HOUSE BILL NO. 353 An Act relating to the blocking of certain Internet sites at public libraries and to library assistance grants. JIM POUND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, described the bill as requiring public libraries to protect children from indecent material, which is defined in existing statute. The bill is consistent with the Child Internet Protection Act, enforced by the Federal Communications Act, and is tied into the E-rate discount on access to broadband internet for libraries that conform to the Child Protection Act. Mr. Pound said 40% of libraries in Alaska, or 89, have no filters on their internets. He said the filters are inexpensive, effective, and readily available. Libraries do not carry pornographic magazines or books. The legislation would allow a librarian to disable the filter for an adult, if requested for legitimate sites, and to take care of the problems caused by filtering programs over-reacting to certain words. 2:04:36 PM Representative Gara queried the cost of installment and up- keep of the equipment needed. Mr. Pound answered that it is primarily software that can be downloaded. Representative Joule referenced the fiscal note, which says individual libraries would incur costs ranging from $100 for small libraries to $20,000 for the larger ones. He asked for an explanation for the difference between those numbers and what Mr. Pound was saying. Mr. Pound listed programs, including NetNanny, which cost $60-100 per year for internet security, and WebWatcher. Norton AntiVirus is a free add-on. Representative Gara recollected hearing about the issue of pornography on public computers before, and wondered about other state or municipal laws connected with the issue. Representative Gara referred to stack of correspondence he had received from people concerned about the bill. One is connected to federal E-rate funding. Another is from the director of Juneau Public Libraries, which says that the costs for installing institutional software is much higher. Juneau Libraries, which has a network system, would have to pay at least $1600 the first year and $1800 after the first year. Higher cost systems are up to $10,000. Mr. Pound understood that E-rate would save libraries about $6,000 per year on broadband internet access, but they are not eligible without blocking software. 2:09:22 PM Representative Gara asked if NetNanny could be installed on a network system. Mr. Pound thought it could be installed on a network or on individual computers. Representative Joule wondered how large the problem is. Mr. Pound replied that young people are using library computers more often. Co-Chair Meyer thought the school districts already had the filtering system. Mr. Pound replied that they did. He added that the University has an exemption. Co-Chair Meyer OPENED PUBLIC TESTIMONY. 2:11:34 PM KIM ROTH, LIBRARIAN, TOK COMMUNITY LIBRARY (testified via teleconference), testified in opposition to HB 353. Tok has about 1350 people and only two public access computers, one of them at the Tok Public Library, an all-volunteer library since 1955. She pointed out that the bill has serious implications for very small libraries. The first implication is cost. Tok Public Library operates on $7500 per year. It would cost them around $1000 to get their computer in compliance and around $1000 per year after, not including maintenance and upkeep. That would be a serious financial hardship. At present there is not enough money to pay for the heating bill. Ms. Roth questioned the need for the program. She worried about the many volunteers being put into the position of being felons or legally liable because of inadvertent access on the computer. She said there has never been a problem. She described an incident of her daughter being unable to access information about the Civil War on her school computer because the filters listed the information as too graphic. Ms. Roth did not think the Legislation was appropriate for small libraries. 2:20:57 PM JAMES HUESMANN, DEAN OF LIBRARIES, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, FAIRBANKS (testified via teleconference), testified in opposition of HB 353. He pointed out there had been no analysis of public libraries that do no have internet filters in conjunction with their overall budgets. He thought very small libraries would be most negatively affected by the bill. He said filters are moderately affective against written text but still very bad at photos and video, which are more the problem with pornography. Mr. Huesmann explained that institutional costs for filtering software are dramatically higher than individual costs. More and more of the library's resources are on- line. More government services, such as filing for the Permanent Fund Dividend, are on the internet. Closing that down could be a significant problem. As a parent, he worries more about what his children do at home on the internet than what they do at the public library where there is supervision. 2:22:09 PM Representative Gara asked for more information about installation costs. Mr. Huesmann responded that part of the problem is that most of the computers in Alaska libraries have been purchased by the Bill Gates Foundation. Many of those have security software already built into them that make it far more difficult to install new software. Even on individual systems, the cost is higher. On network systems, a network technician is needed to put in the software, and there are more complex concerns. He told a story of an entire library system being shut down for days because the name of the library happened to include a word that prompted the filtering system to prevent access to even their own home page. 2:24:00 PM HELEN HILL, DIRECTOR, HOMER PUBLIC LIBRARY (testified via teleconference), spoke in opposition to HB 353. Homer Public library does not use filtering software for public access computers, but they have an internet safety policy and internet use agreement to which all patrons must agree in order to log on. The decision to not filter was a community decision. All computers are in view of library staff. She thought library personnel are more effective than software; Homer chose to spend limited funds on people rather than equipment to keep the library safe. The library does not have the resource to enable and disable computers many times each day. The library is in compliance with Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) because they only request a telecommunications discount through the E-rate program and not an internet discount. She described the use of grants and municipal funds. 2:27:22 PM Representative Gara asked about the library's ability to use free software. Ms. Hill said the costs would be higher, and it becomes a lot more complicated on a network system to disable and enable. Representative Gara wondered why filters would have to be turned on and off. Ms. Hill explained that the law requires that the library disable the filter for anyone age 17 or over who asks. After that person is finished with the computer, staff has to turn the filter back on. 2:29:35 PM AT EASE 2:30:07 PM RECONVENE JENNIE GRIMWOOD, CORDOVA (testified via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. The local library is highly used without adequate supervision. She related a story of a pornographic photograph placed on the desktop of a library computer. 