[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: BRIDGING THE TECHNOLOGY GAP
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPOWERMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 27, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
60-580 WASHINGTON : 2001
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri, Chairman
LARRY COMBEST, Texas NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
SUE W. KELLY, New York BILL PASCRELL, New Jersey
STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania DONNA M. CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana Virgin Islands
RICK HILL, Montana ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
EDWARD PEASE, Indiana DAVID D. PHELPS, Illinois
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
MARY BONO, California BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
MARK UDALL, Colorado
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
Harry Katrichis, Chief Counsel
Michael Day, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Empowerment
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania, Chairman
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
EDWARD PEASE, Indiana STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
Stephanie O'Donnell, Legislative Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 27, 1999.................................... 1
WITNESSES
Irving, Larry, Assistant Secretary for Communications and
Information, National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.................... 4
Lewis, Maureen, General Counsel, Alliance for Public Technology.. 6
Miller, Harris N., President, Information Technology Association
of America..................................................... 8
Fulton, B. Keith, Director of Technology Programs and Policy,
National Urban League.......................................... 33
Robinson, Timothy, Legislative Attorney, Ameritech Corporation... 36
Krumholtz, Jack, Director of Government Affairs, Microsoft....... 37
Coleman, Thomas M., President, Technical Career Institutes, Inc.. 39
APPENDIX
Opening statements:
Pitts, Hon. Joseph R......................................... 47
Millender-McDonald, Hon. Juanita............................. 51
Prepared statements:
Irving, Larry................................................ 56
Lewis, Maureen............................................... 72
Miller, Harris N............................................. 76
Fulton, B. Keith............................................. 87
Robinson, Timothy............................................ 92
Krumholtz, Jack.............................................. 99
Coleman, Thomas M............................................ 106
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: BRIDGING THE TECHNOLOGY GAP
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Empowerment,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in
room 2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Pitts
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Chairman Pitts. Ladies and gentlemen, the time of the
hearing having arrived, we will convene the Empowerment
Subcommittee.
Good afternoon and welcome. Thank you for joining me and
the members of the Subcommittee on Empowerment to discuss the
digital divide. The term ``digital divide'' refers to the
differences between groups to whom computer and Internet
electronic technology is available and groups lacking such
access.
A recently released study by the Commerce Department's
National Telecommunication and Information Administration finds
evidence of a widening digital divide. Data from the study
shows demographic differences between those groups with access
to telephones, personal computers, and the Internet, and those
without such access.
On a positive note, the results of the study demonstrate
that Americans, as a whole, are advancing with respect to
Internet connectivity. In fact, in 1998 over 40 percent of U.S.
Households had personal computers and, of those, approximately
26 percent had Internet access. While this finding is
encouraging, a more problematic issue remains. Some
socioeconomic groups consistently fall below the national
average with respect to access to the tools of the information
age. Indeed, the study reports that minority, low-income, rural
and single-parent households are less likely to have access to
electronic resources.
As we move from a paper-based society to an electronic one,
personal computers and Internet access are becoming
increasingly valuable. Interactive computer networks have the
potential to enhance many aspects of our lives, including our
education and career prospects. Indeed, the rapid infusion of
electronic resources into our society has rendered computers
and the Internet indispensable tools in some homes, offices and
schools.
As opportunities for jobs in high-tech industries grow, the
ensuing need for information technology education becomes more
apparent. Therefore, developing ways to bring innovative
technology to communities with a demonstrated need for it
ensures that more people have access to electronic resources.
Increased access to technology, coupled with proper
instruction, enhances the possibility that those who are
currently not computer and Internet proficient will come to
embrace these resources.
The Internet is an invaluable research tool for
entrepreneurs seeking to start or grow a small business,
allowing them a means of product and market research, as well
as a method of locating financial resources. The Internet also
offers the possibility of electronic commerce, allowing small
businesses another medium for conducting business transactions.
Yet with all the demonstrated benefits of computer and
Internet access, some groups remain less likely to avail
themselves of technology resources. An increased awareness of
this digital divide has stimulated the private sector to
intervene with initiatives focused on expanding access of
technology to include underserved groups. Community and
nonprofit groups play an integral role in partnering with
telecommunications firms in order to introduce information
technology into the communities they serve.
I am pleased to introduce today two panels of witnesses who
will acquaint the Members more intimately with the nature of
the problem and propose solutions.
On the first panel, we are privileged to have Larry Irving,
the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information, who presided over the NTIA study. Mr. Irving will
explain the problem of the digital divide by detailing the
results of the study.
Following Mr. Irving, Maureen Lewis, General Counsel for
the Alliance for Public Technology, will share her thoughts
regarding the role of technology in our society.
Finally, we welcome Harris Miller, President of the
Information Technology Association of America. Mr. Miller has
testified before the full Committee regarding Y2K and e-
commerce, and we are pleased to have him back to speak about
the digital divide.
Our second panel consists of four witnesses beginning with
Keith Fulton, Director of Technology Programs and Policy for
the National Urban League, who will speak about the League's
efforts to bring electronic resources into economically
distressed areas.
Next we will hear from Tim Robinson, Legislative Attorney
at the Ameritech Corporation, who will detail his company's
efforts to bridge the gap.
We will then receive testimony from Jack Krumholtz,
Director of Federal Government Relations at Microsoft, who will
also speak about the role of the private sector in introducing
technology to underserved areas.
Finally, Thomas Coleman, President and CEO of the Technical
Careers Institute located in New York City, will testify about
the importance of education in creating a technology-literate
workforce.
I am looking forward to hearing the testimony of all the
witnesses, and I now turn to the distinguished ranking member,
Ms. Millender-McDonald, for any opening comments she would like
to make.
[Mr. Pitts' opening statement may be found in the
appendix.]
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank
you for convening this hearing. This is a very important
hearing and one that I have been looking forward to even before
the report came out. Now about the report has come out, it is
just a testament of what we have known all along, that there
are some have-nots who will not cross this bridge into the 21st
century because they are not connected and they are not online.
I would like to present my statement for the record. I am
just going to speak candidly for a few minutes, Mr. Chairman,
if it is okay with you.
You know, a couple of weeks ago it was quite telling when
the President came to visit a variation of communities, rural
and urban, and he came because he knew that the economy had
been great for this country and great for Americans but not all
Americans, and this is why he chose to visit the various urban
and rural districts.
He came to my district of Watts because he recognized that
a lot of my constituents have not and will not be able to
communicate through this new medium that we call the Internet,
this newweb page that we talk about. There will be no
communication from friend to friend across the waters because they are
not on line. So there are a lot of people who will not be on line, will
not be able to communicate throughout this world, and yet we talk about
a global workplace. The digital divide is strictly one that is real in
the urban communities and, yes, in the rural communities.
As the President went to Appalachia and some of those other
areas, we had folks who did not have running water, did not
have telephones, and so why do we then think that we are
heading into this whole new medium of exchange, of
communication, of information, when this highway has left so
many on the sidelines?
I am very pleased that I will hear from people today who
will talk about the report who will perhaps give us some
solutions as to how we start dealing with this issue, but I
have young people, young folks in junior high school and high
school and, yes, in elementary school who will not be able to
communicate with young folks in Japan and China and other parts
of this world if we do not prevent this type of have-nots in
this country.
We recognize that knowledge is important. Knowledge is
important because it gives you the information tool that you
need and then the skills so appropriate for young folks to
have, but they need the skills and they need the computers.
Those two things are principal elements to young folks in the
Watts area, in Appalachia, in Mississippi and other places
where the President visited that will not have and will not be
able to move along this superhighway if we do not look at, very
seriously, this digital divide, this divide that will continue
to make the rich richer, to erase the middle class and make the
poor poorer.
I am very excited about this hearing and look forward to
the presentations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you.
[Ms. Millender-McDonald's statement may be found in the
appendix.]
Chairman Pitts. We are going to ask the members and
witnesses to abide by the 5-minute rule today. We have two
panels, and if the members who will be asking questions cannot
cover them in 5 minutes, we will begin a second round.
So, at this time, we would like to ask the Honorable Larry
Irving to present testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LARRY IRVING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Irving. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank you and the members of the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify today on the
findings of Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital
Divide, the study released by the Commerce Department earlier
this month.
President Clinton and Secretary Daley released Falling
Through the Net on July 8, 1999, in Los Angeles during the
President's New Markets tour; and, during the tour, the
President and Secretary Daley discussed the fact that, even
though information technology underlies much of our Nation's
economic growth, far too many Americans are left out of the
digital economy and, as a result, the digital divide, that is,
the divide between the haves and have-nots in information
technology, has become a critical economic and civil rights
issue.
Access to new technologies, such as the computer and the
Internet, will be keys to the future economic success of any
American business, community or individual; and, increasingly,
Americans use the net to find jobs, contact colleagues, locate
public information or take courses on line.
Electronic commerce is helping small companies compete and
entrepreneurs in rural, remote and traditionally underserved
areas reach out to the rest of the world.
Familiarity with new technologies will also prepare more
Americans for the high-tech workplace of the 21st century.
Because of the increasingly important role of these new
technologies, Secretary Daley concluded that ensuring access to
the fundamental tools of the digital economy is one of the most
significant investments our Nation can make. And as we enter
the 21st century, it will become even more essential to ensure
that all Americans, rich or poor, urban or rural, black or
white, Hispanic or native American, can reap the benefits of
these new technologies.
Falling Through the Net provides a starting point in
bridging the gap between the Nation's rich and poor. This is
our third report examining census data, looking at the digital
divide, and we anticipate that it will serve as an important
diagnostic tool to assist policymakers in the private sector in
formulating methods to provide greater access for more
Americans, and today I would like to provide for the
Subcommittee several slides showing some of our key findings.
These slides illustrate that, overall, Americans are far
more connected than they have been in years past. On the other
hand, we have also found that there are alarming disparity
based chiefly on income, education, race and geographic
location in which group of Americans have computers and who is
on line. Equally disturbing, many of these disparities are
growing, and let me turn to the first slide.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. It shows this room and everyone
will be in the dark if we don't get online.
Mr. Irving. What this chart demonstrates, that telephone
penetration has stabilized, that computer penetration has
nearly doubled in just a 4-year period and that Internet
penetration in a 1-year period from 1997 to 1998 rose by more
than 40 percent.
When you look at the income, the slide is almost a straight
line up. You will see a disparity, that under families at 5,000
to 10,000 have a lower penetration rate than households under
5,000. We believe the reason for that is primarily because
under 5,000 reflects a number of students. But one of the
things you will notice is that family income is a huge
determinant, and if you have a $75,000 income, you are five
times more likely than a household with less than $10,000 to
own a computer.
We have also found that whites and Asian Pacific Americans
have the highest rate of computer ownership--whites at 46
percent, Asian Americans at 55 percent--and whites are almost
twice as likely to own a computer as African American or
Hispanic American.
This is the so-called digital divide right in here. This is
the gap between white America and black and brown America. The
gap increased. In 1994, the computer penetration gap was 14.8
percent between whites and Hispanics. Today, it is 21.8
percent. In 1994, the gap between whites and blacks was 16.8
percent. Today, it is 23.4 percent. And this difference in here
is the so-called digital divide.
The west is the clearcut leader for PC ownership.
Approximately 50 percent of western households own computers.
In the south, it is approximately 38 percent, a 10 percent
difference. And northeast central cities and the rural south
have the lowest overall penetration rates. So if you are rural
or central city, you are disproportionately less likely to have
computer access.
Again, when we look at Internet we have almost that same
kind of a hockey stick curve. Again, you will notice the
anomaly under 5,000. Again, we think that is because of
students. But households with a $75,000 income are seven times
more likely to use the Internet than those households earning
less than $10,000. And, again, this is a digital divide in
regard to Internet access; and, again, it has grown. It went
from 12.5 to 19.5 between whites and Hispanics and increased
from 13.5 to 20.7 percent between whites and blacks.
Interestingly, one point that is not on the graph is that
at $75,000 a year household income the gap virtually erases
itself. There is almost no statistical difference. You will
find that in your report. It is not on the slides.
The west leads in home Internet access at 31.3 percent. The
south again is the lowest, and northeast central cities and the
rural south again have the lowest rates of any region.
And quickly, with regard to regions, 32.7 percent of
Americans have use of the Internet at any location. That is
home, work or schools or libraries.
One of the most interesting statistics we found is that
whites have more Internet access at home than African Americans
or Hispanics have anywhere. The overall cumulative rate, home
use, work use, school, library, community center, at a friend's
house for African Americans and Hispanics, is 19 percent and 16
percent respectively, but white Americans just home use is 26.7
percent.
And where people use it outside of home is actually
interesting, also. White, nonHispanics, are much more likely
outside the home to have access at work. What you will notice
is the blacks and Hispanics are much more likely to have it at
community centers, at schools, public libraries and similar
kinds of public institutions as opposed to work; and blacks and
Hispanics are more likely to use the Internet for educational
purposes and for job searches.
We also found that low income and lesser educated Americans
are more likely, when they use the Internet, to use the
Internet for things like looking for jobs, getting educational
skills, than are their more highly educated or higher income
counterparts.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you. Thank you for that slide
presentation.
[Mr. Irving's statement may be found in the appendix.]
Chairman Pitts. Now we will go to Ms. Lewis.
STATEMENT OF MAUREEN LEWIS, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALLIANCE FOR
PUBLIC TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Lewis. Good afternoon, Chairman Pitts, Congresswoman
Millender-McDonald, and other distinguished members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Maureen Lewis, and I am the General
Counsel of the Alliance for Public Technology or APT. Thank you
so much for inviting me to discuss the alarming growth in what
has come to be known as the digital divide.
