[Senate Report 105-226]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 105-226
_______________________________________________________________________
INTERNET FILTERING SYSTEMS
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S.1619
June 25, 1998.--Ordered to be printed
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred fifth congress
second session
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
SLADE GORTON, Washington WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
BILL FRIST, Tennessee RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RON WYDEN, Oregon
John Raidt, Staff Director
Mark Buse, Policy Director
Ivan A. Schlager, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
James S. W. Drewry, Democratic General Counsel
105th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 105-226
_______________________________________________________________________
INTERNET FILTERING SYSTEMS
_______
June 25, 1998.--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. 1619]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred 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'', having considered
the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and
recommends that the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the bill is to protect American children from
exposure to harmful material while accessing the Internet from
a school or library.
Background and Needs
CONGRESSIONAL CONCERN
Pornography and other material harmful to minors is
widespread on the Internet. According to Wired magazine, there
are currently some 28,000 adult Web sites promoting hard-and
soft-core pornography. Other Web sites depict graphic violence
or provide how-to instructions on drug or bomb-making. Still
other sites allow Internet users to access online highstakes
gambling. Furthermore, sexual predators are using the Internet
to entice and traumatize their victims through the use of
Internet chat rooms and the transmission of pornographic
pictures and materials.
The danger posed by this material is particularly acute for
the nation's children, who are unable to guard themselves with
the sophistication of an adult. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
reports how a 39-year-old man, residing in Florida, used
Internet chat rooms to lure 14 and 15-year-old girls, living as
far away as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, to hotel rooms where he
sexually assaulted them. The New York Daily News tells how a
14-year-old boy was repeatedly raped by an older man he met in
a chat room on America Online. A mother recounts in the Ladies
Home Journal how her 13-year-old son suffered first and second
degree burns over more than 25 percent of his body after a
failed attempt to manufacture a bomb from instructions found on
an Internet Web site. In addition, first-hand accounts of
educators, parents, and civic groups attest to the harm caused
to children by the easy access to Internet pornography,
including child pornography, bestiality, sadomasochism, and
torture.
There is currently little or no protection for children from
harmful material on the Internet. While searching the Internet
using innocuous words, such as ``teen,'' ``nurse,'' or
``cheerleader,'' children can inadvertently run into adult,
pornographic Web sites. Although some of these sites require a
credit card or adult access number to gain access to sexual
material, many display pornographic advertisements and sample
pictures to entice viewers to adult-rated sites. These
pornographic images are readily available to children without
the need to present any verification of their age.
EXISTING SOLUTIONS
There is currently no limit on what may be placed on the
Internet. In 1996, the Congress passed the Communications
Decency Act (``CDA'') as part of the Telecommunications Act of
1996. \1\ The CDA sought to prohibit the transmission of
obscene or indecent messages to minors through the Internet by
imposing criminal sanctions on the sender, unless the sender
took good faith actions to restrict access by requiring certain
designated forms of age verification. \2\ The CDA was signed
into law by President Clinton on February 8, 1996, and was
immediately challenged as unconstitutional. On June 11, 1996, a
three-judge District Court entered a preliminary injunction
against enforcement of the challenged provisions of the CDA.
\3\ The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. On June 26,
1997, the Supreme Court agreed with the District Court that the
CDA abridged the freedom of speech protected by the First
Amendment. \4\ The Court found that speech placed on the
Internet deserves the highest level of protection under the
First Amendment and that, by placing broad prohibitions on what
could be put on the Internet, the CDA imposed an unacceptably
heavy burden on protected speech and was not narrowly tailored
to meet the government's interest in protecting children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat.
56 (1996).
\2\ See Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 223(a)
et seq. (Supp. 1997).
