[Senate Report 106-141]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 262
106th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 106-141
_______________________________________________________________________
CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION ACT
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 97
August 5, 1999.--Ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
69-010 WASHINGTON : 1999
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred sixth congress
first session
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
SLADE GORTON, Washington JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA SNOWE, Maine JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
BILL FRIST, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan RON WYDEN, Oregon
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MAX CLELAND, Georgia
Mark Buse, Staff Director
Martha P. Allbright, General Counsel
Ivan A. Schlager, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic General Counsel
(ii)
Calendar No. 262
106th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 106-141
======================================================================
CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION ACT
_______
August 5, 1999.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. McCain, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 97]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 97) ``A bill to require the
installation and use by schools and libraries of a technology
for filtering or blocking material on the Internet on computers
with Internet access to be eligible to receive or retain
universal service assistance'', having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a
substitute) and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the bill is to protect America's children from
exposure to obscene material, child pornography, or other
material deemed inappropriate for minors while accessing the
Internet from a school or library receiving Federal Universal
Service assistance for provisions of Internet access, Internet
service, or internal connection.
Background and Needs
The Internet and Universal Service
The Internet is an international, cooperative computer
network that links many types of users, such as governments,
schools, libraries, corporations, hospitals and individuals.
Information and communications are exchanged via the Internet
through various means, including E-mail, Usenet news groups,
chat rooms, and the web sites on the World Wide Web (the Web).
There has been a dramatic expansion in Internet connections
over the last several years, with more than a 13-fold increase
in the Internet host computer count between 1994 and 1998. The
Internet connects more than 29 million host computers in more
than 250 countries. Currently, the Internet is growing at a
rate of approximately 40 percent to 50 percent annually. Some
estimates of the number of U.S. Internet users are as high as
62 million. More than half of the computers connected to the
Internet reside in the United States. UUnet, an Internet access
provider, estimates that Internet traffic is doubling every
four days.
Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 added a new
subsidy to the traditional Universal Service program, commonly
referred to as the Schools and Libraries Discount, or E-rate.
As implemented by the Federal Communications Commission (the
Commission), the E-rate is a $2.25 billion annual subsidy aimed
at connecting schools and libraries to the Internet. The
subsidy is funded through charges on individual consumers'
phone bills.
There are approximately 86,000 public schools in the United
States.\1\ From 1997 to 1998, the percentage of public
classrooms connected to the Internet nearly doubled, from 27
percent to 51 percent. During that same time, the percentage of
public schools connected to the Internet rose from 78 percent
to 89 percent.\2\ At the conclusion of the first program year
of the E-rate, the Schools and Libraries Corporation (SLC),
responsible for administration of the E-rate subsidy program,
had processed 30,120 applications and funded 25,785.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ QED 1997-98 Education Market Guide.
\2\ Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sexually Explicit Material On-line
Though the Internet represents tremendous potential in
bringing previously unimaginable education and information
opportunities to our nation's children, there are very real
risks associated with the use of the Internet. Pornography,
including obscene material, child pornography, and indecent
material is available on the Internet. This material may be
accessed directly and intentionally, or may turn up as the
unintended product of a general Internet search. Though, due to
the amorphous nature of the Internet, it is difficult to
establish precisely the amount of pornography available on the
Internet, according to the National Journal, there are ``at
least 30,000 pornographic Web sites.'' \3\ This number does not
include Usenet news groups, and pornographic spam. Further, the
aggressive tactics of commercial pornographers on the Internet
expose children to random, and unintended exposure to sexually
explicit material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Journal, ``The Web's Pornucopia,'' January 9, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vast majority of Internet users utilize Internet
browsers, such as Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Explorer, to
navigate the Internet. There are two basic methods to
conducting Internet searches. The first is to type in a
specific site address, which will take the user directly to
that location. The second, more general approach, is to type in
general keywords which will result in a list of ``hits,'' or
sites containing combinations of the keywords.
Search engines, such as Yahoo, Alta Vista, and Lycos contain
databases that store web site addresses. Users type in keyword
commands into search engines that scan the database in search
of web site addresses that include these terms. It is during
these keyword searches that children are at the greatest risk
of exposure to harmful material. Because search engines possess
no artificial intelligence, they will retrieve any site that
includes the key words. Due to the aggressive tactics of
commercial pornographers, children are at risk of random
exposure to sexually explicit material through these types of
keyword searches. ``Web surfers looking for porn typically tap
into such search services and use keywords like `sex' and
`XXX'. But so many on-line sex shops now display those words
that their presence won't make a site stand out in a list
resulting from a user's query. To get noticed, pornographers
increasingly try to trick search engines into giving them top
billing--sometimes called spoofing.'' \4\ For example, search
terms such as ``water baby,'' a popular child's doll, and
``home schooling'' will produce commercial Web sites displaying
graphic, sexually explicit material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Fortune, ``The Erotic Allure of Home Schooling,'' September 8,
1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure to Sexually Explicit Material is Harmful to Children
Natural sexual development occurs gradually, throughout
childhood. Exposure of children to pornography distorts this
natural development by shaping sexual perspective through
premature exposure to sexual information and imagery. ``The
result is a set of distorted beliefs about human sexuality.
These shared distorted beliefs include: pathological behavior
is normal, is common, hurts no one, and is socially acceptable,
the female body is for male entertainment, sex is not about
intimacy and sex is the basis of self-esteem.'' \5\ ``Many
people--including children and adolescents--learn about sex
through pornography; it shapes their beliefs, attitudes, and
expectations * * *. The prevalence of violent, abusive, and
degrading pornography can induce beliefs that practices are not
only common, but acceptable.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Testimony, Mary Anne Layden Ph.D., Director of Education,
Center for Cognitive Therapy, University of Pennsylvania, Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, March 4, 1999.
\6\ Neil Postman, The Disappearance of Childhood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet presents a unique threat to normal sexual
development in children by playing upon common elements that
contribute generally to antisocial behavior in children.
``Research indicates that there are three factors that produce
the best environment to stimulate antisocial behavior in
children; it is the combination of anonymity, role models of
behavior and arousal. Internet Web sites possess exactly those
three factors.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Testimony, Mary Anne Layden Ph.D., Director of Education,
Center for Cognitive Therapy, University of Pennsylvania, Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Hearing on Internet Filtering,
March 4, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child Pornography and Pedophiles On-line
The threat to children posed by unrestricted Internet access
is not limited to exposure to simple pornography. There are
increasing incidents of pedophiles utilizing the Internet to
lure and seduce children into illegal and abusive sexual
activity. In many cases, such activity is the product of
individuals, taking advantage of the anonymity provided by the
Internet to stalk children through chatrooms, and by E-mail.
