Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                       Calendar No. 262
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    106-141
_______________________________________________________________________




                  CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION ACT

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

           COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                                   on

                                 S. 97




                 August 5, 1999.--Ordered to be printed

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
69-010                     WASHINGTON : 1999


       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                       one hundred sixth congress

                             first session

                     JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman

TED STEVENS, Alaska                  ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana                DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
SLADE GORTON, Washington             JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West 
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi              Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA SNOWE, Maine                 JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri              RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
BILL FRIST, Tennessee                BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan            RON WYDEN, Oregon
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                MAX CLELAND, Georgia

                       Mark Buse, Staff Director

                  Martha P. Allbright, General Counsel

     Ivan A. Schlager, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director

               Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic General Counsel

                                  (ii)
                                                       Calendar No. 262
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    106-141

======================================================================



 
                   CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION ACT

                                _______
                                

                 August 5, 1999.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______


       Mr. McCain, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                Transportation, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                          [To accompany S. 97]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill (S. 97) ``A bill to require the 
installation and use by schools and libraries of a technology 
for filtering or blocking material on the Internet on computers 
with Internet access to be eligible to receive or retain 
universal service assistance'', having considered the same, 
reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a 
substitute) and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

  The purpose of the bill is to protect America's children from 
exposure to obscene material, child pornography, or other 
material deemed inappropriate for minors while accessing the 
Internet from a school or library receiving Federal Universal 
Service assistance for provisions of Internet access, Internet 
service, or internal connection.

                          Background and Needs


                   The Internet and Universal Service

  The Internet is an international, cooperative computer 
network that links many types of users, such as governments, 
schools, libraries, corporations, hospitals and individuals. 
Information and communications are exchanged via the Internet 
through various means, including E-mail, Usenet news groups, 
chat rooms, and the web sites on the World Wide Web (the Web).
  There has been a dramatic expansion in Internet connections 
over the last several years, with more than a 13-fold increase 
in the Internet host computer count between 1994 and 1998. The 
Internet connects more than 29 million host computers in more 
than 250 countries. Currently, the Internet is growing at a 
rate of approximately 40 percent to 50 percent annually. Some 
estimates of the number of U.S. Internet users are as high as 
62 million. More than half of the computers connected to the 
Internet reside in the United States. UUnet, an Internet access 
provider, estimates that Internet traffic is doubling every 
four days.
  Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 added a new 
subsidy to the traditional Universal Service program, commonly 
referred to as the Schools and Libraries Discount, or E-rate. 
As implemented by the Federal Communications Commission (the 
Commission), the E-rate is a $2.25 billion annual subsidy aimed 
at connecting schools and libraries to the Internet. The 
subsidy is funded through charges on individual consumers' 
phone bills.
  There are approximately 86,000 public schools in the United 
States.\1\ From 1997 to 1998, the percentage of public 
classrooms connected to the Internet nearly doubled, from 27 
percent to 51 percent. During that same time, the percentage of 
public schools connected to the Internet rose from 78 percent 
to 89 percent.\2\ At the conclusion of the first program year 
of the E-rate, the Schools and Libraries Corporation (SLC), 
responsible for administration of the E-rate subsidy program, 
had processed 30,120 applications and funded 25,785.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ QED 1997-98 Education Market Guide.
    \2\ Department of Education, National Center for Education 
Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Sexually Explicit Material On-line

  Though the Internet represents tremendous potential in 
bringing previously unimaginable education and information 
opportunities to our nation's children, there are very real 
risks associated with the use of the Internet. Pornography, 
including obscene material, child pornography, and indecent 
material is available on the Internet. This material may be 
accessed directly and intentionally, or may turn up as the 
unintended product of a general Internet search. Though, due to 
the amorphous nature of the Internet, it is difficult to 
establish precisely the amount of pornography available on the 
Internet, according to the National Journal, there are ``at 
least 30,000 pornographic Web sites.'' \3\ This number does not 
include Usenet news groups, and pornographic spam. Further, the 
aggressive tactics of commercial pornographers on the Internet 
expose children to random, and unintended exposure to sexually 
explicit material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ National Journal, ``The Web's Pornucopia,'' January 9, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The vast majority of Internet users utilize Internet 
browsers, such as Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Explorer, to 
navigate the Internet. There are two basic methods to 
conducting Internet searches. The first is to type in a 
specific site address, which will take the user directly to 
that location. The second, more general approach, is to type in 
general keywords which will result in a list of ``hits,'' or 
sites containing combinations of the keywords.
  Search engines, such as Yahoo, Alta Vista, and Lycos contain 
databases that store web site addresses. Users type in keyword 
commands into search engines that scan the database in search 
of web site addresses that include these terms. It is during 
these keyword searches that children are at the greatest risk 
of exposure to harmful material. Because search engines possess 
no artificial intelligence, they will retrieve any site that 
includes the key words. Due to the aggressive tactics of 
commercial pornographers, children are at risk of random 
exposure to sexually explicit material through these types of 
keyword searches. ``Web surfers looking for porn typically tap 
into such search services and use keywords like `sex' and 
`XXX'. But so many on-line sex shops now display those words 
that their presence won't make a site stand out in a list 
resulting from a user's query. To get noticed, pornographers 
increasingly try to trick search engines into giving them top 
billing--sometimes called spoofing.'' \4\ For example, search 
terms such as ``water baby,'' a popular child's doll, and 
``home schooling'' will produce commercial Web sites displaying 
graphic, sexually explicit material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Fortune, ``The Erotic Allure of Home Schooling,'' September 8, 
1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Exposure to Sexually Explicit Material is Harmful to Children

  Natural sexual development occurs gradually, throughout 
childhood. Exposure of children to pornography distorts this 
natural development by shaping sexual perspective through 
premature exposure to sexual information and imagery. ``The 
result is a set of distorted beliefs about human sexuality. 
These shared distorted beliefs include: pathological behavior 
is normal, is common, hurts no one, and is socially acceptable, 
the female body is for male entertainment, sex is not about 
intimacy and sex is the basis of self-esteem.'' \5\ ``Many 
people--including children and adolescents--learn about sex 
through pornography; it shapes their beliefs, attitudes, and 
expectations * * *. The prevalence of violent, abusive, and 
degrading pornography can induce beliefs that practices are not 
only common, but acceptable.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Testimony, Mary Anne Layden Ph.D., Director of Education, 
Center for Cognitive Therapy, University of Pennsylvania, Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, March 4, 1999.
    \6\ Neil Postman, The Disappearance of Childhood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The Internet presents a unique threat to normal sexual 
development in children by playing upon common elements that 
contribute generally to antisocial behavior in children. 
``Research indicates that there are three factors that produce 
the best environment to stimulate antisocial behavior in 
children; it is the combination of anonymity, role models of 
behavior and arousal. Internet Web sites possess exactly those 
three factors.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Testimony, Mary Anne Layden Ph.D., Director of Education, 
Center for Cognitive Therapy, University of Pennsylvania, Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Hearing on Internet Filtering, 
March 4, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Child Pornography and Pedophiles On-line