Unfortunately, the divide is wide and deep, and it
describes the disparity between those who have access to
information and new technologies and those who do not. The
divide has the potential of exacerbating the problems of people
who already lack quality education, affordable health care,
satisfactory employment and decent housing.
Telemedicine, local and distance learning, and
telecommuting, among other applications, are possible through
emerging high-speed, high-capacity networks which permit users
to send and receive voice, data, graphics and video using
telephone, cable, wireless and satellite technologies. These
broadband networks can connect people and help communities to
address some of their pressing problems but only if the
networks reach everyone, everywhere.
For more than 10 years, the Alliance for Public Technology
has been advocating for public policies that promote access to
affordable, usable information and communications tools for all
consumers, regardless of their income level, place of residence
or physical limitations. APT is a national, nonprofit coalition
of individuals and a variety of organizations, such as the
National Urban League, the American Foundation of the Blind,
the National Association of Community Action Agencies, the
National Education Association, and many other organizations
that serve senior citizens, people with disabilities, low-
income families, rural residents and small business owners.
Recently, APT has been defending the interests of consumers
in the telecommunications revolution by urging the Federal
Communications Commission to implement section 706 of the 1996
Telecommunications Act. That provision commands State and
Federal regulators to encourage the reasonable and timely
deployment of advanced telecommunications capabilities to all
Americans through the use of various regulated methods and
market incentives.
Well, in 1999, the FCC issued a report in February that
concluded that deployment of advanced capability is proceeding
satisfactorily. Well, the Alliance disputes this conclusion and
remains very concerned that new high-speed network providers
are bypassing many inner city and rural areas, competing
instead for lucrative high-volume large business users.
Consequently, millions of residential and small business
consumers are falling into the digital divide.
To combat this problem, APT has been advocating that the
FCC undertake a number of measures, including eliminating
certain rules that we believe discourage the large telephone
companies that currently have the most ubiquitous network that
can reach more people more quickly from deploying broadband
infrastructure.
In addition, the Alliance has urged the Commission to
actively stimulate deployment of advanced technologies in
communities that have been left behind. For example, the
Alliance has suggested that the FCC develop policies that
foster partnerships between community-based organizations which
pool their demand for telecommunications services and service
providers. The partners will then work together to develop
technology applications that address the critical needs of
traditionally underserved communities.
APT believes that these partnerships will help to educate
communities about the benefits of telecommunications
infrastructure while demonstrating to providers the viability
and sustainability of markets they typically overlook as
unprofitable.
The Alliance has long believed that community efforts to
aggregate demand for telecommunications products and service
can help to attract providers. Accordingly, APT has suggested
that Congress clarify that incumbent local telephone companies
may offer at wholesale rates digital subscriber lines, a
broadband technology that is offered through conditioned copper
telephone lines, and other advanced services to entities that
are ineligible for the wholesale rates that currently apply
only to telecommunications carriers.
One of the major barriers to demand aggregation is the
absence of meaningful economic incentives for communities
themselves to undertake the cost of aggregating their demand.
Therefore, the availability of wholesale rates for advanced
services could provide an important catalyst for community-
based organizations, municipalities, academic, medical and
other nonprofit organizations to resell advanced services to
residents and small businesses.
Another way of promoting demand aggregation has been an
effort that APT has undertakenwith the National Association of
State Regulatory Utility Commissioners to develop a proposal that
enables State and Federal regulators to work together on implementing
section 706. The proposal asks the Federal Communications Commission to
convene an ongoing Federal/State conference on advanced services to
address the challenges of providing advanced services to low-income and
rural communities and to people with disabilities.
The conferees, with input from consumers, industry and
other stakeholders, would, among other things, monitor the
scope and pace of advanced telecommunications deployment;
develop deployment strategies that include private initiatives
and leveraging Federal programs of the National
Telecommunications Information Administration, the Rural
Utility Service and the Small Business Administration, among
others; disseminate best practices and other information; and
experiment through opportunities to encourage investment of
private resources through education and through regulatory
methods in ``706 zones'' as ways of promoting broadband
deployment.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you, Ms. Lewis.
[Ms. Lewis' statement may be found in the appendix.]
Chairman Pitts. Mr. Miller's testimony will conclude the
final panel.
Mr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF HARRIS MILLER, PRESIDENT, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, when
Winston Churchill was Prime Minister, he was approached by a
leader of the British Women's Temperance Union in Westminster
Hall. The woman said, Mr. Prime Minister, do you realize that
all the alcohol you have drunk in your life would fill half
this room? And Churchill looked up at the ceiling and said,
``So far to go and so little time.'' Clearly, the room that she
saw as being half full he saw as being half empty; and so, as I
testify today on behalf of my 11,000 IT company members, rather
than referring to this as a ``digital divide,'' we prefer to
call it as a ``digital opportunity.''
For the reasons I will outline, this issue or its
perception is very important to my members and my industry
which is at the forefront of electronic commerce. Based on our
own surveys, we see a doubling of electronic commerce in just
the next 6 months. Given this dramatic growth, assuring the
opportunity to access the Internet and to participate in the
digital economy is not just an empowerment issue, it is an
economic performance issue. So let us talk about the digital
opportunity.
As Mr. Irving discussed, we find that black and Hispanic
households are far less likely to have Internet access than
white households. I note that between 1997 and 1998 Internet
access jumped 40 percent across the board, but disparities
exist for factors such as income, race, education and household
type.
I do not believe that the numerical disparities reported by
Mr. Irving are unbridgeable, and I believe natural markets
forces, as opposed to government intervention, will quickly
fill the breach. The opportunity here is for technology
sellers, including those who create the content to transmit on
the web and those who want to sell electronically, to work with
their actual and potential customers to make this marketplace
work and to realize the full digital opportunity.
What are some of the factors involved? Well, the World Wide
Web is just 6 years old. Yet, we see almost one-third of all
U.S. homes tapping into the Internet. Typical technology cycles
take 20 years. The web has gone mainstream in less than one-
third of that time, a phenomenal rate of adoption. This is in
large part a function of price. The cost of personal computers
and related equipment has nose-dived.
Just last week the Federal Communications Commission
released a thoughtful report which traced how government
nonintervention in the data and information market contributed
to the development of the Internet. The Commission has tried to
maintain essentially a hands-off approach to these markets, and
it deserves great credit because these policies have led to the
quick adoption of Internet technology.
As a result of the FCC, we all enjoy the benefits of
competitive marketplace. The incredible increase in performance
with lower prices brings the Internet within the reach of a
majority of consumers, but it does not seal the deal. To be
successful, technology must solve a problem or it must scratch
an itch.
Clearly, economics plays a major role in whether you are
the first kid on the block to have a GPS mapping system in your
car or a Palm Pilot in your pocket. Economics aside, I think
that people, regardless of class or origin, are different and
naturally take different approaches to technology adoption. So
if affordable technology is the first plank in my digital
opportunity platform, making it compelling for people who are
currently not part of the digital network is the second.
Convenient access is the third critical aspect of a true
digital opportunity. Internet access is clearly a good
situation that is getting better every day. In fact, according
to the FCC, over 6,000 Internet service providers offer dial-up
service, and 95 percent of Americans today can shop from among
at least four of these local companies. In classrooms, Internet
access has chalked up gains from 35 percent just 4 years ago to
51 percent last year. Convenience and choice are bringing the
Internet home to consumers, no matter where those homes happen
to be.
Bandwidth is still critical. Demand is growing even faster
than the growth for more digital power. The answer is simple:
competition, especially in the so-called ``last mile'' to homes
and small businesses. Aggressive enforcement of the 1996
Telecommunications Reform Act is essential if we are going to
give consumers more bandwidth and more options to obtain
bandwidth at a lower price.
Let me add a word about the e-rate, the program that pays
for Internet access for schools and libraries. We have actively
participated in debate defending the issues of specific
interest to the IT industry. ITAA believes that schools and
libraries should have access to the services of the broadest
selection of possible vendors in order to select the most cost-
effective provider of Internet access.
But even if we have affordable price, compelling need and
easy access, the digital opportunity is still not complete. I
refer to a woeful lack of participation by most minority groups
in the information technology workforce. The problem is not
small-minded employers raising barriers to entry. Rather, it is
a shortage of appropriately skilled and educated professionals
in the pipeline. As an example, last year, according to the
Computer Research Association's Taulbee Survey, only 10 African
Americans received Ph.D.s in computer science and only six
Hispanic Americans did likewise. Similarly, only 2 percent of
undergraduate computer science degrees were awarded to African
American and Hispanic Americans.
These numbers are unacceptably low, both from the
perspective of finding this common ground and, frankly, finding
workers period for the IT economy. Our own studies indicate
thatone of ten jobs for computer programmers now goes begging.
We have set ourself on a course to attract underrepresented
groups to the IT industry. This issue has been front and center
at the National IT Workforce Convocations we held in both 1998
and 1999. We are currently working with the White House to
assess this situation, and this month cosponsored an industry
forum on the topic at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology. And we are also working with programs designed to
outreach to people with disabilities and low-income women.
So the question is, do we have a digital divide or a
digital opportunity? The future, Mr. Chairman, is what we want
to make it. To reach its greatest potential, we must strive in
every way possible to give this incredible resource its
greatest possible reach. The issue is how we achieve it. We say
the market has worked wonders to date, and I assure you that
this economic show is just starting.
Thank you very much, and I will be happy to answer any
questions you and the colleagues on the Subcommittee may have.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
[Mr. Miller's statement may be found in the appendix.]
Chairman Pitts. We will now begin the first round of
questioning, and I will start with Secretary Irving.
Mr. Irving, you speculate as to why certain groups are not
embracing computers and the Internet. Can you speculate as to
why they are not doing this? Obviously, lack of infrastructure
would inhibit some, but what about the rest? Do some people
just think that technology does not have a place in their
lives? If so, what can be done to enhance awareness?
Mr. Irving. A number of things. I think in America it is
interesting you will see more computer executives on the front
page and covers of magazines than you will see celebrities on
some weeks. There has been the adoption of geek chic in some
parts of America, and it hasn't expanded to some of the
minority communities.
I think the marketing of some computer companies in which
they will look at the high-income--if you are a businessperson,
you go for the low-hanging fruit. If you are a high-income
family and if you look at golf magazines, travel magazines,
lifestyle magazines geared toward upper income people, you will
see targeted advertizing looking to sell computers to those
folks. I think if you look at Ebony, Jet, Hispanic business
magazines and other minority-oriented magazines, you won't see
the same kind of targeted advertisements. As you get all the
low-hanging fruit you may see changes in that and as computer
prices come down below 1,000, but I also think there is
something cultural that is going on different. There isn't as
much on the net of interest to some communities.
Asian Americans have the highest penetration rate of both
computers and Internet access, and I think part of the reason
for that is, if you are an Asian American, given the different
number of languages, the way you might find content of interest
to you may be by going on the net. If you are an African
American, Hispanic American there may be free over-the-air
broadcasting options, some local options through newspapers,
and you may not feel the same incumbent need. And, to date, if
you look at the top 100 web sites, none of them are by, for or
about African Americans or Hispanic Americans, and that has got
to change, the compelling content, that Harris was talking
about.
So I think it is a combination of cultural, economic, how
the industry markets itself, all of those things are playing a
role. But you hit a very critical issue, Mr. Chairman, and that
is infrastructure. The infrastructure in our inner cities and
in our rural areas, particularly the rural south, has got to be
focused on as well, particularly as we move to the broadband
networks that both Ms. Lewis and Mr. Harris spoke about.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you.
Ms. Lewis, what kind of feedback have you received from
communities that have not benefited from advanced technology
communications capabilities? Are members of these communities
speaking out?
Ms. Lewis. Yes. In fact, there is a great alarm among many
members of traditionally underserved communities. As more
information about technologies become available through more
traditional media, people are beginning to understand it. They
are getting left out.
For example, the Federal Communications Commission just
undertook a rulemaking to help address the needs of people with
disabilities who, as you can imagine, could greatly benefit
from advances in technology. Those technologies can provide
much greater independent living opportunities, much better
employment opportunities for those folks who suffer from
disabilities.
You can also see--and I have heard personal stories about
people who understand the potential that technology can offer
but don't have access, and they find it very frustrating. So it
is a growing problem and one that I hope we will be able to
address quickly.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you.
Mr. Miller, you referred to the digital opportunity rather
than the digital divide. Will the rapid unfolding of new
technology create an even greater rift between the technology
haves and the have-nots?
Mr. Miller. I think on the contrary, Mr. Chairman. What we
are going to see is, as new technologies are rolled out--both
hardware and software--more and more price pressures downward.
And so at least that part of the equation which I mention as
one of the planks of achieving this digital opportunity will be
dealt with. There is going to be price pressures coming down.
Computers that you bought a year ago for $1,500 are now $500.
The personal digital assistants, the Palm Pilots and devices
like that, their prices are coming down. So those opportunities
are going to be there.
I think the real challenge is, again, scratching the itch.
