Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 120 (Monday, October 2, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 120 (Monday, October 2, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8578-H8580]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STOP MATERIAL UNSUITABLE FOR TEENS ACT

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 4147) to amend title 18, United States Code, to
increase the age of persons considered to be minors for the purposes of
the prohibition on transporting obscene materials to minors.

[[Page H8579]]

The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 4147

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 ``Stop Material Unsuitable for
Teens Act''.

SEC. 2. AGE INCREASE.

Section 1470 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``16'' each place it appears and inserting ``18''.

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

General Leave

Mr. CANADY of Florida. 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 H.R. 4147.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4147, the Stop Material
Unsuitable for Teens Act.
In 1998, the Congress passed and the President signed into law the
Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act. This legislation
sought to address many practices carried out to the detriment of our
youth. This included halting child pornography online to cracking down
on violent offenders.
H.R. 4147 would simply include those children under the age of 18 to
the list of those who should be protected from harmful and potentially
damaging material.
The Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act also contained
new language which provided for enhanced penalties for individuals who
knowingly transfer obscene materials to juveniles whether through the
mail or interstate commerce. These enhanced penalties carry the weight
of up to 10 years incarceration, and/or applicable fines, compared with
previous federal statutes under Title 18 of the United States Code that
only carried a penalty of 5 years.
The bill is important for it builds upon the efforts of this body to
regulate and stem the flood of obscene material throughout this
country.
H.R. 4147 would build upon the efforts taken in 1998 to increase
penalties against transferring obscene materials to juveniles under 16
years of age. It would raise the age limit for enhanced penalties for
transfer to juveniles to 18 years of age and close the loophole left in
the law by not protecting youth between the ages of 16 and 18.
If this body is going to act on behalf of our children and concerned
parents in limiting exposure to obscene materials, then we should act
accordingly and across the board for all juveniles.
The bill would not limit any material that is protected by the First
Amendment. It would only limit the material which is defined as
obscene.
The Supreme Court has gone on record several times as saying that
obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. Additionally,
the Supreme Court has defined ``obscenity'' on several other occasions.
The bill in no way will prohibit the exchange of protected material
and is designed solely to protect all children from what is clearly
inappropriate material. More than 32 years ago, the Court recognized
the harm to minors from pornography and the need to protect minor
children from pornography in the case of Ginsberg v. New York. The
Court ruled that protecting children from exposure to pornography is a
``transcendent interest'' of government because it concerns ``the
health, safety, welfare and morals of its community by barring the
distribution to children of books recognized to be suitable for
adults.''
Furthermore, obscene material is an effective tool in the hands of
predators. Pedophiles use the material as part of the seduction process
of children. It is used to engage children and lure them into
activities that pedophiles find acceptable and the rest of us find
deplorable.
This bill, in short, would extend protection from pedophiles to those
under the age of 18.

{time} 1600

I would ask all my colleagues to support our children and support
this bill. We should make sure that those who would seek to spread this
filth knowingly to our children be ready to pay the price of up to 10
years behind bars. I believe strongly that it is the role of this body
to protect children across the Nation from both direct violent harm and
also from the type of harm that comes from being confronted with this
kind of material at such a young age.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this came to our attention late Friday afternoon that it
would be on suspension and not available for amendment or any
discussion. So I have been having a little trouble getting the details
on it. We have contacted the sentencing commission that indicated a
problem with the bill and, that is, there are certain sentencing
inconsistencies. For example, if an 18-year-old were to have consensual
sex with a 17-year-old, that would not be a Federal crime nor a crime
in most States. However, if they shared dirty pictures, then that would
be a Federal crime. Perhaps the sponsor of the bill or someone on the
other side could explain to me what the probable effect of this
legislation would be for the 18-year-old sharing pictures with a 17-
year-old, what the effect of this legislation would be.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, the bill sets out the parameters very
specifically, referring only to materials unsolicited, and in a case
where someone is transferring that kind of material using the
interstate, transferring that kind of material, unsolicited to anybody,
they would be affected by the measures in this bill.
Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman would respond, what would be the
difference in sentencing? If the two went from Washington, D.C. to
Northern Virginia and had consensual sex and shared dirty pictures,
what would be the effect of this bill? It is already illegal to share
those dirty pictures right now. It would be a Federal offense. What
would be the impact of this bill on that Federal crime?
Mr. TANCREDO. If the gentleman will yield further, I do not know that
there would be any impact of this bill on the particular situation that
the gentleman identifies. Two people engaged in consensual sex, of
course, that has nothing to do with this piece of legislation. Sharing
materials at that point in time has nothing to do with this
legislation. Quote, ``dirty pictures,'' as the gentleman characterizes
it, I do not know that that has anything to do with this legislation
because, of course, the Supreme Court has already determined that you
can distinguish between certain materials that some people would find
objectionable to the kind of materials that this covers, which are
strictly pornographic. It is the transfer of that material, unsolicited
transfer of that material, from one person to another underage that
this deals with. So I do not think, unless I mistook the gentleman's
characterization of this particular action, that it would have any
impact.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, in all due respect, I did not get an answer
to my question. The bill would have an impact. I have not been able to
determine exactly what that impact would be. But the point of the
consensual sex was that they could be in bed not committing an offense
and as soon as the 18-year-old showed some obscene pictures to the 17-
year-old, then you would have a Federal crime. That is the present law.
You cannot distribute obscene material. My question was, what would the
impact of this bill have on that situation, because apparently there
would be an enhanced punishment. I have not been able to ascertain what
the enhancement would be.
Mr. TANCREDO. Once again, the bill is very specific about the method
of transfer of the material we are talking about. In what you describe,
there is no effect from this particular piece of legislation. It has
got nothing to do with it.

[[Page H8580]]

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. This is a very simple bill. It amends a
statutory provision, which I will read. It is short enough for us to
read right here and see what is being amended. The prohibition is this:
``Whoever using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or
foreign commerce knowingly transfers obscene matter to another
individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, that is currently
in the statute, the bill raises that to 18 years, knowing that such
other individual has not attained the age of, raised from 16 years to
18 years, or attempts to do so shall be fined under this title,
imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.''
But it requires the use of the mail or other facilities or means of
interstate or foreign commerce.
Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman would respond, that would include e-mail
or any other interstate commerce, could mean you could take it across
the State line from Washington, D.C. to Northern Virginia.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice concerns
regarding H.R. 4147, the Stop Material Unsuitable for Teens Act, which
is before the House today under suspension. This bill should it become
law would raise the age of minors to whom adults could be penalized for
giving obscene materials from age 16 to age 18.
I would hope that this measure would offer some additional protection
to children from those who would do them harm, but it appears that this
bill will be going over ground that has already been covered by the
passage into law of the Protection of Children From Sexual Predators
Act (PL 105-314).
This law would amend the Protection of Children From Sexual Predators
Act which prohibits transferring obscene material through the Internet
or mail to children under 16 years of age. Violators under current law
are subject to a mandatory prison sentence of 10 years.
Should the effort to pass this legislation be successful, I would
hope that in keeping with the spirit of this change in the law I would
hope that the definition of adult would also be amended. Because I
believe that it would be judicially unproductive should an 18-year-old
be found in violation of this law by providing inappropriate material
to another 18-year-old and made to endure the full penalty that this
bill provides for.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4147.
The question was taken.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. 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.

____________________