  The threat to children posed by unrestricted Internet access 
is not limited to exposure to simple pornography. There are 
increasing incidents of pedophiles utilizing the Internet to 
lure and seduce children into illegal and abusive sexual 
activity. In many cases, such activity is the product of 
individuals, taking advantage of the anonymity provided by the 
Internet to stalk children through chatrooms, and by E-mail. 
However, an increasingly disturbingtrend is that of highly 
organized, and technologically sophisticated groups of pedophiles who 
utilize advanced technology to trade in child pornography, and to 
sexually exploit and abuse children.
  In 1996, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on police 
efforts to break up an international ring of pedophiles 
operating through an on-line chatroom known as the ``Orchid 
Club.'' This case underscores both the technological 
sophistication of such activities, and the unique challenge of 
protecting children who may explore a global communications 
medium. ``The case appears to be the first incident where 
pornography on the Internet has been linked to an incident of 
child molestation that was transmitted on-line. Prosecutors 
said members produced and traded child pornography involving 
victims as young as five years old, swapped stories of having 
sex with minors and in one instance chatted online while two 
suspects molested a 10-year-old girl.'' \8\ Sixteen men were 
indicted, including individuals from across the United States, 
Australia, Canada, and Finland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ San Francisco Chronicle, ``Child Porn Ring on Internet,'' July 
17, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Tragically, the ``Orchid Club'' arrests only served notice of 
an emerging trend. In 1998, the U.S. Customs Service, in 
coordination with law enforcement officials from 13 other 
countries, conducted a raid on the ``Wonderland Club.'' In 
order to ``join'' the Wonderland Club, prospective members had 
to provide 10,000 images of child pornography, which were then 
digitally cross-referenced against the club's data base of more 
than 500,000 images of children to ensure their originality. 
``The images depict everything from sexual abuse to the actual 
rape of children--some as young as 18 months. Some club members 
in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia *  *  * owned 
production facilities and transmitted live child-sex shows over 
the Web. Club members directed the sex acts by sending 
instruction to the producers via Wondernet chat rooms. `They 
had standards,' said a law enforcement official involved in the 
case. `The only thing they banned was [sic] snuff pictures, the 
actual killing of somebody'.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Time, ``Main Street Monsters,'' September 14, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      The Internet as a Tool for Spreading Hate, Illicit Drug Use 
                Information, and Bomb-making Information

  Increasingly, the Internet is being used as a tool for 
disseminating information and propaganda promoting racism, 
anti-Semitism, extremism, and how-to manuals on everything from 
drugs to bombs.
  Rapid Internet growth has provided an opportunity for those 
promoting hate to reach a much broader audience. Our nation's 
youth, who are literally growing up in a digital age, are 
uniquely susceptible to these messages of hate. Through 
Internet access at home, school, and in public libraries, 
children can now be exposed to extremely hateful and dangerous 
information, and material that previous generations would 
likely not have encountered in their entire lifetime. ``They 
(hate groups) peddle hatred to children, with brightly colored 
Web pages featuring a coloring book of white supremacist 
symbols and a crossword puzzle full of racist clues.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ New York Times, ``Hate Groups Seeking Broader Reach,'' July 
17, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Those who would promote division and hatred have always 
utilized media propaganda as a means for spreading their toxic 
message. Magazines, pamphlets, movies, music and other means 
have been their traditional tools. However, with the advent of 
the World Wide Web, and digital convergence, these 
organizations are able to deliver a multimedia hate message 
through every computer, and potentially into the minds of every 
child with a computer and a mouse. Images of burning crosses, 
Neo-Nazi propaganda, every imaginable message of division and 
hatred are just one click away from our children. ``Many sites 
operated by neo-nazis, skinheads, Klu Klux Klan members and 
followers of radical religious sects are growing more 
sophisticated, offering inviting Web environments that are 
designed to be attractive to children and young adults.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Post Intelligencer, ``Nazism on the Internet,'' March 18, 
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The software filtering industry estimates that, of the 40,000 
to 60,000 new Web pages found each week, about 180 are hate or 
discrimination pages, 2,500 to 7,500 are adult sites, 400 are 
dedicated to violence, 1,250 are dedicated to weapons, and 50 
are murder-suicide sites.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ New York Law Journal, ``Extreme Speech on the Internet,'' June 
9, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Instruction manuals on bomb-making, weapons purchases, drug 
making and purchasing, are generally available on the Internet. 
With simple word searches using ``marijuana,'' kids can access 
web sites instructing them on how to cultivate, buy, and 
consume the drug.\13\ Similar searches on bomb-making produce 
the same result. ``The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 
recently ran a simple Internet query for the term ``pipe 
bomb,'' using several commonly used search engines. This query 
produced nearly three million ``hits'' of Web sites containing 
information on pipe bombs.'' \14\ As with hate speech, the 
Internet represents an unprecedented opportunity for the 
distribution of literature and information regarding illegal 
drug activity, bomb-making, and terrorism. Literature such as 
the ``Terrorist's Handbook'' is easily available on-line, and 
provides readers with instruction on everything from how to 
build guns and bombs, to lists of suppliers for the chemicals, 
and other ingredients necessary to construct such devices.\15\ 
Another Web site offers the ``School Stopper's Textbook,'' 
touted as ``A Guide to Disruptive Revolutionary Tactics for 
High-Schoolers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Examples: (www.redshift.coni/arnes/growl.html), 
(www.peretto.com/index.html).
    \14\ Testimony, Special Agent Mark James, Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, and Firearms, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, Hearing on Internet Filtering, May 20, 1999.
    \15\ Example: (http://come.to/anarchy/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Blocking and Filtering Technology

  Software companies have created technology applications that 
seek to protect children from exposure to inappropriate 
material that is disseminated and available on the Internet. 
Such technology has existed for several years. There are two 
basic categories of such technology, blocking and filtering. 
``There are now close to ninety different solutions from which 
parents and educators can choose to address just about every 
different need and value system.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Testimony, Gordon Ross, President and CEO of Net Nanny 
Software, International, Inc., Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation, Hearing on Internet Filtering, March 4, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Blocking software prevents access to Web sites or E-mail 
addresses preprogrammed into the software. These products 
include N2H2, Cyber Patrol, Cyber Sitter, Net Nanny, X-Stop, 
Net Shepherd, and others. Parents, teachers, or librarians can 
add or remove sites from the program. Further, the 
manufacturers regularly update the blocking lists, adding new 
sites, and removing ones that are no longer in operation.
  Filtering software screens sites based on keywords and rating 
systems. Like blocking software, filtering programs can be 
modified by the user, allowing them to add and remove keywords 
to be filtered.
  The strengths of these various systems have been questioned. 
Some have criticized blocking software because it only filters 
predetermined sites. Due to the sheer size of the Internet, and 
the pace at which it changes, some have argued that it is 
impossible to keep blocking lists current and comprehensive. 
Others have argued that filtering systems are too arbitrary, 
that filtering by keyword may result in blocking both harmful 
sites and useful sites. ``A general perception exists that 
Internet filtering is seriously flawed and in many situations 
unusable. It is also perceived that schools and libraries don't 
want filtering. These notions are ``based largely on problems 
associated with earlier versions of client-based software that 
are admittedly crude and ineffective. Though some poor 
filtering products still exist, filtering has gone through an 
extensive evolution and is not only good at protecting children 
but also well-received and in high demand.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Testimony, Peter Nickerson, CEO and President of N2H2, Inc., 
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Hearing on 
Internet Filtering, May 20, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Libraries and schools making a good faith use of blocking or 
filtering software to protect children or to avoid illegal 
materials for adults would be protected from civil liability by 
the ``Good Samaritan'' immunity, provided by Federal law. See 
47 U.S.C. 230(e)(2). Such blocking or filtering software could 
also provide a criminal defense against the knowing 
transmission of illegal pornography inadvertently or 
deliberately accessed.
  The Committee wishes to reinforce that it does not believe 
that the use of blocking and filtering technologies is in any 
way a substitute for aggressive and responsible oversight by 
teachers and librarians. Such technologies are intended to be a 
supplement to, not a replacement for, teacher and librarian 
efforts to protect children while on-line. Further, the 
Committee views such technologies as learning resources. For 
example, the use of such technologies in conjunction with 
ethical use policies designed to teach children responsibility 
and accountability provides both the assurance that children 
will be protected from illegal and harmful material while 
providing the opportunity to teach responsibility and 
accountability in a safe environment.