However, an increasingly disturbingtrend is that of highly
organized, and technologically sophisticated groups of pedophiles who
utilize advanced technology to trade in child pornography, and to
sexually exploit and abuse children.
In 1996, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on police
efforts to break up an international ring of pedophiles
operating through an on-line chatroom known as the ``Orchid
Club.'' This case underscores both the technological
sophistication of such activities, and the unique challenge of
protecting children who may explore a global communications
medium. ``The case appears to be the first incident where
pornography on the Internet has been linked to an incident of
child molestation that was transmitted on-line. Prosecutors
said members produced and traded child pornography involving
victims as young as five years old, swapped stories of having
sex with minors and in one instance chatted online while two
suspects molested a 10-year-old girl.'' \8\ Sixteen men were
indicted, including individuals from across the United States,
Australia, Canada, and Finland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ San Francisco Chronicle, ``Child Porn Ring on Internet,'' July
17, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tragically, the ``Orchid Club'' arrests only served notice of
an emerging trend. In 1998, the U.S. Customs Service, in
coordination with law enforcement officials from 13 other
countries, conducted a raid on the ``Wonderland Club.'' In
order to ``join'' the Wonderland Club, prospective members had
to provide 10,000 images of child pornography, which were then
digitally cross-referenced against the club's data base of more
than 500,000 images of children to ensure their originality.
``The images depict everything from sexual abuse to the actual
rape of children--some as young as 18 months. Some club members
in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia * * * owned
production facilities and transmitted live child-sex shows over
the Web. Club members directed the sex acts by sending
instruction to the producers via Wondernet chat rooms. `They
had standards,' said a law enforcement official involved in the
case. `The only thing they banned was [sic] snuff pictures, the
actual killing of somebody'.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Time, ``Main Street Monsters,'' September 14, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet as a Tool for Spreading Hate, Illicit Drug Use
Information, and Bomb-making Information
Increasingly, the Internet is being used as a tool for
disseminating information and propaganda promoting racism,
anti-Semitism, extremism, and how-to manuals on everything from
drugs to bombs.
Rapid Internet growth has provided an opportunity for those
promoting hate to reach a much broader audience. Our nation's
youth, who are literally growing up in a digital age, are
uniquely susceptible to these messages of hate. Through
Internet access at home, school, and in public libraries,
children can now be exposed to extremely hateful and dangerous
information, and material that previous generations would
likely not have encountered in their entire lifetime. ``They
(hate groups) peddle hatred to children, with brightly colored
Web pages featuring a coloring book of white supremacist
symbols and a crossword puzzle full of racist clues.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ New York Times, ``Hate Groups Seeking Broader Reach,'' July
17, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who would promote division and hatred have always
utilized media propaganda as a means for spreading their toxic
message. Magazines, pamphlets, movies, music and other means
have been their traditional tools. However, with the advent of
the World Wide Web, and digital convergence, these
organizations are able to deliver a multimedia hate message
through every computer, and potentially into the minds of every
child with a computer and a mouse. Images of burning crosses,
Neo-Nazi propaganda, every imaginable message of division and
hatred are just one click away from our children. ``Many sites
operated by neo-nazis, skinheads, Klu Klux Klan members and
followers of radical religious sects are growing more
sophisticated, offering inviting Web environments that are
designed to be attractive to children and young adults.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Post Intelligencer, ``Nazism on the Internet,'' March 18,
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The software filtering industry estimates that, of the 40,000
to 60,000 new Web pages found each week, about 180 are hate or
discrimination pages, 2,500 to 7,500 are adult sites, 400 are
dedicated to violence, 1,250 are dedicated to weapons, and 50
are murder-suicide sites.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ New York Law Journal, ``Extreme Speech on the Internet,'' June
9, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instruction manuals on bomb-making, weapons purchases, drug
making and purchasing, are generally available on the Internet.
With simple word searches using ``marijuana,'' kids can access
web sites instructing them on how to cultivate, buy, and
consume the drug.\13\ Similar searches on bomb-making produce
the same result. ``The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
recently ran a simple Internet query for the term ``pipe
bomb,'' using several commonly used search engines. This query
produced nearly three million ``hits'' of Web sites containing
information on pipe bombs.'' \14\ As with hate speech, the
Internet represents an unprecedented opportunity for the
distribution of literature and information regarding illegal
drug activity, bomb-making, and terrorism. Literature such as
the ``Terrorist's Handbook'' is easily available on-line, and
provides readers with instruction on everything from how to
build guns and bombs, to lists of suppliers for the chemicals,
and other ingredients necessary to construct such devices.\15\
Another Web site offers the ``School Stopper's Textbook,''
touted as ``A Guide to Disruptive Revolutionary Tactics for
High-Schoolers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Examples: (www.redshift.coni/arnes/growl.html),
(www.peretto.com/index.html).
\14\ Testimony, Special Agent Mark James, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Hearing on Internet Filtering, May 20, 1999.
\15\ Example: (http://come.to/anarchy/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocking and Filtering Technology
Software companies have created technology applications that
seek to protect children from exposure to inappropriate
material that is disseminated and available on the Internet.
Such technology has existed for several years. There are two
basic categories of such technology, blocking and filtering.
``There are now close to ninety different solutions from which
parents and educators can choose to address just about every
different need and value system.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Testimony, Gordon Ross, President and CEO of Net Nanny
Software, International, Inc., Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation, Hearing on Internet Filtering, March 4, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocking software prevents access to Web sites or E-mail
addresses preprogrammed into the software. These products
include N2H2, Cyber Patrol, Cyber Sitter, Net Nanny, X-Stop,
Net Shepherd, and others. Parents, teachers, or librarians can
add or remove sites from the program. Further, the
manufacturers regularly update the blocking lists, adding new
sites, and removing ones that are no longer in operation.
Filtering software screens sites based on keywords and rating
systems. Like blocking software, filtering programs can be
modified by the user, allowing them to add and remove keywords
to be filtered.
The strengths of these various systems have been questioned.
Some have criticized blocking software because it only filters
predetermined sites. Due to the sheer size of the Internet, and
the pace at which it changes, some have argued that it is
impossible to keep blocking lists current and comprehensive.