\3\ See ACLU v. Reno, 929 F.Supp. 824 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
\4\ See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. -- -- (1997) (slip. op.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filtering or blocking what comes out of the Internet is an
alternative method of protecting children from harmful
material. Filtering or blocking systems restrict what the user
may receive over the Internet, rather than what a speaker may
put on to the Internet. Several such systems are currently
commercially available. \5\ There are two main methods
employed by filtering or blocking systems to restrict minors'
access to harmful material. One method restricts access based
on the appearance of key words or phrases in the text of
Internet material. For example, the user can set the system to
block material containing the key word ``bestiality'' or ``teen
sex.'' Certain systems also prevent the transmission of
personal data, such as addresses, phone numbers, and credit
card numbers. The other method restricts access to sites
previously found to be inappropriate. For example, the
filtering or blocking system contains a database of sites found
to contain objectionable material, such as sexually explicit
material, excessive violence, hate speech, gambling, or illicit
drug use, and prevents users from accessing those sites. This
list is continuously updated by the company which provides the
filtering or blocking system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Some of the more commonly available examples are CyberPatrol
by Microsystems Software, CYBERsitter by Solid Oak Software, Net Nanny
by Net Nanny Ltd., and SurfWatch by Spyglass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While neither method is perfect, both provide reasonable
means of protecting children from the majority of harmful
material on the Internet. These systems promise to become even
more effective in the future. Indeed, the Supreme Court in Reno
v. ACLU noted that ``currently available user-based software
suggests that a reasonably effective method by which parents
can prevent their children from accessing sexually explicit and
other material which parents may believe is inappropriate for
their children will soon be widely available.'' (emphasis
omitted). \6\ However, these systems can be effective only if
they are actually used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at -- -- .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROACH OF S. 1619
Although the best protection for children from harmful online
content is close supervision by their parents, this supervision
is not possible when children use the Internet while away from
home in schools and libraries. Therefore, as schools and
libraries become increasingly connected to the Internet, it is
incumbent on them to assume a supervisory role in protecting
children from harmful material encountered on the Internet.
S. 1619 is intended to ensure that schools and libraries will
effectively participate in the supervision of children's
Internet use by taking the steps necessary to prevent children
from being exposed to harmful online content. As the use of the
Internet by schools and libraries expands through the receipt
of federal universal service assistance, S. 1619 seeks to make
sure that schools and libraries will have the tools necessary
to protect children from material inappropriate for their age
or for the school or library environment.
CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
S. 1619 seeks to protect children from harmful material in a
way that is least intrusive on the self-governance of schools
and libraries, and on the right of adults to engage in
constitutionally-protected speech.
SPENDING POWER
The requirements of S. 1619 attempt to balance the right of
States to administer their schools and libraries with the power
of Congress to see that federal funds are appropriately used.
The universal service assistance program is a form of subsidy
undertaken as part of the spending power of Congress. Although
the Supreme Court has recently affirmed that ``[education is an
area] where States historically have been sovereign,'' \7\
Congress may impose reasonable conditions on the receipt of
federal funds or subsidies as part of its spending power. \8\
These conditions must be stated clearly and unambiguously. \9\
Additionally, the conditions cannot be so coercive as to become
compulsive regulation of powers given to the States under the
Constitution, nor can the conditions violate any provisions of
the Constitution. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
\8\ See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992); South
Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
\9\ See Pennhurst State Sch. and Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1
(1981).
\10\ See 483 U.S. at 209-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has good reason to believe that the filtering
or blocking conditions set on the receipt of universal service
assistance to schools and libraries are constitutional. The
condition of protecting minors from inappropriate Internet
matter through the installation of filtering or blocking
systems is reasonably related to the purpose of providing
schools and libraries with Internet services to fulfill their
educational mission. \11\ The certification requirements
contained in S. 1619 provide clear notice of the conditions
placed on the acceptance of the federal funds. The universal
service assistance only provides a discount on the acquisition
of telecommunication services; the school or library must still
pay for a portion of the acquisition. Thus, ineligibility to
receive a discount on services does not rise to the level of
impermissible coercion by which failure to meet a condition
results in the forfeiture of all funding. \12\ Furthermore, S.
1619 intentionally leaves not only the selection of the
particular filtering or blocking system, but also the
determination of what material constitutes ``matter deemed to
be inappropriate for minors,'' to the local school and library
authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 254(h)(1)(B) (stating that universal
service assistance be provided to educational providers and libraries
``for educational purposes.'')
