[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 12 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S603-S605]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to spend a few minutes addressing a 
matter that is very important to the people of my home State of Montana 
but also to about 50 million other Americans. Universal access to 
technology and services all across our country is a very important 
principle in American history. From the Postal Service to electricity 
to phone service, we have all made sure, as a national policy, that all 
Americans have access to the basic services they need.
  Now we need to make sure all Americans also receive universal access 
to another major service; that is, TV service, weather reports, 
emergency broadcasts, local news. All Americans should be able to get 
local news on their television set, to get information about their 
local communities. That is not available today for about 50 million 
Americans. In my State alone, 120,000 people, about 35 percent of the 
homes in Montana, receive video programming via satellite because there 
is simply no way else to get it. That is the highest per capita rate in 
the Nation.
  We have more satellite dishes per capita than any other State in the 
Nation. We jokingly call the satellite dish our new State flower. It 
used to be the bitterroot; now it is the satellite dish.
  The problem is, we in Montana have to watch the news from New York 
City or Denver or Seattle. We can't get local news from our local 
stations from our satellites. The technology isn't there. The satellite 
companies don't provide the service. Montana is not alone. In nine 
other States, at least 20 percent of the households depend on satellite 
broadcasts for TV reception. They can't get it with an antenna. They 
can't get it from cable. They have to get it off the satellite. And in 
places such as Montana, with mountains, buttes, ravines, and gullies, 
all the different geographic conditions that occur in our State, there 
are many people who live on the outskirts of major towns who can't get 
local television signals with antenna, no matter how hard they try. 
They can't get any television. There are many communities and homes 
that are much too remote to receive news or TV coverage by cable. They 
are just too remote.

  Why is it so many people can't get TV coverage that is important for 
ties to local communities? The major satellite companies have told us 
that the free market simply doesn't pay. It doesn't pay for the 
satellite companies to provide the signal to smaller communities. It 
does pay for the larger communities but not for the small. The 
satellite companies have told us they can only afford to market in the 
high-density urban areas. I understand that. All companies want to make 
as much money as they can. That is the American way. That is wonderful. 
But the difficulty is, as a consequence, there are many areas of our 
country that can't get TV coverage--that is, coverage at all--or cannot 
get local television, local news.
  We can't rely solely on the profit motive. That drives America; it is 
wonderful. That is why American prosperity is doing so well and for so 
long. But we also have to be sure that it is not the only condition 
because otherwise we would still be cooking supper by candlelight in 
rural America. We would have to go down to the local telegraph office 
to communicate with friends. That is because without rural electric 
service or rural co-op service, that would be the case.
  This map is very interesting, the one behind me to my immediate 
right. Under the most optimistic local-to-local plans--that is, where a 
satellite signal is sent down to communities so the communities can, 
from their satellite, get local television--only about 67 out of a 
total of 210 TV markets in the United States will get access to local 
channels via the satellite. The more realistic answer is probably about 
40 markets will be served by satellite; that is, either by DirecTV or 
Echostar. Millions of households will get it in communities such as New 
York City and Los Angeles.
  The red dots on the map are cities served, as of the end of last 
year, by satellite; that is, local service, local TV coverage, local 
news coverage served by satellite. As we can see, there are a lot of 
places in America without red dots. If you are in a city with a red 
dot, you can get local news by satellite. But if you live someplace 
else and not one of these red dots occurs, then you cannot get local 
news by

[[Page S604]]

satellite. The orange-yellow dots are announced probable sites in the 
future. As I said, the most optimistic estimate is 67 markets served 
out of the 210; the most probable is about 40 markets served out of 
210.
  Let me tell my colleagues where my State ranks in terms of the 
probability of getting served with local coverage by satellite. I can 
assure you, we are not in the top 67. Our largest city in Montana is 
Billings. Billings ranks about 169 in the Nation out of 210. Butte, MT, 
is about 192. Glendive is up in the northeastern part of the market. 
That TV market is number 210; that is, out of 210 TV markets in the 
country, we are 210. So we have a ways to go if we are going to get 
satellite local news coverage.
  This isn't a problem only in Montana. It is a problem in 16 States. 
Sixteen States have no single city among the top 70 markets, not one. 
They include half of the Nation's State capitals. A dozen cities with 
nearly 500,000 people each won't get service. From the Great Plains to 
Alaska and Maine to Mississippi, much of America is being left behind.

