[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 8 (Monday, February 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S516-S519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 1617. A bill for the relief of Jesus M. Collado-Munoz; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                       private relief legislation

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. On September 28, 1996, the Senate passed the Omnibus 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, a 749-page bill with 24 separate 
titles. Included in that unwieldy legislation was the Illegal 
Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a far-reaching 
measure designed to curtail illegal immigration and prevent criminals 
from entering our country. This legislation, hurried to passage in the 
final days of a legislative session, has proven to be overly punitive 
in a number of cases, including that of Jesus Collado.
  On April 7, Jesus Collado, a 43-year-old legal resident of the United 
States, returned to this country after vacationing in the Dominican 
Republic, his homeland. Upon arrival at John F. Kennedy airport in New 
York, Mr. Collado was detained by INS officers who kept him handcuffed 
and made him sit on the floor of a room in the airport for nearly 24 
hours. INS officials had determined Mr. Collado excludable because the 
Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act made the 
misdemeanor on his criminal record a deportable offense. Twenty-three 
years ago, when Mr. Collado was 19-years old, he was convicted of a 
class A misdemeanor, having sexual relations with a minor, his 15-year-
old girlfriend. I should note here that their relationship was a 
consensual one. Mr. Collado was sentenced to a year's probation, which 
he served. He has not been in trouble with the law since.
  Whatever I or my colleagues think about his teenage indiscretion, the 
fact remains that he is not a serious criminal who should be excluded 
from entering the United States. Yet, as I mentioned, on April 7 last, 
Mr. Collado was arrested upon arrival in New York and was held without 
bail for 201 days at the INS Detention Facility at the York County 
Prison in York, Pennsylvania.
  The Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act was meant to 
keep serious criminals out of the United States. It was not meant to 
exclude those who have resided here legally for a quarter century 
because of a misdemeanor committed as a teenager. Might I add that 
Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee seems 
to agree with me. In Anthony Lewis' December 22, 1997 column in the New 
York Times, Mr. Smith remarked that Jesus Collado's case ``obviously 
tugs at your heart. Clearly this is an instance where humanitarian 
considerations should be taken into account. I believe in redemption 
and I believe it should be granted generously.''
  Ultimately, the Immigration and Naturalization Service must be given 
discretion in the implementation of this Act. But Mr. Collado and his 
family need relief now. Today I am introducing private relief 
legislation for Mr. Collado to establish that his misdemeanor is not 
grounds for inadmissibility, deportation or denial of citizenship. 
Representative Nydia Velazquez, who has worked tirelessly on Mr. 
Collado's behalf, has introduced a similar measure in the House of 
Representatives. I urge the Senate to act on this matter swiftly so 
that the Collado family may get on with their lives.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
Anthony Lewis' column be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was order to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1617

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. WAIVER OF CONSIDERATION OF CRIMINAL OFFENSE FOR 
                   IMMIGRATION PURPOSES FOR JESUS M. COLLADO-
                   MUNOZ.

       Notwithstanding sections 212(a) and 237(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, Jesus M. Collado-Munoz shall 
     not be considered, by reason of the criminal offense to which 
     he pleaded guilty on October 24, 1974, to be inadmissible to, 
     or deportable from, the United States. The offense shall not 
     be used to find that Jesus M. Collado-Munoz lacks good moral 
     character for any purpose under that Act, including 
     eligibility for naturalization.
                                                                    ____


                [From the New York Times, Dec. 22, 1997]

                           A Generous Country

                           (By Anthony Lewis)

