Statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS HEARING ON
“MAKING THE INTERNET SAFE FOR KIDS: THE ROLE OF ISP’S AND SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES”

June 28, 2006

Mr. Chairman, let me add my congratulations for an excellent series of hearings regarding the scourge of child pornography over the Internet. You, Rep. Stupak, and the other members of the Subcommittee have done a commendable job identifying the many methods used by the pedophiles and predators who abuse our children for perverted fun and profit. You have also identified many of the weaknesses in our system that allows this abuse to flourish.

Industry counterparts in the United Kingdom have volunteered to do their part – why can’t ours? In the United Kingdom, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must take down every site identified as child pornography by national and international law enforcement within 48 hours of notification. Further, these Internet firms must block all users of their platforms from accessing identified child porn sites worldwide.

Moreover, I note that if these technology companies also find an effective way to block identified images from being transferred over their networks, they could make a considerable dent in the for-profit business of supplying pictures and videos of raped, defiled, and tortured children.

The Internet industry must also find more effective ways of cooperating with law enforcement. Why can’t data that links IP addresses to physical locations be stored longer and accessed on a much more timely basis in response to the subpoenas from Federal, State, and local investigators? Why shouldn’t all information relating to identified child porn sites be promptly forwarded to law enforcement and stored for use in future prosecutions?

There also needs to be continuing oversight of the Federal agencies that under current law are responsible for dealing with this problem. The Attorney General makes quite a point of the priority this Administration places on catching and prosecuting these predators. But does his Department’s child exploitation section share his urgency? Where are the regulations necessary to ensure consistent and effective ISP reporting of offending images? Why are ISPs not even required to register, resulting in less than 20 percent of these firms reporting any child porn information to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children? And there are serious questions whether the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission have the authority and resources necessary to provide much oversight.

Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies have done an excellent job, given the limited resources available. We must provide more funding, particularly for the interagency Internet Crimes Against Children taskforces that are fighting the uphill battle against those who abuse children. More funds need to be appropriated for forensic computer capability so that prosecutions can proceed on a timely basis.

We must act aggressively to address this epidemic of evil that threatens our children. Today’s hearing, which will shed further light on these new social networking Web sites that have captivated so many of our children and provided such a fertile hunting ground for predators, is an important step. I look forward to working with all my colleagues to fight this scourge.

- 30 -

(Contact: Jodi Seth, 202-225-3641)