[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 25, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H6942-H6945]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              ILLEGAL PORNOGRAPHY PROSECUTION ACT OF 2000

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4710) to authorize appropriations for the prosecution of 
obscenity cases.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4710

       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 ``Illegal Pornography 
     Prosecution Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of Justice for fiscal year 2001 not to exceed $5,000,000 to 
     be used by the Criminal Division, Child Exploitation and 
     Obscenity Section, for the hiring and training of staff, 
     travel, and other necessary expenses, to prosecute obscenity 
     cases, including those arising under chapter 71 of title 18, 
     United States Code.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 4710.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) be permitted to control the time, and I 
yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) for yielding this time to me, but, more 
importantly, for his leadership in combatting the serious problem of 
child sexual abuse and pornography in this country, particularly the 
explosion that has taken place with the advent of the Internet.
  The Internet is one of the most wonderful developments that we have 
experienced in the history of this country and the history of mankind. 
It allows people the opportunity to learn, to experience new things, to 
have educational opportunities, business opportunities, opportunities 
to shop on-line. We want people to use the Internet. We want them to 
feel safe in doing so, but one of the biggest businesses on the 
Internet is that of obscenity, of hard-core pornography.
  There are thousands of sites, estimates range from 40,000 to 100,000 
sites. And the gentleman's legislation is designed to provide the 
resources to law enforcement to combat this problem. He has been very 
supportive of efforts that I have initiated to combat this by giving 
grants to local law enforcement agencies.
  This $5 million goes to the Department of Justice for funding for the 
child exploitation and obscenity section of the Department. The monies 
would be authorized only for prosecutions under title 18, chapter 71, 
obscenity.
  Federal statutes make it illegal to transport obscenity. Obscenity 
has been defined by the Supreme Court and is not protected by the first 
amendment. The amount of material on the Internet is growing 
exponentially.
  Law enforcement was doing a pretty good job until a decade or so ago 
of working with postal authorities and so on to deal with this, of 
shutting down some adult book stores in many parts of the country. It 
was a battle that we were in some respects winning.
  The Internet has changed that. The feeling that some people have that 
they are so anonymous they can be in their home viewing this material 
creates a serious problem, and it is a problem that is not simply a 
matter of looking at pictures of women under certain circumstances. It 
is pictures of children engaged in sexual activities, best described to 
me by a law enforcement officer who said that child pornography is 
viewing a crime in the process of being committed.
  It is entirely appropriate that we devote these resources to this. 
The prosecutions for obscenity have dropped dramatically over the last 
8 years. The excuse used by the Justice Department is they do not have 
the resources. Let us change that today by making sure that they have 
adequate resources to prosecute these people who would prey on our 
children.
  Estimates are as high as 400,000 children who are victims of child 
pornography in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this 
excellent legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I

[[Page H6943]]