And the reason I refer to the digital opportunity is I am not
buying any more personal computers for my home. I have got one
for me, one for my wife, and one for each of my teenage kids. I
may upgrade one every 3 or 4 years, but the personal computer
industry isn't going to sell me any more personal computers. It
is to the families that they haven't yet been sold to, that
haven't yet accepted the compelling case that there are real
opportunities, that industry wants. For computers to get to the
penetration rates of VCRs or televisions, to get up to 70, 80,
90 percent, which is where the companies all want to be,
because they all want to sell as many as they can--that is
really how they make their money. They are going to need to
continue to bring the prices down and continue to find a way to
attract people in those communities which are currently not
purchasing those products so they can blanket the entire
marketplace, not just particular segments of the marketplace.
Chairman Pitts. I have just a little bit more time.
You express concern about the low number of minorities in
the IT industry. What is the ITAA or its individual members
doing to attract new workers or further educate current workers
to move forward within the industry?
Mr. Miller. It is really a multiplicity of activities, Mr.
Chairman. Our attitude is letting a thousand flowers bloom. It
is not just going to be traditional colleges and universities.
For example, we are talking to some historically black
colleges and universities that have not been part of this
educational program which is necessarily focused on training IT
workers. Some HBCUs have, but a lot of them have not. So we are
starting to reach out to them.
We are working more closely with community colleges which
frequently do a better job of reaching out to minorities and
people who don't have as much income or who are not thinking
about going to college because a lot of the skills can be
obtained through a community college program. For-profit
schools are also doing an energetic effort. We are also looking
at working with particular organizations. We have been
talking--for example, I know Mr. Fulton is testifying in your
next panel--to the National Urban League because we have to
find channels into those communities to help convince people
that they should be part of the IT workforce.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you. I see my 5 minutes are up.
Ms. Millender-McDonald.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to first go to Mr. Miller, because I want to see
whether I either misunderstood you or understood you and want
to get a clarification, one or the other.
You spoke of a few Ph.D.s that African Americans have, and
I hope you were not translating that into the need for one to
be proficient on a computer one has to have a Ph.D. Because
clearly there are many folks who even develop computer programs
at the age of 14, even before they go out to universities and
colleges. So I would like for you to clarify that, if I
misunderstood what you said, because certainly Ph.D.s should
not be a factor in one becoming proficient on the computer.
Mr. Miller. I agree with you 100 percent, Congresswoman;
and if I misspoke or misled the Subcommittee it was not my
intention. But I was trying to make a more generic point. We
believe that getting people from minority communities who are
not currently a major part of the IT workforce excited about
the IT industry is one way, one element of achieving this
digital opportunity; and the fact that such a small number of
African Americans and Hispanic Americans got Ph.D.s, that such
a small percentage of the computer science graduates from our
4-year colleges and universities are minorities, is indicative
of the fact that we haven't been able to penetrate into those
communities and convince them about the great opportunities of
working in our industry. Does that necessarily translate into
more penetration into minority communities? Not necessarily.
But we think it is one element of making sure we get this
digital opportunity achieved across the board.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Well, I like your optimism about
digital opportunities. However, I suppose I still have to be a
little pessimistic about it, given the fact that we do not see
these opportunities at all in the inner city, especially in the
Watts and Compton and Lynwood areas.
I am interested, though, in your presentation as I have
tried to underscore it. You spoke about the importance of
electronic commerce and the Internet, and I have heard that
theme going through just about all three of them. Clearly,
electronic commerce is an important factor, and the word
commerce or economy and all of that coming together, that is
the main source and the main problem.
In this economy, we are talking about folks who do not have
jobs to even gain $10,000 a year or have $10,000 incomes. So
how do we expect this electronic commerce to play in inner
cities or to even have this type of concept brought into our
communities if, in fact, we do not have the computers, we do
not even have, as you said, the aspirations of even going into
that because we don't know how exciting it is if you do not
have the opportunity to surf on the Internet, if you will.
Mr. Miller. I think a couple of things are going to be
important here. The e-rate is bringing the computers into the
public libraries and into the schools. Even if an individual
can't afford one or doesn't choose to make it enough of a
priority to put it in his or her home, at least you have a
chance to be exposed to it. Again, if there is a digital
divide, I would say it is not just economic, it is more age.
Young kids, if they see it and understand the excitement of it,
they can be the people that go home to mummy and daddy and say,
``Mom, dad, I just downloaded some really neat music off the
Internet; I don't have to go across town to Tower Records or
wherever I buy; I can buy this stuff off the Internet.'' Which
may not make mummy and daddy real happy but at least they have
that opportunity. They can also say, ``Mom, dad, I was able to
do my homework on the Internet.''
Ms. Millender-McDonald. I wish I could agree with you on
that. Unfortunately, as I have gone to my schools, there are
fewer computers in the schools. They are old computers that
have been given by computer companies to them. They are no
longer working. There are about 20 to 25 kids per two
computers, so they never build up that excitement about it
because they never get an opportunity to work on it. If they
do, it is such a short time. So e-rate would be a very
effective tool for us to begin to work on that, but at this
juncture, we do not have it. We need that. We need to work with
you in concert with others to bring this type of concept into
our schools and to our community.
Mr. Miller. I will be glad to work with you on that,
Congresswoman.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. You spoke about HBCUs. How many of
those colleges and universities are working with you to try to
bring this whole Internet and software and computer concept
into our communities?
Mr. Miller. I am currently working on a board organized by
Mr. Mark Warner, who is a businessman in Virginia, just working
with the Virginia HBCUs. That has been a pilot program, and
there are currently, for example, 65 students out of those
historically black colleges and universities who are in
mentoring programs working with companies in northern Virginia
where they are able to work during the summer, or during the
school year. That seems to be a most effective way to start.
We have begun discussions now trying to expand that beyond
Virginia. We have had some preliminary conversations, and I
will be able to give you a further report probably in 3 or 4
months. We are just going through the process right now. In
fact, we had a meeting, as I mentioned, at NIST about 2 weeks
ago, which was very productive, and now we are trying to figure
out the most effective way to implement that.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. I certainly would like you to get
back with me on this because it is very important.
Again, when we talk about perception, this perception is
real. It is absolutely critical in our communities, because we
don't have any of the tools, we don't even have the knowledge,
we do not even have teachers who come to us ofttimes with the
knowledge of computers, a literacy, so, you know, to enable
them to teach it to the students. So you have just----
I think, getting back to what Ms. Lewis said, that
infrastructure is not in place. Therefore, you cannot teach
what you don't know, and they cannot learn what has not been
taught to them. And so it is just critical for this natural
market that you talk about, that you help me to understand
where they are and who they are and how we can tap into them.
Because government has tointrude when no one else is going to
sufficiently provide the opportunities for these youngsters to get
digitized, if you will, to get on this digital opportunity that you are
riding the crest on. And we know that the workforce is going to be the
minorities, for the most part, and women, and we have to train and to
get them geared up for this new millennium, and the only way we can do
that is to have you help us to make that happen.
I will talk to the others, but I see the chairman is
flickering with his speakerphone.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you. We have been called for a vote.
Let us take one more 5-minute round of questioning before we go
to the floor. Mr. DeMint.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. I hadn't finished.
Chairman Pitts. Your first 5 minutes is up. You may
continue in the next round, if that is okay.
Mr. DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you probably know, one of the goals of this Committee is
to use private sector, free enterprise concepts to make sure
there is equal opportunity for everyone in America, and the
Internet certainly represents one of those key opportunities.
As I sit here and listen to you, I am appreciative that you are
sharing your ideas and hope that you can help us determine how
we can create equal opportunity to the Internet without
creating another Federal entitlement program that cannot
possibly keep pace with this industry. This is one of those
things that is changing so quickly, it is going to take
continued private sector involvement, competition, a lot of the
free enterprise ideas to keep it alive and active. So this is
not something we can do as a Federal Government, but we can act
as a catalyst in some ways.
So my question to the panel is, is there a role for the
Federal Government here? Is the Federal Government now creating
any obstacles to this happening? Are there incentives that we
could offer to make it happen?
And I will start to my far left to just get some quick
comments before we have to vote. Mr. Irving.
Mr. Irving. Yes, there is a role for the Federal
government. I think one of the key roles is to continue
promoting pro-competitive policies.
I have to disagree with my friend, Mr. Miller, just
briefly. I think the administration and Congress have been at
least as responsible to hands off high-tech, hands off the
Internet policy as the FCC, which shouldn't have a role in the
Internet in our mind, which should be leaving this alone. And I
think for the last 6 years, Republicans, Democrats,
administration and Congress have all agreed that we need to
grow this using the private sector, but there are also other
roles.
There are some market dysfunctionalities. I mean, one of
the things we have recognize that 75 percent of white families
don't have access to the Internet. When we get into rural
America we are talking about a significant number. Native
American families don't have access to the Internet, low-income
families, rural families, and some of those communities we find
that having access in public centers is important. So the e-
rate becomes important. Community technology centers become
important places. If I don't have a computer at home--and 90
percent of African Americans and Hispanic Americans don't have
computers at home, roughly 90 percent of low-income white
Americans don't have computers at home. They need access today.
And having access in schools and libraries and computer centers
can be helpful.
We also need to continue trying to use the bully pulpit,
trying to get things like what Sysco Company is doing with its
network academies, what the Gates Foundation is doing with
libraries, what AOL Foundation is doing with regard to its
philanthropic activities, trying to make sure the companies are
promoting, when they have a 286, 386, Pentium I, Pentium II,
that they are giving that computer to a school or library or
community center that can use it. And Members of Congress and
the administration can be key there.
And there are a number of other things I could throw out,
but I think one of the things that I think is very, very
important is we need to try to find ways of making sure that
the industry is training American children for the jobs that
are coming in the future.
I am not trying to get into H-1b, but it is a tragedy we
have an industry that is virtually devoid of rural workers,
virtually devoid of black and brown workers, and we have to
import people for jobs that pay 40, 50, 60, $70,000 a year, and
we need to find ways of working with HBCUs, community colleges,
tribal colleges, rural colleges, to give our young kids the
skills that they need.
Mr. DeMint. Ms. Lewis.
Ms. Lewis. Yes. In fact, I do believe the government has an
important role to play, and while I do understand the 1996
Telecommunications Act's emphasis on competition as a way of
helping to encourage the widespread, ubiquitous deployment of
advanced telecommunications infrastructure, there will be some
pockets in some communities where competition won't come
readily, and it may be important for the government to step-in
in those instances, and some of the partnerships that I talked
about earlier are some of the ways we think that can occur.
The other thing that government can do I think is to
continue to promote programs like NTIA's TIIAP program, which
helps to demonstrate throughout communities how technology can
be useful and important in addressing various community needs.
I also believe continued support for the e-rate program is
necessary, and I understand that there is legislation that will
help provide some Federal funding for community technology
centers. Again, providing more opportunities for access is
important, but the Alliance's view is to try to bring access
into everybody's home. So we hope that policies to promote that
end can occur.
Chairman Pitts. You still have a minute left.
Mr. DeMint. Mr. Miller, comment before we take off?
Mr. Miller. Number one issue for government is education
and worker training. Again, if people are not understanding the
Internet, if they don't have the skill sets, then whether they
are actually going to become a computer worker or just happen
to use a computer for their lives, then we have a problem.
Yesterday, one of my CEOs was calling for a GI plan for the
21st century. We may to have go that far. That wouldn't just
apply to African Americans or Hispanic Americans. That would be
across the board. But, obviously, people in lower incomes would
be able to take most advantage of that. So, certainly training
and education.
Secondly, I agree with Mr. Irving. Competition,
particularly in the last mile. We need to have competition to
bring the prices down. It gives people options.
And, thirdly, since this is a Small Business Committee, I
will repeat something I suggested to the full Committee, which
is more training for small businesses in what electronic
commerce is all about, working with the SBA to set up training
and education programs. And many of those programs could be
targeted at African American and Hispanic American owned
businesses or tribal businesses. It doesn't have to just be
suburban white owned businesses. It could be businesses across
the country. And if you get those small businesses hooked on
the Internet and seeing the advantages of computers, many of
those people will take it into their homes also.
Mr. DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you. I would like to remind everyone
we will have another round of questions for this panel, but at
this point we have got to go vote. And so we will recess, and I
would ask the members to come back right after the vote. Thank
you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Pitts. The time of the recess having expired, we
will continue the first round of questioning, and I think we
are ready for Mr. Udall at this time.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you very much, Chairman Pitts, and
thank you to the members of the panel for being here today and
sharing your insights with us.
I also represent a district that is very much like the
areas that have already been described as underserved, where
there is a digital divide. It is northern New Mexico--Santa Fe,
Taos and a number of other rural areas--where we have many
native Americans and many Hispanics that aren't hooked up, and
there is clearly a digital divide. I was very interested to
hear from Maureen Lewis about FCC rules and regulations that
are holding us back, and I was wondering if you could tell me
specifically what these rules and regulations are, because I am
aware that the phone company that is in the district is not
putting in the infrastructure. Could you please describe
specifically for me those rules and how you see how they should
be changed.
Ms. Lewis. Certainly.
One of the things that seems to be a deterrent to
widespread deployment of high-capacity infrastructure has to do
with the inability of some of the larger telephone companies to
have their traffic cross what are called toll areas, and that
has to do with the local telephone companies being confined to
local telephone service and not being able to provide long
distance service.
One of the things that I know that some Members of Congress
are talking about is providing some relief to large carriers
that will allow them to cross LATA boundaries with data so that
companies will have more incentive to roll out capacity that
will serve underserved areas.
One of the other things that the FCC is considering in some
proposed rules is requiring companies in order to have relief
from some of its current rules is to set up separate
subsidiaries to offer advanced data services. Those separate
subsidiaries have the incentive to act like competitive
carriers and compete for some of the low-hanging fruit that Mr.