  First Amendment Issues: The Government Has a Compelling Interest in 
                          Protecting Children

  The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the compelling 
interest of the government in protecting children from exposure 
tosexually explicit material.\18\ As stated by the Court: ``It 
is evident beyond the need for elaboration that the State's interest in 
safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor is 
compelling.'' \19\ A school or library, by accepting Federal dollars 
through the Universal Service fund, becomes a partner with the Federal 
government in pursuing this compelling interest. The Supreme Court has 
made clear that schools have the authority to remove inappropriate 
books from school libraries. \20\ The Internet is simply another method 
for making information available in a school or library. It is no more 
than a technological extension of the book stack. As such, the same 
principles affirmed by the Court in Bethel apply to restricting 
children's access to material, over the Internet, in a school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 636-43 (1968); FCC v. 
Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 748-50 (1978); New York v. Ferber, 
458 U.S. 747, 757 (1982); Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 
492 U.S. 115, 126-28 (1989); Denver Area Ed. Tel. Consortium v. FCC, 
116 S. Ct. 2374, 2391 (1996); Reno v. ACLU, 117 S. Ct. 2329 (1997).
    \19\ Ferber at 757.
    \20\ Bethel School District. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 684 
(1986): ``This Court's First Amendment jurisprudence has acknowledged 
limitations on the otherwise absolute interest of the speaker in 
reaching unlimited audience where the speech is sexually explicit and 
the audience may include children. In Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 
629, 88 S.Ct. 1274, 20 L.Ed.2d 195 (1968), this Court upheld a New York 
Statute banning the sale of sexually oriented material to minors, even 
though the material in question was entitled to First Amendment 
protection with respect to adults. And in addressing the question 
whether the First Amendment places any limit on the authority of public 
schools to remove books from a public school library, all Members of 
the Court, otherwise sharply divided, acknowledged that the school 
board has the authority to remove books that are vulgar. Board of 
Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 871-872, 102 S.Ct. 2799, 2814-2815, 73 
L.Ed.2d 435 (1982)(plurality opinion); id,. at 879-881, 102 S.Ct., at 
2814-2815 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring in part and in judgment); id., at 
918-920, 102 S.Ct., at 2834-2835 (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting). These 
cases recognize the obvious concern on the part of parents, and school 
authorities acting in loco parentis, to protect children--especially in 
a captive audience--from exposure to sexually explicit, indecent, or 
lewd speech.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Opponents of S. 97 point to a Federal district court decision 
in Mainstream Loudoun v. Bd. Of Trustees of Loudoun County 
Library, 24 F. Supp.2d 552 (E.D.Va. 1998), in which that 
library's use of Internet filtering software was declared 
unconstitutional. However, there are distinct differences 
between the requirements under S. 97, and the Mainstream 
Loudoun case. A major distinction in S. 97 is that this bill is 
an incentive subsidy and not a police power statute that is 
binding on the public. Another critical distinction is that 
filters were used on all computers in the Loudoun case (both 
computers used by adults and by children), where as, under S. 
97, blocking or filtering is required only while a computer is 
in use by a minor. Further, under S. 97, content which is 
specifically required to be blocked, child pornography and 
obscene material, enjoys no protection under the First 
Amendment. \21\ On the other hand, in the Loudoun case, the 
libraries were required to block material that was ``harmful to 
minors,'' speech that is not traditionally considered to lie 
outside of First Amendment protection. ``It must also be noted 
that the Loudoun court did hold that minimizing access to 
illegal pornography and avoidance of creation of a sexually 
hostile environment are compelling interests. The court went on 
to hold that, although the challenged policy was over inclusive 
because it restricted adult Internet access, it would be 
possible to create a policy which would protect children. Id. 
at 567.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 474, 481 (1982), Miller v. 
California, 414 U.S. 15, 24-25, 27 (1973).
    \22\ Testimony, Jay Sekulow Esq., The American Center for Law and 
Justice, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
Hearing on Internet Filtering, March 4, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  In addition, in addressing these issues, a court is also 
likely to look to related, non-Internet situations that have 
arisen in the past. These precedents include decisions 
regarding the selection or removal of books in schools or 
libraries, and the selection of content for publication in 
school-sponsored student newspapers. The Supreme Court has 
ruled that schools are non-public forums that are outside the 
general marketplace of expression. Accordingly, school boards 
have significant discretion to restrict content and expression 
within that environment. \23\ Under this doctrine, school 
officials only violate the First Amendment when they limit 
access to materials ``for the purpose of restricting access to 
the political ideas or social perspectives discussed in them, 
when that action is motivated simply by the official's 
disapproval of the ideas involved.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 482 U.S. 260, 273 
(1988).
    \24\ Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 879-80 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  In situations where a school has restricted access to certain 
material, courts tend to consider whether the school's decision 
bore a reasonable relationship to a legitimate pedagogical 
concern. \25\ For example, a school district's decision that 
students exposed to violence, nudity, or ``hard'' language is a 
view-point neutral ``legitimate pedagogical concern.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.
    \26\ Borger v. Bisciglia, 888 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Wis. 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  At its core, S. 97 is a spending bill, amending section 
254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 to require, as a 
contingency for receipt of a Federal subsidy, certain measures 
to restrict children's access to child pornography, obscene 
material, and, upon election, other harmful material via school 
and library computers. Local officials are granted the 
authority to determine what technology is used to achieve this 
end, and policies for determining how such technology is used. 
The precedent for conditioning receipt of Federal assistance is 
consistent with the Court's opinion in Rust v. Sullivan, 500 
U.S. 173 (1991), and National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 
524 U.S. 569 (1998). In sum, the Committee is confident that 
the approach of S. 97 to schools would survive any 
constitutional challenge brought in Federal court.
  With respect to the legislation's approach to libraries, the 
Committee notes again that regulations designed to protect 
minors are historically given greater latitude for the purposes 
of First Amendment review. Moreover, a library does not 
constitute a traditional public forum. Libraries place many 
restrictions on what patrons may do while on the premises. The 
simplest, and most powerful example of this are the strict 
rules implemented by libraries to maintain quiet, and an 
atmosphere for reading and study. Patrons are not permitted to 
give speeches, make public statements, sing, speak loudly. 
Further, patrons at a library do not have the right to make 
editorial decisions regarding the availability of certain 
material. It is the exclusive authority of the library to make 
affirmative decisions regarding what books, magazines, or other 
material is placed on library shelves, or otherwise made 
available to patrons. Libraries impose many restrictions on the 
use of their systems which demonstrate that the content of the 
library's offerings are not determined by the general public. 
Additionally, an open forum by government designation becomes 
open because it allows the general public into its facility for 
First Amendment activities. Like in the National Endowment for 
the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) decision, the 
government purchase of books (like buying art) does not create 
a public forum.
  A review of the nature of libraries and schools, and the 
purposes that lie behind their provision of Internet access, 
leads to the conclusion that a public library or school is not 
a public forum. This conclusion is amply supported by Supreme 
Court Precedent. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 
U.S. 260, 267 (1988), the Supreme Court stated that ``schools 
do not possess all the attributes of streets, parks, and other 
traditional public forums that time out of mind, have been used 
for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between 
citizens, and discussing public questions.'' Id. (Quoting Hogue 
v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939)). Likewise, a library's 
purpose is to make available books, to lend research tools, and 
supplemental educational opportunities to its citizens. It is 
``a place dedicated to quiet, to knowledge, and to beauty.'' 
Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 142 (1966). Accordingly, it 
is the Committee's considered judgment that the legislation's 
approach to libraries is constitutional.