       Washington.--The immigration law passed by Congress in 1996 
     has had harsh effects on some individuals: visitors barred at 
     our borders, aliens marked for deportation after living here 
     legally for many years. I discussed the issues with the 
     principal House sponsor of the law, Representative Lamar S. 
     Smith, Republican of Texas.
       ``America should continue to be the most generous country 
     in the world toward immigrants,'' Mr. Smith said, ``I thing 
     they have much to contribute to this country.''
       The 1996 act, he said, was designed to deal with people who 
     do not deserve to be here, such as those who enter illegally. 
     But it was not intended to deny anyone fair treatment.
       ``There is not excuse for anybody being treated unjustly,'' 
     he said ``Justice is one of the things that makes this 
     country great, and rightly attracts people here, along with 
     economic opportunity and freedom.''
       What about instances, I asked, where the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service has admitted that its officers 
     mistreated individuals at the border? The Commissioner of 
     Immigration, Doris Messner, has said that about several cases 
     described in this column in recent months.
       ``It's not the fault of the law,'' Mr. Smith replied. 
     ``It's the fault of the I.N.S.
       ``When you have hundreds of millions of entries every year, 
     and you have human nature involved, there are inevitably 
     going to be some lapses. That doesn't excuse them, I hope it 
     won't be interpreted as rationalizing any kind of 
     insensitivity. It is simply a comment on what is a fact of 
     life.''
       One provision of the 1996 act, called ``expedited 
     removal,'' allows I.N.S. agents to keep out anyone they think 
     is trying to enter the country improperly, even if the person 
     has a U.S. visa, and bar him for five years. I asked whether 
     that, didn't encourage hasty, sometimes unfair decisions.
       Mr. Smith said he had been to two border checkpoints in the 
     last several months and found the border patrol agents 
     ``enthusiastic'' about the provision. ``I think on the whole 
     it's reducing the abuses,'' he said, ``the gaming of the 
     system.''
       The new law's process for dealing with applicants for 
     political asylum is also working well, he said. It requires 
     someone who claims to be fleeing persecution first to 
     persuade an asylum officer at the border that he or she has a 
     ``credible fear,'' then to have an asylum hearing before an 
     immigration judge.
       ``The asylum officers are getting some good training,'' Mr. 
     Smith said. ``Almost 90 percent of people asking for asylum 
     are being found to have a credible fear. When you have that 
     high a level of initial acceptance of their claims, clearly 
     the officers are giving people the benefit of the doubt.''
       Since it was human nature for the I.N.S. to make some 
     mistakes, I asked, why had the new statute in many areas 
     stripped away the right to judicial review of the agency's 
     decisions?
       ``Judicial review,'' he said, ``encouraged many of the 
     people who are in this country illegally'' by allowing them 
     to contest their deportation endlessly. He said there were 
     about five million, with the number growing by 300,000 a 
     year.
       The 1996 law also made legal immigrants deportable because 
     of minor crimes committed years ago, and removed their right 
     to

[[Page S517]]

     seek a waiver of deportation. A notable case is that of Jesus 
     Collado, a Brooklyn man who faces deportation because he 
     slept with a 15-year-old girlfriend 23 years ago and was put 
     on probation for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. 
     He has lived a blameless life since and has an American wife 
     and three children.
       ``In the vast majority of cases I think the crimes do 
     justify deportation,'' Mr. Smith commented. ``However, 
     perhaps around the far edges the I.N.S. should have some 
     discretion in these cases.
       ``First I'd like to be reassured that the Administration is 
     serious about deporting hardened criminals. It has a program 
     to deport those currently in prison when they finish their 
     sentences, but it is deporting less than 50 percent.''
       The Collado case, he said, ``obviously tugs at your heart. 
     Clearly this is an instance where humanitarian considerations 
     should be taken into account. I believe in redemption, and I 
     believe it should be granted generously.
       ``The question is how you do that without creating a giant 
     loophole through which thousands of others can escape 
     deportation.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Frist, 
        Mr. Reed, and Mr. Bryan):
  S. 1618. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to improve 
the protection of consumers against ``slamming'' by telecommunications 
carriers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                 the consumer anti-slamming act of 1998