Others have argued that filtering systems are too arbitrary,
that filtering by keyword may result in blocking both harmful
sites and useful sites. ``A general perception exists that
Internet filtering is seriously flawed and in many situations
unusable. It is also perceived that schools and libraries don't
want filtering. These notions are ``based largely on problems
associated with earlier versions of client-based software that
are admittedly crude and ineffective. Though some poor
filtering products still exist, filtering has gone through an
extensive evolution and is not only good at protecting children
but also well-received and in high demand.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Testimony, Peter Nickerson, CEO and President of N2H2, Inc.,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Hearing on
Internet Filtering, May 20, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Libraries and schools making a good faith use of blocking or
filtering software to protect children or to avoid illegal
materials for adults would be protected from civil liability by
the ``Good Samaritan'' immunity, provided by Federal law. See
47 U.S.C. 230(e)(2). Such blocking or filtering software could
also provide a criminal defense against the knowing
transmission of illegal pornography inadvertently or
deliberately accessed.
The Committee wishes to reinforce that it does not believe
that the use of blocking and filtering technologies is in any
way a substitute for aggressive and responsible oversight by
teachers and librarians. Such technologies are intended to be a
supplement to, not a replacement for, teacher and librarian
efforts to protect children while on-line. Further, the
Committee views such technologies as learning resources. For
example, the use of such technologies in conjunction with
ethical use policies designed to teach children responsibility
and accountability provides both the assurance that children
will be protected from illegal and harmful material while
providing the opportunity to teach responsibility and
accountability in a safe environment.
First Amendment Issues: The Government Has a Compelling Interest in
Protecting Children
The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the compelling
interest of the government in protecting children from exposure
tosexually explicit material.\18\ As stated by the Court: ``It
is evident beyond the need for elaboration that the State's interest in
safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor is
compelling.'' \19\ A school or library, by accepting Federal dollars
through the Universal Service fund, becomes a partner with the Federal
government in pursuing this compelling interest. The Supreme Court has
made clear that schools have the authority to remove inappropriate
books from school libraries. \20\ The Internet is simply another method
for making information available in a school or library. It is no more
than a technological extension of the book stack. As such, the same
principles affirmed by the Court in Bethel apply to restricting
children's access to material, over the Internet, in a school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 636-43 (1968); FCC v.
Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 748-50 (1978); New York v. Ferber,
458 U.S. 747, 757 (1982); Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC,
492 U.S. 115, 126-28 (1989); Denver Area Ed. Tel. Consortium v. FCC,
116 S. Ct. 2374, 2391 (1996); Reno v. ACLU, 117 S. Ct. 2329 (1997).
\19\ Ferber at 757.
\20\ Bethel School District. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 684
(1986): ``This Court's First Amendment jurisprudence has acknowledged
limitations on the otherwise absolute interest of the speaker in
reaching unlimited audience where the speech is sexually explicit and
the audience may include children. In Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S.
629, 88 S.Ct. 1274, 20 L.Ed.2d 195 (1968), this Court upheld a New York
Statute banning the sale of sexually oriented material to minors, even
though the material in question was entitled to First Amendment
protection with respect to adults. And in addressing the question
whether the First Amendment places any limit on the authority of public
schools to remove books from a public school library, all Members of
the Court, otherwise sharply divided, acknowledged that the school
board has the authority to remove books that are vulgar. Board of
Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 871-872, 102 S.Ct. 2799, 2814-2815, 73
L.Ed.2d 435 (1982)(plurality opinion); id,. at 879-881, 102 S.Ct., at
2814-2815 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring in part and in judgment); id., at
918-920, 102 S.Ct., at 2834-2835 (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting). These
cases recognize the obvious concern on the part of parents, and school
authorities acting in loco parentis, to protect children--especially in
a captive audience--from exposure to sexually explicit, indecent, or
lewd speech.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents of S. 97 point to a Federal district court decision
in Mainstream Loudoun v. Bd. Of Trustees of Loudoun County
Library, 24 F. Supp.2d 552 (E.D.Va. 1998), in which that
library's use of Internet filtering software was declared
unconstitutional. However, there are distinct differences
between the requirements under S. 97, and the Mainstream
Loudoun case. A major distinction in S. 97 is that this bill is
an incentive subsidy and not a police power statute that is
binding on the public. Another critical distinction is that
filters were used on all computers in the Loudoun case (both
computers used by adults and by children), where as, under S.
97, blocking or filtering is required only while a computer is
in use by a minor. Further, under S. 97, content which is
specifically required to be blocked, child pornography and
obscene material, enjoys no protection under the First
Amendment. \21\ On the other hand, in the Loudoun case, the
libraries were required to block material that was ``harmful to
minors,'' speech that is not traditionally considered to lie
outside of First Amendment protection. ``It must also be noted
that the Loudoun court did hold that minimizing access to
illegal pornography and avoidance of creation of a sexually
hostile environment are compelling interests. The court went on
to hold that, although the challenged policy was over inclusive
because it restricted adult Internet access, it would be
possible to create a policy which would protect children. Id.
at 567.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 474, 481 (1982), Miller v.
California, 414 U.S. 15, 24-25, 27 (1973).
\22\ Testimony, Jay Sekulow Esq., The American Center for Law and
Justice, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Hearing on Internet Filtering, March 4, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in addressing these issues, a court is also
likely to look to related, non-Internet situations that have
arisen in the past. These precedents include decisions
regarding the selection or removal of books in schools or
libraries, and the selection of content for publication in
school-sponsored student newspapers. The Supreme Court has
ruled that schools are non-public forums that are outside the
general marketplace of expression. Accordingly, school boards
have significant discretion to restrict content and expression
within that environment. \23\ Under this doctrine, school
officials only violate the First Amendment when they limit
access to materials ``for the purpose of restricting access to
the political ideas or social perspectives discussed in them,
when that action is motivated simply by the official's
disapproval of the ideas involved.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 482 U.S. 260, 273
(1988).
\24\ Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 879-80 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In situations where a school has restricted access to certain
material, courts tend to consider whether the school's decision
bore a reasonable relationship to a legitimate pedagogical
concern. \25\ For example, a school district's decision that
students exposed to violence, nudity, or ``hard'' language is a
view-point neutral ``legitimate pedagogical concern.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.