                          Legislative History

  During the 105th Congress, on February 9, 1998, Senator 
McCain introduced the original version of this legislation. The 
original bill number was S. 1619. This bill, S. 1619, was co-
sponsored by Senators Coats, Hollings, Murray, Stevens, Inouye, 
Hutchison, Kohl, Bond, and Abraham. The Committee held hearings 
on the legislation on February 10, 1998. On March 12, 1998, in 
open executive session the Committee ordered the bill to be 
reported favorably without amendment. On June 25, 1998, the 
bill was reported to the Senate by Senator McCain without 
amendment, with written report No. 105-226.
  In the 106th Congress, Senator McCain, along with Senator 
Hollings, introduced S. 97, which was similar to S. 1619, the 
bill introduced in the 105th Congress. The bill was cosponsored 
by Senators Burns, Abraham, Stevens, Hutchison, Bond, and 
Helms. The Committee conducted hearings on S. 97 on March 4, 
1999, and again on May 20, 1999. On June 23, 1999 in open 
executive session the Committee ordered the bill to be reported 
favorably with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

                      Summary of Major Provisions

  This legislation establishes that any school or library 
currently using, or requesting universal service funds, provide 
certification to the FCC that filtering or blocking technology 
is deployed on computers when in use by children, and that such 
school or library has in place a policy to prevent access by 
minors to child pornography and obscene material. In addition, 
the legislation provides that schools and libraries may also 
identify additional material deemed inappropriate for minors 
and may utilize selected technology to block or filter said 
material. Schools and libraries failing to certify such, or 
found to be in violation of such certification, are 
disqualified from receipt of a universal service subsidy, and 
are requiredto repay the balance of such subsidy for the period 
of time they were operating under certification and in non-compliance. 
The FCC is expressly prohibited from content regulation, or from 
considering a school or library's specific content policy in making a 
universal service fund certification. The legislation provides that the 
universal Service subsidy may be used to cover the cost of the 
acquisition of the software or technology necessary to comply with 
requirements added by the bill.

                            Estimated Costs

  In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 15, 1999.
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. 
        Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 97, the Children's 
Internet Protection Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark Hadley 
(for federal costs), and Shelley Finlayson (for the state and 
local impact).
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

S. 97--Children's Internet Protection Act

    CBO estimates that enacting this bill would have no 
significant effect on the federal budget. Enacting S. 97 would 
not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-
go procedures would not apply.
    S. 97 would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require 
that schools and libraries that seek assistance from the 
Universal Service Fund for telecommunications expenses certify 
to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that they have 
selected and will install a system to filter or block Internet 
material that is inappropriate for minors. Based on information 
from the FCC, CBO estimates that processing these 
certifications would have a negligible impact on the FCC's 
administrative costs.
    S. 97 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
Nevertheless, to the extent that schools and libraries receive 
subsidies from the Universal Service Fund, they would be 
required to comply with the bill's Internet filtering 
requirements and standards. Because those requirements are a 
condition of participating in a voluntary federal program, they 
would not be mandates as defined by UMRA.
    The cost of complying with the bill's standards would vary 
widely based on each institution's computer infrastructure, 
current filtering system if any, chosen method for filtering, 
additional staff requirements, and negotiated discounts. Some 
states, school districts, and libraries have already begun 
installing filtering systems that may meet the bill's 
requirements; they would bear no additional costs to comply 
with the requirements of this bill. In most cases, the cost per 
computer is likely to be relatively small. But a large number 
of schools and libraries could be affected, and the additional 
aggregate cost could be in the tens of millions of dollars. 
(CBO estimates that subsidies from the Universal Service Fund 
for schools and libraries will total more than $1 billion in 
fiscal year 1999.)
    The CBO staff contacts are Mark Hadley (for federal costs), 
and Shelley Finlayson (for the state and local impact). This 
estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

  In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the 
legislation, as reported:

                       number of persons covered

  A precise total of the schools and libraries applying for 
universal assistance under section 254(h)(1)(B) is not 
available at this time. At the conclusion of the first program 
year of the E-rate, the Schools and Libraries Corporation 
(SLC), responsible for administration of the E-rate subsidy 
program, had processed 30,120 applications and funded 25,785. 
Due to the permissive eligibility standards envisioned by 
Section 254(h)(1)(B), it is conceivable that a majority of 
schools and libraries will apply for some part of universal 
service assistance. There are currently some 86,000 public 
elementary and secondary schools in the Untied States, which 
are potentially eligible for assistance. In addition there are 
currently approximately 16,000 private elementary and secondary 
schools in the United States with an endowment of less than $50 
million that are also potentially eligible for assistance. 
There are an estimated 9,000 public libraries in the United 
States.

                            economic impact

  This bill will add marginally to the costs of connecting to 
the Internet for schools and libraries. Filtering and blocking 
systems are included in the categories of universal service 
providers covered by section 254. Under the needs-based matrix, 
universal service assistance will provide up to a 90 percent 
discount on the purchase price of these systems. The remainder 
will be incurred by the schools and libraries. The cost of 
these systems is anticipated to be minimal, and is not expected 
to have a significant economic impact on the schools or 
libraries installing them.

                                privacy

  Because the filtering or blocking system is entirely user-
based, there will be no impact on personal privacy as a result 
of this legislation. In addition, because sites are blocked or 
filtered before children have access to them, there will be 
less need to trace where children have been on the Internet in 
order to enforce a ``standard of use'' policy.

                               paperwork

  Schools and libraries applying for universal service 
assistance already are required to fill out forms for the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in order to qualify for 
the program. Implementation of this bill will add an additional 
certification requirement to this application. It is intended 
that this certification requirement will be minimal, and will 
consist of no more than an affirmation that the school or 
library has met the requisite certification requirement. In the 
case of a library changing its blocking or filtering system, or 
discontinuing the use of such system, or discounting the use of 
such system after installation, an additional certification 
will have to be made.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title

  This section provides that the bill may be cited as the 
``Children's Internet Protection Act.''