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Consumer Anti-
Slamming Act of 1998. This legislation is aimed at putting an end to an 
abusive and unscrupulous practice that affects thousands and thousands 
of consumers every year. Joining me as a co-sponsor of this legislation 
are Senator Fritz Hollings, the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce 
Committee, and Senator Frist and Senator Snowe, also Members of the 
Committee. I am most grateful for their support in this important 
effort.
  ``Slamming'' is the unauthorized changing of a consumer's long-
distance carrier. A consumer who is slammed often receives lower-
quality service or is charged higher rates. Sometimes consumers are not 
even aware that they have been slammed until they get their bills. When 
they realize what has happened, they have to go through the aggravation 
of getting their service switched back to their original carrier and 
having their bills adjusted. And they often find it difficult to secure 
compensation for any additional damages they may have incurred.
  Mr. President, last year alone over 20,000 consumers filed slamming 
complaints with the FCC. This is by far the largest category of 
complaints the FCC received. When you stop to consider that only a 
small fraction of all consumers who are slammed actually file 
complaints about it with the Commission, the real dimensions of the 
problem become apparent. And those dimensions are growing: last year's 
20,000 complaints represented a 25 percent increase in the number of 
complaints filed in 1996, despite the fact that the FCC adopted new 
rules to discourage slamming.
  The reality we face is that unless Congress supplements by law what 
the FCC can do by regulation, this already bad problem will only get 
worse. This legislation will attack slamming in two ways: it will 
establish stringent anti-slamming safeguards to deter slamming from 
happening in the first place, and it will enlarge the remedies 
available to punish slammers and make consumers whole if it does. The 
bill does this by prescribing definitive procedures for telephone 
companies to follow, providing alternative ways for consumers to obtain 
redress for having been slammed, and giving federal and nonfederal 
authorities the power to impose tough sanctions, including high fines 
and compensatory and punitive damages.
  The bill takes a straightforward approach. It prohibits a telephone 
company from changing a consumer's telephone service unless the company 
obtains a verbal, written, or electronic verification from the 
subscriber showing that the subscriber has consented to the change. The 
company making the change will be required to retain this verification. 
If a consumer charges a company with slamming, the company has 120 days 
in which to satisfy the consumer's complaint. If it does not do so, the 
company must promptly advise the consumer of that fact, and give the 
consumer a copy of the verification and information about how to pursue 
the complaint with the FCC and about all other available remedies. If a 
company ignores a consumer's slamming complaint, it will be subject to 
the penalty for slamming.

  The bill then provides for simple, streamlined complaint resolution 
procedures at the FCC, requiring the Commission to issue a decision on 
the carrier's liability within 150 days. It broadens the Commission's 
enforcement powers by authorizing it to award both compensatory and 
punitive damages, and requires that damages be awarded within 90 days 
of the liability determination. It directs the FCC not to levy a fine 
of less than $40,000 against first-time offenders and $150,000 for 
repeat offenders absent mitigating circumstances, and it empowers the 
FCC to prosecute slammers who refuse to pay their fines. The bill also 
enables consumers to go after slammers in court instead of at the FCC 
through a state class-action suit. These alternatives--consumer action 
at the FCC and state action in court, backed up by stiff monetary 
penalties--will provide both a sword against past slamming and a shield 
against future slamming.
  Finally, Mr. President, the bill assures that the FCC will detect and 
deter other problems that might result in slamming. It requires the 
Commission to report to Congress on telephone companies' telemarketing 
practices, to recommend whether it would be in the public interest to 
levy penalties directly on telemarketers or on other entities not 
currently subject to the bill's provisions, and to promptly adopt rules 
proscribing any deliberately deceptive or misleading telemarketing 
practices disclosed by the report.
  The bottom line here, Mr. President, is that slamming has to stop, 
once and for all, and this bill means to stop it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1618

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. IMPROVED PROTECTION FOR CONSUMERS AGAINST 
                   ``SLAMMING'' BY TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS.

