[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''.
____________________