Irving referred to earlier; and, as a consequence, there won't
be incentive to go to some of the underserved areas that APT is
most concerned about.
So in APT's view companies that are able to provide data
service without the additional expense of setting up a separate
subsidiary may have more of an incentive to penetrate further
into underserved markets than they might otherwise.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you. And that is I think what we need
to do in northern New Mexico, and I imagine it is what we need
to do in a lot of the rural areas around the country. I think a
lot of us are in the same boat on that.
Mr. Irving, your report indicates that--and I am repeating
myself here a little bit--but that native Americans and
Hispanics in rural areas are falling behind; and I am
wondering, you know, what special steps should be taken to,
that you believe, to address this aspect of the problem.
Mr. Irving. I think the problem is particularly acute in
New Mexico, Congressman. I spent some time in your part of the
world, and I can tell you that, right now, 87.1 percent of New
Mexico has telephones, and that compares with about 95 percent
for the Nation. And a large part of that statistic is skewed
because of the low telephone penetration rate on native
American reservations. We have reservations where two out of
three people don't have a phone. Many reservations only half
the people have a phone. And across the Nation rural native
Americans are 75 percent penetration, meaning one out of four
native Americans don't have a phone, by far the least served
people in this country.
And I think one of the things we need to focus on are newer
technological solutions. It is more expensive to run a
telephone line out to distant rural areas, and we need to start
letting technology and the market work to some degree by
looking at wireless technology, satellite technologies as well,
and it is a place that government can work by trying to create
incentive and trying to make sure that we have the right
regulatory policies that will afford that.
But one other thing that I found interesting is Hispanics,
native Americans, low-income people, are more likely to use
community centers and technological centers, and we have to
have those available. Because when you have a community where
nine out of ten people don't have a computer or Internet access
on the day, they are not going to have it near term for many of
those families, but they cannot afford to go 5, 10, 15 years
without access anywhere.
I do think that, in addition to getting new technological
solutions to the telephone and Internet penetration to the
home, we have got to get these technologies at least in the
community for people; and one of the benefits of having
community centers is you have trained people who can teach
people how to use these technologies in those centers, opposed
to just putting a computer there and folks have no idea how to
use it.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you.
And, Mr. Miller, do you have any thoughts on either one of
those subjects?
Mr. Miller. Just to put an emphasis on competition, Mr.
Udall.
About 2 years ago, my family and I took a vacation to
Chile, and we started in Santiago and then went to Patagonia.
We were closer to Antarctica than we were to the equator. I
walked into a phone booth. There were six telephone companies
to choose from, including one of the local Bell Operating
Companies here in the United States, which was down there
competing. It was cheaper for me to use their phone service to
call back to the U.S. than it was to use my long distance
calling card that I had brought with me from the United States.
So when competition comes, there is money to be made doing
telephone calls.
Again, maybe it is not a land line, as Mr. Irving
suggested. Maybe it is wireless or satellite. But, believe me,
these companies want to do business. But as long as there are
too many rules and regulations and lack of competition, you are
going to find these kind of situations where the market is not
going to work properly. People who frequently suffer the most
are people who are less advantaged because they can't figure
the work-arounds. They can't deal with the work-arounds. So we
have to make sure that competition comes to the marketplace so
that native Americans have just as much access to
telecommunications as people in wealthy suburbs do.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you very much.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you.
Mr. English.
Mr. English. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I, first of all, want to thank you for having
this hearing today, because it has highlighted an issue which
is of particular importance to a district like mine which does
have rural areas, does have parts of the midwest, northeast,
rustbelt area which has the potential to be underserved in this
situation.
I am curious, though, one of the things that we have not
covered in our discussion is how other advanced industrialized
countries are approaching the digital divide. They obviously
have some of the same challenges, they have some of the same
problems, and given that this is obviously anissue which is
going the affect our long-term competitiveness, Mr. Miller, can you
comment on what you have seen in other countries, and are there market-
oriented solutions that are being tried there or is it primarily a
government-driven response?
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. English. An excellent question.
We have done a study, which I will be glad to supply to the
record for the Committee, called Digital Planet which actually
compares software, hardware, Internet access in 50 different
countries, and those data are very telling. But, in general, I
would say in the industrialized countries of the world that
have the highest rates of telephone access, countries like the
Scandinavian countries and Canada, they really have relied
primarily on the market forces and, as Mr. Irving suggested,
not just traditional land lines but huge use of cellular
telephones. In fact, there is a front-page article today in The
New York Times about how cellular penetration is so much higher
in parts of Europe and Asia because they, in a sense, skipped
over the cost of installing a land line and went right to the
cellular lines.
In terms of Internet access, unfortunately, most other
countries of the world, including the developing world, are
well behind us, and one of the reasons is too much regulation.
For example, in many cases, an individual from his or her home
accessing the Internet pays per minute charges for the local
dial-up. So even though you hear stories this week about free
Internet access in Britain, so that even AOL is waiving its
monthly fee in Britain, the reports can be deceiving. Yes, the
fee for the Internet access is free, but the per minute charges
are clicking along. So if you stay on line for 15 or 20 or 25
minutes, you suddenly find yourself with a $10 or $15 or $20
phone bill. Whereas here, in most cases, that is a local call
and therefore just part of your local monthly charge.
So in many countries, one of the reasons that they are
anywhere from one year to 3 years behind us in terms of
Internet access, even when you hold constant variables such as
income, is because their charges for Internet access are too
high, and that is because of the lack of competition in the
marketplace there.
Mr. English. Ms. Lewis, do you want to get your arms around
this as well? I would be curious to get your observation on the
international dimension of this problem.
Ms. Lewis. I really can't speak to that issue, Mr. English.
Mr. English. I appreciate that.
Mr. Miller, going back, obviously this is an issue that is
going to have a big impact on the competitiveness of places
within regions of the United States as well as internationally.
Can you, from your international study, identify for us some of
the pitfalls that we need to avoid. For example, some of the
cul-de-sacs that other countries have tried from a policy
standpoint and maybe we should be avoiding?
Mr. Miller. Well, again, the number one pitfall is
overregulation. When they tried to control access to the
Internet through centralized services or the local monopolistic
telephone company controls the Internet access, you get very
high rates, very low take-up rates, very low competition. The
other cul-de-sac, of course, are attempts to control content in
countries like Singapore and Saudi Arabia. The Internet is such
a wonderful medium that people have worked around it.
Let me tell you where I think the successes are; and I
point, for example, to India as a success. Their success, even
with a lot of problems that India has--and it is a 980 million
person country, they have a lot of problems--in information
technology is staggering because they made a conscious decision
to combine industry, government and the education community in
the early 1980s, to train an information technology workforce.
Their workforce now is estimated to be between 350,000 and
400,000 trained computer programmers, which makes it the second
or third largest in the world.
Now, what does that mean? That means when companies in the
United States or Japan or Europe find that they don't have
enough workers with the right skills to do particular jobs and
they are looking for an alternative place to have the work
done, frequently they turn to India as a location. The same
thing is going on in China. It is going on in Ireland. It is
going on in South Africa. It is going on in Israel. So they
have figured out, if you will, the Rosetta stone here, Mr.
English, which is having the trained workforce. If you don't
have a trained workforce, people who understand these skill,
then it is tough to be attractive.
So if the cul-de-sac is overregulation, I think the open
road is training the workforce. Education. Obviously, India has
a lot more people to train than 350,000, but if you are looking
for a model of success, India is an example. It is even
happening here in the U.S. In South Boston, Virginia, there is
a project that was started about 3 years ago by some refugees
from northern Virginia, who got kind of tired of the traffic
and wanted to get out of here. And they started a company and
they trained computer programmers there in the South Boston
area. People who used to be in the more traditional tobacco
industry down in South Boston, which is near the North Carolina
border. And they developed what I call ``offshore onshore,'' so
that northern Virginia technology companies, instead of sending
their work to India or Ireland or some other country outside
the United States, are outsourcing work to this company in
South Boston, Virginia. It is called the Software Factory, and
that model, in ``offshore onshore,'' I think, could be brought
to a lot of rural areas around the country if we can get the
people trained with the software skills they need.
Mr. English. That is an exciting vista, and I appreciate
your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the
opportunity to be here. Let me just use the opportunity to ask
a couple of questions.
I came because I am very interested in this subject matter,
as obviously lots of people are. It seems to me that whenever
we talk about disparities, immediately many people's mind goes
to the whole question of race and ethnicity relative to trying
to figure out the why of it. Then, of course, there are others
who look at the whole question of economics and income. What
can be done I think is what I am really trying to get at--if
income has much to do with the disparities, what can be done
about reducing the gaps of regulation, legislation? That is
really my question.
Mr. Irving. Can I take a crack at this?
The three biggest determinants we find--income, education
and race--lower income people, lesser educated people and
certain races are less likely to have access, and I think that
a critical point for all of those is informing the communities
about the importance of these technologies. I think mostly what
is going to happen with regard to this technology there are
going to be community-based solutions. They are not going to
necessarily be solutions just out of Washington, though
Washington can help, but communities have to be informed that
if they are going to be viable competitors in this new economy,
they are going to have to restructure their educational--at the
school board level, at the individual school level investment
has got to be made.
I keep getting questions from people, well, how can we
afford to put computers in school when we can't afford to give
kids books that are less than 30 years old or safe places to
study? And I keep saying, this is the richest Nation in the
world. We have to find a way to do both. We cannot have a child
that isn't computer literate and send him out to Mr. Miller's
workforce, just as we can't have a kid who can't read or do
math and send him out to Mr. Miller's workforce. All of those
skills are going to be necessary.
We are going to have a generation of entrepreneurs who
understand that if they are going to compete in a global
economy they have to have global connectivity and they have to
make the investment. As you would make the investment in
insurance, security, you have got to make the investment on
connectivity. You wouldn't have a business without a telephone,
you are not going to have a business in 2010 that doesn't have
Internet connectivity. You better figure out now how to get
there.
We need to figure out to make sure that our local officials
understand that isn't a solution to age, it is not a solution
to violence, to poverty or to health care, but it is one of the
solutions. It is a tool that can be used.
Telemedicine, distance education are things that this
technology empowers, and I think the problem is people are
looking at this as an isolated issue and not as part of a
holistic approach to governance and being a citizen as we go
forward. And I think one of the things that Members of Congress
and other Federal officials and industry can do are just inform
people of the power of the technology to improve lives. But I
think when people see this and have access to it, they get it
and they will make the economic decision.
And what drives me to say that is, anecdotally, we haven't
been able to dig this statistic out, but if you look at who is
most likely to have a computer at home, it is a person whose
child has access to technology at school or a person who has
access to technology at work. If you use this, you understand
it, you make the purchase for yourself. And the reason that
native Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans and
rural whites are less likely to have access at home, they don't
have access at work and their kids are less likely to have
access at school.
So we have to make this is a little bit more ubiquitous.
The market is beginning to work, but it is not going to be a
perfect fix.
I had to disagree strongly with Mr. Miller on one point he
said. Broadband can create a bigger chasm. You are going to
have people 20, 30, 40 percent of this Nation in 4 or 5 years
streaming audio, the child he was talking about having audio at
home. You are going to have 20, 30 percent of this Nation
watching movies over the Internet, but who are those 60 percent
who don't? Where are they going to be? And government can play
a role in terms of making sure that this technology is deployed
ubiquitously and fairly and that some folks aren't red-lined
economically and electronically. And those are the kind of
issues we have got to continue to be cognizant of.
This report every year gets a little thicker, with more
questions. I think a question we will have to answer in the
future is broadband access is a question we are going to have
to start asking as well as wireless and other technologies,
because they are all playing a role in the solution to the
question you asked, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. Miller. Can I just look at the question somewhat
differently?
I am looking at the table on page 27 of Digital Divide, the
top table which Mr. Irving's department did. What is very
interesting is, if you get over $75,000 in income, Internet
usage is pretty close, breaking out by race. Slightly higher
for white nonHispanic and other nonHispanic but it is pretty
close. But when you drop down to the next cohort, which is the
$35,000 to $75,000 bracket, all of a sudden white usage is
almost twice the rate of black access to the Internet. What has
happened? Is it just income or is there something else going on
that when people make $75,000 a year it doesn't make a lot of
difference what their race is, but when you talk about the next
cohort, it is so different?
My gut feeling is, and I don't have any data to support
this, is that the difference has a lot to do with content and
making the compelling case. That people in the $35,000 to
$75,000 income range probably can afford the newer, lower
priced computers and probably can afford the access, but they
don't have a compelling case. If I could figure out what it is
which would appeal to the African Americans who are making
enough to buy a computer but don't want to get hooked up to the
Internet, I could become a rich entrepreneur on the Internet. I
don't know what that is. I don't know whether Mr. Bob Johnson
from Black Entertainment Television is going to figure it out
or whether Steven Spielberg is going to figure it out. But
someone is going to figure it out, and, when they do, I think
they are going to bring their broadband just as much into the
central cities and into the rural areas. Because they want to
sell movies to everybody, they want to sell records to
everybody, and they are going to push to make sure that they
can reach into every community.
Mr. Davis. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I see that
the time has expired.
It seems to me that both of you are saying that education
is the key, in a sense. Either way you cut it, education really
becomes the key.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Would the gentleman yield for a
second?
I just want to piggy-back on what Mr. Miller is saying.