       (a) Verification of Authorization.--Subsection (a) section 
     258 of the communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 258) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--No telecommunications carrier shall 
     submit or execute a change in a subscriber's selection of a 
     provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service except in accordance with this section and such 
     verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.
       ``(2) Verification.--
       ``(A) In general.--In order to verify a subscriber's 
     selection of a telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service provider under this section, the telecommunications 
     carrier shall, at a minimum, require the subscriber--
       ``(i) to acknowledge the type of service to be changed as a 
     result of the selection;
       ``(ii) to affirm the subscriber's intent to select the 
     provider as the provider of that service;
       ``(iii) to affirm that the subscriber is authorized to 
     select the provider of that service for the telephone number 
     in question;
       ``(iv) to acknowledge that the selection of the provider 
     will result in a change in providers of that service;
       ``(v) to acknowledge that the individual making the oral 
     communication is the subscriber; and
       ``(vi) to provide such other information as the Commission 
     considers appropriate for the protection of the subscriber.
       ``(B) Additional requirements.--The procedures prescribed 
     by the Commission to verify a subscriber's selection of a 
     provider shall--
       ``(i) preclude the use of negative option marketing;
       ``(ii) provide for verification of a change in telephone 
     exchange service or telephone toll service provider in oral, 
     written, or electronic form; and
       ``(iii) require the retention of such verification in such 
     manner and form and for such time as the Commission considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(3) Intrastate services.--Nothing in this section shall 
     preclude any State commission from enforcing such procedures 
     with respect to intrastate services.
       ``(4) Section not to apply to wireless.-- This section does 
     not apply to a provider of commercial mobile service, as that 
     term is defined in section 332(d)(1) of this Act.''.
       ``(b) Resolution of Complaints.--Section 258 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 258) is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof the following:

[[Page S518]]