rise in opposition to H.R. 4710. It purports to add $5 million to the 
Department of Justice's 2001 budget for prosecuting obscenity cases. 
However, in reality, if the bill passes, it probably does not mean any 
new money to the Department to be used for this purpose. Rather it 
likely means that money already appropriated to the Department, of that 
money $5 million must be devoted to prosecuting obscenity cases.
  We are told by the Department prosecutors that this would mean that 
they would have $5 million less to prosecute other serious crimes, such 
as sexual exploitation, such as child pornography, and other serious 
crimes which may be a priority now in order to pursue adult obscenity 
cases.
  As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), my colleague, says, 
the bill restricts the $5 million to obscenity cases, which may not 
include child pornography, and certainly does not cover child 
exploitation, nor drug conspiracies, nor organized crime, nor repeat 
sexual abuse, sexual molestation cases, like the bill that we just 
finished with would have had, which we could clarify to make sure that 
these kinds of cases could be covered; but we are under the suspension 
of the rules and amendments are not allowed.
  Congress should not be managing the Department activities to this 
degree of detail. But even if we did, it makes no sense to prioritize 
adult obscenity prosecutions which are allowed under this bill over 
sexual exploitation and child pornography prosecutions.
  Rather than making an assessment of the Department of Justice's 
funding, which they would need to prosecute all serious crimes, 
including obscenity cases, we are now taking this potshot approach 
which prioritizes certain politically popular cases of the moment at 
the expense of prosecuting more serious offenses, including other 
offenses against children. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote no 
on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. DeMINT).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Illegal 
Pornography Prosecution Act introduced by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Largent), my friend. I want to commend the gentleman for 
introducing this important piece of legislation, because it addresses a 
growing and serious problem in our communities today, the proliferation 
of illegal hard-core pornography.
  Mr. Speaker, pornographic, obscene material is illegal. It has no 
protection from the first amendment, nor does it deserve it. Hard-core 
pornography appeals to the darkest side of humanity, and it debases the 
value and dignity of human life.
  Yet under the current administration, and this is the reason we need 
to specify, we have allowed obscenity to thrive in the streets of 
America. In fact, trading of this horrid material has grown 
exponentially in the last few years because of the new medium of the 
Internet.
  Let me repeat, pornography is illegal; yet it is thriving in America 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, this must change. H.R. 4710 authorizes $5 million in 
funding for the child exploitation and obscenity section of the 
Department of Justice. It is unconscionable that, while the current 
administration pays lip service to the concerns of millions of parents 
and families, their actions show a total disregard for common decency.
  The lack of prosecution has been so noticeable that in the last few 
years that the adult entertainment industry has acknowledged that it 
has had years of benevolent neglect from the Justice Department.
  Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. The children and families of 
America deserve better. My own hometown of Greenville, South Carolina, 
has recently waded through the disturbing discovery of patrons viewing 
pornography in the public library and inviting and even forcing 
children to view the disgusting material as well.
  After documenting the widespread and serious nature of the problem, 
the library board has taken strong and proper measures to curtail the 
abuses and to protect children in our community. But this illegal 
material should not even be available to the public in the first place.
  Pornography is illegal, and it should be treated as such; and those 
who trade in this illicit material should be prosecuted to the fullest 
extent of the law.
  The Justice Department already has the authority to prosecute on-line 
and off-line obscenity. It has had the general, if not specific, 
resources to do it. It has heard congressional concern on this issue 
for years, and it has done nothing. In fact, there has been a 
precipitous decline in the prosecution of cases.
  With H.R. 4710, the administration can no longer use the excuse that 
it does not have enough money. Congress with this bill is declaring 
that continued lack of action is unacceptable. We demand that the 
administration protect our children and our communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 4710, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this important bill.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) for yielding the time, as we may disagree on the merits of this 
bill, because I am one of the sponsors of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Largent) for his leadership on this legislation, and I rise in support 
of H.R. 4710. What this bill really does is it allows the Department of 
Justice to keep pace with the challenges posed by the Internet. 
Everyone is aware of the explosion of the Internet, the explosion of 
Web sites on the Internet, and with the aggressive marketing tactics of 
the adult entertainment industry.
  Obscene material is being brought into our homes of millions of 
American families, without their request or without our consent.
  Why is there obscenity, and why are we placing the emphasis on this 
legislation and why is it necessary? Because no one can even be sure of 
how many sites exist. Estimates range that those sites are from 40,000 
to 100,000. These sites feature all types of obscenity from child 
nudity to graphic sexual depictions. Adult entertainment sites on the 
Internet account for the third largest, it is the third largest sector 
of sales in cyberspace with an estimated $1 billion to $2 billion per 
year in revenue.
  Clearly, these Web sites have no incentive to regulate themselves or 
to restrict access by minors. Innocent adults and minors are 
increasingly encountering these sites. In fact, these sites are often 
used in spam e-mail and technical manipulations to trap someone in the 
site on-line, and they may not even need to escape while they are on-
line. Also as the Committee on Commerce noted in some hearings that we 
had this year, in the past because of sophisticated, yet easy to use 
navigating software, minors who can read and type are capable of 
conducting Web searches as easily as it is to operate a television in 
their own home.
  The $5 million that we authorize with this legislation provides 
essential service for the Justice Department to prosecute obscenity 
cases on the Internet and elsewhere. Obscenity is not protected speech, 
and it should not be protected just because we do not have the money to 
prosecute it. This bill will give it the authorization to put forth $5 
million to begin the crackdown on Internet obscenity.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Largent), my friend and colleague, to support this legislation that 
will fund this very important fight. I would hope that we would all 
support H.R. 4710, the Illegal Pornography Prosecution Act.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to strongly support 
this, and I understand that our job is to set priorities for the 
administration. There is no question in the debate that this has not 
been a priority for the administration.
  They have said that this has not been a priority, and no matter how 
much money we send to the Department of Justice, it behooves us to 
direct the spending of that money in this area.

