[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 74 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6005-S6007]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           SAVING THE E-RATE

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have been concerned over the last few 
days to hear growing attacks against the so-called e-rate--the program 
Congress created just 2 years ago to help schools, libraries and 
hospitals connect to the information superhighway.
  I am concerned because of the timing of these attacks. Only last 
month, the Senate approved a bill increasing immigration quotas for 
highly skilled workers from other countries. Why? Because there are not 
enough American workers with the technological skills to meet the needs 
of our economy. If that is not an acknowledgment that we need to do a 
better job of teaching technological skills in this country, frankly, I 
don't know what is. I supported raising the quotas for skilled workers, 
but that was a one-shot emergency response to a crisis.
  By the year 2000, 60 percent of all jobs in our country will require 
technological skills that only a fraction of Americans now have. In the 
longrun, the only way we can keep America's economy growing is by 
giving our own workers the skills to compete and win in a high-skills 
economy. That is why the sudden course of criticism of the e-rate is so 
alarming.
  Today, only 27 percent of the classrooms in America are connected to 
the Internet. In poor communities, rural and urban, only 14 percent of 
classrooms are linked to the Internet. If we don't take the opportunity 
now to address this problem, we simply will not have enough skilled 
workers to retain America's position as the world's strongest economy. 
We will also consign our children to two very different futures, 
separate and unequal.
  It seems like every week we hear more and more talk about the year 
2000 problem. What about the ``year 2010 problem''?
  That is when--if we do nothing--children who are in kindergarten now 
will be graduating from high school without the technological skills 
they need to get a decent job or get a good college education. We 
simply can't allow that to happen. We can't do that to our economy, and 
we can't do that to our kids.
  Congress understood that two years ago. That's why we created, on a 
strong bipartisan basis, the e-rate program as part of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
  The e-rate program gives crucial discounts to schools and libraries 
to establish or upgrade Internet connections. The steepest discounts 
going to

[[Page S6006]]