2:32:39 PM KATHY COTTON, DELTA JUNCTION (testified via teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation. People are constantly rotating on and off the very popular computers, making them hard to monitor. She thought the block would prevent the necessity of someone looking over her shoulder while on the internet. 2:34:15 PM DEBBIE JOSLIN, PRESIDENT, EAGLE FORUM ALASKA (testified via teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation with an Amendment to restore the original language of the bill. She has concerns about pornography. She does not want librarians looking over her shoulder. She does not trust librarians to monitor the computers, as the American Library Association is on record saying pornography filters are an infringement of First Amendment rights. She thought the cost was worth protecting children. 2:38:44 PM JIM MINNERY, ALASKA FAMILY COUNCIL (testified via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He reported that sixty percent of the libraries in the state, including the tiny ones, are currently using internet filters. The federal law did not put the libraries out of business and he did not think a state law would either. The remaining 40% of Alaskan libraries that choose not to use filters are forfeiting significant federal funds that they could use through E-rate. He spoke of a Fairbanks library that was saving $6,000 per year by using filters. Mr. Minnery spoke to whether there was a problem. Supreme Court said that it was discovered that minors regularly searched the internet for pornography and exposed others by leaving pornography displayed on monitors. He did not think it was accurate for librarians to say that it is not an issue. He referred to web marketing strategies that target children by misspelling of domain names to lure children to sites. 2:45:30 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze related a story. Mr. Minnery asserted that internet filters are not the same as librarians monitoring the computers. He thought the amendment seriously weakened the bill. He spoke to the American Librarian Association not using age to discriminate what materials can be used in a library. 2:47:47 PM PATRICIA LINVILLE, LIBRARIAN, SEWARD COMMUNITY LIBRARY (testified via teleconference), spoke in opposition to the legislation. She thought the law would be redundant because of federal law, and that filtering should be a community issue. The bill would deny money to libraries that dot filter, which could mean the entire budget of small libraries. In Seward the youth computers are close to the front desk and separate from the adult computers. 2:49:44 PM DOLORIS STURTZ, ANCHORAGE (testified via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She would like the original language of the bill restored. Pornography is a big issue. She wanted to protect children from the mental harm of viewing pornography. 2:52:41 PM GREG SCHMIDT, BOARD, ALASKA FAMILY COUNCIL (testified via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill in its original wording. He reminded the Legislature of the Constitution, which supports what is good for the people as a whole. He did not want the government to support exposing children to harm. Ms. Roth reported that most libraries have a use policy. The Tok Community Library requires young children to have a parent present to use a computer. She described the extra work libraries have to do to use E-rate. The community decided to monitor the children in order to get internet access. 2:56:15 PM SHAWN TELL-NICKOLSON (testified via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She worried about what her child would view in a public library. PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED. AT EASE: 2:58:48 PM RECONVENE: 3:00:43 PM Representative Joule referenced the zero fiscal note and disagreed that there would be no fiscal impact. Co-Chair Meyer stated that with the amended version, there would be no expense. The original bill would require libraries to buy the filters, but the amended bill requires monitoring. 3:02:09 PM Representative Gara pointed out that if the University was included in the bill, there would be fiscal costs. Representative Kelly MOVED Amendment #1, to return the bill to the original version, 25-LS1356\E. Co-Chair Chenault OBJECTED to hear discussion. Representative Kelly believed that the changes made to the bill took the bill in the wrong direction. He felt that the root bill attempts to protect children from exposure to pornography, which can damage them. It should not be easy to view pornography in public libraries. He did not know about exempting the University. Representative Kelly WITHDREW the Amendment. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Kelly MOVED to return to the original version of HB 353. Co-Chair Chenault OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Gara thought there could be changes that are not clear. 3:06:32 PM Mr. Pound pointed out that the changes made in the State Affairs Committee, version K, primarily added "or monitoring," in the title and on page 1, line 11 and page 2, line 2, monitoring systems; the longer definition was to exempt the University. Representative Gara did not think that the definition would exempt the University. Mr. Pound explained that the attorneys said it would exempt the University from the bill. 3:08:25 PM Representative Gara did not understand how the definition would exempt the University. Mr. Pound did not know. Co-Chair Chenault asked if the libraries at the University system were open to the public. Mr. Pound answered that some of them are. He reiterated that Legal had said the University was exempted by the language. Representative Kelly suggested that the original version be adopted and then the bill be held to determine if the language should be amended. 3:11:12 PM Co-Chair Chenault WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Representative Gara OBJECTED. Representative Gara was surprised to hear that the language dealt with the University. The part removed is regarding the library's decision to monitor instead of using the software. He did not know if it was expensive to install. He just did not know enough. He thought that the extra sentence allowed the smaller libraries to keep their computers going. Co-Chair Meyer understood that the intent was to get the original bill before the Committee. Representative Gara thought that the dispute was only the sentence. It addresses the cost issues of the small libraries. Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that the University is under a different subsection of the law. 3:14:39 PM A roll call vote was taken on the motion to return to the original version of HB 353. IN FAVOR: Hawker, Kelly, Stoltze, Thomas, Crawford, Meyer, Chenault OPPOSED: Gara Absent from the vote: Joule, Nelson, Harris The MOTION PASSED (7-1). 3:15:41 PM Co-Chair Chenault noted the bill would restrict state grants to libraries that refused to implement. The Sponsor statement also referred to local grant money to libraries. He wondered if there had been a change. HB 353 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further consideration.