[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.

                          ____________________