\26\ Borger v. Bisciglia, 888 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Wis. 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At its core, S. 97 is a spending bill, amending section
254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 to require, as a
contingency for receipt of a Federal subsidy, certain measures
to restrict children's access to child pornography, obscene
material, and, upon election, other harmful material via school
and library computers. Local officials are granted the
authority to determine what technology is used to achieve this
end, and policies for determining how such technology is used.
The precedent for conditioning receipt of Federal assistance is
consistent with the Court's opinion in Rust v. Sullivan, 500
U.S. 173 (1991), and National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley,
524 U.S. 569 (1998). In sum, the Committee is confident that
the approach of S. 97 to schools would survive any
constitutional challenge brought in Federal court.
With respect to the legislation's approach to libraries, the
Committee notes again that regulations designed to protect
minors are historically given greater latitude for the purposes
of First Amendment review. Moreover, a library does not
constitute a traditional public forum. Libraries place many
restrictions on what patrons may do while on the premises. The
simplest, and most powerful example of this are the strict
rules implemented by libraries to maintain quiet, and an
atmosphere for reading and study. Patrons are not permitted to
give speeches, make public statements, sing, speak loudly.
Further, patrons at a library do not have the right to make
editorial decisions regarding the availability of certain
material. It is the exclusive authority of the library to make
affirmative decisions regarding what books, magazines, or other
material is placed on library shelves, or otherwise made
available to patrons. Libraries impose many restrictions on the
use of their systems which demonstrate that the content of the
library's offerings are not determined by the general public.
Additionally, an open forum by government designation becomes
open because it allows the general public into its facility for
First Amendment activities. Like in the National Endowment for
the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) decision, the
government purchase of books (like buying art) does not create
a public forum.
A review of the nature of libraries and schools, and the
purposes that lie behind their provision of Internet access,
leads to the conclusion that a public library or school is not
a public forum. This conclusion is amply supported by Supreme
Court Precedent. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484
U.S. 260, 267 (1988), the Supreme Court stated that ``schools
do not possess all the attributes of streets, parks, and other
traditional public forums that time out of mind, have been used
for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between
citizens, and discussing public questions.'' Id. (Quoting Hogue
v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939)). Likewise, a library's
purpose is to make available books, to lend research tools, and
supplemental educational opportunities to its citizens. It is
``a place dedicated to quiet, to knowledge, and to beauty.''
Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 142 (1966). Accordingly, it
is the Committee's considered judgment that the legislation's
approach to libraries is constitutional.
Legislative History
During the 105th Congress, on February 9, 1998, Senator
McCain introduced the original version of this legislation. The
original bill number was S. 1619. This bill, S. 1619, was co-
sponsored by Senators Coats, Hollings, Murray, Stevens, Inouye,
Hutchison, Kohl, Bond, and Abraham. The Committee held hearings
on the legislation on February 10, 1998. On March 12, 1998, in
open executive session the Committee ordered the bill to be
reported favorably without amendment. On June 25, 1998, the
bill was reported to the Senate by Senator McCain without
amendment, with written report No. 105-226.
In the 106th Congress, Senator McCain, along with Senator
Hollings, introduced S. 97, which was similar to S. 1619, the
bill introduced in the 105th Congress. The bill was cosponsored
by Senators Burns, Abraham, Stevens, Hutchison, Bond, and
Helms. The Committee conducted hearings on S. 97 on March 4,
1999, and again on May 20, 1999. On June 23, 1999 in open
executive session the Committee ordered the bill to be reported
favorably with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Summary of Major Provisions
This legislation establishes that any school or library
currently using, or requesting universal service funds, provide
certification to the FCC that filtering or blocking technology
is deployed on computers when in use by children, and that such
school or library has in place a policy to prevent access by
minors to child pornography and obscene material. In addition,
the legislation provides that schools and libraries may also
identify additional material deemed inappropriate for minors
and may utilize selected technology to block or filter said
material. Schools and libraries failing to certify such, or
found to be in violation of such certification, are
disqualified from receipt of a universal service subsidy, and
are requiredto repay the balance of such subsidy for the period
of time they were operating under certification and in non-compliance.
The FCC is expressly prohibited from content regulation, or from
considering a school or library's specific content policy in making a
universal service fund certification. The legislation provides that the
universal Service subsidy may be used to cover the cost of the
acquisition of the software or technology necessary to comply with
requirements added by the bill.
Estimated Costs
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 15, 1999.
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 97, the Children's
Internet Protection Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark Hadley
(for federal costs), and Shelley Finlayson (for the state and
local impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
S. 97--Children's Internet Protection Act
CBO estimates that enacting this bill would have no
significant effect on the federal budget. Enacting S. 97 would
not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-
go procedures would not apply.
S. 97 would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require
that schools and libraries that seek assistance from the
Universal Service Fund for telecommunications expenses certify
to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that they have
selected and will install a system to filter or block Internet
material that is inappropriate for minors. Based on information
from the FCC, CBO estimates that processing these
certifications would have a negligible impact on the FCC's
administrative costs.
S. 97 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Nevertheless, to the extent that schools and libraries receive
subsidies from the Universal Service Fund, they would be
required to comply with the bill's Internet filtering
requirements and standards. Because those requirements are a
condition of participating in a voluntary federal program, they
would not be mandates as defined by UMRA.
The cost of complying with the bill's standards would vary
widely based on each institution's computer infrastructure,
current filtering system if any, chosen method for filtering,
additional staff requirements, and negotiated discounts. Some
states, school districts, and libraries have already begun
installing filtering systems that may meet the bill's
requirements; they would bear no additional costs to comply
with the requirements of this bill. In most cases, the cost per
computer is likely to be relatively small. But a large number
of schools and libraries could be affected, and the additional
aggregate cost could be in the tens of millions of dollars.
(CBO estimates that subsidies from the Universal Service Fund
for schools and libraries will total more than $1 billion in
fiscal year 1999.)
The CBO staff contacts are Mark Hadley (for federal costs),
and Shelley Finlayson (for the state and local impact). This
estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
number of persons covered
A precise total of the schools and libraries applying for
universal assistance under section 254(h)(1)(B) is not
available at this time. At the conclusion of the first program
year of the E-rate, the Schools and Libraries Corporation
(SLC), responsible for administration of the E-rate subsidy
program, had processed 30,120 applications and funded 25,785.