Section 2. Requirement for schools and libraries to implement filtering 
        or blocking technology for computers with Internet access as 
        condition of universal service discounts

  Section 2 of the bill adds a new section 254(h)(5) to the 
Communications Act of 1934 that establishes a requirement that, 
in order to qualify for assistance under the paragraph (1)(B) 
of that section, any elementary, or secondary school applying 
for such assistance must submit to the Commission certification 
that: (1) such school has selected a technology for its 
computers with Internet access in order to filter or block 
Internet access through such computer to material that is 
obscene; and child pornography; (2) is enforcing a policy to 
ensure the operation of the technology during any use of such 
computers by minors. In addition, schools are affirmatively 
empowered, but not required, to utilize such selected 
technology to block or filter any additional material that such 
school may determine to be inappropriate for minors.
  Under new section 254(h)(5)(D), schools with computers on the 
effective date of the bill are required to submit such 
certification as described above within 30 days after such 
effective date. Schools which may be unable to comply within 
this 30-day window due to State or local procurement rules or 
regulations, or competitive bidding requirements, must provide 
notice to the Commission of such situation, and provide to the 
Commission a date certain for when they will be in compliance.
  Schools acquiring computers after the effective date would be 
required to submit certification to the Commission within 10 
days after the date on which the school first becomes covered.
  Under new section 254(h)(5)(E), any school that knowingly 
fails to comply with certification requirements is required to 
reimburse the telecommunications carriers that provided 
discounted services in amounts equal to the amount of the 
discount provided the school.
  Under new section 254(h)(5)(F), the Commission is directed, 
in such situations where a school is in noncompliance, to 
determine the date on which discount rates are to cease, and to 
notify the appropriate common carriers of such termination of 
services.
  New section 254(h)(5)(G) provides for recommencement of 
services at discounted rates upon resubmittal to the 
Commission, by such terminated school, of a certification that 
such school is in compliance with the requirements.
  New section 254(h)(5)(H) expressly prohibits the Commission 
from establishing a criterion for determination of material to 
be blocked, or filtered, reviewing the specific criteria of 
policies of schools and libraries as a contingent for 
certification, or taking action against any school or library 
that has taken good faith efforts to comply with the 
requirements.
  Section 2 of the bill also adds a new section 254(h)(6) that 
requires libraries with more than one computer follow the same 
certification and compliance requirements as established under 
section 254(h)(5) for computers while in use by a minor. 
Equally, such libraries are subject to the same penalties for 
noncompliance as provided under that section. Similarly, the 
same restrictions on Commission activities apply under the 
libraries portion of the Act.
  Section 2 of the bill also adds a definition of the term 
``minor'' to section 254(h) of the Communications Act to mean 
any individual that has not reached the age of 17 years.
  The amendments made by the bill take effect 120 days after 
the date of enactment.
  Section 2 of the bill also provides that discounted rates 
under section 254(h)(1)(B) shall be made available in amounts 
up to the annual cap on Federal universal service support for 
schools and libraries only for the services covered by 
Commission regulations on priorities for funding 
telecommunications services, Internet access, Internet 
services, and Internal connections that assign priority for 
available funds for the poorest schools. Additionally, under 
the same conditions, such discounts may be applied to the 
purchase or acquisition of filtering or blocking products 
necessary to meet the requirements of the Act.

                        Changes in Existing Law

  In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, 
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be 
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed 
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown 
in roman):

                       COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934


SEC. 254. [47 U.S.C. 254] UNIVERSAL SERVICE.