       ``(c) Notice to Subscriber.--Whenever there is a change in 
     a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange 
     service or telephone toll service, the telecommunication 
     carrier selected shall notify the subscriber in writing, not 
     more than 15 days after the change is executed, of the 
     change, the date on which the change was effected, and the 
     name of the individual who authorized the change.
       ``(d) Resolution of Complaints.--
       ``(1) Prompt resolution.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission shall prescribe a period 
     of time, not in excess of 120 days, for a telecommunications 
     carrier to resolve a complaint by a subscriber concerning an 
     unauthorized change in the subscriber's selection of a 
     provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service.
       ``(B) Unresolved complaints.--If a telecommunications 
     carrier fails to resolve a complaint within the time period 
     prescribed by the Commission, then, within 10 days after the 
     end of that period, the telecommunications carrier shall--
       ``(i) notify the subscriber in writing of the subscriber's 
     right to file a complaint with the Commission concerning the 
     unresolved complaint, the subscriber's rights under this 
     section, and all other remedies available to the subscriber 
     concerning unauthorized changes;
       ``(ii) inform the subscriber in writing of the procedures 
     prescribed by the Commission for filing such a complaint; and
       ``(iii) provide the subscriber a copy of any evidence in 
     the carrier's possession showing that the change in the 
     subscriber's provider of telephone exchange service or 
     telephone toll service was submitted or executed in 
     accordance with the verification procedures prescribed under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(2) Resolution by commission.--The Commission shall 
     provide a simplified process for resolving complaints under 
     paragraph (1)(B). The simplified procedure shall preclude the 
     use of interrogatories, depositions, discovery, or other 
     procedural techniques that might unduly increase the expense, 
     formality, and time involved in the process. The Commission 
     shall issue an order resolving any such complaint at the 
     earliest date practicable, but in no event later than--
       ``(A) 150 days after the date on which it received the 
     complaint, with respect to liability issues; and
       ``(B) 90 days after the date on which it resolves a 
     complaint, with respect to damages issues, if such additional 
     time is necessary.
       ``(3) Damages awarded by commission.--In resolving a 
     complaint under paragraph (1)(B), the Commission may award 
     damages equal to the greater of $500 or the amount of actual 
     damages. The Commission may, in its discretion, increase the 
     amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 
     times the amount available under the preceding sentence.
       ``(e) Penalty.--
       ``(1) In general.--Unless the Commission determines that 
     there are mitigating circumstances, violation of subsection 
     (a) is punishable by a fine of not less than $40,000 for the 
     first offense, and not less than $150,000 for each subsequent 
     offense.
       ``(2) Failure to notify treated as violation of subsection 
     (a).--If a telecommunications carrier fails to comply with 
     the requirements of subsection (d)(1)(B), then that failure 
     shall be treated as a violation of subsection (a).
       ``(f) Recovery of Fines.--The Commission may take such 
     action as may be necessary--
       ``(1) to collect any fines it imposes under this section; 
     and
       ``(2) on behalf of any subscriber, any damages awarded the 
     subscriber under this section.''.
       (c) State Right-of-Action.--Section 258 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 258), as amended by 
     subsection (b), is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``(g) Actions by States.--
       ``(1) Authority of states.--Whenever the attorney general 
     of a State, or an official or agency designated by a State, 
     has reason to believe that a telecommunications carrier has 
     engaged or is engaging in a pattern or practice of changing 
     telephone exchange service or telephone toll service 
     provider without authority from subscribers in that State 
     in violation of this section or the regulations prescribed 
     under this section, the State may bring a civil action on 
     behalf of its residents to enjoin such unauthorized 
     changes, an action to recover for actual monetary loss or 
     receive $500 in damages for each violation, or both such 
     actions. If the court finds the defendant willfully or 
     knowingly violated such regulations, the court may, in its 
     discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount 
     equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under 
     the preceding sentence.
       ``(2) Exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts.--The 
     district courts of the United States, the United States 
     courts of any territory, and the District Court of the United 
     States for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive 
     jurisdiction over all civil actions brought under this 
     subsection. Upon proper application, such courts shall also 
     have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, or orders 
     affording like relief, commanding the defendant to comply 
     with the provisions of this section or regulations prescribed 
     under this section, including the requirement that the 
     defendant take such action as is necessary to remove the 
     danger of such violation. Upon a proper showing, a permanent 
     or temporary injunction or restraining order shall be granted 
     without bond.
       ``(3) Rights of commission.--The State shall serve prior 
     written notice of any such civil action upon the Commission 
     and provide the Commission with a copy of its complaint, 
     except in any case where such prior notice is not feasible, 
     in which case the State shall serve such notice immediately 
     upon instituting such action. The Commission shall have the 
     right--
       ``(A) to intervene in the action;
       ``(B) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters 
     arising therein; and
       ``(C) to file petitions for appeal.
       ``(4) Venue; service of process.--Any civil action brought 
     under this subsection in a district court of the United 
     States may be brought in the district wherein the defendant 
     is found or is an inhabitant or transacts business or wherein 
     the violation occurred or is occurring, and process in such 
     cases may be served in any district in which the defendant is 
     an inhabitant or where the defendant may be found.
       ``(5) Investigatory powers.--For purposes of bringing any 
     civil action under this subsection, nothing in this section 
     shall prevent the attorney general of a State, or an official 
     or agency designated by a State, from exercising the powers 
     conferred on the attorney general or such official by the 
     laws of such State to conduct investigations or to administer 
     oaths or affirmations or to compel the attendance of 
     witnesses or the production of documentary and other 
     evidence.
       ``(6) Effect on state court proceedings.--Nothing contained 
     in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit an 
     authorized State official from proceeding in State court on 
     the basis of an alleged violation of any general civil or 
     criminal statute of such State.
       ``(7) Limitation.--Whenever the Commission has instituted a 
     civil action for violation of regulations prescribed under 
     this section, no State may, during the tendency of such 
     action instituted by the Commission, subsequently institute a 
     civil action against any defendant named in the Commission's 
     complaint for any violation as alleged in the Commission's 
     complaint.
       ``(8) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term 
     `attorney general' means the chief legal officer of a State.
       ``(h) State law not preempted.--Nothing in this section or 
     in the regulations prescribed under this section shall 
     preempt any State law that imposes more restrictive 
     intrastate requirements or regulations on, or which prohibits 
     unauthorized changes in, a subscriber's selection of a 
     provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service.''.