[[Page H6944]]

  Mr. Speaker, I want to relate a couple of things to my colleagues. I 
delivered a 9-year-old child of a baby, 9 years old, pregnant and 
delivering her. I want to tell my colleagues that that is never going 
to be and never will be a positive circumstance. The kind of actions 
that brought about that situation are the very actions that we are 
trying to get the Justice Department to look at, to follow the law and 
to prosecute the law.
  The problem is much greater than we would say, because if, in fact, 
we look on the Internet today, under stop AIDS, we will find 
information under that category that is funded by our own CDC that 
lists how you participate in S&M sex. Also in that same area, it shows 
the same type of obscenity that we are paying for with our tax dollars 
to do that.
  So the question is, this bill does not go near far enough. This 
should just be the first step as we attack this attack on our children.

                              {time}  2215

  The other point that I would like to make, if this is an addictive 
procedure, we are big about protecting our children from tobacco, we 
are big about protecting our children from alcohol, we are big about 
protecting our children from drugs, we are big about talking about the 
violence that our children are seeing, but we are not big when it comes 
to one of the things that can undermine their future more than any 
other thing.
  So where is our priority? If we are really concerned about our 
children, then we ought to be concerned about every aspect that will 
undermine their future. This is one of, if not, the largest threat 
facing our children today, and I would hope that we would all support 
this legislation.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I serve on the subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations 
that funds the Department of Justice, and on March 8 of this year in 
the routine annual testimony, Attorney General Janet Reno came before 
our committee and I asked her specifically to answer six questions 
about the issue of illegal pornography. She could not answer the 
questions in person, so she asked for time to answer in writing.
  Today is July 25, and I have not heard the first word, the first 
answer, from the first question. I think that is unfortunate, because I 
do think this is an issue that we should in a bipartisan way meet at 
the water's edge. This is like national security, it is undermining, I 
think, the foundation of our country. I think it is important.
  People may say is this one set of people trying to impose their 
values on another set of people? And I would say there is a 
differential between pornography which is protected under the first 
amendment and illegal pornography, the way it is defined under Supreme 
Court rulings. There is a difference.
  This is the stuff we are all supposed to not approve of because it is 
illegal, and we are not prosecuting it, and the referrals are coming. 
All this says is it is time to make this a priority, because it is a 
cancer in our culture.
  We are in an unprecedented time of peace and prosperity, but people 
know there is a deeper issue here. These things cannot be good. As a 
matter of fact, this is the darkest side of humanity, and we need to 
draw a line and say it is not right, it is not just, it is a cancer, 
and this entire country of ours will fall and collapse on the weight of 
this kind of cultural flaw.
  The Word itself, the Good Book, says be wise as serpents, yet 
innocent as doves.
  We need to root this out, and we need to prosecute it in the United 
States of America for the next generation.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, for a long time this has been a concern of mine, and I 
do not know if we are approaching this in the right direction, but I do 
say that this is an important step, and I support this legislation.