  Why is this so important? Why is local-to-local broadcasting so 
important? Essentially because this is the heart of the community. One 
of the fibers that holds a community together is the ability to 
communicate within that community. The community is able to tune into a 
TV to hear about the local high school football team: how did they do? 
Did they win or lose? And local news, all the things that go on in a 
local community: what is happening in the neighborhood? Maybe there is 
a sale going on at a local store. There is a TV advertisement. You know 
what is going on in the community. There is a charity fundraiser.
  Then look at some of the more dramatic reasons for local news 
accessibility: winter storm warnings, hurricanes, school closures, 
emergencies of one kind or another, floods, tornadoes.
  There are a lot of reasons why we in all our communities want to know 
what is happening locally. As I said at the outset, there are about 15 
million Americans who are not able to tune into their local TV 
stations, and we should find some way to solve that.
  Last month, I heard from a good, solid Montanan, Gary Ardesson of 
Frenchtown, MT, which is about 20 miles outside of Missoula. Gary can't 
get any local channels--none whatsoever--either by antenna, or by 
cable, or by satellite. He wants to pay for it, but it isn't available. 
He just can't get it. So Gary asked why in the world should he be in 
this situation. What would Gary do if he wanted to get the latest storm 
warning? All he can do is stick his head out the window and put his 
finger up in the wind to find out what the weather is going to be. 
There is no other way except by radio.
  He commented on the legislation we passed in the last session. He 
said: What is the point of legislation if they only implement it in the 
areas that can already receive local channels? That is what we did last 
session, but we didn't provide full coverage.
  This is a problem not only for viewers; it is a problem for local TV 
broadcasters. Local broadcasters are vital to local economies. They 
provide jobs and an avenue for local businesses to grow. How? Through 
advertising. It is very important that we can keep our local 
broadcasters thriving. I think there are four main issues we have to 
address to solve this problem.
  First, we have to assure that every household in America has access 
to their local television station. That is a given. Every household in 
America must have access to their local television station.
  This can be achieved, I submit, through a loan guarantee program that 
encourages investment in infrastructure, whether it be satellite, 
cable, or some other new emergency technology. Loan guarantees are 
going to be necessary for those less densely populated parts of our 
country that need assistance, such as REA, the rural electric co-ops of 
not too many years ago, and such as telephone co-ops. It is a 
guaranteed service to all Americans.
  Look at this chart. This shows where the Rural Utilities Service--the 
organization in the USDA that administers the utility service programs 
in our country, whether it be electric power, telecommunications, or 
whatnot--currently provides service. All 50 States currently have 
service under the Rural Utilities Service. The yellow dots are water 
and wastewater guarantee programs, loan guarantee programs. The other 
is electrical distribution. That is the red. The dark blue is 
electrical generation and transmission. Look at the green; it is 
telecommunications. That is what we are talking about--administering a 
loan guarantee telecommunications program. The Rural Utility Service 
isn't doing that. Those are the green dots. If you stand close, you can 
see the green dots--mostly in the East, where you would expect, and 
also you will find a few in other parts of the country. We have to make 
sure the program is properly administered, once we guarantee access. 
Certainly, the Rural Utility Service is currently providing service in 
all 50 States and are more than qualified to provide that service.
  The RUS currently manages a $42 billion loan portfolio for rural 
America--$42 billion--including investments in approximately 7,600 
small community and rural water and wastewater systems, and about 1,500 
electric and telecommunications systems servicing about 84 percent of 
America's counties. They have been very successful.
  This map shows the vast area that is covered. RUS's success in 
developing infrastructure in rural America has led to the infusion of 
private capital in rural infrastructure. For every $1 of capital that 
RUS provides to rural America, that leverages to $2 or $3 of outside 
investment. The Rural Utility Service is the logical team to make sure 
this program is properly administered.
  Perhaps the RUS could consult with other agencies--the National 
Telecommunications and Information Association, perhaps--and that makes 
sense. But I think the core of the administration should be in the RUS. 
Some colleagues have suggested maybe new legislation for a new 
oversight board, a new bureaucracy, similar to what was provided for in 
the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999.
  I have some concerns about that. My real question is, how can an 
agency successfully administer the loans when the guarantee decision is 
made independent of that agency? A critical step in implementing the 
loan is a clear understanding of the funded project. That is best 
achieved during the review of the applications, including the financial 
and technical feasibility analysis.
  That brings the third issue. We must construct this program in a 
fiscally responsible manner, minimizing the cost and risk to the 
taxpayer. I think this goal can be achieved by utilizing an existing 
agency--one with a good track record.
  RUS has done a good job. In 50 years, RUS has experienced not one 
loan loss in its telecommunications program. That is, to me, a very 
good record.

  Finally, I think we need to make sure the guarantee program is 
utilized to provide local-to-local service to all of America. I have 
heard from colleagues that Congress should require some level of 
private capital investment in conjunction with the loan guarantee. Some 
have even suggested that the loan guarantee should be perhaps as low as 
50 percent. That gives me some pause because I don't want to have 
something set up with too many hurdles and redtape, which has the 
effect of increasing interest rates necessarily and therefore 
diminishing the likelihood that all of America will be served.
  In summary, these are my four main criteria: One, every household 
must be served; two, the program must be administered by an agency with 
the necessary expertise, somebody with a track record that knows what 
is going on; three, the program must be cost effective and low risk to 
taxpayers; four, the program should not be structured in a manner that 
is so cost prohibitive to the private sector that it sits on the shelf 
unused.
  So I say, let's move ahead and let's also keep this nonpartisan. 
There are some in the Senate who have suggested that maybe this issue 
is driven by partisan politics. Mr. President, I totally reject that 
notion; indeed, I find it offensive.
  This issue doesn't belong to one Senator or to one party. This issue 
belongs to the American people--people who need service, people who are 
demanding that we act to provide them with

[[Page S605]]

comprehensive satellite coverage. That is all this is. I call on the 
Senate to do that. That is what the people want.
  The loan guarantee program that I am talking about was regrettably 
stripped from the Satellite Home Viewer Act in the eleventh hour of the 
last session. I say, let's put it back in in a nonpartisan way. I say 
that because all Americans who do not get local service would be very 
grateful. Let's do this not only for Gary Ardesson in Frenchtown, MT. 
Let's do it for all of the Americans in rural America who deserve the 
same service that people in the big cities are getting.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________