Mr. Miller, usually the $35,000 range parents have smaller
kids. They are in school. These kids still aren't getting
computer learning, and a lot of them do not have medical
coverage. So they are paying a lot within that $35,000 scope,
and if their kids aren't being taught on the computers in
school, then they will not be excited about bringing this
information to the home and the home getting involved in it.
So, really, as you look at $35,000 salaries, as I have looked
at them, especially with women, there are so many things that
they are having to provide to the family that they just cannot
afford these computers.
Mr. Irving. Can I add one thing, Mr. Chairman? Because
there is one point, there is a graph in here that is kind of
interesting that demonstrates that families that have two
parents are much more likely to have access to the Internet
than a family with one parent, for every income group above
35,000 and below 35,000, for every racial group except for
Hispanics below 35,000, where it is roughly equivalent. So
having two parents in the household, interestingly, is not
intuitive, but two parents are much more likely to give their
children connectivity than one parent. Every racial group,
every income level, there is a huge gap, and that is just
something that I think underscores what Congresswoman
Millender-McDonald is saying, that there is something going on
with our families that we need to focus on.
Chairman Pitts. All right. Thank you.
We are ready for our second round of questioning, and I
will go to Mr. DeMint.
Mr. DeMint. Ms. Lewis, you mentioned the e-rate, and I
would just like a little more explanation of how that would
work, how do you think that would help this problem, just
briefly.
Ms. Lewis. Well, the e-rate has I think been an effective
tool helping to bring technologies to communities, and I think
it is a wonderful first step to providing exposure to young
children about the advantages, the possibilities that computer
technology can offer.
But, unfortunately, there is a great disparity between
homes that have computers and those thatdon't, and children's
education, unfortunately, is impacted by that. So APT's goal is to
further the penetration of computers not just to schools and libraries
but to homes. But the e-rate is an effective, in my view, an effective
way of providing some early exposure to communities that may not have
any exposure at all.
Mr. DeMint. You are not suggesting using the e-rate to get
computers in homes but more in public places?
Ms. Lewis. In public spaces. It is a way to help expose
some communities that don't have, as Mr. Irving was talking
about before, access at work and access in other places, to
provide at least early learning for children, and then perhaps
those children's involvement and excitement with computers can
help stimulate some interest in their parents.
Mr. DeMint. Mr. Miller, any comment about the e-rate, how
it relates to what we are trying to do?
Mr. Miller. I agree with what Ms. Lewis said. I think it is
a question of exposure. I am a little biased, but if I were
starting a school, the first thing I would do is put in the
computers.
But I think the reality, as Ms. Millender-McDonald said
earlier, is a lot of schools are striving just to keep erasers
and chalk in supply. So the idea of getting computers in is far
from them. So having this e-rate does enable them to bring in
the computer technology which, in turn, exposes the children.
In turn, you hope they go home and tell their parents to think
about it, and next thing you know we will have everybody with
the Internet. That would make my industry very, very happy.
Mr. DeMint. Mr. Irving, I think I have gotten more calls
and letters about an Internet tax than anything else, which
would make it very difficult to ever suggest that. Is that what
we are talking about or are there other ways to accomplish the
same thing or just what would you add?
Mr. Irving. Well, the e-rate is not an Internet tax. The e-
rate is basically built upon an existing subsidy system. And we
have had a system in for years where--I grew up in New York
City, and my mom paid more in New York City so that my aunts in
other parts of the world, in rural communities could access
telephones at a subsidized rate.
What this basically does is take that rural urban
subsidization system and use that same type of model to give
some additional income revenue or dollars to schools in high-
cost areas and low-income areas.
I always use the analogy of a cell phone. The first time I
got a cell phone, I couldn't resist calling everybody I knew
and then I got this bill and couldn't afford it. We don't want
to have kids on line and school districts get that first bill
and they found that they can't afford it. And the e-rate helps
keep it affordable, particularly for high-cost areas and low-
income areas, but it is not a tax on Internet users, and this
administration and I believe this Congress would fight against
any tax on the Internet. We want to see the Internet deployed
as ubiquitously, as rapidly as possible, but that has to be in
public spaces. Far too many Americans don't have access
anywhere else.
Mr. DeMint. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you.
Ms. Millender-McDonald.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I really have so
much here to talk about until I really need to take up the
other time of the other members and would like to do that.
Ms. Lewis, I just want to commend you for your presentation
and especially touching on the telecommunications products and
services that will help attract providers, and I think through
the e-rate this will be the conduit by which this happens. And
certainly the CBC has gone on record encouraging the FCC to
continue to expand and apply the e-rate so that our kids can
have access to computers in the schools, and that is what that
was intended to be.
I also want to commend you on your statement about small
businesses falling through the cracks. Indeed, small businesses
are the ones who are the job creators. If we do not put them
online, give them the computers, technology that they need,
then we will not have the jobs that are necessary to provide
for us.
Mr. Irving, H-1b, absolutely. I just do not think we need
to be going internationally to find workers and not train
workers here. So the H-1b program that you are talking about or
that provision of the law, I really did and will vote against
again because we need to bring in people, we need to train
people here in America for the high-tech jobs that we have here
and not go overseas and bring people in. So I am adamantly
opposed to that. I think that is what you spoke of.
Mr. Irving. I don't want to get in trouble with the
President, Vice President, Secretary.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. That is all right. I have gotten in
trouble with them. That is what I said, not you.
I will say, as you mentioned the program, I will reiterate
my position on it. I really do think, especially with Silicon
Valley and all of those high-tech programs we have in
California, we do not need to have anyone going overseas
bringing people in. So that is what I say.
Mr. Irving, and let me just say, we must recognize that
government must play a role in providing the type of training
and skills that will allow us to have a workforce 2000 that is
equipped to move into this global workforce. I just want to
bring attention to this panel and to those in the outer
community that it was many administrations like the Rural
Electrification Administration that was set up in the 1930s
that established the rural services because the established
electric companies would not do that.
We also want to call attention to the myriad of--going back
to the 1860s, where the Signal Corporation and Defense
Advancement Research and all of these took place through
governmental entities. Well, in 1960, the IBM Air Force Sage
computer system, and it goes on and on, the 1971, my person,
this expert over here just gave me this information to let the
public know that the government has played a role. In fact,
they have been primary, principal, in starting the whole
hardware and software when it comes to computer systems, and we
must not forget that. Therefore, they must play a vital role in
this.
And my question to you, Mr. Irving, is what is this
administration doing to try to bring this divide, gap closer?
Because when you say more connected, that doesn't say anything
to me. It doesn't tell me anything. Because these percentages,
are they children? Are they adults? Who are they that have
gotten to a degree where they are more connected? Who are these
people and what is the administration doing to help us with
this divide?
Mr. Irving. We are doing a number of things. The principal
thing we are doing is working with Congress to promote
competition to bring prices down, which it will help.
I think the second thing we are doing that is very, very
important is this President and Vice President, again working
with Congress, redefined universal service to include public
institutions such as schools and libraries. This administration
have been a strong and forceful advocate for the e-rate and
will continue to be a strong and forceful advocate for the e-
rate. President Clinton and Vice President Gore and others in
the administration have focused on the need for community
technology centers. We have increased by, I think, 600 percent
funding forcommunity technology centers that are storefronts in
rural areas and low-income areas where people can go in and get
training and access to computers.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. So your program, this T-I-A-P, how
do you pronounce it?
Mr. Irving. TIIAP.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. What type of grant money will there
be for us to access to provide more computers for these
community centers that you talk about? Because it is great to
put up these centers, but you have got to put computers in
there. What is your grant program like?
Mr. Irving. TIIAP does a number of different things. We
have about 400 grants out there right now, everywhere from
rural Kentucky and Mississippi to a program in East Palo Alto.
Right in the shadow of Silicon Valley there is a community
called East Palo Alto that is disproportionately black,
disproportionately Hispanic and a lot of single-family
households. Those kids that are in there are making
technological changes. They have contracts with Sega and AOL to
do computer animation. They paid more in taxes their second and
third year in existence than we gave in our first year of
grants, because when you give kids access to technology and set
them loose, they can do wonderful things.
I was just down in Kentucky where we have a program with
the Center for Rural Development that is training people how to
use technology. In small, little counties, they put little
technology centers, counties that I had never heard of, but the
people in those communities are embracing it and learning how
to use skills.
I was in Chicago, and another one of our grant programs is
in the south side of Chicago. We have grant programs at a
learning center in Los Angeles, low-income, Hispanic, who are
teaching young kids 7, 8, 9 years old computer literacy so they
are not intimidated by these technologies.
But TIIAP is really a model program. What we do is
demonstrate models and then hope the communities and States
will fund on their own those types of models. I only have about
$20 million a year, so I can't do every State.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Are you working with the States to
try to bring that partnership about?
Mr. Irving. Yes, and the most important thing about TIIAP,
we disseminate what we learn. We put it up on line. We make
sure that anybody we give a grant--the National Urban League
has a grant that we gave both in Seattle and in Baltimore.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. What about Los Angeles?
Mr. Irving. There is one there, but we didn't fund that.
But what they do is they give information about what is working
and not working in those States.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. I will say--and, Mr. Chairman,
thank you so much for the extended time--this is a number one
civil rights issue, and we must address it. Thank you so much.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you.
Mr. English.
Mr. English. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Irving, in my earlier round of questions, I neglected
you. That was unintentional, and actually, the line of
questioning by my colleague, I would like to follow up on and
maybe see if I can clarify some of your points.
In your report you stress community action centers as the
key to finding a solution to addressing some of the problems of
the digital divide within communities that are not as well
wired. May I ask, in your testimony, why you don't stress the
community action centers as much? Also, you don't give us as
clear an idea of what the Federal role should be in promoting
these access points. In your comments you pointed to the
availability of some money for some prototypes for some pilot
projects, but I don't have a sense of where the administration
would like to go in establishing a firm Federal role for
promoting the creation of these centers. Can you give us a
sense, is this the administration's next programmatic
initiative or ideally how much money should the Federal
Government be putting in this direction?
Mr. Irving. If I can, it is a multilayered question. The
administration feels strongly that community access centers are
a key. Community access centers can be broadly defined.
Community access centers include schools and libraries and
other public spaces.
Mr. English. Do they include churches?
Mr. Irving. They could include churches, although there is
an establishment clause question that I don't have the
capability of----
Mr. English. So there is a concern on your part that any
funding for churches to set up this sort of center might create
an establishment problem?
Mr. Irving. It might. I am a lawyer, but I am not competent
to answer that question.
Mr. English. I understand.
Mr. Irving. I have to constantly look at those issues in my
grant programs as to what types of grants I can give and what
type grants I can't. Churches, community centers, barbershops,
shopping malls, wherever there are community points where
people will go. If a young student--I mean, I grew up in
southeast Queens, New York. It is a working class neighborhood.
There are a lot of kids that I went to high school with, half
my class from freshman year to senior year dropped out. For me
to think that those kids are going to go back to my high school
or go to a library to learn the computer is just fiction. Those
kids have already said that these institutions have failed me.
They are walking away. There are places in the community that
they might go where they will feel comfortable, where they will
be around peers, and we need to have those kind of centers in
rural and in urban areas. That is why we use the generic term,
community access centers.
The specific program that the administration, the President
introduced last year in his budget and asked for increased
funding this year are called community technology centers.
Those are storefront shops where you not only have computers
but you have trained people to train people how to use these
technologies. We have asked for a 650 percent increase I think
from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2000. It was $10 million
last year, $65 million this year.
Mr. English. Which has produced how many centers?
Mr. Irving. The grant round was just completed by the
Department of Education last year for community technology
centers.
Another thing that Secretary Cuomo has introduced are
computers of learning and technology centers in housing
projects where you can have people in the housing centers and
in the housing projects teaching other. We have had some
prototype projects through my TIIAP in housing projects. We
have shown it can work. Now other agencies are taking what we
have learned and others have learned and extending it.
I think you need programs like TIIAP that can show what
works and doesn't work, and then you need the agencies in the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, in HUD, in Department of Education,
who can build upon what we are learning, but we also need
private initiatives, and we need community initiatives.
Mr. English. And how would what you are proposing actually
promote that?
Mr. Irving. I think that when you have these community
technology centers it is incumbent and important for local
businesses to be part of the solution and the design of these
community technology centers and also to contribute.
I was in Billings, Montana, at the invitation of Senator
Burns a few years ago, and the owner of the local Wendy's had
made huge contributions to the library to make the library a
community technology center because he learned he had computer
illiterates working in his Wendy's and they needed computer
skills just to be a burger maven or a burger employee, and he
realized right then that he needed to make an investment.
This is a call for action across not just the Federal
Government but also State and local governments and the private
sector. We are not going to cure this with one silver bullet.
We need a whole arsenal of tools to go in and fight this
problem if we are really going to make every American ready for
the 21st century.
Mr. English. And I agree with that, and my concern is there
is a tendency in Washington to identify a problem and then come
up with a whole range of small niche programs aimed at it. What
you are proposing here, I understand you would like to see more
Federal funding for these community action centers broadly
defined, but I am still trying to get my arms around the
concept. My sense is you are right to be flexible, but my
concern is you have just listed a whole range of programs, and
I wonder if we can move away from producing a lot of prototypes
to trying to come up with a focused policy that will, with
goals, set some clear parameters for how we can promote this
access with a limited Federal role and in partnership with
communities and State.