  (a) Procedures To Review Universal Service Requirements.--
          (1) Federal-state joint board on universal service.--
        Within one month after the date of enactment of the 
        Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission shall 
        institute and refer to a Federal-State Joint Board 
        under section 410(c) a proceeding to recommend changes 
        to any of its regulations in order to implement 
        sections 214(e) and this section, including the 
        definition of the services that are supported by 
        Federal universal service support mechanisms and a 
        specific timetable for completion of such 
        recommendations. In addition to the members of the 
        Joint Board required under section 410(c), one member 
        of such Joint Board shall be a State-appointed utility 
        consumer advocate nominated by a national organization 
        of State utility consumer advocates. The Joint Board 
        shall, after notice and opportunity for public comment, 
        make its recommendations to the Commission 9 months 
        after the date of enactment of the Telecommunications 
        Act of 1996.
          (2) Commission action.--The Commission shall initiate 
        a single proceeding to implement the recommendations 
        from the Joint Board required by paragraph (1) and 
        shall complete such proceeding within 15 months after 
        the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 
        1996. The rules established by such proceeding shall 
        include a definition of the services that are supported 
        by Federal universal service support mechanisms and a 
        specific timetable for implementation. Thereafter, the 
        Commission shall complete any proceeding to implement 
        subsequent recommendations from any Joint Board on 
        universal service within one year after receiving such 
        recommendations.
  (b) Universal Service Principles.--The Joint Board and the 
Commission shall base policies for the preservation and 
advancement of universal service on the following principles:
          (1) Quality and rates.--Quality services should be 
        available at just, reasonable, and affordable rates.
          (2) Access to advanced services.--Access to advanced 
        telecommunications and information services should be 
        provided in all regions of the Nation.
          (3) Access in rural and high cost areas.--Consumers 
        in all regions of the Nation, including low-income 
        consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost 
        areas, should have access to telecommunications and 
        information services, including interexchange services 
        and advanced telecommunications and information 
        services, that are reasonably comparable to those 
        services provided in urban areas and that are available 
        at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates 
        charged for similar services in urban areas.
          (4) Equitable and nondiscriminatory contributions.--
        All providers of telecommunications services should 
        make an equitable and nondiscriminatory contribution to 
        the preservation and advancement of universal service.
          (5) Specific and predictable support mechanisms.--
        There should be specific, predictable and sufficient 
        Federal and State mechanisms to preserve and advance 
        universal service.
          (6) Access to advanced telecommunications services 
        for schools, health care, and libraries.--Elementary 
        and secondary schools and classrooms, health care 
        providers, and libraries should have access to advanced 
        telecommunications services as described in subsection 
        (h).
          (7) Additional principles.--Such other principles as 
        the Joint Board and the Commission determine are 
        necessary and appropriate for the protection of the 
        public interest, convenience, and necessity and are 
        consistent with this Act.
  (c) Definition.--
          (1) In general.--Universal service is an evolving 
        level of telecommunications services that the 
        Commission shall establish periodically under this 
        section, taking into account advances in 
        telecommunications and information technologies and 
        services. The Joint Board in recommending, and the 
        Commission in establishing, the definition of the 
        services that are supported by Federal universal 
        service support mechanisms shall consider the extent to 
        which such telecommunications services--
                  (A) are essential to education, public 
                health, or public safety;
                  (B) have, through the operation of market 
                choices by customers, been subscribed to by a 
                substantial majority of residential customers;
                  (C) are being deployed in public 
                telecommunications networks by 
                telecommunications carriers; and
                  (D) are consistent with the public interest, 
                convenience, and necessity.
          (2) Alterations and modifications.--The Joint Board 
        may, from time to time, recommend to the Commission 
        modifications in the definition of the services that 
        are supported by Federal universal service support 
        mechanisms.
          (3) Special services.--In addition to the services 
        included in the definition of universal service under 
        paragraph (1), the Commission may designate additional 
        services for such support mechanisms for schools, 
        libraries, and health care providers for the purposes 
        of subsection (h).
  (d) Telecommunications Carrier Contribution.--Every 
telecommunications carrier that provides interstate 
telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable 
and nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and 
sufficient mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve 
and advance universal service. The Commission may exempt a 
carrier or class of carriers from this requirement if the 
carrier's telecommunications activities are limited to such an 
extent that the level of such carrier's contribution to the 
preservation and advancement of universal service would be de 
minimis. Any other provider of interstate telecommunications 
may be required to contribute to the preservation and 
advancement of universal service if the public interest so 
requires.
  (e) Universal Service Support.--After the date on which 
Commission regulations implementing this section take effect, 
only an eligible telecommunications carrier designated under 
section 214(e) shall be eligible to receive specific Federal 
universal service support. A carrier that receives such support 
shall use that support only for the provision, maintenance, and 
upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is 
intended. Any such support should be explicit and sufficient to 
achieve the purposes of this section.
  (f) State Authority.--A State may adopt regulations not 
inconsistent with the Commission's rules to preserve and 
advance universal service. Every telecommunications carrier 
that provides intrastate telecommunications services shall 
contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, in a 
manner determined by the State to the preservation and 
advancement of universal service in that State. A State may 
adopt regulations to provide for additional definitions and 
standards to preserve and advance universal service within that 
State only to the extent that such regulations adopt additional 
specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms to support 
such definitions or standards that do not rely on or burden 
Federal universal service support mechanisms.
  (g) Interexchange and Interstate Services.--Within 6 months 
after the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996, the Commission shall adopt rules to require that the 
rates charged by providers of interexchange telecommunications 
services to subscribers in rural and high cost areas shall be 
no higher than the rates charged by each such provider to its 
subscribers in urban areas. Such rules shall also require that 
a provider of interstate interexchange telecommunications 
services shall provide such services to its subscribers in each 
State at rates no higher than the rates charged to its 
subscribers in any other State.
  (h) Telecommunications Services for Certain Providers.--
          (1) In general.--
                  (A) Health care providers for rural areas.--A 
                telecommunications carrier shall, upon 
                receiving a bona fide request, provide 
                telecommunications services which are necessary 
                for the provision of health care services in a 
                State, including instruction relating to such 
                services, to any public or nonprofit health 
                care provider that serves persons who reside in 
                rural areas in that State at rates that are 
                reasonably comparable to rates charged for 
                similar services in urban areas in that State. 
                A telecommunications carrier providing service 
                under this paragraph shall be entitled to have 
                an amount equal to the difference, if any, 
                between the rates for services provided to 
                health care providers for rural areas in a 
                State and the rates for similar services 
                provided to other customers in comparable rural 
                areas in that State treated as a service 
                obligation as a part of its obligation to 
                participate in the mechanisms to preserve and 
                advance universal service.
                  (B) Educational providers and libraries.--All 
                telecommunications carriers serving a 
                geographic area shall, upon a bona fide request 
                for any of its services that are within the 
                definition of universal service under 
                subsection (c)(3), provide such services to 
                elementary schools, secondary schools, and 
                libraries for educational purposes at rates 
                less than the amounts charged for similar 
                services to other parties. The discount shall 
                be an amount that the Commission, with respect 
                to interstate services, and the States, with 
                respect to intrastate services, determine is 
                appropriate and necessary to ensure affordable 
                access to and use of such services by such 
                entities. A telecommunications carrier providing 
                service under this paragraph shall--
                          (i) have an amount equal to the 
                        amount of the discount treated as an 
                        offset to its obligation to contribute 
                        to the mechanisms to preserve and 
                        advance universal service, or
                          (ii) notwithstanding the provisions 
                        of subsection (e) of this section, 
                        receive reimbursement utilizing the 
                        support mechanisms to preserve and 
                        advance universal service.
          (2) Advanced services.--The Commission shall 
        establish competitively neutral rules--
                  (A) to enhance, to the extent technically 
                feasible and economically reasonable, access to 
                advanced telecommunications and information 
                services for all public and nonprofit 
                elementary and secondary school classrooms, 
                health care providers, and libraries; and
                  (B) to define the circumstances under which a 
                telecommunications carrier may be required to 
                connect its network to such public 
                institutional telecommunications users.
          (3) Terms and conditions.--Telecommunications 
        services and network capacity provided to a public 
        institutional telecommunications user under this 
        subsection may not be sold, resold, or otherwise 
        transferred by such user in consideration for money or 
        any other thing of value.
          (4) Eligibility of users.--No entity listed in this 
        subsection shall be entitled to preferential rates or 
        treatment as required by this subsection, if such 
        entity operates as a for-profit business, is a school 
        described in [paragraph (5)(A)] paragraph (7)(A) with 
        an endowment of more than $50,000,000, or is a library 
        or library consortium not eligible for assistance from 
        a State library administrative agency under the Library 
        Services and Technology Act.
          (5) Requirements for certain schools with computers 
        having internet access.--
                  (A) Internet filtering.--
                          (i) In general.--Except as provided 
                        in clause (ii), an elementary or 
                        secondary school having computers with 
                        Internet access may not receive 
                        services at discount rates under 
                        paragraph (1)(B) unless the school, 
                        school board, or other authority with 
                        responsibility for administration of 
                        the school--
                                  (I) submits to the Commission 
                                a certification described in 