\12\ Compare South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)
(withholding of ten percent of federal highway funds of States that
fail to implement a 21-year old minimum drinking age is an incentive,
not coercion) with Commonwealth of Virginia Dept of Educ. v. Riley, 106
F.3d 559 (4th Cir. 1997)(en banc) (holding that the withholding of the
entirety of a state's sixty million dollar federal education grant due
to a failure to meet a condition affecting 126 students was
impermissible coercion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In two recent cases, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991)
and Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of
Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), the Supreme Court has examined
the relationship of the First Amendment and the government's
right to subsidize speech. In Rust, the Court upheld a
governmental prohibition on federally funded family planning
projects from advocating, promoting, or advising on abortion.
The Court recognized that when the government spends public
funds to promote a particular policy, the government is
entitled to say what it wishes. \13\ Furthermore, when the
government disburses public funds to private entities to
promote a particular policy, ``it may take legitimate and
appropriate steps to ensure that its message is neither garbled
nor distorted . . . .'' \14\ In Rosenberger, however, the
Court held that a University's refusal to reimburse the
publication expenses of a Christian student newspaper, while
reimbursing the expenses of other student publications, was
unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Although the Court
affirmed that the State may make content-based spending
decisions, \15\ the Court determined that the University was
not the speaker or the subsidizer of the message. Instead, the
Court found that the University expended the funds to encourage
a diversity of views from private speakers, and therefore was
required to maintain viewpoint neutrality in its funding
decisions. \16\ Thus, the key factors appear to be the extent
that the government or its agent is the speaker or subsidizer
of the message, and to what extent the government has opened
the forum to outside, private speakers. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 833 (citing Rust, 500 U.S. at
194).
\14\ See id. (citing Rust, 500 U.S. at 196-200)
\15\ ``[W]hen the State is the speaker, it may make content-based
choices. When the University determines the content of the education it
provides, it is the University speaking, and we have permitted the
government to regulate the content of what is or is not expressed when
it is the speaker or when it enlists private entities to convey its own
message.'' Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 833.
\16\ See id. at 834.
\17\ Forum analysis is more fully discussed infra., at II.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 1619 would pass the analyses used in Rust and Rosenberger.
Because the Internet material is to be used in the schools as
part of their curriculum, the government, through the school,
remains the speaker, or at least the subsidizer of the Internet
speech. Through universal service assistance the government is
seeking to promote a policy of connecting schools and libraries
to the Internet for educational purposes. The introduction of
inappropriate material, such as pornography, would tend to
``garble'' and ``distort'' the educational message the
government is seeking to promote. The required installation of
filtering or blocking systems is viewed as an appropriate
measure to ensure that the government's message is not
distorted. If the school or library strongly desires to provide
unfiltered access to the Internet, it is free to do so with its
own funds, or through other governmental programs. Furthermore,
even assuming that the school and library uses the Internet to
encourage a diversity of views of private speakers, there is
nothing in S. 1619 that necessitates a violation of viewpoint
neutrality. S. 1619 seeks to filter or block material based on
its inappropriate content, not based on any particular
viewpoint. Thus, S. 1619 still meets the constitutional
requirements of the spending power, as set forth in Rust and
Rosenberger.
FIRST AMENDMENT
S. 1619 is intended to protect children from the harmful
effects of inappropriate material consistent with the freedom
of speech guaranteed under the First Amendment. Under First
Amendment jurisprudence, courts have traditionally examined the
forum in which the speech is conducted to determine what, if
any, legitimate restrictions may be placed on speech.
Additionally, any governmental restriction must be examined for
overbreadth and vagueness, in order to ensure that the
regulation provides reasonable precision of what speech is to
be limited.
FORUM ANALYSIS
According to the forum analysis used by the Supreme Court, an
elementary or secondary school is a nonpublic forum in which
the government may prescribe content-based restrictions on
subject matter and speaker identity, so long as the
restrictions are reasonable in light of the purpose of the
forum and are viewpoint neutral. \18\ Although students do not
``shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech . . .
at the school house gate,'' \19\ the rights of students in
public elementary or secondary schools are not coextensive with
the rights of adults. \20\ Thus, the government and its agents
have considerable discretion to control what goes on in their
schools, so long as their actions are reasonable and viewpoint
neutral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Perry Educ. Assoc. v. Perry Local Educator's Assoc., 460
U.S.. 37 (1983).