     SEC. 2. REPORT ON TELEMARKETING PRACTICES.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Communications Commission 
     shall issue a report within 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act on the telemarketing practices used by 
     telecommunications carriers or their agents or employees for 
     the purpose of soliciting changes by subscribers of their 
     telephone exchange service or telephone toll service 
     provider.
       (b) Specific Issues.--As part of the report required under 
     subsection (a), the Commission shall include findings on--
       (1) the extent to which imposing penalties on telemarketers 
     would deter unauthorized changes in a subscriber's selection 
     of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service;
       (2) the need for rules requiring third-party verification 
     of changes in a subcriber's selection of such a provider; and
       (3) whether wireless carriers should continue to be exempt 
     from the verification and retention requirements imposed by 
     section 258(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (47 U.S.C. 258(a)(2)(B)(iii)).
       (c) Rulemaking.--If the Commission determines that 
     particular telemarketing practices are being used with the 
     intention to mislead, deceive, or confuse subscribers and 
     that they are likely to mislead, deceive, or confuse 
     subscribers, then the Commission shall initiate a rulemaking 
     to prohibit the use of such practices within 120 days after 
     the completion of its report.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (For himself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Coats, and Mrs. 
        Murray):
  S. 1619. A bill to direct the Federal Communications Commission to 
study systems for filtering or blocking matter on the Internet, to 
require the installation of such a system on computers in schools and 
libraries with Internet access, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                   the internet school filtering act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Internet 
School Filtering Act, which is designed to protect children from 
exposure to sexually explicit and other harmful material when they 
access the Internet in school and in the library. I am pleased to be 
joined by Senators Hollings, Coats, and Murray as cosponsors of this 
legislation, and I thank them for their assistance in this important 
effort.
  This legislation comes to grips with a regrettable but unavoidable 
problem. Today, pornography is widely available on the Internet. 
According to Wired

[[Page S519]]

magazine, today there are approximately 28,000 adult Web sites 
promoting hard and soft-core pornography. Together, these sites 
register many millions of ``hits'' by websurfers per day.
  Mr. President, there is no question that some of the websurfers who 
are accessing these sites are children. Some, unfortunately, are 
actively searching for these sites. But many others literally and 
unintentionally stumble across them. Anyone who uses seemingly 
innocuous terms while searching the World Wide Web for educational or 
harmless recreational purposes can inadvertently run into adult sites. 
For example, when the word ``teen'' is typed into a search engine, a 
site titled ``Teenagesex.com'' is the first search result to appear.
  Mr. President, parents have a responsibility to monitor their 
children's Internet use. This is their proper role, and no amount of 
governmental assistance or industry self-regulation could ever be as 
effective in protecting children as parental supervision.
  Parental supervision, however, is not possible when children use the 
Internet while they are away from home, in schools and libraries. The 
billions of dollars per year the Federal government will be giving 
schools and libraries to enable them to bring advanced Internet 
learning technology to the classroom will bring in the Internet's 
explicit online content as well. These billions of dollars will 
ultimately be paid for by the American people. So it is only right that 
if schools and libraries accept these federally-provided subsidies for 
Internet access, they have an absolute responsibility to their 
communities to assure that children are protected from online content 
that can harm them.
  And this harm can be prevented. The prevention lies, not in censoring 
what goes onto the Internet, but rather in filtering what comes out of 
it onto the computers our children use outside the home.
  Mr. President, Internet filtering systems work, and they need not be 
blunt instruments that unduly constrain the availability of 
legitimately instructional material. Today they are adaptable, capable 
of being fine-tuned to accommodate changes in websites as well as the 
evolving needs of individual schools and even individual lesson-plans. 
Best of all, their use will channel explicit material away from 
children while they are not under parental supervision, while not in 
any way inhibiting the rights of adults who may wish to post indecent 
material on the Web or have access to it outside school environs.
  Mr. President, it boils down to this: The same Internet that can 
benefit our children is also capable of inflicting terrible damage on 
them. For this reason, school and library administrators who accept 
univeral service support to provide students with its intended benefits 
must also safeguard them against its unintended harm. I commend the 
efforts of those who have recognized this responsibility by providing 
filtering systems in the many educational facilities that already have 
Internet capability. This legislation assures that this responsibility 
is extended to all other institutions as they implement advanced 
technologies funded by federally-mandated universal service funds.
  Mr. President, this bill takes a sensible approach. It requires 
schools receiving universal service discounts to use a filtering system 
on their computers so that objectionable online materials will not be 
accessible to students. Libraries are required to use a filtering 
system on one or more of their computers so that at least one computer 
will be appropriate for minors' use. Filtering technology is itself 
eligible to be subsidized by the E-rate discount. Once a school or 
library certifies that it will use a filtering system, they will be 
eligible to receive universal service fund subsidies for Internet 
access. If schools and libraries do not so certify, they will not be 
eligible to receive universal service fund-subsidized discounts.
  Some have argued that the use of filtering technology in public 
schools and libraries would amount to censorship under the First 
Amendment. The Supreme Court has found, however, that obscenity is not 
protected by the First Amendment. And insofar as other sexually-
explicit material is concerned, the bill will not affect an adult's 
ability to access this information on the Internet outside the school 
environment, and it will in no way impose any filtering requirement on 
Internet use in the home. Perhaps most important, the bill prohibits 
the federal government from prescribing any particular filtering 
system, or from imposing a different filtering system than the one 
selected by the certifying educational authority. It thus places the 
prerogative for determining which filtering system best reflects the 
community's standards precisely where it should be: on the community 
itself.
  Mr. President, more and more people are using the Internet each day. 
Currently, there may be as many as 50 million Americans online, and 
that number is expected to at least double by the millennium. As 
Internet use in our schools and libraries continues to grow, children's 
potential exposure to harmful online content will only increase. This 
bill simply assures that universal service subsidies will be used to 
defend them from the very dangers that these same subsidies are 
otherwise going to increase. This is a rational response to what could 
otherwise be a terrible and unintended problem.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 
appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1619