Mr. Irving. I think all of us in the administration, the
President and Secretary Daley down to me, would love to work
with you on that, but there is one thing that I find as I have
traveled across this country. A solution in rural Pennsylvania
is going to be very different from a solution in the south side
of Chicago, very different from Lynwood, California, very
different from a native American reservation in Hopi or Navajo
parts of Arizona. And so if I try to do a single shot or try to
get my arms around this with one holistic solution, I am going
to have some things fall through the gaps, and this technology
moves so fast we need to be flexible and focused.
Mr. English. I agree. But, Mr. Chairman, if I could
continue briefly this line of questioning, Mr. Irving, my
concern is that if you come up with 50 programs for doing this
you may come up with 50 great photo opportunities in the
process, and that will gratify some people in the political
arena, but I am not sure you are coming up with a policy that
is actually going to be measurable, that we are going to be
able to fund because we know what we are getting.
You have told some great anecdotes, but I guess what I am
looking for here is a flexible framework that allows for a
Federal involvement in promoting these access points in rural
areas and in urban areas, in very different settings, and not
just create 40 different programs because we can think of 40
different kinds of communities we want to help. That is not a
very coordinated policy. And as someone who thinks that there
is a Federal role in promoting this access, I think that we
need to have maybe a better defined policy here.
Mr. Irving. I think we are in violent agreement. But I
think one of the issues we have got to focus on is, if you have
a disease, we are right at the diagnostic stages of the
disease. And when you have a disease and you are trying to cure
the disease, you may have to try a lot of different things.
Sometimes you find that Mom's homemade soup is enough, but
sometimes you need surgery.
And I don't think we are at the point where I think we need
surgery, but I do think we need a diagnostic evaluation of what
works best. And if I have a problem with my arm I need a
different analysis than if I have a problem with my knee or in
my spine. And I am not quite sure whether this is a spinal
problem or a joint problem, but we know we have a problem. And
what the cure is I think will determine on how persistent the
problem is. Will it go away on its own? Will the marketplace
take care of it?
And I don't think we are at the point yet where we can make
this one prescription, but I would like to work with you, and I
think all of us in the administration would like to work with
you on how to find a prescription that is cost effective.
The flexible framework you mentioned is absolutely the
right type of approach, I believe, and I believe the President
would believe. Let us find a way that is focused, that is
holistic, that is flexible, that helps to resolve these
problems.
Mr. English. I think you made a very fine presentation
here, Mr. Irving; and we very much appreciate it.
I yield back.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you.
Ms. Tubbs Jones.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. English, I agree with you. I
don't want any prototype programs either.
Ms. Tubbs Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To all of the witnesses that I have missed, I apologize for
my delay, and I am confident that my colleagues have done a
good job of addressing the issues in this area. I am going to
be very brief.
The report, Falling Through the Net, was anybody surprised
by the fact that it was likely to be minorities that would have
less access to the Internet? Was anybody surprised waiting on
this result?
Mr. Irving. This is the third one I have done, so I had a
sense of where we might be.
Mr. Miller. I was pleasantly surprised, and it may not be a
startling finding, by the fact that when we did get above the
$75,000 income level, and I admit that is still a small
percentage of the population, that a lot of the racial
divisions did seem to disappear. I think that is a hopeful
finding. That is not to say that everything is fine, but it
does show that at some income level, people are willing to say,
regardless of race or nationality, this Internet is important
to me.
And one of the tricks of the trade that we haven't figured
out as an Internet industry is how do we appeal to groups. As
Larry said earlier, it is interesting that of the top 100
Internet sites, none of them is targeted to a minority
community. Why hasn't anybody, in a sense, figured that out?
Why isn't some great creative person figuring out the message?
Ms. Tubbs Jones. In campaigns, they use focus groups. Have
you thought about that? I mean, ask the people who don't use
it, it seems to me, might be the easy way.
Mr. Miller. Exactly.
Ms. Tubbs Jones. Anybody ever thought about tax incentives
for companies providing access to the Internet or computer
opportunities?
Mr. Irving. I am sure it has been thought of.
Ms. Tubbs Jones. But not implemented?
Mr. Irving. You have a scenario in which the Internet is 6
years old, really, as a public space. You are seeing 50 percent
per year increases across every income group now,
althoughminority started later. People are giving away PCs now if you
sign on to AOL or you sign on to various things. So those numbers are
going to probably increase a little bit, but you are not going to get
to equity anytime soon. We are not at equity with telephone
penetration. African Americans are about one in every five----
Ms. Tubbs Jones. Maybe you misunderstood me. I didn't mean
to the person who accesses the Internet. I am talking about to
the people who control the Internet, the people who control
computers. But the idea as we are moving from welfare to work
of giving companies' tax incentives for employing welfare folk,
why not give them tax incentives for accessing computers and
training people to use the Internet and this technology? I am
just throwing it out as a possible suggestion.
Mr. Miller. A bill has been introduced in the House by
Congressman Moran and in the Senate by Senator Conrad which
would provide tax incentives for companies to do IT training.
And, obviously, we believe that most of the people who take
advantage of that would be people who are less economically
advantaged.
Ms. Tubbs Jones. But what I am saying is that those of you
who are in the business of creating the Internet and dealing
with computers and so forth may have to go on the offensive,
and we reward you for going on the offensive if you do more
than sign somebody up and say I signed them up and they failed
the course and I am done, if you do something a little more
than that, and that is something that quickly comes to mind to
me.
I would like to thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you.
Mr. Davis, do you have any questions?
Mr. Davis. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I really am pleased because I just wanted to follow the
trend of thought that I thought I had picked up from Mr.
English. And while I am in agreement with all of the community
access centers, all of the programs, all of the opportunities,
as I listened I was thinking that I have seen about as many
storefront programs as I want to see. I have been in about as
many basements as I really want to go in. With certain kinds of
programs, that they are good as the only thing that you can
get.
I mean, if you get down to the point where this is all that
you can get, then put it in the storefront. If this is all that
you can get, then put it in the church basement. But if there
is a coherent policy in terms of actually putting into public
education, into the school systems where there is an
environment, where there is an atmosphere, where young people
can really learn to make the greatest use of this technology
and these instruments, then I really think that goes to another
level.
And so, while I am not denigrating storefronts and small
programs and initiatives, as I have been dealing with those all
of my adult life--I mean, ever since I have lived in inner city
America, which is all of my adult life, that is what I have
seen. But I have never seen the kind of results that could
really come if we were to anchor down and put into public
education the kind of resources, the kind of equity so that
some school systems are not being funded at a level three times
as high as others, where all of the children really get the
opportunity, then I think we can reduce the disparity.
I mean, anything less than that, I think the same
disparities that we experience we will continue to experience
because we are putting Band-Aids on cancer, and it just keeps
breaking out, keeps breaking out.
But I really appreciate the testimony and the responses
that all of you have given, and I find it intriguing, but I
really think we need to go to another level.
Mr. Irving. May I briefly respond?
Congressman, I couldn't agree more about the importance of
focusing this on education, but I also hope when Mr. Fulton and
others testify in the next panel you will hear about some of
the success stories. And, interestingly, the Baltimore grant we
gave is in a church. So there is some way churches can be
involved.
Some of the success stories in community centers, there are
literally hundreds of people in Baltimore working in high-tech
today because the Urban League and the Federal Government made
investment and gave people computer training. There are
literally hundreds of young people in East Palo Alto, hundreds
of young people in Newark, New Jersey--Keith and I were just
down in the west side of Chicago looking at a community
technology center that the Urban League has there, and young
people there are going to have opportunities because we made
those investments.
And, again, as somebody who was formerly young, I know that
at a certain age, in certain communities, there are kids who
are not going to go to school and are not going to go to
libraries for the training, and we have to reach them as well
if they are not going to be lost to this economy. And that is
why, while I don't disagree that we have to focus on schools, I
think if we only focus on schools we are going to have a
generation of people who aren't equipped that we could
otherwise reach.
Mr. Davis. And I didn't want to, again, denigrate in any
way. And I agree that if anything you take, if that is all that
you can get, I agree with that. I have just seen all that you
can get so much, knowing that if we do 10, there are 10,000
that we needed to do. If we do 100, there were 50,000 that we
needed to do, and I just want to go after the 50,000. It is
kind of my like daddy used to tell us when we were farmers and
one of the crops would come. He would say, pray for a good
harvest, but keep on hoeing. And so let us keep doing what we
are doing while we really go for the big one.
Put it in education where everybody has a shot at it.
Mr. Miller. Congressman, I couldn't hope to match your
eloquence about the importance of education. Every business
person believes in it. I heard a story yesterday which I found
very disconcerting. One of my large member companies is trying
to give away to some school districts brand new PCs. Because of
various bureaucratic rules some of these public school systems
cannot accept them. So I agree money is part of the solution,
but sometimes it is overcoming old fashioned thinking. So
anything we can do to work with local school districts and
state governments which fund so much of education to get them
past some of this old thinking would also be helpful. The
thought that a school district would turn away free PC's in
this day and age is pretty appalling.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Miller, see me after the
hearing.
Ms. Tubbs Jones. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one more thing,
please. There is in fact a significant amount of legislation
that prohibits public schools from accepting PC's and it may be
the direction of going to the legislature in that particular
jurisdiction to try to get some change. Because I have heard of
it and not only where you are but a number of other places.
Lastly I want to add in I know you are talking about this
group of young people who are not in school. But there are also
a significant group of people somewhere between 35 and 65
whowon't even--I mean, have you ever stood behind one of them at an ATM
machine? And the reality of it is there is an issue for retraining that
we need to address as well as the young people, but retraining where
people who probably have another 30 years in the work force, who have
never touched a computer. We need to get there some way too.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pitts. Ms. Lewis.
Ms. Lewis. I am so glad that you raised that issue, Ms.
Tubbs Jones, because one of the concerns that APT has is that
schools and libraries and community access centers are a
wonderful first step but the technology needs to be brought to
the home. The infrastructure has to be brought from the
neighborhoods into everybody's home so that people can feel
comfortable to play around with technology and not feel
intimidated. And it is important to support all of these
efforts. But it takes the entire community working together to
empower the community through the use of technology.
Ms. Tubbs Jones. Thank you.
Chairman Pitts. I wish we could go on. We have gone over
two hours with the first panel. We have heard some excellent
and timely testimony. But at this time I would like to dismiss
and thank the first panel and call the second panel to the
witness table.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. It is a nation state. Thank you
very much.
Chairman Pitts. All right. The Chair would like to welcome
the second panel of Mr. Fulton, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Krumholtz,
and Mr. Coleman. Welcome. And I would like to ask Mr. Fulton,
who is the Director, Technology Programs and Policy for the
National Urban League, to begin.
STATEMENT OF B. KEITH FULTON, DIRECTOR, TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS AND
POLICY, NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE
Mr. Fulton. Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members
of the Subcommittee. As the others have already done, we want
to thank you for this opportunity to testify about the Urban
League's efforts to partner with industry and government to
bridge the Nation's digital divide. Today I would like to share
insights from our more than 30 years of experience in bringing
technology based programs to low income communities and working
with industry and inner city communities to develop a skilled
information technology work force.
First, I will briefly characterize the National Urban
League and our technology based programs. The League was
founded in 1910. Our mission is simply to assist African
Americans and the urban poor in the achievement of social and
economic equality. In short, that means we help people to help
themselves. We achieve our mission through direct service
programs, public education, collaboration with industry,
government, other community based organizations and bridge
building between different racial and ethnic groups.
We have 115 Urban League affiliates throughout the United
States operating in 35 states and the District of Columbia. We
have 3,000 professionals and approximately 30,000 volunteers
serving a client base of approximately 2 million people. We
have a rich history in technology based programs. Our first
program opened in 1968 in Los Angeles, at the IBM training
center. At that time there was no Internet and no PC's, so the
programs focused on COBOL programming, mainframe upkeep and
data entry, again on mainframes as they were the industry
standard. That program grew over the years and by the early
90's we had approximately 32 programs operating, and the
training had shifted to PC's, which are now the dominant
computing tool in industry.
More recently companies like Bell Atlantic, AT&T, EDS,
Microsoft, Ameritech as well as volunteers in the small
business community have worked with us to continue our work to
train entrants for the information technology work force.
Our current vision is to build 115 state of the art
technology education and access centers across our footprint of
local Urban League affiliates. Also known as digital campuses,
we expect each center to train approximately 600 entry level
workers per year. Finally, we produce a number of books and
other writings. Some of you may recall that we sent you a copy
of the proceedings from your Urban Technology Summit and a copy
of the book we developed with the Benton Foundation called
Losing Ground Bit by Bit. The information went to your offices
a few weeks ago. We do these writings and hold other forums as
part of our public service to help policy makers and
practitioners to make appropriate program and policy
connections.
You have heard Mr. Irving and others talk about the
specifics of the digital divide. I want to hone in on some of
the implications that arise when there is uneven distribution
of information technology resources. Several areas are
impacted. I will focus on jobs, education and opportunity. With
respect to jobs, advances in information and communications
technologies are driving our information economy. We have heard
this. Some experts estimate that information technology jobs
pay as much as 78 percent more than jobs in other industries.
However, less than 10 percent of the information technology
work force is made up of women and minorities. Interestingly,
while two-thirds of all core IT workers have a Bachelor's
Degree, 26 percent have less than four years of college and 6
percent have only a high school diploma or less.
If the digital divide is not bridged the
underrepresentation of minorities in the IT work force will
proliferate and contribute to the further erosion of inner
cities; e.g., the outflow of work to suburbs, closing bank
branches, and falling home ownership.