Due to the permissive eligibility standards envisioned by
Section 254(h)(1)(B), it is conceivable that a majority of
schools and libraries will apply for some part of universal
service assistance. There are currently some 86,000 public
elementary and secondary schools in the Untied States, which
are potentially eligible for assistance. In addition there are
currently approximately 16,000 private elementary and secondary
schools in the United States with an endowment of less than $50
million that are also potentially eligible for assistance.
There are an estimated 9,000 public libraries in the United
States.
economic impact
This bill will add marginally to the costs of connecting to
the Internet for schools and libraries. Filtering and blocking
systems are included in the categories of universal service
providers covered by section 254. Under the needs-based matrix,
universal service assistance will provide up to a 90 percent
discount on the purchase price of these systems. The remainder
will be incurred by the schools and libraries. The cost of
these systems is anticipated to be minimal, and is not expected
to have a significant economic impact on the schools or
libraries installing them.
privacy
Because the filtering or blocking system is entirely user-
based, there will be no impact on personal privacy as a result
of this legislation. In addition, because sites are blocked or
filtered before children have access to them, there will be
less need to trace where children have been on the Internet in
order to enforce a ``standard of use'' policy.
paperwork
Schools and libraries applying for universal service
assistance already are required to fill out forms for the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in order to qualify for
the program. Implementation of this bill will add an additional
certification requirement to this application. It is intended
that this certification requirement will be minimal, and will
consist of no more than an affirmation that the school or
library has met the requisite certification requirement. In the
case of a library changing its blocking or filtering system, or
discontinuing the use of such system, or discounting the use of
such system after installation, an additional certification
will have to be made.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
This section provides that the bill may be cited as the
``Children's Internet Protection Act.''
Section 2. Requirement for schools and libraries to implement filtering
or blocking technology for computers with Internet access as
condition of universal service discounts
Section 2 of the bill adds a new section 254(h)(5) to the
Communications Act of 1934 that establishes a requirement that,
in order to qualify for assistance under the paragraph (1)(B)
of that section, any elementary, or secondary school applying
for such assistance must submit to the Commission certification
that: (1) such school has selected a technology for its
computers with Internet access in order to filter or block
Internet access through such computer to material that is
obscene; and child pornography; (2) is enforcing a policy to
ensure the operation of the technology during any use of such
computers by minors. In addition, schools are affirmatively
empowered, but not required, to utilize such selected
technology to block or filter any additional material that such
school may determine to be inappropriate for minors.
Under new section 254(h)(5)(D), schools with computers on the
effective date of the bill are required to submit such
certification as described above within 30 days after such
effective date. Schools which may be unable to comply within
this 30-day window due to State or local procurement rules or
regulations, or competitive bidding requirements, must provide
notice to the Commission of such situation, and provide to the
Commission a date certain for when they will be in compliance.
Schools acquiring computers after the effective date would be
required to submit certification to the Commission within 10
days after the date on which the school first becomes covered.
Under new section 254(h)(5)(E), any school that knowingly
fails to comply with certification requirements is required to
reimburse the telecommunications carriers that provided
discounted services in amounts equal to the amount of the
discount provided the school.
Under new section 254(h)(5)(F), the Commission is directed,
in such situations where a school is in noncompliance, to
determine the date on which discount rates are to cease, and to
notify the appropriate common carriers of such termination of
services.
New section 254(h)(5)(G) provides for recommencement of
services at discounted rates upon resubmittal to the
Commission, by such terminated school, of a certification that
such school is in compliance with the requirements.
New section 254(h)(5)(H) expressly prohibits the Commission
from establishing a criterion for determination of material to
be blocked, or filtered, reviewing the specific criteria of
policies of schools and libraries as a contingent for
certification, or taking action against any school or library
that has taken good faith efforts to comply with the
requirements.
Section 2 of the bill also adds a new section 254(h)(6) that
requires libraries with more than one computer follow the same
certification and compliance requirements as established under
section 254(h)(5) for computers while in use by a minor.
Equally, such libraries are subject to the same penalties for
noncompliance as provided under that section. Similarly, the
same restrictions on Commission activities apply under the
libraries portion of the Act.
Section 2 of the bill also adds a definition of the term
``minor'' to section 254(h) of the Communications Act to mean
any individual that has not reached the age of 17 years.
The amendments made by the bill take effect 120 days after
the date of enactment.
Section 2 of the bill also provides that discounted rates
under section 254(h)(1)(B) shall be made available in amounts
up to the annual cap on Federal universal service support for
schools and libraries only for the services covered by
Commission regulations on priorities for funding
telecommunications services, Internet access, Internet
services, and Internal connections that assign priority for
available funds for the poorest schools. Additionally, under
the same conditions, such discounts may be applied to the
purchase or acquisition of filtering or blocking products
necessary to meet the requirements of the Act.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill,
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman):
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934
SEC. 254. [47 U.S.C. 254] UNIVERSAL SERVICE.
(a) Procedures To Review Universal Service Requirements.--
(1) Federal-state joint board on universal service.--
Within one month after the date of enactment of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission shall
institute and refer to a Federal-State Joint Board
under section 410(c) a proceeding to recommend changes
to any of its regulations in order to implement
sections 214(e) and this section, including the
definition of the services that are supported by
Federal universal service support mechanisms and a
specific timetable for completion of such
recommendations. In addition to the members of the
Joint Board required under section 410(c), one member
of such Joint Board shall be a State-appointed utility
consumer advocate nominated by a national organization
of State utility consumer advocates. The Joint Board
shall, after notice and opportunity for public comment,
make its recommendations to the Commission 9 months
after the date of enactment of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996.
(2) Commission action.--The Commission shall initiate
a single proceeding to implement the recommendations
from the Joint Board required by paragraph (1) and
shall complete such proceeding within 15 months after
the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of
1996. The rules established by such proceeding shall
include a definition of the services that are supported
by Federal universal service support mechanisms and a
specific timetable for implementation. Thereafter, the
Commission shall complete any proceeding to implement
subsequent recommendations from any Joint Board on
universal service within one year after receiving such
recommendations.
(b) Universal Service Principles.--The Joint Board and the
Commission shall base policies for the preservation and
advancement of universal service on the following principles:
(1) Quality and rates.--Quality services should be
available at just, reasonable, and affordable rates.
(2) Access to advanced services.--Access to advanced
telecommunications and information services should be
provided in all regions of the Nation.