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. NO UNIVERSAL SERVICE FOR SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES THAT 
                   FAIL TO IMPLEMENT A FILTERING OR BLOCKING 
                   SYSTEM FOR COMPUTERS WITH INTERNET ACCESS.

       (a) In General.--Section 254 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:
       ``(l) Implementation of a Filtering or Blocking System.--
       ``(1) In general.--No services may be provided under 
     subsection (h)(1)(B) to any elementary or secondary school, 
     or any library, unless it provides the certification required 
     by paragraph (2) or (3), respectively.
       ``(2) Certification for schools.--Before receiving 
     universal service assistance under subsection (h)(1)(B), an 
     elementary or secondary school (or the school board or other 
     authority with responsibility for administration of that 
     school) shall certify to the Commission that it has--
       ``(A) selected a system for computers with Internet access 
     to filter or block matter deemed to be inappropriate for 
     minors; and
       ``(B) installed, or will install as soon as it obtains 
     computers with Internet access, a system to filter or block 
     such matter.
       ``(3) Certification for libraries.--Before receiving 
     universal service assistance under subsection (h)(1)(B), a 
     library that has a computer with Internet access shall 
     certify to the Commission that, on one or more of its 
     computers with Internet access, it employs a system to filter 
     or block matter deemed to be inappropriate for minors. If a 
     library that makes a certification under this paragraph 
     changes the system it employs or ceases to employ any such 
     system, it shall notify the Commission within 10 days after 
     implementing the change or ceasing to employ the system.''.
       ``(4) Local determination of content.--For purposes of 
     paragraphs (2) and (3), the determination of what matter is 
     inappropriate for minors shall be made by the school, school 
     board, library or other authority responsible for making the 
     required certification. No agency or instrumentality of the 
     United States Government may--
       ``(A) establish criteria for making that determination;
       ``(B) review the determination made by the certifying 
     school, school board, library, or other authority; or
       ``(C) consider the criteria employed by the certifying 
     school, school board, library, or other authority in the 
     administration of subsection (h)(1)(B).''.
       (b) Conforming Change.--Section 254(h)(1)(B) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)(1)(B)) is 
     amended by striking ``All telecommunications'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided by subsection (l), all 
     telecommunications''.

                          ____________________