city council
member, recognizing the vital role that computers play and the internet
plays in schools, in churches, in homes, and in libraries, and our
children are in all those places, it is for that very reason I do not
believe this legislation sets the bar too high to protect our children.
Frankly, it is tragic that we have to even do this, because this is
good technology. The internet and the online services are good
technology. I know that we were together 1 or 2 years ago in the
telecommunications conference where we tried the v-chip, and we know
what happened with that, but we are back here trying to do it the right
way on the internet, and the internet does have a free flow in reaching
our children.
I am particularly gratified for the leadership of the gentleman from
Massachusetts on some very vital points as to parents. Parents, listen
to this, for information is always gathered about our children. But
with the children's privacy provision it is important to realize that
parents must have knowledge about the gathering of this material, even
if it is a toy company trying to find out what our children like to
play with. Then, the notice must be given of the company's or the
user's or the gatherer's use of that material. And then, as well, if it
is not comporting with what the parents originally thought it was going
to be used for, the gathering of that material, the parent, the child,
can say no. I think that we are at a point in this country where that
is a responsible way to go.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the
Judiciary, I can assure my colleagues that solicitation of children
over the internet is a growing problem, pornography on the internet is
a growing problem, and children's access to the internet is a growing
problem in contrast to what they are receiving. So I do not think we
can finish this session of Congress without getting a bill out of the
House that emphasizes the importance of keeping children away from
pornographic issues or pornographic material, obscene materials, on the
internet and, likewise, protecting them.
So I would simply extend my thanks for providing us with a framework
within which we can work. Let the parents of America recognize that we
are giving them a tool reasonably grounded in the constitutional right
to privacy and the first amendment, and I know we can work on it
additionally.
I see my good friend from Louisiana standing, and there were some
points made on this issue dealing with the Constitution. I know we are
working very hard, because the computer industry or the internet
providers are a powerful group, and I hope that they respect what the
FCC has done in working with the gentleman. We are going to be
reasonable about the amendment.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, first, let me commend the gentlewoman for an
excellent statement and, indeed, to confirm her statement. We have been
very careful about using the language that the courts have already
approved on the standard, the one approved by the Supreme Court. We
have crafted the bill so that it applies only to commercial sites and
not to ordinary speakers.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank
the gentleman for the time and for an excellent piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill this
morning. The Child Online Protection Act will require operators of
commercial adult World Wide Web sites to protect our children from
exposure to pornographic materials.
The Internet was designed by innovators, visionaries in the
scientific and academic community to expand our horizons, to help us
learn about each other and to have simple access to new information,
ideas and data. The net has now moved far beyond an educational tool
and has become a global phenomenon of communication and commerce.
Although the Web can be a fantastic vehicle for enriching our lives, we
must also keep unwanted sexual imagery and pornography from invading
our children's lives.
I support this bill in that it requires the operators of commercial
adult sites to act responsibly in taking steps to restrict children's
access to pornographic sites. This bill does not restrict an adults'
right to access adult material on the net, it simply requires that
users have a verified credit card number or adult personal
identification number to access adult materials.
Protecting our children from pornography is a challenge, but as a
parent and as Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, we must
make every effort to do so.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Child Online
Protection Act. It is our duty to protect America's children from
online pornographers.
Kids in America know computers. They are being raised in an age where
information is at their fingertips; at the flip of a switch or at the
click of a mouse. While internet access is an incredible enhancer of
learning, our kids are also put in danger of exposure to pornographic
materials.
The Child Online Protection Act would require operators of commercial
adult worldwide web sites to take steps to restrict children's access
to pornographic materials. Opponents of this bill will claim that we
are attempting to federally sensor the internet. This is simply not
true. In fact, the legislation specifically states that it must not be
construed to authorize the FCC to regulate in any manner the content of
any information provided on the worldwide web. The bill simply requires
commercial providers to place materials that are harmful to minors on
the other side of adult verification technology.
Let us protect our children, let us make the internet more family
friendly by passing the Child Online Protection Act today.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

[[Page H9910]]