(3) Access in rural and high cost areas.--Consumers
in all regions of the Nation, including low-income
consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost
areas, should have access to telecommunications and
information services, including interexchange services
and advanced telecommunications and information
services, that are reasonably comparable to those
services provided in urban areas and that are available
at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates
charged for similar services in urban areas.
(4) Equitable and nondiscriminatory contributions.--
All providers of telecommunications services should
make an equitable and nondiscriminatory contribution to
the preservation and advancement of universal service.
(5) Specific and predictable support mechanisms.--
There should be specific, predictable and sufficient
Federal and State mechanisms to preserve and advance
universal service.
(6) Access to advanced telecommunications services
for schools, health care, and libraries.--Elementary
and secondary schools and classrooms, health care
providers, and libraries should have access to advanced
telecommunications services as described in subsection
(h).
(7) Additional principles.--Such other principles as
the Joint Board and the Commission determine are
necessary and appropriate for the protection of the
public interest, convenience, and necessity and are
consistent with this Act.
(c) Definition.--
(1) In general.--Universal service is an evolving
level of telecommunications services that the
Commission shall establish periodically under this
section, taking into account advances in
telecommunications and information technologies and
services. The Joint Board in recommending, and the
Commission in establishing, the definition of the
services that are supported by Federal universal
service support mechanisms shall consider the extent to
which such telecommunications services--
(A) are essential to education, public
health, or public safety;
(B) have, through the operation of market
choices by customers, been subscribed to by a
substantial majority of residential customers;
(C) are being deployed in public
telecommunications networks by
telecommunications carriers; and
(D) are consistent with the public interest,
convenience, and necessity.
(2) Alterations and modifications.--The Joint Board
may, from time to time, recommend to the Commission
modifications in the definition of the services that
are supported by Federal universal service support
mechanisms.
(3) Special services.--In addition to the services
included in the definition of universal service under
paragraph (1), the Commission may designate additional
services for such support mechanisms for schools,
libraries, and health care providers for the purposes
of subsection (h).
(d) Telecommunications Carrier Contribution.--Every
telecommunications carrier that provides interstate
telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable
and nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and
sufficient mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve
and advance universal service. The Commission may exempt a
carrier or class of carriers from this requirement if the
carrier's telecommunications activities are limited to such an
extent that the level of such carrier's contribution to the
preservation and advancement of universal service would be de
minimis. Any other provider of interstate telecommunications
may be required to contribute to the preservation and
advancement of universal service if the public interest so
requires.
(e) Universal Service Support.--After the date on which
Commission regulations implementing this section take effect,
only an eligible telecommunications carrier designated under
section 214(e) shall be eligible to receive specific Federal
universal service support. A carrier that receives such support
shall use that support only for the provision, maintenance, and
upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is
intended. Any such support should be explicit and sufficient to
achieve the purposes of this section.
(f) State Authority.--A State may adopt regulations not
inconsistent with the Commission's rules to preserve and
advance universal service. Every telecommunications carrier
that provides intrastate telecommunications services shall
contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, in a
manner determined by the State to the preservation and
advancement of universal service in that State. A State may
adopt regulations to provide for additional definitions and
standards to preserve and advance universal service within that
State only to the extent that such regulations adopt additional
specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms to support
such definitions or standards that do not rely on or burden
Federal universal service support mechanisms.
(g) Interexchange and Interstate Services.--Within 6 months
after the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, the Commission shall adopt rules to require that the
rates charged by providers of interexchange telecommunications
services to subscribers in rural and high cost areas shall be
no higher than the rates charged by each such provider to its
subscribers in urban areas. Such rules shall also require that
a provider of interstate interexchange telecommunications
services shall provide such services to its subscribers in each
State at rates no higher than the rates charged to its
subscribers in any other State.
(h) Telecommunications Services for Certain Providers.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Health care providers for rural areas.--A
telecommunications carrier shall, upon
receiving a bona fide request, provide
telecommunications services which are necessary
for the provision of health care services in a
State, including instruction relating to such
services, to any public or nonprofit health
care provider that serves persons who reside in
rural areas in that State at rates that are
reasonably comparable to rates charged for
similar services in urban areas in that State.
A telecommunications carrier providing service
under this paragraph shall be entitled to have
an amount equal to the difference, if any,
between the rates for services provided to
health care providers for rural areas in a
State and the rates for similar services
provided to other customers in comparable rural
areas in that State treated as a service
obligation as a part of its obligation to
participate in the mechanisms to preserve and
advance universal service.
(B) Educational providers and libraries.--All
telecommunications carriers serving a
geographic area shall, upon a bona fide request
for any of its services that are within the
definition of universal service under
subsection (c)(3), provide such services to
elementary schools, secondary schools, and
libraries for educational purposes at rates
less than the amounts charged for similar
services to other parties. The discount shall
be an amount that the Commission, with respect
to interstate services, and the States, with
respect to intrastate services, determine is
appropriate and necessary to ensure affordable
access to and use of such services by such
entities. A telecommunications carrier providing
service under this paragraph shall--
(i) have an amount equal to the
amount of the discount treated as an
offset to its obligation to contribute
to the mechanisms to preserve and
advance universal service, or
(ii) notwithstanding the provisions
of subsection (e) of this section,
receive reimbursement utilizing the
support mechanisms to preserve and
advance universal service.
(2) Advanced services.--The Commission shall
establish competitively neutral rules--
(A) to enhance, to the extent technically
feasible and economically reasonable, access to
advanced telecommunications and information
services for all public and nonprofit
elementary and secondary school classrooms,
health care providers, and libraries; and
(B) to define the circumstances under which a
telecommunications carrier may be required to
connect its network to such public
institutional telecommunications users.
(3) Terms and conditions.--Telecommunications
services and network capacity provided to a public
institutional telecommunications user under this
subsection may not be sold, resold, or otherwise
transferred by such user in consideration for money or
any other thing of value.
(4) Eligibility of users.--No entity listed in this
subsection shall be entitled to preferential rates or
treatment as required by this subsection, if such
entity operates as a for-profit business, is a school
described in [paragraph (5)(A)] paragraph (7)(A) with
an endowment of more than $50,000,000, or is a library
or library consortium not eligible for assistance from
a State library administrative agency under the Library
Services and Technology Act.
(5) Requirements for certain schools with computers
having internet access.--
(A) Internet filtering.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided
in clause (ii), an elementary or
secondary school having computers with
Internet access may not receive
services at discount rates under
paragraph (1)(B) unless the school,
school board, or other authority with
responsibility for administration of
the school--
(I) submits to the Commission
a certification described in
subparagraph (B); and
(II) ensures the use of such
computers in accordance with
the certification.
