[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20329-20331]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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

[[Page 20330]]

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.
  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,

[[Page 20331]]

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.

                          ____________________