  We always could do more. We always could be more precise. We will 
never find out unless we try. This initiative provides $5 million to 
the Criminal Division Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section to hire 
and train those individuals who will be able to prosecute cases that 
would arise under the chapter 71 of title XVIII.
  When we did the Telecommunications Act some few years ago, one of the 
concerns was how would we stop obscenity on the Internet or on the 
computer system? Unfortunately, at that time we had difficulty in 
passing legislation. In fact, I believe the Supreme Court overturned 
some legislation that we did include in that omnibus bill.
  We did manage to pass the V-Chip, which deals with television 
viewing, so parents could have control over their children and what 
they watch. Unfortunately, the Internet, the computer, is a vehicle and 
a tool that children are often using alone.
  What I am concerned about is there is a whole range of obscenity and 
pornography. There is the enticing of children through the Internet. I 
know that this legislation does not particularly deal with that, but I 
do think it is important for this Congress to go on record that we 
oppose the manipulation of our children and pornography concepts that 
our children may be exposed to as they are attempting to learn on the 
Internet.
  The Internet should be a learning tool for our children.
  I might just say my good friend from Oklahoma, who mentioned the 
Clinton Administration, I would hope and think that the administration 
is not opposed to fighting pornography on the Internet and would 
welcome this legislation.
  For that reason, let me say that I support the legislation, and as a 
cochair of the Democratic Task Force on Children, I believe all of us 
should be concerned about issues such as this and find a way to make 
the first step and then look to make legislative initiatives better, 
but to take the first step.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of closing comments. We have 
heard a lot of comments about obscenity is illegal and child 
pornography is illegal. The bill, unfortunately, restricts the use of 
this money to obscenity cases, not child pornography cases.
  Now, if we had a hearing and a markup, maybe we could cover what we 
want to cover, and I assume we are trying to cover child pornography. 
But you cannot use the $5 million to prosecute child pornography, 
because it is restricted just to obscenity.
  We heard the case of the 9-year-old mother, and obviously there is 
somebody out there that ought to be prosecuted for rape. This bill is 
restricted just to obscenity. You cannot use the money to prosecute 
those rapes.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we have $5 million. It has got to be taken out of 
something. Nobody said we ought to be prosecuting organized crime less 
or child rapes less or drug conspiracies less. They have not said that 
we ought to spend $5 million less on that. Obviously the money has to 
come from somewhere. It is not going to be additional money, because we 
have already had the appropriations bill pass the House.
  So I would hope that we would not get into the minutia of the Justice 
Department budget and take money from an area, when we have not said 
where it is coming from, particularly when it could be coming from the 
prosecutions that we wanted prosecuted, like child pornography, which 
is illegal, but which you can use this money for.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a cancer in our culture today, and it literally 
is corroding our national character. The problem of illegal pornography 
is a cancer, eating away at America. Unless we begin to aggressively 
treat this cancer by prosecuting it as the law says and intends, it 
will continue to attack our marriages, our children, and our society.
  It used to be that we were concerned about the dirty little bookstore 
down

[[Page H6945]]