\19\ Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S.
503, 506 (1969).
\20\ See Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 1619 does not require any school to filter or block
material based on the viewpoint expressed. It only requires
schools to filter or block material because the content of that
material is inappropriate for minors in a school setting. In a
different context, a court has already upheld a similar policy
instituted by a school district that prohibited the showing of
films rated ``R'' by the Motion Picture Association of America
(``MPAA''). \21\ The court found that the school district's
reliance on the rating standards of the MPAA was a reasonable
way of preventing children from being exposed to films
containing excessive sex, violence, or profane language. \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Borger v. Bisciglia, 888 F.Supp. 97 (E.D. Wisc. 1995).
\22\ See id. at 100-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A public library, however, is considered to be a public forum
for the acquisition of knowledge, and any regulation affecting
this purpose must pass strict constitutional scrutiny. \23\
Strict scrutiny requires the government to show that the
restriction on speech serves a compelling governmental interest
and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, in such a
way least burdensome to constitutionally-protected speech. \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for Morristown, 958 F.2d 1242
(1992).
\24\ See Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. F.C.C., 492 U.S.
115, 126 (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courts have repeatedly found that the protection of minors
from harmful materials is a compelling governmental interest.
\25\ S. 1619 seeks to protect children from harmful materials
by filtering or blocking inappropriate material in schools and
libraries. According to Supreme Court precedent, this objective
would be deemed a compelling governmental interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Sable, supra, note 24; New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747,
756-7 (1982); F.C.C. v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 749 (1978);
Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERBREADTH AND VAGUENESS
S. 1619 is also narrowly tailored to achieve this compelling
governmental interest. It does not impose any burden on what
materials adults may place on to the Internet. In Reno v. ACLU,
the Supreme Court suggested that the use of filtering or
blocking systems in order to regulate what comes out of the
Internet is a more narrowly-tailored method of protecting
children from harmful Internet material than an attempt to
criminalize what is placed on the Internet. \26\ Much of the
material sought to be filtered or blocked consists of obscenity
or child pornography, neither of which is accorded First
Amendment protection. \27\ Furthermore, by requiring that only
one computer with Internet access in a library needs to employ
a filtering or blocking system, S. 1619 does not prevent adults
from engaging in constitutionally-protected material in public
libraries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at -- --.
\27\ See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (obscenity);
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) (obscenity); Osborne v.
Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990) (child pornography); New York v. Ferber, 458
U.S. 747, 756-7 (1982) (child pornography).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The installation of filtering or blocking systems is the
least restrictive means of achieving the government's
compelling interest. A ``standard of use'' policy, by itself,
would be insufficient to protect children from harmful Internet
material. A ``standard of use'' policy relies on the
affirmative pledge of students not to actively seek harmful
material on the Internet. It does not address the harm caused
to children by the inadvertent access to harmful materials
through the use of innocuous search terms, such as
``cheerleader,'' or ``nurse.'' A child may be traumatized by
exposure to hard-core pornography using innocuous search terms,
even though the child did not violate the school's standard of
use policy by intentionally seeking out inappropriate material.
In addition, a student who ignores the standard of use policy
may expose other children to harmful material found on the
Internet at the school or library. Although the student would
be subject to disciplinary action after the fact, the damage
would be already done to the other children exposed to the
harmful material. Thus, a ``standard of use'' policy is not an
alternative, less-restrictive means of achieving the compelling
governmental interest in protecting children from harmful
Internet material.
Under S. 1619, the government is expressly banned from
prescribing what material constitutes ``matter deemed to be
inappropriate for minors.'' It is expected that the school and
library authorities that install the filtering or blocking
systems will clarify and make concrete this standard according
to their local community's norms. S. 1619 places the
determination of what material is inappropriate for minors in
the hands of the local school or library authorities, which are
best equipped to make that determination based on their
knowledge of the local community and their traditional role of
acting in loco parentis.
Schools and libraries can tailor the filtering or blocking
systems to meet the standards of their local communities.