                                subparagraph (B); and
                                  (II) ensures the use of such 
                                computers in accordance with 
                                the certification.
                          (ii) Applicability.--The prohibition 
                        in paragraph (1) shall not apply with 
                        respect to a school that receives 
                        services at discount rates under 
                        paragraph (1)(B) only for purposes 
                        other than the provision of Internet 
                        access, Internet service, or internal 
                        connections.
                  (B) Certification.--A certification under 
                this subparagraph is a certification that the 
                school, school board, or other authority with 
                responsibility for administration of the 
                school--
                          (i) has selected a technology for its 
                        computers with Internet access in order 
                        to filter or block Internet access 
                        through such computers to--
                                  (I) material that is obscene; 
                                and
                                  (II) child pornography; and
                          (ii) is enforcing a policy to ensure 
                        the operation of the technology during 
                        any use of such computers by minors.
                  (C) Additional use of technology.--A school, 
                school board, or other authority may also use a 
                technology covered by a certification under 
                subparagraph (B) to filter or block Internet 
                access through the computers concerned to any 
                material in addition to the material specified 
                in that subparagraph that the school, school 
                board, or other authority determines to be 
                inappropriate for minors.
                  (D) Timing of certifications.--
                          (i) Schools with computers on 
                        effective date.--
                                  (I) In general.--Subject to 
                                subclause (II), in the case of 
                                any school covered by this 
                                paragraph as of the effective 
                                date of this paragraph under 
                                section 2(h) of the Childrens' 
                                Internet Protection Act, the 
                                certification under 
                                subparagraph (B) shall be made 
                                not later than 30 days after 
                                such effective date.
                                  (II) Delay.--A certification 
                                for a school covered by 
                                subclause (I) may be made at a 
                                date that is later than is 
                                otherwise required by that 
                                subclause if State or local 
                                procurement rules or 
                                regulations or competitive 
                                bidding requirements prevent 
                                the making of the certification 
                                on the date otherwise required 
                                by that subclause. A school, 
                                school board, or other 
                                authority with responsibility 
                                for administration of the 
                                school shall notify the 
                                Commission of the applicability 
                                of this subclause to the 
                                school. Such notice shall 
                                specify the date on which the 
                                certification with respect to 
                                the school shall be effective 
                                for purposes of this clause.
                          (ii) Schools acquiring computers 
                        after effective date.--In the case of 
                        any school that first becomes covered 
                        by this paragraph after such effective 
                        date, the certification under 
                        subparagraph (B) shall be made not 
                        later than 10 days after the date on 
                        which the school first becomes so 
                        covered.
                          (iii) No requirement for additional 
                        certifications.--A school that has 
                        submitted a certification under 
                        subparagraph (B) shall not be required 
                        for purposes of this paragraph to 
                        submit an additional certification 
                        under that subparagraph with respect to 
                        any computers having Internet access 
                        that are acquired by the school after 
                        the submittal of the certification.
                  (E) Noncompliance.--
                          (i) Failure to submit 
                        certification.--Any school that 
                        knowingly fails to submit a 
                        certification required by this 
                        paragraph shall reimburse each 
                        telecommunications carrier that 
                        provided such school services at 
                        discount rates under paragraph (1)(B) 
                        after the effective date of this 
                        paragraph under section 2(h) of the 
                        Childrens' Internet Protection Act in 
                        an amount equal to the amount of the 
                        discount provided such school by such 
                        carrier for such services during the 
                        period beginning on such effective date 
                        and ending on the date on which the 
                        provision of such services at discount 
                        rates under paragraph (1)(B) is 
                        determined to cease under subparagraph 
                        (F).
                          (ii) Failure to comply with 
                        certification.--Any school that 
                        knowingly fails to ensure the use of 
                        its computers in accordance with a 
                        certification under subparagraph (B) 
                        shall reimburse each telecommunications 
                        carrier that provided such school 
                        services at discount rates under 
                        paragraph (1)(B) after the date of such 
                        certification in an amount equal to the 
                        amount of the discount provided such 
                        school by such carrier for such 
                        services during the period beginning on 
                        the date of such certification and 
                        ending on the date on which the 
                        provision of such services at discount 
                        rates under paragraph (1)(B) is 
                        determined to cease under subparagraph 
                        (F).
                          (iii) Treatment of reimbursement.--
                        The receipt by a telecommunications 
                        carrier of any reimbursement under this 
                        subparagraph shall not affect the 
                        carrier's treatment of the discount on 
                        which such reimbursement was based in 
                        accordance with the third sentence of 
                        paragraph (1)(B).
                  (F) Cessation date.--
                          (i) Determination.--The Commission 
                        shall determine the date on which the 
                        provision of services at discount rates 
                        under paragraph (1)(B) shall cease 
                        under this paragraph by reason of the 
                        failure of a school to comply with the 
                        requirements of this paragraph.
                          (ii) Notification.--The Commission 
                        shall notify telecommunications 
                        carriers of each school determined to 
                        have failed to comply with the 
                        requirements of this paragraph and of 
                        the period for which such school shall 
                        be liable to make reimbursement under 
                        subparagraph (E).
                  (G) Recommencement of discounts.--
                          (i) Recommencement.--Upon submittal 
                        to the Commission of a certification 
                        under subparagraph (B) with respect to 
                        a school to which clause (i) or (ii) of 
                        subparagraph (E) applies, the school 
                        shall be entitled to services at 
                        discount rates under paragraph (1)(B).
                          (ii) Notification.--The Commission 
                        shall notify the school and 
                        telecommunications carriers of the 
                        recommencement of the school's 
                        entitlement to services at discount 
                        rates under this subparagraph and of 
                        the date on which such recommencement begins.
                          (iii) Additional noncompliance.--The 
                        provisions of subparagraphs (E) and (F) 
                        shall apply to any certification 
                        submitted under clause (i).
                  (H) Limitation on federal action.--
                          (i) In general.--No agency or 
                        instrumentality of the United States 
                        Government may--
                                  (I) establish any criteria 
                                for making a determination 
                                under subparagraph (C);
                                  (II) review a determination 
                                made by a school, school board, 
                                or other authority for purposes 
                                of a certification under 
                                subparagraph (B); or
                                  (III) consider the criteria 
                                employed by a school, school 
                                board, or other authority for 
                                purposes of determining the 
                                eligibility of a school for 
                                services at discount rates 
                                under paragraph (1)(B).
                          (ii) Action by commission.--The 
                        Commission may not take any action 
                        against a school, school board, or 
                        other authority for a violation of a 
                        provision of this paragraph if the 
                        school, school board, or other 
                        authority, as the case may be, has made 
                        a good faith effort to comply with such 
                        provision.
          (6) Requirements for certain libraries with computers 
        having internet access.--
                  (A) Internet filtering.--
                          (i) In general.--A library having one 
                        or more computers with Internet access 
                        may not receive services at discount 
                        rates under paragraph (1)(B) unless the 
                        library--
                                  (I) submits to the Commission 
                                a certification described in 
                                subparagraph (B); and
                                  (II) ensures the use of such 
                                computers in accordance with 
                                the certification.
                          (ii) Applicability.--The prohibition 
                        in paragraph (1) shall not apply with 
                        respect to a library that receives 
                        services at discount rates under 
                        paragraph (1)(B) only for purposes 
                        other than the provision of Internet 
                        access, Internet service, or internal 
                        connections.
                  (B) Certifications.--
                          (i) Libraries with one computer 
                        having internet access.--A 
                        certification under this subparagraph 
                        with respect to a library that has only 
                        one computer with Internet access is a 
                        certification that the library is 
                        enforcing a policy to ensure that 
                        minors do not use the computer for 
                        Internet access to--
                                  (I) material that is obscene; 
                                and
                                  (II) child pornography.
                          (ii) Libraries with more than one 
                        computer having internet access.--A 