(ii) Applicability.--The prohibition
in paragraph (1) shall not apply with
respect to a school that receives
services at discount rates under
paragraph (1)(B) only for purposes
other than the provision of Internet
access, Internet service, or internal
connections.
(B) Certification.--A certification under
this subparagraph is a certification that the
school, school board, or other authority with
responsibility for administration of the
school--
(i) has selected a technology for its
computers with Internet access in order
to filter or block Internet access
through such computers to--
(I) material that is obscene;
and
(II) child pornography; and
(ii) is enforcing a policy to ensure
the operation of the technology during
any use of such computers by minors.
(C) Additional use of technology.--A school,
school board, or other authority may also use a
technology covered by a certification under
subparagraph (B) to filter or block Internet
access through the computers concerned to any
material in addition to the material specified
in that subparagraph that the school, school
board, or other authority determines to be
inappropriate for minors.
(D) Timing of certifications.--
(i) Schools with computers on
effective date.--
(I) In general.--Subject to
subclause (II), in the case of
any school covered by this
paragraph as of the effective
date of this paragraph under
section 2(h) of the Childrens'
Internet Protection Act, the
certification under
subparagraph (B) shall be made
not later than 30 days after
such effective date.
(II) Delay.--A certification
for a school covered by
subclause (I) may be made at a
date that is later than is
otherwise required by that
subclause if State or local
procurement rules or
regulations or competitive
bidding requirements prevent
the making of the certification
on the date otherwise required
by that subclause. A school,
school board, or other
authority with responsibility
for administration of the
school shall notify the
Commission of the applicability
of this subclause to the
school. Such notice shall
specify the date on which the
certification with respect to
the school shall be effective
for purposes of this clause.
(ii) Schools acquiring computers
after effective date.--In the case of
any school that first becomes covered
by this paragraph after such effective
date, the certification under
subparagraph (B) shall be made not
later than 10 days after the date on
which the school first becomes so
covered.
(iii) No requirement for additional
certifications.--A school that has
submitted a certification under
subparagraph (B) shall not be required
for purposes of this paragraph to
submit an additional certification
under that subparagraph with respect to
any computers having Internet access
that are acquired by the school after
the submittal of the certification.
(E) Noncompliance.--
(i) Failure to submit
certification.--Any school that
knowingly fails to submit a
certification required by this
paragraph shall reimburse each
telecommunications carrier that
provided such school services at
discount rates under paragraph (1)(B)
after the effective date of this
paragraph under section 2(h) of the
Childrens' Internet Protection Act in
an amount equal to the amount of the
discount provided such school by such
carrier for such services during the
period beginning on such effective date
and ending on the date on which the
provision of such services at discount
rates under paragraph (1)(B) is
determined to cease under subparagraph
(F).
(ii) Failure to comply with
certification.--Any school that
knowingly fails to ensure the use of
its computers in accordance with a
certification under subparagraph (B)
shall reimburse each telecommunications
carrier that provided such school
services at discount rates under
paragraph (1)(B) after the date of such
certification in an amount equal to the
amount of the discount provided such
school by such carrier for such
services during the period beginning on
the date of such certification and
ending on the date on which the
provision of such services at discount
rates under paragraph (1)(B) is
determined to cease under subparagraph
(F).
(iii) Treatment of reimbursement.--
The receipt by a telecommunications
carrier of any reimbursement under this
subparagraph shall not affect the
carrier's treatment of the discount on
which such reimbursement was based in
accordance with the third sentence of
paragraph (1)(B).
(F) Cessation date.--
(i) Determination.--The Commission
shall determine the date on which the
provision of services at discount rates
under paragraph (1)(B) shall cease
under this paragraph by reason of the
failure of a school to comply with the
requirements of this paragraph.
(ii) Notification.--The Commission
shall notify telecommunications
carriers of each school determined to
have failed to comply with the
requirements of this paragraph and of
the period for which such school shall
be liable to make reimbursement under
subparagraph (E).
(G) Recommencement of discounts.--
(i) Recommencement.--Upon submittal
to the Commission of a certification
under subparagraph (B) with respect to
a school to which clause (i) or (ii) of
subparagraph (E) applies, the school
shall be entitled to services at
discount rates under paragraph (1)(B).
(ii) Notification.--The Commission
shall notify the school and
telecommunications carriers of the
recommencement of the school's
entitlement to services at discount
rates under this subparagraph and of
the date on which such recommencement begins.
(iii) Additional noncompliance.--The
provisions of subparagraphs (E) and (F)
shall apply to any certification
submitted under clause (i).
(H) Limitation on federal action.--
(i) In general.--No agency or
instrumentality of the United States
Government may--
(I) establish any criteria
for making a determination
under subparagraph (C);
(II) review a determination
made by a school, school board,
or other authority for purposes
of a certification under
subparagraph (B); or
(III) consider the criteria
employed by a school, school
board, or other authority for
purposes of determining the
eligibility of a school for
services at discount rates
under paragraph (1)(B).
(ii) Action by commission.--The
Commission may not take any action
against a school, school board, or
other authority for a violation of a
provision of this paragraph if the
school, school board, or other
authority, as the case may be, has made
a good faith effort to comply with such
provision.
(6) Requirements for certain libraries with computers
having internet access.--
(A) Internet filtering.--
(i) In general.--A library having one
or more computers with Internet access
may not receive services at discount
rates under paragraph (1)(B) unless the
library--
(I) submits to the Commission
a certification described in
subparagraph (B); and
(II) ensures the use of such
computers in accordance with
the certification.
(ii) Applicability.--The prohibition
in paragraph (1) shall not apply with
respect to a library that receives
services at discount rates under
paragraph (1)(B) only for purposes
other than the provision of Internet
access, Internet service, or internal
connections.
(B) Certifications.--
(i) Libraries with one computer
having internet access.--A
certification under this subparagraph
with respect to a library that has only
one computer with Internet access is a
certification that the library is
enforcing a policy to ensure that
minors do not use the computer for
Internet access to--
(I) material that is obscene;
and
(II) child pornography.
(ii) Libraries with more than one
computer having internet access.--A
certification under this subparagraph
with respect to any library covered by
this paragraph, and not covered by
clause (i), is a certification that the
library--
(I) has selected a technology
for its computers with Internet
access in order to filter or
block Internet access through
such computers to--
(aa) material that is
obscene; and
(bb) child
pornography; and
(II) is enforcing a policy to
ensure the operation of the
technology during any use of
such computers by minors.
