The Senate voted to pass the Telecomm bill last Thursday (2/1/96). If you are also an avid vote counter, the tally was 91 AYEs, 5 NOES, and 3 not voting. The NOES were Feingold (D-WI), Leahy (D-VT), McCain (R-AZ), Simon (D-IL), and Wellstone (D-MN). The "not voting" were Dodd (D-CT), Gramm (R-TX), and Rockefeller (D-WV).

What follows are Mr. Feingold's remarks to the Senate:

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report on S. 652, the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

I know, Mr. President, that the conferees have made a number of improvements to this legislation and that many of the stakeholders in this bill are pleased with the results.

And it is with regret that I must oppose this bill. But I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for legislation that I believe violates our fundamental first amendment rights to freedom of expression.

The Internet indecency provisions of S.652, as passed in the Senate, remain virtually intact in the conference report. I am referring to the sections of this bill which would subject to criminal penalties constitutionally protected speech via interactive telecommunications networks--the so-called Internet Indecency provisions.

The sponsors of the Internet provisions have good intentions --to protect children from those who might use the Internet to harm them. Sadly, there are those who will use the Internet , as they will use any tool, to victimize children. The sponsors of the Internet provisions of this bill have pointed to the obscene materials and child pornography that can be accessed via the Internet . To be sure, Mr. President, it is out there.

Unfortunately, the provisions in this bill will do very little, if anything to protect children. That is because much of what the proponents of this legislation wish to banish from cyberspace is already subject to criminal penalties--obscenity, child pornography and child exploitation via computer networks are already criminal acts. So, if that is the case, what exactly does the provision in the conference report cover? It covers `indecent' speech which is afforded far greater constitutional protection than obscenity which is not protected by the first amendment. What is indecent speech? Indecent speech may include mild profanity that children hear on the playground well before they read it on a computer screen. While that language may be offensive to some, it is protected by the first amendment.

Mr. President, I have found the rhetoric of the Internet debate interesting. The terms obscenity and indecency have been used interchangeably even though they have very different meanings. I have heard parents voice legitimate concerns about the obscene materials available via computer networks. I have heard them express outrage that their children are solicited by adults for exploitative purposes. But I have never heard a parent say there is too much profanity on the Internet . And yet, that is precisely what this bill covers. Rather than addressing the enforcement needs of existing law, it adds unnecessary to provisions to criminal statutes.

That is a fundamental flaw, Mr. President. The legislation does not address the problem it seeks to solve. This does nothing more than current law does to prevent obscenity on the Internet . Instead, this bill steps in and decides for parents which speech is appropriate for their children and which is not. I would contend, Mr. President, that is the role of parents, not the federal government, particularly given that technology exists for parents to block objectionable material.

I think, Mr. President, this legislation will do more harm than good. Will parents become less observant of their childrens' use of the Internet now that they think the government has solved the problem? Will they fail to use the technology available to them to regulate their children's access to sites on the Internet ? I fear that they will because the U.S. Congress has led them to believe that these new provisions protect children when in fact, they do not.

This legislation which provides no additional protection for children comes at a great cost--our rights to free speech over the Internet . This legislation, when it becomes law, will establish different standards for the same speech appearing in different media. More protection will be afforded for profanity that appears in a library book than for the same text which appears on-line.

Equally important, this legislation will require all adults to self censor the speech on public newsgroups on USENET to what is appropriate for children in the most conservative American communities. This legislation will bring about the immediate demise of many socially valuable forums on the Internet . It will likely happen as quickly as CompuServe dumped some 200 newsgroups from their network after a German prosecutor suggested they might violate German law.

I have come to this floor many times to speak on this topic and I will not take the Senate's time to reiterate the many arguments against these provisions.

I do think, Mr. President, that this is a sad day on the Senate floor. That the Internet indecency provisions have met with the barest resistance in this chamber, indicates how quickly this Congress is willing to abandon the United States Constitution in favor of political expediency.

My hope, Mr. President, is that the expedited judicial review process provided for in this bill, will quickly lead to a judgment that the Internet indecency provisions are unconstitutional. In the meantime, Mr. President, I will work toward solutions that will protect children on the Internet without trampling on the first amendment.