With respect to education, while programs like the e-rate
have been critically important for getting Internet access into
schools and libraries in the aggregate, recent studies show
that only 16 percent of schools in low income areas are
actually connected to the Internet. In contrast, 80 percent of
schools in more affluent areas have Internet connections.
Further, most libraries do not have the available staff, space
or instructor know-how to teach marketable information
technology skills. These factors will combine to jeopardize the
achievement and competitiveness of children in low income
communities, leaving them and their parents relegated to a low
wage and low skill economy.
Finally, with respect to opportunity, infrastructure
disinvestments characterize low income communities.
Accordingly, businesses in these communities must pay a premium
for services and they are not able to compete with
entrepreneurs in saturated infrastructure areas in the central
business district and emerging fringe development areas.
Resulting savings based on location away from low income areas
can run as high as 30 percent. These inequities will result in
fewer minority owned IT ventures and fewer small business
generated opportunities in these communities.
The National Urban League plans to work with industry and
government to build 115 state of the art digital campus centers
by the year 2006. We believe that this substantial investment
in low income communities is necessary as part of the emerging
technical training infrastructure of America. At full operation
we expect our technology training centers to produce 68,400
newentry level IT workers per year.
We are currently at 65 centers across the country. National
efforts like the Department of Commerce's TIIAP program have
done a great deal to leverage government and private sector
resources for local training projects. The National Urban
League was the beneficiary of a 1997 TIIAP grant. That grant
combined with a generous investment from the Bell Atlantic
Foundation helped the League to pilot our technology and
education access center model in four U.S. Cities. These
centers served over 7,000 adults and youth in their first 14
months of operation.
Most recently we received grants from the Ameritech
Foundation and AT&T to develop eight additional digital campus
technology education and access centers. Each of these centers
will have 30 to 42 PCs, a network, Internet access, on-site
training, 24-hour toll free call support and access to 50
Internet based courses for training and industry standard
applications and career development. We have tied our work in
this area squarely to work force development and academic
achievement. The computer centers will be safe places for
children and caring adults to use computers for work force
development and academic enrichment. In each city that we bring
these technology projects, our local affiliates have created
collaborations with industry, government, academic institutions
and other community based organizations. These local
partnerships serve to expand the reach of a given project and
the probability of their long term success and survival.
Government resources provide incentives for these community
investments.
For example, our Los Angeles technology center in 1997 they
trained 1,400 workers. Those workers earned $31 million and
paid $2.1 million in taxes. We anticipate similar returns on
investment in the other cities where we begin these projects.
In summary, public-private partnerships to build community
technology centers can make a significant impact on the digital
divide. Practitioners will need reliable pools of resources
from government and industry. Programs will also need resources
for evaluation and assistance in disseminating findings. Last,
organizations with IT know-how should be encouraged to use
their convening power and influence to compel other
stakeholders to invest in developing an inclusive IT work force
and for preparing our children to succeed in the 21st century.
Thank you.
[Mr. Fulton's statement may be found in the appendix.]
Mr. DeMint [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Fulton. Mr.
Robinson.
STATEMENT OF TIM ROBINSON, LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY, AMERITECH
CORP.
Mr. Robinson. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman and esteemed
members of this Subcommittee, I want to thank you for inviting
me here today to talk about the digital divide which is not
getting better, but is getting worse. I would like to tell you
what Ameritech has done to combat that divide and what Congress
can do to help small business and minorities in particular gain
equal footing with larger businesses and nonminorities.
At Ameritech we are actually trying in conjunction with our
community based organizations to satisfy the exploding demand
for information resources and services. Just two weeks ago we
announced that we would provide financial assistance in the
form of a $350,000 grant to help in establishing five community
technology centers. These centers, which are to be known as
Ameritech digital campuses, will be located in central cities--
--
Mr. DeMint. Sorry to interrupt but I need to ask you, and
everyone on this second panel, to summarize to some degree. We
will include your full statements in the record, but for now,
if you could just touch upon your major points that would be
helpful. I don't want to cut you short, and if you need to read
through the whole thing, certainly feel free to do so, but I
want Members to be able to hear from the entire panel. So thank
you.
Mr. Robinson. Thank you. I will be mindful of that. In
inner cities, where a disproportionate number of black and
Hispanic Americans live, recent studies show that retail buying
power amounts to $100 billion a year. And although blacks
comprise nearly 13 percent and Hispanics comprise 10 percent of
the population they respectively own less than 4 percent and 6
percent of all businesses. These numbers demonstrate there is
considerable room for growth in the formation of minority
businesses. Ameritech believes it can tap into that growth
while also providing some of the tools and information
resources to spark that growth.
More can be done to turn the digital divide into a digital
dawn of opportunities for underserved groups. And we can help
in creating some of those solutions. That is why Ameritech
petitioned the Federal Communications Commission for authority
to provide data services to its customers across arbitrarily
defined geographic boundaries known as LATAs. According to the
FCC's rules, Ameritech and other RBOCs cannot transport voice
or data services from a user in one LATA to a user in another
LATA. This prohibition which the FCC has interpreted as
applying equally to voice and data, is excessively broad in
scope and has hindered our ability to offer appealing and
useful data service packages to our customers.
For example, we cannot carry data from a low income or
minority customer in Chicago who might want to register
electronically for an online course 150 miles away at the
University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana. Nor can we carry
data across our networks for a retail goods firm that needs to
download inventory data from its suburban warehouse to its
urban retail outlets so long as those two facilities are
located in different LATAs. The perverse result is that a
capable communications company like Ameritech is needlessly
shut out of the burgeoning data market denying customers
another viable choice among service providers.
Congressmen Billy Tauzin and John Dingell have introduced
H.R. 2420 and Congressmen Bob Goodlatte and Rick Boucher have
introduced others--H.R. 1685 and H.R. 1686--that would wisely
eliminate this restrictive prohibition, which only serves to
impede growth and availability of high speed Internet access.
We would ask that you consider supporting these bills because
they are good for our country's economic health, our
businesses, and our employees.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
Subcommittee, and I look forward to addressing any questions
you might have.
[Mr. Robinson's statement may be found in the appendix.]
Mr. DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Robinson.
And other members, the chairman will return in a moment and
I will leave to vote and we will continue the testimony. So if
you need to leave to vote, please return for the questioning.
So again thank you, Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Krumholtz.
STATEMENT OF JACK KRUMHOLTZ, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS, MICROSOFT CORP.
Mr. Krumholtz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman
Millender-McDonald and members of the Subcommittee. I would
like to commend the Subcommittee and the chairman for holding
this hearing on what we too see as a critical issue. I would
like to take what time I have this afternoon to comment briefly
on Microsoft's approach in this issue and discuss some of the
lessons we have learned from our efforts. Our approach is to
start small with pilot projects, form partnerships with
interested parties on both the local and national level,
evaluate what works and what doesn't and expend our efforts and
programs based on what we have learned.
As a Nation we are reaching a new and exciting stage in the
technology revolution where computers are easier to use and
less expensive to manufacture and own. New devices providing
many of the capabilities we now expect from a personal
computer, including connectivity to the wealth of information
and services on the Internet, are being introduced at a wide
range of prices, yet despite the advances made in these lower
cost devices and the increasing affordability of information
technology generally, we continue to face the challenge of
ensuring that all Americans have access to the Internet and the
opportunities it affords.
Microsoft's vision of a computer in every home would be
incomplete without the vision of access to technology for all
Americans in the Nation. As we pursued this vision we have
learned that there are no simple solutions and that a
successful effort to close the digital divide will require
partnerships between the public and private sectors, between
businesses, government and nonprofit organizations. I would
like to describe briefly how we have pursued this approach with
two specific initiatives.
In 1996 we launched a pilot program called Libraries Online
in the public libraries across the country. Partnering with the
American Library Association and the local library officials,
the objective of Libraries Online was to provide access to
information technology and the resources of the Internet to
some of the most disadvantaged and underserved communities in
the U.S. Because libraries are a vital informational resource
for communities we believed that this initiative would reach
most members of the community from school age children to
senior citizens.
We learned a great deal from this initial pilot program
that year. Perhaps most importantly we learned that training
librarians to use and maintain the technology is as important
as providing the funding and donating the technology itself.
With that lesson in mind we began a one-week training program
for participating librarians and provided ongoing technical
support. When it became apparent that the model used in
Libraries Online was a success, the Gates Learning Foundation
established by our Chairman Bill Gates and his wife Melinda
expanded the program to library systems across the Nation. The
ultimate goal is to wire every public library in the country.
Microsoft now partners with the foundation by providing
software to the participating libraries.
Briefly, the second example is Microsoft's working
connections program. Working connections is a 5-year $9 million
program administered to the American Association of Community
Colleges. We believe the community colleges play a critical
role in providing education and work force training to
disadvantaged and underserved communities. Visiting several of
these institutions, we concluded that community colleges have
both the capacity and the interest to prepare their students to
enter the information technology work force.
Mr. DeMint. Mr. Krumholtz, I apologize but I have to go
vote. I thought the Chairman would be back. I will just adjourn
the Committee momentarily. I am sure he is on his way. I
apologize to all of you for jumping up and down. Let's take a
brief recess. I am sure Chairman Pitts will be right back.
[Brief recess.]
Chairman Pitts. All right. We will reconvene the hearing at
this time and ask Mr. Krumholtz if he will continue where he
left off.
Mr. Krumholtz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just before the
recess, I was just mentioning briefly a program we have with
community colleges called Working Connections, administered by
the American Association of Community Colleges. We established
Working Connections to encourage the development of innovative
information technology programs. Its goal is to train workers
to succeed in IT careers and to open the IT world up to
minorities and women where jobs and opportunities are plentiful
when the work force supply is not. Grants to community colleges
from Microsoft fund an IT curriculum, faculty training and
outreach to local community groups and industries.
As we move forward with these and other efforts, we
continue to learn more about what works and where to best
invest our resources. We have learned that training people to
use technology is just as important as providing them access.
We have also learned that closing the digital divide will take
a coordinated effort; no single party or entity can do it all.
The best programs must include partnerships between the public
sector, private sector, and nonprofit entities.
We look forward to continuing our collaboration with
educators, legislators and members of the business community to
bridge this gap and bring technology to everyone, everywhere.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I would be
happy to respond to any questions.
[Mr. Krumholtz' statement may be found in the appendix.]
Chairman Pitts. Thank you. Mr. Coleman.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS COLEMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, TECHNICAL
CAREERS INSTITUTE, INC.
Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Tom Coleman. I am president of the
Technical Career Institute, a two-year degree granting
proprietary school located in Manhattan. It is a pleasure to be
here today to discuss the digital divide and to share our
experiences in providing access to technology to the Nation's
most economically disadvantaged.
At TCI we serve more than 3,500 students in programs
designed to prepare a well-trained work force in various fields
of technology. 75 percent of our students are African American
and Hispanic; 55 percent of our students come from families
with an average annual income of less than $12,000. Some are
new Americans requiring instruction in English as a second
language. Many are products of the New York City Public School
System. And suffice it to say that remedial training is a
critical component in preparing our students for today's highly
technical work place.
Despite all these challenges we at TCI were recently
identified by Community College Week as ranking first
nationally in the production of two-year engineering related
associate degrees. We are very proud of the accomplishments of
our students, particularly in view of the extraordinary
challenges many of them must overcome to receive their degrees.
At TCI we have been educating the economically and socially
disadvantaged inner city student for a long time and we
continue to use new and varied approaches to raise the
academic, technical, and employability skills of our students.
For example, in 1988 we initiated a program to introduce
computer technology training to community and faith-based
organizations in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn. Working with
the clergy and community, we invited women who were returning
to the work place after raising a family, as well as those
attempting to move there from welfare to work, to come to our
campus for free computer training. In the 11 years the program
has been in effect, 1,300 women have participated. Some have
left the program for good jobs that were previously unavailable
to them. Approximately 20 percent have enrolled at TCI and many
have enrolled in other post secondary institutions.
Our personalized student success program assists students
in improving their basic academic skills and essential work
place competencies. New students have the opportunity to
participate in a boot camp experience prior to attending
classes at the college. This intensive program emphasizes the
math skills required for academic success.
While this boot camp approach has increased the chances for
success of many of our students, we quickly came to realize it
takes more than a couple of weeks to overcome many of our
students' lifelong underexposure to technology. Our technology-
based after school initiative introduces computer technology to
11th and 12th graders enrolled in New York City Public Schools.
We have also learned that community service is a strong
self-esteem booster which assists our students in developing
the tools for success in the work place. In a program our
students have dubbed Dare to Dream, old computers are
contributed by corporate donors and are refurbished by our
students. We have received and donated more than 300 computers
to organizations such as the New York Public Schools, community
facilities for the handicapped, AIDS residential facilities,
community based organizations and individuals with
disabilities.
Another recent initiative which has provided me with a
great amount of personal satisfaction has been our Women in
Technology Program. The program assists women entering into
careers in technology by providing them with mentoring to
prepare them to succeed in nontraditional occupations. Since
the inception of the program, the percentage of women enrolled
in our technology programs has increased by almost 20 percent.
In conclusion, I am here today to tell you that the digital
divide is real, and that it is getting wider every day. But for
the programs I have spoken to you about this afternoon, many of
TCI's students and graduates would have fallen through the
divide already. If I were to offer one observation based on my
experiences of the past few years, it would be this: If we are
to succeed in closing the technology gap for future
generations, we must be willing to blur the distinctions among
business, academia, and community.