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as I read this, I do not
believe filtering equipment would be a complete affirmative defense, as
I read the line about affirmative defenses. But I then had a question.
It says material that is harmful to minors, and I gather in a picture
or text that would be describing sex and would appeal to prurient
interests.
A question would be if a commercial entity took the Starr report,
which was not copyrighted, and put it out on the web as part of their
business-making enterprise, would a commercial business that put the
Starr report out on the web and did not restrict it with filtering
information, would that commercial enterprise be subject to a penalty
under this bill?
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The answer is no.
Because the harmful to minors, as has been interpreted by the courts,
it defines harmful to minors as not covering content which, taken as a
whole, has serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
And I think it is pretty clear this has political content.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, if the
gentleman is talking about the Starr report, I guess maybe he is right.
It certainly does not have any literary value or scientific value or
artistic value. But from the standpoint of his party, it has political
value, so maybe it would get off.
Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman can interpret it however he wants.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and I
appreciate this bill for a number of reasons. In my view it is really
the brown paper wrapper approach to the internet, where technology has
really exceeded our ability as parents to protect our children from
things that we would like to protect them from.
By making commercial sale against the law in the internet without age
verification, we are really doing no more than is required by most
Circle K's or convenience stores, and I think that that is the right
way to approach it.
I also appreciate that this bill includes studies on filtering and
other methods, like zoning, that may be able to help parents and help
schools without prescribing an answer before we know what the
technology is capable of.

{time} 1645

I think that that is also a rational approach to solving this
problem. I appreciate the amendment that protects personal information
of children on-line. As a parent, I understand the strengths and
benefits of the Internet. But it also has the potential to exceed our
ability as parents to control the access of our children to things that
they may not even know they are accessing.
Let us give ourselves another tool. Let us give ourselves that
electronic brown paper wrapper.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
want to point out that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) and I
have authored a bill that codifies in law the concept of forbearance of
regulating the Internet. The FCC has voluntarily forborne any
regulations of the Internet and we think that is proper. The bill we
have offered indicates that the FCC should continue in that forbearance
but that where and if areas of concern arise, such as this area of
harmfulness to minors, that the Congress itself should make the
decisions about how and where the Internet should be affected by any
such restrictions or regulations. It is for that reason that we think
this bill is very much in line with the concept of the White bill that
we have earlier offered and which we will try to pursue passage in a
future Congress.
The concept again is that the Internet should be as free and open as
possible. Otherwise, it cannot be the place where free expression under
the first amendment is fully utilized as we all want it to be. But
where areas exist, such as in this area of harmfulness to minors or
areas where minors' information is being taken from them without
parental consent, this is the area where Congress itself should express
those areas of concern and come up with solutions. This bill is an
honest attempt to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3783. I
believe it is fundamentally important that as the representatives of
our Nation, we do everything we can to protect our children from the
detrimental effects of pornography reaching their eyes.
This bill as it is is tailored to withstand the legal requirements
established by the Supreme Court when it struck down the Communications
Decency Act. The bill uses the constitutionally defensible ``harmful to
minors'' standard rather than the constitutionally questionable
``decency'' standard. The bill prohibits businesses from selling or
transferring through the Internet material that is harmful to minors.
Businesses would be in compliance of the law and not liable to
prosecution if they adhere to some ``affirmative defenses'' in the
conduct of their businesses. An example of an affirmative defense for a
company would be requiring the use of a credit card, debit account or
some type of ``adult access code.''
This is an integral bill that will be good for the Nation. I urge my
colleagues' support.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, as the Commerce Committee has learned during
the course of the 105th Congress, the Internet, and consequently,
electronic commerce, will only continue to develop if it is safe,
secure, and private. H.R. 3783 addresses the ``safety'' of the Internet
and provides an effective means to help protect children online.
Pronography is widely available on the Internet. According to Wired
Magazine, there are approximately 28,000 adult Web sites promoting
pornography and these sites generate close to $925 million in revenues.
While adults have a right to view this material, parents, educators,
and civic groups agree that exposure to pornography is not appropriate
for minors. Forty-eight States agree with this assessment and have
adopted ``harmful to minor'' statutes.
Whether these States require porn to be sold behind the counter at a
drug store, on blinder racks at a convenient store, or in a shrink wrap
at a news stand, each of them recognizes the proper role government can
play to help restrict a child's access to inappropriate material. The
purpose of H.R. 3783 is to extend those protections in cyberspace by
restricting the sale of material harmful to minors over the World Wide
Web.
Most opponents of legislation continue to argue that adult
verification systems are not fool proof and that industry needs more
time to come up with effective solutions. On the one hand, I agree that
no solution is perfect, not even requiring the sale of pornography
behind the counter at a drug store. On the other hand, delaying for
another year does nothing to help the parents and educators today.
We can continue to debate the effectiveness of filtering software,
rating systems, and adult domain name zoning, but none of these
solutions apply the necessary burden on the appropriate industry, that
is, the adult entertainment industry. I applaud the efforts of the
software industry to develop filtering software and other technological
solutions, but the law should impose duties on the source of the
problem, not the victims.
H.R. 3783 does not ``burn the house to roast the pig.'' Adults may
still view any materials on the Internet they wish, with minimal
inconvenience, and engage in adult conversations in chat rooms, e-
mails, and bulletin board services. Thus, H.R. 3783 strikes the
appropriate balance between the First Amendment rights of adults and
the government's compelling interest to protect children.
The amendment we are considering today also contains privacy
protections for kids. These provisions generally prohibit businesses
from collecting personal information from a child online without the
parent's consent.
Legislation will not solve all the problems. Parents, educators, and
industry must continue to play a role to ensure that kids are protected
online.
I thank Mr. Oxley and Mr. Greenwood for their leadership and Mr.
Tauzin for helping to move the bill along.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we are attempting to accomplish a laudable
goal in this legislation. Parents are clamoring for ways to protect
their kids from the onslaught of pornographic material on the Internet,
and Congress has a responsibility to assist them in whatever

