[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 108 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8172-S8173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, it is Monday today, and somewhere deep 
in the bowels of this Capitol building, the budget people are meeting 
to finalize a budget agreement in something called the reconciliation 
bill, which deals with both spending and taxes. These are the 
budgeteers, the people that come from the Budget Committees, and they 
work on the budget; they know the budget. They deal in almost a foreign 
language, speaking to each other in a language that most Americans 
would not understand. Somewhere down in the recesses of this building, 
they are now meeting, finalizing two reconciliation bills--one on 
spending and one proposing tax cuts.
  The issue that brings me to the floor today for a moment will also 
bring me to the floor tomorrow morning on an amendment that I have 
offered. It deals with something that most Americans will not 
recognize; it is called the universal service fund. Somewhere in this 
room, where these budgeteers are working, they have a hole in their 
budget plan. In other words, it doesn't quite add up. So when something 
doesn't quite add up, what do you do? Well, in this case you get a 
different adding machine. You can actually build an adding machine that 
adds it up the way you want. So they plug this hole with a plug number, 
and the plug number they use in their budget hole is called the 
universal service fund. I want to describe what it is and why what they 
are doing is fundamentally wrong and will lead us down the wrong path 
and cause a great deal of trouble for a lot of Americans.
  We have something called the universal service fund in this country 
because we wanted to provide telephone service to all Americans at an 
affordable price. How do we do that? Well, it costs a substantial 
amount of money to provide telephone service for a very small town 
because you have to have the same infrastructure, and you have to 
spread the costs over very few telephones. I come from a town of 300 
people, so I know what that is about. It is much different than the 
cost of providing a telephone in a city like New York, where you have 
literally hundreds of thousands, or millions of telephones, and you 
spread the fixed costs over millions of telephone instruments.

  So we decided in this country we would offset the cost of telephone 
services for those very high cost areas, where it might otherwise cost 
people $50, $100, $200 a month to have a telephone. We would offset the 
cost to make it affordable for everybody by charging everybody a little 
bit that goes into a universal service fund, and that is used to drive 
down the telephone costs in the very small areas.
  Why did we decide that was important as a country? Because the 
presence of every telephone makes every other telephone more valuable. 
If the folks in the big cities could never call people in small towns 
because the people in small towns found that telephone cost was too 
expensive and therefore they didn't have a telephone, the system would 
not work, would it? That is why we have the fund.
  A year and a half ago the Congress passed the Telecommunications Act. 
It was the first time in nearly 60 years that Congress had reformulated 
the laws on telecommunications. The Congress also changed the universal 
service fund some. Now, this is not money that comes into the 
Government or goes out of the Government. It is a fund that is 
established that is administered and set up privately, or on a quasi-
private basis at least.
  What we have today is a new budget deal that is being put together in 
which the budgeteers are taking the universal service fund money--some 
of it--and bringing it into the Federal budget and then spending it out 
again and using it to manipulate their numbers to plug a $2 to $4 
billion hole that will show up sometime in the year 2002.
  If this sounds like foreign language to most Americans, I can 
understand that. But it won't sound like foreign language if the 
manipulation and misuse of the universal service fund means that, in 
the longer term, people in small areas, in small towns and rural areas, 
end up paying much higher monthly telephone bills because of it.
  There is no excuse, no excuse at all, for people who are now 
negotiating today on this budget deal to be talking about manipulating 
or misusing the universal service fund. It doesn't belong to the 
Federal Government,

[[Page S8173]]

doesn't come into the Federal Treasury, and is not to be used or 
misused by the people who are putting this budget deal together.
  Now, I raised this issue last week, and it doesn't mean a thing, 
apparently. You know, there are some people who apparently just can't 
hear. I think the budgeteers are in a soundproof room and don't hear. 
The Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, has raised objections to 
this. Senator McCain has raised objections to it. Senator Hollings has 
raised objections to it. I have raised objections to it. Others on the 
floor of the Senate have raised objections. It doesn't seem to mean a 
thing. They just do their thing in this room. And the White House is 
negotiating with the Republican leadership in Congress. That is why the 
deal is being struck. Somehow there will be some immaculate conception 
announced from some room here in the Capitol in the coming hours, maybe 
later today, tomorrow, or Wednesday. There is no chance to get into 
that deal and pull something out that is as egregious a mistake or an 
abuse as this is, because then we will only have a certain number of 
hours, and we will be able to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on the construct 
of this deal.
  The reason I came to the floor is to say that if there are people who 
are putting this together and if they are in fact listening, listen 
carefully and listen closely: You are doing the wrong thing. You are 
making a mistake. This money doesn't belong to you. This money ought 
not to be used to plug a hole in the budget. If you are going to add 
something up, add it up honestly. If you come up short, find an honest 
way to cover the shortfall. Do not misuse or manipulate the universal 
service fund.

  I saw on television once a program by a fellow named David 
Copperfield, a great illusionist, and he provided marvelous 
entertainment, creating these wonderful illusions for his television 
audience. Most people, like me, understood it was a trick. The 
wonderment was, how did they do that trick? I don't understand it. But 
with respect to illusions performed by Mr. Copperfield, I suppose 
everybody understands it's trickery.
  Why don't we understand in Congress when we create an illusion like 
this in the budget, it is also trickery, and trickery doesn't belong in 
these budget agreements. It doesn't belong here, and they ought not 
bring to it the floor, using the universal service fund--or I should 
say misusing those funds.
  We will vote on that tomorrow. I offered an amendment last week, 
which is scheduled for decision in the morning. We will, if we are not 
too late, send a message to the budgeteers: Do not do this. It is the 
wrong thing.
  I said on Thursday that I recall at a motel in Minneapolis near the 
airport, they had a little sign where the manager parked. It was near 
the front door, so I suppose everybody wanted to park there. It said, 
``manager's parking space.'' Then below it, it said, ``don't even think 
about parking here.'' I thought, wow, I bet no one thinks about parking 
there. That is what this Congress ought to say to the people 
negotiating these deals: Don't even think about doing something like 
this. It is not the right thing to do. It misuses funds that are not 
yours. Don't even think about it.

                          ____________________