(C) Additional use of technology.--A library
may also use a technology covered by a
certification under subparagraph (B) to filter
or block Internet access through the computers
concerned to any material in addition to the
material specified in that subparagraph that
the library determines to be inappropriate for
minors.
(D) Timing of certifications.--
(i) Libraries with computers on
effective date.--
(I) In general.--In the case
of any library covered by this
paragraph as of the effective
date of this paragraph under
section 2(h) of the Childrens'
Internet Protection Act, the
applicable certification under
subparagraph (B) shall be made
not later than 30 days after
such effective date.
(II) Delay.--A certification
for a library covered by
subclause (I) may be made at a
date than is later than is
otherwise required by that
subclause if State or local
procurement rules or
regulations or competitive
bidding requirements prevent
the making of the certification
on the date otherwise required
by that subclause. A library
shall notify the Commission of
the applicability of this
subclause to the library. Such
notice shall specify the date
on which the certification with
respect to the library shall be
effective for purposes of this
clause.
(ii) Libraries acquiring computers
after effective date.--In the case of
any library that first becomes subject
to a certification under either clause
(i) or (ii) of subparagraph (B) after
such effective date, the applicable
certification under that subparagraph
shall be made not later than 10 days
after the date on which the library
first becomes so subject.
(iii) No requirement for additional
certifications.--A library that has
submitted a certification under
subparagraph (B)(ii) shall not be
required for purposes of this paragraph
to submit an additional certification
under that subparagraph with respect to
any computers having Internet access
that are acquired by the library after
the submittal of such certification.
(E) Noncompliance.--
(i) Failure to submit
certification.--Any library that
knowingly fails to submit a
certification required by this
paragraph shall reimburse each
telecommunications carrier that
provided such library services at
discount rates under paragraph (1)(B)
after the effective date of this
paragraph under section 2(h) of the
Childrens' Internet Protection Act in
an amount equal to the amount of the
discount provided such library by such
carrier for such services during the
period beginning on such effective date
and ending on the date on which the
provision of such services at discount
rates under paragraph (1)(B) is
determined to cease under subparagraph
(F).
(ii) Failure to comply with
certification.--Any library that
knowingly fails to ensure the use of
its computers in accordance with a
certification under subparagraph (B)
shall reimburse each telecommunications
carrier that provided such library
services at discount rates under
paragraph (1)(B) after the date of such
certification in an amount equal to the
amount of the discount provided such
library by such carrier for such
services during the period beginning on
the date of such certification and
ending on the date on which the
provision of such services at discount
rates under paragraph (1)(B) is
determined to cease under subparagraph
(F).
(iii) Treatment of reimbursement.--
The receipt by a telecommunications
carrier of any reimbursement under this
subparagraph shall not affect the
carrier's treatment of the discount on
which such reimbursement was based in
accordance with the third sentence of
paragraph (1)(B).
(F) Cessation date.--
(i) Determination.--The Commission
shall determine the date on which the
provision of services at discount rates
under paragraph (1)(B) shall cease
under this paragraph by reason of the
failure of a library to comply with the
requirements of this paragraph.
(ii) Notification.--The Commission
shall notify telecommunications
carriers of each library determined to
have failed to comply with the
requirements of this paragraph and of
the period for which such library shall
be liable to make reimbursement under
subparagraph (E).
(G) Recommencement of discounts.--
(i) Recommencement.--Upon submittal
to the Commission of a certification
under subparagraph (B) with respect to
a library to which clause (i) or (ii)
of subparagraph (E) applies, the
library shall be entitled to services
at discount rates under paragraph
(1)(B).
(ii) Notification.--The Commission
shall notify the library and
telecommunications carriers of the
recommencement of the library's
entitlement to services at discount
rates under this paragraph and of the
date on which such recommencement
begins.
(iii) Additional noncompliance.--The
provisions of subparagraphs (E) and (F)
shall apply to any certification
submitted under clause (i).
(H) Limitation on federal action.--
(i) In general.--No agency or
instrumentality of the United States
Government may--
(I) establish any criteria
for making a determination
under subparagraph (C);
(II) review a determination
made by a library for purposes
of a certification under
subparagraph (B); or
(III) consider the criteria
employed by a library purposes
of determining the eligibility
of the library for services at
discount rates under paragraph
(1)(B).
(ii) Action by commission.--The
Commission may not take any action
against a library for a violation of a
provision of this paragraph if the
library has made a good faith effort to
comply with such provision.
[(5)] (7) Definitions.--For purposes of this
subsection:
(A) Elementary and secondary schools.--The
term ``elementary and secondary schools'' means
elementary schools and secondary schools, as
defined in paragraphs (14) and (25),
respectively, of section 14101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 8801).
(B) Health care provider.--The term ``health
care provider'' means--
(i) post-secondary educational
institutions offering health care
instruction, teaching hospitals, and
medical schools;
(ii) community health centers or
health centers providing health care to
migrants;
(iii) local health departments or
agencies;
(iv) community mental health centers;
(v) not-for-profit hospitals;
(vi) rural health clinics; and
(vii) consortia of health care
providers consisting of one or more
entities described in clauses (i)
through (vi).
(C) Public institutional telecommunications
user.--The term ``public institutional
telecommunications user'' means an elementary
or secondary school, a library, or a health
care provider as those terms are defined in
this paragraph.
(D) Minor.--The term ``minor'' means any
individual who has not attained the age of 17
years.
(i) Consumer Protection.--The Commission and the States
should ensure that universal service is available at rates that
are just, reasonable, and affordable.
(j) Lifeline Assistance.--Nothing in this section shall
affect the collection, distribution, or administration of the
Lifeline Assistance Program provided for by the Commission
under regulations set forth in section 69.117 of title 47, Code
of Federal Regulations, and other related sections of such
title.
(k) Subsidy of Competitive Services Prohibited.--A
telecommunications carrier may not use services that are not
competitive to subsidize services that are subject to
competition. The Commission, with respect to interstate
services, and the States, with respect to intrastate services,
shall establish any necessary cost allocation rules, accounting
safeguards, and guidelines to ensure that services included in
the definition of universal service bear no more than a
reasonable share of the joint and common costs of facilities
used to provide those services.