at the end of the street and the problems of criminal behavior and 
declining property values associated with it. Now the aggressive 
marketing tactics of the pornography industry have brought such 
material directly into the family rooms, our schools, our libraries, 
and offices of millions of Americans.
  Do we think the social costs and community problems associated with 
those adult book stores have diminished just because it is on the 
Internet? Absolutely not. Instead, they have become more internalized 
and more destructive and more pervasive because of their accessibility, 
their affordability and the fact that you can now be anonymous. That is 
the nature of illegal pornography on the Internet today.
  So what is the extent of the problem? Well, as has been mentioned 
already, estimates range somewhere between 40,000 and 100,000 Web sites 
are pornographic in nature today, and 200 new Web sites are created 
each day devoted to pornography, most of it illegal pornography, or 
``obscenity'' as the legal term of art. Adult entertainment sites on 
the Internet account for the third largest sector of sales in 
cyberspace, with an estimated $1 to $2 billion per year in revenue on 
the Internet alone.
  It is a well-known fact that the largest consumer group of this 
pornography is young boys ages 12 to 17 years old in this country. In 
fact, the average age of exposure because of the Internet has fallen to 
the age of 11. Illegal pornography is teaching an entire generation of 
young men distorted values about their sexuality, about marriage, about 
healthy relationships with women and respect for others. Rapists, for 
example, it has been found, are 15 times more likely to have had 
exposure to hard-core pornography during childhood.
  So what exactly has the Department of Justice done in response to 
this epidemic, this cancer, in our culture? Prosecutions of obscenity 
have dropped over 75 percent since 1992, this at a time when 
pornography has become ubiquitous in our culture today, giving a false 
sense of legitimacy to the pornography industry. In fact, there have 
been porn industry people that have actually gone with public offerings 
now on the stock exchanges. The Department of Justice has turned a 
blind eye to this cancer, allowing America's children to be bombarded 
with obscenity.
  In a Committee on Commerce subcommittee hearing in May of this year, 
the Department of Justice said that the prosecution of obscenity has 
not been a priority for them. In fact, it was suggested that if we gave 
them $50 million more, that they still would refuse to prosecute 
obscenity. So money is not the issue. It is the fact that this is not a 
priority. They stated that in the subcommittee hearing that I 
participated in and actually called for.
  Furthermore, they could not name a single major distributor or 
producer of obscenity, although most Americans access these sites 
accidentally by searching through innocent key words on the Internet. 
This at a time when we would like to sit here in Congress and say well, 
you know, the real producers and purveyors of pornography, they are not 
from this country. But that is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I would tell you that the facts are that America is the 
leading producer and promoter of pornography in the world today, in the 
world. We are leading in producing material that is degrading towards 
women, and yet the DOJ was unaware of even one major producer.
  But what does the adult industry say about the Department of 
Justice's turning a blind eye? Here is what Adult Video News said, a 
trade magazine for the porn industry. They reported in 1996, ``There 
have been fewer Federal prosecutions of the adult industry under 
Clinton than under Reagan and Bush. With no reason to change his hands-
nearly-off porn policy, vote for Mr. Clinton.''
  In March 1998, following just six obscenity prosecutions in 1997 by 
all 93 U.S. Attorneys, the same magazine announced, ``It's a great time 
to be an adult retailer.''
  In March of this year, the Adult Entertainment Monthly, another 
publication for the porn industry, mused over how unlikely it is that 
the adult entertainment industry will enjoy the same ``benevolent 
neglect'' under the next administration that the industry has enjoyed 
under Janet Reno.
  Lieutenant Ken Seibert of the Los Angeles Administrative Vice Unit, 
quoted in the Los Angeles Daily News, stated, ``Adult obscenity 
enforcement by the Federal Government is practically nonexistent since 
the administration changed in 1992.''
  Porn video distributor David Schlesinger told TV Guide in 1998, 
``President Clinton is a total supporter of the porn industry, and he's 
always been on our team.''
  These are not my quotes, these are not Republican quotes, these are 
the quotes from the porn industry itself. Just today a porn industry 
legal analyst stated, ``On the Federal side the industry has not seen a 
Federal prosecution in years.'' That is what the porn industry legal 
analyst said.
  H.R. 4710 is important. It is an important first step towards 
prodding the DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section to 
prosecute obscenity and also holding them accountable to do so. H.R. 
4710 authorizes $5 million in funding for the Child Exploitation and 
Obscenities Section of the Department of Justice for the prosecution of 
obscenity exclusively.
  Obscenity is illegal under Federal law. Obscenity has been defined by 
the Supreme Court. Obscenity is not protected by the first amendment, 
and the vast majority of Americans believe obscenity laws should be 
vigorously enforced.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4710, which is a 
vote to prosecute obscenity, to uphold the law, and to protect our 
children from illegal pornography.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4710.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________