Authorities can select what key words and phrases, if any, they
wish to filter or block. They are able to add and delete Web
sites to the database of unapproved sites. They can select
system providers whose standards of filtering most match the
standards of the local community. Finally, they can temporarily
turn off the filtering or blocking system when it is
appropriate to do so and the governmental interest would still
be met.
Legislative History
Senator McCain, the chairman of the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, introduced S. 1619 on February 9,
1998. Senators Hollings, Coats, Murray, Stevens, Inouye,
Hutchison, Kohl, Bond, and Abraham are cosponsors.
The full Committee held a hearing on Internet indecency on
February 10, 1998. The hearing consisted of testimony from
Senator Coats and two panels of speakers, which represented the
interests of law enforcement, the Internet adult entertainment
industry, schools, and Internet industry associations.
Witnesses included an undercover police detective assigned to
investigate child pornography and child sexual exploitation on
the Internet, the president of a major commercial online
supplier of adult entertainment, the coordinator of
instructional technologies from an Arizona school district, and
representatives of Internet industry associations.
On March 12, 1998, in open executive session the Committee
ordered the bill to be reported favorably without amendment.
Summary of Major Provisions
As reported, S.1619 would: (1) require schools seeking
universal service assistance to certify that they have selected
and installed a system to block or filter material available on
the Internet which is deemed to be inappropriate for minors;
(2) require libraries seeking universal service assistance to
certify that at least one computer with Internet access employs
a system to filter or block matter deemed to be inappropriate
for minors; and (3) specify that the determination of what
constitutes material deemed to be inappropriate for minors
shall be made locally by the school or library seeking
certification.
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:
[Insert CBO letter, attached as page(s) ---- through ----]
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 number of schools and libraries applying for
universal service assistance under Section 254(h)(1)(B) is not
available at this time. As of June 1998, the Schools and
Libraries Corporation had received about 45,000 applications.
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 sort of universal
service assistance. There are currently about 97,000 public
elementary and secondary schools in the United States, which
are potentially eligible for assistance. In addition, there are
currently about 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 cost 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 need-based matrix,
universal service assistance will provide up to a 90% discount
on the purchase price of these systems. The remainder will have
to be incurred by the schools or 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
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 application 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 filtering or
blocking system, or discontinuing the use of such as system
after installation, an additional notification will have to be
made to the FCC.
Section-by-section Analysis
SECTION 1. NO UNIVERSAL SERVICE FOR SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES THAT FAIL TO
IMPLEMENT A FILTERING OR BLOCKING SYSTEM FOR
COMPUTERS WITH INTERNET ACCESS
This is the only section of the bill. Section 1 (a) adds a
new subsection (l) to section 254 of the Communications Act of
1934 (all section references are to the Communications Act of
1934, unless otherwise noted).
New section 254(l)(1) sets a general condition that no
universal service assistance can be provided to any elementary
or secondary school, or any library, without meeting the
certification requirements of new subsections (l)(2) and
(l)(3).
New section 254(l)(2) requires that, before receiving
universal service assistance, an elementary or secondary school
must certify to the FCC 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. This certification can
be made by the school board or other authority with
responsibility for administration of the school.
New section 254(l)(3) requires that, before receiving
universal service assistance, a library that has a computer
with Internet access must certify to the FCC 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 changes the
system it employs or ceases to employ any such system, it must
notify the FCC within 10 days after implementing the change or
ceasing to employ the system.
The phrase ``a system to filter or block'' is intended to
provide maximum discretion to the certifying authority in its
selection of such a system. The selection is not intended to be
limited to software-based systems, but it is intended to
encompass all technologies available now and as technology
develops. The Committee does not intend to impose the
certification requirement on computers that are accessed solely
by adults, such as school nurses, or library or school staff,
administrators, and teachers. The Committee anticipates that a
library possessing only one computer with Internet access will
enable adults to turn off the filtering or blocking system
during use by adults, in order to preserve the ability of
adults to engage in speech constitutionally protected for
adults.
New section 254(l)(4) provides that 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 universal service assistance.
Section 1(b) of the bill consists of conforming changes to
the text of existing section 254(h)(1)(B) to take into account
the certification requirements of the new section 254(l).
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):
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] Except as provided by
subsection (l), 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) 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) 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.
(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.
(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).