[[Page H9911]]

ways it can. However, we have been down this road before, and our most
recent attempt was met with a resounding rebuke from the Supreme Court.
The Communications Decency Act was declared unconstitutional by a
unanimous vote, and I harbor serious concerns that this bill will meet
the same fate.
While the notion of regulating materials which are deemed ``harmful
to minors'' sounds appealing, it raises many practical concerns. Who
decides what materials are ``harmful to minors?'' Should the standard
be community-based, or national? If local judgments about the
suitability of materials differ around the country, how can a global
medium such as the Internet respond to these different views? For
example, will the Internet sale of mainstream movies and sound
recordings be subject to the most conservative community's view of what
is harmful to minors, exposing itself to civil and criminal penalties
in the process? If a chill is placed on the sale of these materials,
what will be the practical effect on the growth of electronic commerce?
These questions and many more should be addressed before we rush to
adopt an easy fix to a complex problem. The Supreme Court is likely to
force Congress's hand on these matters, and reiterate its demand for a
more thorough evaluation if and when this legislation is enacted.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Child Online
Protection Act.
It is our duty to protect America's children from online
pornographers.
Kids in America know computers. They are being raised in an age where
information is at their fingertips at the flip of a switch and a click
of the mouse.
While Internet access is an incredible enhancer of learning, our kids
are also put in danger of exposure to pornographic materials.
The Child Online Protection Act would require operators of commercial
adult World Wide Web sites to take steps to restrict children's access
to pornographic materials.
Opponents of this bill will claim that we are attempting to federally
censor the Internet. This is simply not true. The bill simply requires
commercial providers to place materials that are ``harmful to minors''
on the other side of adult verification technology.
Let's protect our children and make the Internet more family friendly
by passing the Child Online Protection Act today.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Oxley) the principal author of the bill and the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) who has indeed improved it so much with
the privacy provisions.
Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3783, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A Bill to amend
the Communications Act of 1934 to require persons who are engaged in
the business of distributing, by means of the World Wide Web, material
that is harmful to minors to restrict access to such material by
minors, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________