                        certification under this subparagraph 
                        with respect to any library covered by 
                        this paragraph, and not covered by 
                        clause (i), is a certification that the 
                        library--
                                  (I) has selected a technology 
                                for its computers with Internet 
                                access in order to filter or 
                                block Internet access through 
                                such computers to--
                                          (aa) material that is 
                                        obscene; and
                                          (bb) child 
                                        pornography; and
                                  (II) is enforcing a policy to 
                                ensure the operation of the 
                                technology during any use of 
                                such computers by minors.
                  (C) Additional use of technology.--A library 
                may also use a technology covered by a 
                certification under subparagraph (B) to filter 
                or block Internet access through the computers 
                concerned to any material in addition to the 
                material specified in that subparagraph that 
                the library determines to be inappropriate for 
                minors.
                  (D) Timing of certifications.--
                          (i) Libraries with computers on 
                        effective date.--
                                  (I) In general.--In the case 
                                of any library covered by this 
                                paragraph as of the effective 
                                date of this paragraph under 
                                section 2(h) of the Childrens' 
                                Internet Protection Act, the 
                                applicable certification under 
                                subparagraph (B) shall be made 
                                not later than 30 days after 
                                such effective date.
                                  (II) Delay.--A certification 
                                for a library covered by 
                                subclause (I) may be made at a 
                                date than is later than is 
                                otherwise required by that 
                                subclause if State or local 
                                procurement rules or 
                                regulations or competitive 
                                bidding requirements prevent 
                                the making of the certification 
                                on the date otherwise required 
                                by that subclause. A library 
                                shall notify the Commission of 
                                the applicability of this 
                                subclause to the library. Such 
                                notice shall specify the date 
                                on which the certification with 
                                respect to the library shall be 
                                effective for purposes of this 
                                clause.
                          (ii) Libraries acquiring computers 
                        after effective date.--In the case of 
                        any library that first becomes subject 
                        to a certification under either clause 
                        (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (B) after 
                        such effective date, the applicable 
                        certification under that subparagraph 
                        shall be made not later than 10 days 
                        after the date on which the library 
                        first becomes so subject.
                          (iii) No requirement for additional 
                        certifications.--A library that has 
                        submitted a certification under 
                        subparagraph (B)(ii) shall not be 
                        required for purposes of this paragraph 
                        to submit an additional certification 
                        under that subparagraph with respect to 
                        any computers having Internet access 
                        that are acquired by the library after 
                        the submittal of such certification.
                  (E) Noncompliance.--
                          (i) Failure to submit 
                        certification.--Any library that 
                        knowingly fails to submit a 
                        certification required by this 
                        paragraph shall reimburse each 
                        telecommunications carrier that 
                        provided such library services at 
                        discount rates under paragraph (1)(B) 
                        after the effective date of this 
                        paragraph under section 2(h) of the 
                        Childrens' Internet Protection Act in 
                        an amount equal to the amount of the 
                        discount provided such library by such 
                        carrier for such services during the 
                        period beginning on such effective date 
                        and ending on the date on which the 
                        provision of such services at discount 
                        rates under paragraph (1)(B) is 
                        determined to cease under subparagraph 
                        (F).
                          (ii) Failure to comply with 
                        certification.--Any library that 
                        knowingly fails to ensure the use of 
                        its computers in accordance with a 
                        certification under subparagraph (B) 
                        shall reimburse each telecommunications 
                        carrier that provided such library 
                        services at discount rates under 
                        paragraph (1)(B) after the date of such 
                        certification in an amount equal to the 
                        amount of the discount provided such 
                        library by such carrier for such 
                        services during the period beginning on 
                        the date of such certification and 
                        ending on the date on which the 
                        provision of such services at discount 
                        rates under paragraph (1)(B) is 
                        determined to cease under subparagraph 
                        (F).
                          (iii) Treatment of reimbursement.--
                        The receipt by a telecommunications 
                        carrier of any reimbursement under this 
                        subparagraph shall not affect the 
                        carrier's treatment of the discount on 
                        which such reimbursement was based in 
                        accordance with the third sentence of 
                        paragraph (1)(B).
                  (F) Cessation date.--
                          (i) Determination.--The Commission 
                        shall determine the date on which the 
                        provision of services at discount rates 
                        under paragraph (1)(B) shall cease 
                        under this paragraph by reason of the 
                        failure of a library to comply with the 
                        requirements of this paragraph.
                          (ii) Notification.--The Commission 
                        shall notify telecommunications 
                        carriers of each library determined to 
                        have failed to comply with the 
                        requirements of this paragraph and of 
                        the period for which such library shall 
                        be liable to make reimbursement under 
                        subparagraph (E).
                  (G) Recommencement of discounts.--
                          (i) Recommencement.--Upon submittal 
                        to the Commission of a certification 
                        under subparagraph (B) with respect to 
                        a library to which clause (i) or (ii) 
                        of subparagraph (E) applies, the 
                        library shall be entitled to services 
                        at discount rates under paragraph 
                        (1)(B).
                          (ii) Notification.--The Commission 
                        shall notify the library and 
                        telecommunications carriers of the 
                        recommencement of the library's 
                        entitlement to services at discount 
                        rates under this paragraph and of the 
                        date on which such recommencement 
                        begins.
                          (iii) Additional noncompliance.--The 
                        provisions of subparagraphs (E) and (F) 
                        shall apply to any certification 
                        submitted under clause (i).
                  (H) Limitation on federal action.--
                          (i) In general.--No agency or 
                        instrumentality of the United States 
                        Government may--
                                  (I) establish any criteria 
                                for making a determination 
                                under subparagraph (C);
                                  (II) review a determination 
                                made by a library for purposes 
                                of a certification under 
                                subparagraph (B); or
                                  (III) consider the criteria 
                                employed by a library purposes 
                                of determining the eligibility 
                                of the library for services at 
                                discount rates under paragraph 
                                (1)(B).
                          (ii) Action by commission.--The 
                        Commission may not take any action 
                        against a library for a violation of a 
                        provision of this paragraph if the 
                        library has made a good faith effort to 
                        comply with such provision.
          [(5)] (7) Definitions.--For purposes of this 
        subsection:
                  (A) Elementary and secondary schools.--The 
                term ``elementary and secondary schools'' means 
                elementary schools and secondary schools, as 
                defined in paragraphs (14) and (25), 
                respectively, of section 14101 of the 
                Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
                (20 U.S.C. 8801).
                  (B) Health care provider.--The term ``health 
                care provider'' means--
                          (i) post-secondary educational 
                        institutions offering health care 
                        instruction, teaching hospitals, and 
                        medical schools;
                          (ii) community health centers or 
                        health centers providing health care to 
                        migrants;
                          (iii) local health departments or 
                        agencies;
                          (iv) community mental health centers;
                          (v) not-for-profit hospitals;
                          (vi) rural health clinics; and
                          (vii) consortia of health care 
                        providers consisting of one or more 
                        entities described in clauses (i) 
                        through (vi).
                  (C) Public institutional telecommunications 
                user.--The term ``public institutional 
                telecommunications user'' means an elementary 
                or secondary school, a library, or a health 
                care provider as those terms are defined in 
                this paragraph.
                  (D) Minor.--The term ``minor'' means any 
                individual who has not attained the age of 17 
                years.
  (i) Consumer Protection.--The Commission and the States 
should ensure that universal service is available at rates that 
are just, reasonable, and affordable.
  (j) Lifeline Assistance.--Nothing in this section shall 
affect the collection, distribution, or administration of the 
Lifeline Assistance Program provided for by the Commission 
under regulations set forth in section 69.117 of title 47, Code 
of Federal Regulations, and other related sections of such 
title.
  (k) Subsidy of Competitive Services Prohibited.--A 
telecommunications carrier may not use services that are not 
competitive to subsidize services that are subject to 
competition. The Commission, with respect to interstate 
services, and the States, with respect to intrastate services, 
shall establish any necessary cost allocation rules, accounting 
safeguards, and guidelines to ensure that services included in 
the definition of universal service bear no more than a 
reasonable share of the joint and common costs of facilities 
used to provide those services.