Institutions such as TCI cannot afford to isolate our
students and faculty in ivory towers of academic thought. We
must reach out to the communities where our students and
prospective students live, to lay a solid groundwork in math
and technology at the high school level and before. We must
reach out to our local businesses, where our graduates will
work, to be constantly sure that our skills we are providing
are the skills prospective employers need and want. And we must
reach into the hearts and minds of the students we serve to
give them the skills, the confidence, and the opportunity to
succeed in our Nation's increasing digital economy.
I want to thank the chairman and members of the
Subcommittee for your interest in this important issue and for
the opportunity to appear today before you. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
[Mr. Coleman's statement may be found in the appendix.]
Chairman Pitts. Thank you very much. Mr. Coleman, let's
start with you. You mentioned that 55 percent of TCI students
come from families with an average annual income of less than
$12,000. What is the average salary that TCI graduates can
expect when they enter the technical career with their
associates degree?
Mr. Coleman. It varies on the program, whether it is an
office technology program or whether it is a more highly
skilled program. But if we talk to the highly skilled programs
typically we are seeing salaries that begin in the late 20's to
the mid-30's in that area and we have seen some as high as 45
but that is a rarity.
Chairman Pitts. Do most of the TCI students receiving two-
year degrees go immediately into the work force or do some
pursue more advanced degrees?
Mr. Coleman. Most of them go directly into the work force.
Some later on may attempt to go for the four-year program.
Chairman Pitts. Do many of your graduates have
entrepreneurial aspirations to your knowledge? Do some of them
own small businesses or do most grads take jobs in the private
sector and are they going to large telecommunication companies
or are they apt to work in smaller enterprises within their
communities?
Mr. Coleman. About 60 percent of our students end up with
small employers; that is, the employers of less than 1 or 200
employees. As far as the entrepreneurial aspect of it goes, I
only have some anecdotal evidence and just last Thursday I met
a student who I didn't have time to spend with, spend any time
with him, but he told me that he has just developed his own web
page and he has got a little business selling some kind of
health products. But I hope to talk to him more about what he
is doing. But it is that kind of thing that is really great.
Chairman Pitts. You suggest integrated training initiatives
between schools and businesses. Is TCI currently taking steps
to create such training initiatives?
Mr. Coleman. Yes, right now we are working within one
county a community of churches to donate a number of computers
to them so they can establish a center there, and we would like
to work with others.
Chairman Pitts. You mentioned after school programs for
high school students. Do you track the scholastic improvement
of those participants; for instance, what percentage of those
participants go into developing careers in technology?
Mr. Coleman. I can't answer that because we just started
this program in late June where we offer two programs. One is
introduction to computers and the other is visual basic. When
the fall comes along we will continue those as an after school
program. We will add to that remedial math, which is really
needed by the New York City school students but we do plan to
track them. I would be happy at a later date to brief you.
Chairman Pitts. Can you discuss in more detail TCI's
program for women preparing to re-enter the workforce. What
were some of the difficulties you encountered, what were some
of the successes?
Mr. Coleman. Day care is a problem for the women. It is a
huge problem for them. And the successes that we have had, we
have had women who have just worked in the $5 an hour jobs for
a great part of their life, they have been on public
assistance, and now they get some education and they find
themselves making $30,000 and they feel so much different and
they are able to support themselves and their families.
Chairman Pitts. I think also you mentioned service learning
projects where students assist those learning English or
rebuilding computers. How does the volunteering component
enhancethe student's experience? Have you found that a very
positive experience?
Mr. Coleman. This is our Dare to Dream project, which was
originally started as a project to help students improve their
English. Some of--it has grown over the years. It has become a
number of things. One of the things the students do is they go
into the schools and they help tutor in the community. This is
good for the students. It has built their self-esteem. It also
improves their skills. It has been a very positive experience.
And those students as a group do better than students who are
not involved in community service.
Chairman Pitts. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Krumholtz, in light of the results of the NTIA study
what do you see as the future of the Information Age? Will the
divide continue to get wider? And what can we do to make sure
it does not expand?
Mr. Krumholtz. Well, I am pretty optimistic about the
future of the Information Age. In fact I think it is telling
that the name of the Subcommittee is the Empowerment
Subcommittee because I think one of the great things about the
benefits of the Internet and information technology is how
empowering it is to so many individuals, businesses of all
sizes. So, I am very bullish on it.
Are there things that need to be done to make sure we
address the digital divide? Absolutely. As I pointed out in my
remarks, I think it is important that there be, you know, that
we look for and encourage partnerships both between the private
and public sector working with nonprofits, like the Urban
League for instance, to really address some of these issues. As
I think was suggested earlier by Mr. Irving, there is no silver
bullet to address this challenge. And it really is going to
take some work at the local level and working with people that
have the expertise as we did in our libraries project, working
with the American Libraries Association.
At Microsoft we went into this knowing very little about
libraries, so we brought in experts who could tell us what were
the hurdles going to be in working with libraries--where were
there areas where we really could make a difference.
Unfortunately, there is not a single answer but I think that
there is a lot of opportunity to help address the problem.
Chairman Pitts. Now, regarding your partnerships and trying
to reach underserved groups, how does Microsoft decide where to
invest its time, its money, its resources?
Mr. Krumholtz. We would like to think that we are very
thoughtful and strategic in doing that. We spend a lot of time
looking at different opportunities. As you might imagine, a
company or Microsoft or Ameritech or many other large
corporations, there is no lack of opportunities to try to
engage and participate in efforts of this nature. So we really
spend a lot of time.
I think probably the thing that we try to do the most is we
try to start small. In all of our major national efforts and
initiatives we have started them as pilot projects. And we have
really gone back and studied what worked, what didn't work.
Again in the libraries initiative we actually had an
independent advisory board of librarians and other experts in
that community to go out and look at the individual projects in
those 9 pilot sites and report back and give us their
recommendations on what was working well and what may be needed
to be redirected.
Chairman Pitts. Did you come up with the most successful
method for providing instruction with libraries?
Mr. Krumholtz. Well, I think training is absolutely key.
And we learned there--perhaps it is self-evident, but we
learned maybe the hard way that you can't go in and just expect
that the individuals on the ground, the librarians, are going
to necessarily have the skills they need to use the technology,
maintain the technology. Because maintaining a computer, as we
all know--we all have our computers crash unfortunately from
time to time--takes a certain amount of training and expertise,
and I think that realizing that and working to address that was
one of the key findings.
Chairman Pitts. You mentioned that Microsoft participates
in a program called Working Connections in conjunction with
community colleges. In your opinion, are two-year degrees from
community colleges going to be instrumental in preparing
workers for the IT field?
Mr. Krumholtz. We think that the community colleges play an
absolutely critical role in preparing our work force, not only
retraining workers but also preparing younger kids that are
coming out of high school to enter the IT work force. And a
number of witnesses today have discussed the real challenge
that IT companies have--and not just IT companies, really
companies across the board who have IT needs and requirements
in filling those jobs. I think listening to Mr. Coleman's
testimony about some of the people that they had trained, you
know not all of those people are necessarily going to end up
being a programmer or a developer of tools that others may use
to develop software programs, but there is a wealth of
opportunity for those individuals to enter all levels of the IT
work force.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you. Mr. Robinson, Ameritech has
forged strong partnerships with community groups like National
Urban League. What incentives do private sector firms have to
invest in underserved areas?
Mr. Robinson. I think firms like Ameritech have a
tremendous number of incentives to invest in areas that have
been historically underserved. If we look--if we project out 20
years from now, 60 percent of the jobs in this work force will
require some level of IT literacy, information technology
literacy. Today only 20 percent of the work force possesses
those skills. So it is very important that we invest in our
communities and invest in those people that we serve. Because
we will be looking to them in the future not only as consumers
of our products and services but also as employable talent.
Chairman Pitts. In light of the results of your digital
divide study, what are some solutions in addition to community
technology centers that will help bridge the gap?
Mr. Robinson. One of the benefits of going second is that
you can hear the first panel. The answers given by Maureen
Lewis and I believe Mr. Miller on the first panel with regard
to overregulation were right on target. Too much regulation can
retard growth by stripping away incentives that are already in
place to bring more information and data services more quickly
to small business and low income households.
Businesses do need and require some incentives to move into
areas where they might not be able to otherwise recoup their
investment. And to that point I commend Congresswoman Tubbs
Jones for thinking ``out of the box.'' I think we need to have
some creative solutions, some incentives in place that would
encourage firms like ourselves to go in and deploy broadband
access more quickly than we might otherwise.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you. Mr. Fulton, the Urban League
certainly plans for a large network of digital campuses
nationwide. What criteria do you use when deciding which cities
to establish community technology centers in? And do you
typically rent space; do you use existing community facilities,
do you build new structures? If would you explain that.
Mr. Fulton. The type of space we use varies. In the 114
communities across the country where we have Urban League
affiliates, half of them own their facilities, their building,
and other resources, and that facility might choose to use
existing space. In other cases we will rent out anoffice if the
owned space isn't suitable. Some of the criteria we use for selecting
cities are a demonstrated capability to deliver on the expected results
of the centers we want to create. Do they have resources for staff? Do
they have community support? Do they have interest from the local
government? Those kind of things we find come together to make for the
most successful outcomes.
Chairman Pitts. Now, you estimated the cost of a community
technology center with 20 computers I think at $70,000 to
$100,000, including staff, office space, other overhead.
Mr. Fulton. That doesn't include the staff and office
space. The staff and office space and other factors could
ultimately make that number increase.
Chairman Pitts. With the emphasis on volunteerism here,
could the cost be reduced by using industry volunteers to
supplement permanent staff?
Mr. Fulton. Volunteers help. We have aligned ourselves with
several affinity groups in the information technology industry
to help us with that. The issue becomes accountability. We have
aligned our technology centers with work force development and
achievement. At the end of the day we want to be able to
demonstrate that we have trained a certain number of workers
who are capable and ready to enter the IT work force. When you
have volunteers doing the training, in a structured program
that can become difficult as a volunteer may give a couple of
hours but they may not be able to give a full day or a series
of days over a 10-week period. So we think that hired
professionals are an important element to the most successful
training programs.
Chairman Pitts. You mentioned evaluation is an important
aspect to the process of running a successful program. Does the
Urban League keep track of how many community members are using
the centers? If so, have you found that communities make an
immediate use of the digital campuses or does it take some time
for them to embrace the opportunities offered by the centers?
Mr. Fulton. We do track. Initially a lot of the tracking
happened locally. When I came into place in 1996 the objective
has been to standardize some of that tracking. So moving
forward, we will track in a national way the activity that goes
on. What we find is that the community tends to embrace the
center. They want to come in and find out what kind of programs
are available for the adults and children. So what we do is we
have structured programs and unstructured programs. The
structured programs focus on training for entry level
information technology work force jobs. The nonstructured
programs focus on academic enrichment and allow adults and
young people to enter into an environment where there are
resources and there is a professional, but where they can
explore the technology and conduct job searches as well as
other things and on a drop-in basis.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you. Miss Millender-McDonald.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
would like to thank this panel and apologize for having to step
away but in the people's House you have to do the people's
business and that's oftimes having to leave committees. I
commend you because it seems like the common thread with this
panel, especially of corporate heads, is that of partnership.
And it is clearly impossible to touch any of these disconnects
without a partnership, partnership between Federal, state local
and private firms.
I just wanted to make clear though that the government does
play a role. I am also interested in, as my colleague on the
other side said, that we must not have a lot of fractionalizing
with programs, programs that are just feel good programs, but
programs that would really go to the heart of the issue. And if
it does mean any types of tax incentives, we would be happy to
look atthat to ensure that we continue to expand these
partnerships. I am not adverse to tax incentives. I did them in the
state legislature and I certainly will not have a problem with doing
them here. But what we want to do is expand so that you can reach those
who have not had the opportunity of getting online with these various
digital campus centers. I am very impressed with that Mr. Fulton and
Mr. Krumholtz. Is that the way----
Mr. Krumholtz. Krumholtz.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Krumholtz. Your community college--
I have often said that the community colleges have not been
tapped in the way that they should and we must continue to tap
them on a larger basis promoting the types of community working
connections that you have with your program.
Mr. Robinson, I am impressed and also encouraged by what
Ameritech has done with $350,000, opening up at least 5
centers. We would like to work with you, for you, to expand
those to more and see what we can do to help you expand to more
centers.
Mr. Fulton, when you do volunteers, I am wondering if we
can pull from the pool of the companies that do partnership
with you to get some of their people to come and volunteer
because they have a stake in this as well, as well as your
former grads to return back to utilize their expertise. One is
a Jack Priester. I am told that he is doing quite well in this
area in Virginia, having finished the LA Urban League and now
has become I think a Washington's Businessman of the Year. That
validates what can be done when we do do partnerships with the
corporate sector, with the public sector and with community
based organizations such as the Urban League. So I am
encouraged today.
I will go away from here having said that we have formed a
type of partnership now with all of you because I will be
calling on you to form partnerships with me. You are not going
to go too far before I call you. Because I want you to now help
me to help those young folks and even the ones who are
returning, those old folks like I am, to bridge that gap, that
we must do to make sure that this digital divide becomes more
narrow.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for this outstanding
hearing.
Chairman Pitts. Thank you. I apologize for going over time.
You have been very patient.
The hearing has been very informative, excellent testimony
on a very important issue, and the Committee thanks you very
much for coming today. So at this time, the hearing is
adjourned.
We will keep the record open for 5 legislative days should
anyone have any additional information to include.
[Whereupon, at 5:07 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0580.065