the neediest communities. All commercially available telecommunications 
services are eligible for discounts.
  Across the country, 30,000 schools and libraries have already applied 
for help from the e-rate program to establish or upgrade Internet 
connections.
  In my own state of South Dakota, 280 schools have already applied.
  Educational technology is critical in rural states like ours, Mr. 
President. Through teleconferencing and other kinds of long-distance 
learning, students in South Dakota can take all kinds of classes they 
never would have had the chance to take.
  If we pull the plug on the e-rate, we will slam the doors to 
countless educational opportunities--not just in South Dakota, but all 
across America.
  The United States is the most prosperous nation on earth. We are 
currently enjoying incredible economic growth. It is a travesty to say 
we can't afford to give our children access to the tools they need to 
share in this economic miracle.
  Yet, if we kill the e-rate program--as some would clearly like--that 
is exactly what we will be saying to children in poor rural and urban 
communities.
  How have we reached this sad state?
  In a nutshell, some telecommunications companies are not playing 
straight with the American public. They are trying to use 
schoolchildren as an excuse for costs they themselves choose to pass on 
to consumers.
  Mr. President, the big long-distance companies have reaped a $3 
billion windfall in the last 18 months.
  That is $3 billion!
  That's how much long-distance carriers saved in reduced access 
charges they paid to local telephone companies in the past year and a 
half. Because of the direct actions of the FCC, these companies have 
received more than enough money to pay for the entire e-rate program.
  Over that same period, they have been asked to collect only $625 
million for the e-rate.
  But the long-distance carriers want to retain the $3 billion in 
savings and insist consumers should pay for connections for schools and 
libraries.
  They would have us believe that the e-rate is driving up the cost of 
long-distance phone service.
  They say they intend to add a new line-item to their customers' bills 
telling them just that.
  The strategy is clear: Opponents know they can't attack the e-rate on 
its merits--because Americans care deeply about their children's 
education.
  So they call the e-rate a new tax--and hope people get so mad about 
another tax that they demand an end to it.
  The problem with their rhetoric is: it's not true.
  The FCC is not requiring long-distance phone carriers to line-item 
the costs of the e-rate program on to their customers. The carriers 
made that decision themselves.
  In addition, only a small part of the amount the carriers want to 
include in that line item actually goes to schools and libraries.
  Most of it is used to provide phone service to rural America and 
other hard-to-reach customers. This is not a new responsibility. Phone 
companies have had that legal obligation for 60 years. It's called 
``universal service.''
  In 1996, Congress expanded universal service to include schools and 
libraries. We should keep our word--and keep the e-rate program.
  That's why I have asked the Chairman of the FCC, Bill Kennard, to 
require strong truth-in-billing standards for long-distance companies. 
Those that choose to place line-item charges on their phone bills 
should also tell their customers about savings they have reaped from 
reduced access charges. We should not allow these companies to mislead 
their customers by charging for certain costs without disclosing 
savings they gain from other governmental actions.
  This issue has sparked an important debate in Congress and the FCC 
about the future of universal service. The FCC's top priority must now 
be to secure the long-term viability of the high-cost fund as well as 
the e-rate.
  Learning how to use the basic tools of modern communications is not a 
luxury for our children. It's not a frill. It is a necessity.
  The e-rate was created with strong bipartisan support. It deserves 
our continued bipartisan support. And I hope it will receive it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for a 
brief question.
  Does the Senator remember the debate on the telecommunications 
legislation where at least there was an understanding that the major 
carriers were going to be favorably disposed, as a result of the 
competitiveness, to give those assurances to schools, to libraries, and 
to rural public health settings around the country?
  Telemedicine is extremely important, I know, in many regions of the 
country. It provides extraordinary upgrading of quality health in terms 
of diagnosis and treatment and care for many of those who live in 
remote areas, whether it is in urban areas that might benefit from the 
museums and libraries or educational centers, or those kinds of 
facilities that exist in rural America, or the public health 
facilities, small clinics, that provide in many instances life support 
services for people who live in those communities. It seems to me that 
many of us were under the understanding that there was an agreement to 
provide for those kinds of services.
  I am just wondering whether the leader shared my impression that this 
was something they had every reason to expect to go into effect, that 
they had planned on it and made provisions for it, and in many 
instances are very dependent upon these kinds of services.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts makes a very important point in his question. I believe 
that not only people all over the country made that assumption but many 
of us in the Senate did as well, as we contemplated our vote on that 
bill. That was not an easy vote, as I know the Senator from 
Massachusetts remembers. That was a very, very difficult vote. I 
ultimately decided that, on balance, this bill merited my support. I 
give great credit to many Senators who put a lot more time in bringing 
that product to the Senate than I did. But I voted for it in part 
because of the assumptions that we made about the opportunities and 
services it would provide to people across this country, especially in 
improving education and information in schools, libraries and rural 
health care centers.
  So the Senator is right. We made some promises. We made some 
commitments. We also made a deal that said as a result of all of this, 
the long distance carriers would ensure proper collections for the 
schools and libraries program. They knew they were going to see some 
reduced costs. Indeed, according to figures I have been provided, $3 
billion in reduced access charges has already been achieved. Now all we 
have done so far with regard to the e-rate is collect about $625 
million, a fraction of that $3 billion. Some of these companies have 
now indicated that they are fighting a small increase, the amount that, 
as the Senator says, has been assumed would be available for the 
schools and libraries across this country to improve the technological 
skills of every child in our schools.
  I hope they will come forth with an explanation. If they are going to 
put in this new line item indicating the e-rate cost to people across 
this country, why aren't they going to show equally the $3 billion in 
reduced costs they have already reaped? There has to be some fairness 
here. There has to be truth in billing.
  I think the Senator from Massachusetts has made a very important 
point. We made a commitment when we passed that bill, and I hope it can 
be realized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield further, it seems to me that 
we have been talking about whether it has been in the area of 
education, the area of health care, about partnerships. We have 
understood that we don't have all the resources given the budgetary 
considerations, but we are talking about the partnership that exists 
between the public and the private sector.
  We also listened, I thought with very strong approval, to the 
excellent presentation that the President made up in my own State of 
Massachusetts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  I see the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. If I could 
yield for

[[Page S6007]]

whatever interventions he would like to make, I see an outstanding 
guest who honors us and who made a wonderful speech that many of us had 
the chance to listen to a short time ago. It is a great pleasure to 
yield at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from North Carolina 
is recognized.

                          ____________________