[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 82 (Wednesday, June 19, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5768-S5769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      BROADBAND FOR RURAL AMERICA

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few moments today to 
talk about a topic that is critical to the future of my home State of 
South Dakota and indeed, many other rural areas around the country. The 
topic is access to advanced telecommunications and information services 
or what is commonly referred to as ``broadband.''
  Those who have been following the broadband debate the last few years 
have probably heard more than they want to hear about the subject. As 
is often the case in Washington, policy debates get caught up in the 
extreme rhetoric of various interests vying for some legislative or 
regulatory advantage. And, unfortunately, the Washington debate, and 
broadband is no exception, seems to drift far from the real issue that 
needs to be addressed.
  For example, the debate over broadband services, at least the debate 
one sees in the radio and newspaper ads in this town, would lead one to 
believe that the broadband problem is a question as to whether or not 
cable companies or phone companies will dominate in their competitive 
struggle for urban customers. I think it is great that in some parts of 
the country, such as major cities like Washington, DC, many businesses 
and residential consumers have cable companies and phone companies 
vying for their business. This is good for those who live in areas 
where a choice for broadband service is available.
  Where I come from, however, the luxury of a choice or any choice does 
not exist when it comes to access to broadband services. Access to 
broadband services in many rural areas, including parts of South 
Dakota, is a real challenge. From my perspective, the broadband debate 
so far has

[[Page S5769]]

really missed the mark and is not focused on the real challenge: how to 
ensure that all areas of the country have access to broadband services.
  Despite some claims to the contrary, broadband access is not a luxury 
item, like a Mercedes Benz. It has become a necessity in the 
information age. For rural States like South Dakota, broadband access 
is literally going to mean whether or not some of our small communities 
can survive in the new global economy where one's ability to access 
information and communication services will determine success or 
failure. While South Dakota will always be an important agricultural 
State, we know that we need to have the same access to advanced 
telecommunications and information services as the rest of the country. 
If we become a second-class society when it comes to broadband, we are 
more likely to be left behind. We will have less opportunity to keep 
our young people in the State and have less opportunity to create jobs 
and generate business activity.
  The good news is that there is really no reason why rural America has 
to lag behind the advances in telecommunications in other parts of the 
country. But, in order to ensure that we have the same opportunities as 
those in urban and suburban areas, we have to overcome the unique 
challenges of covering great geographic distances and the high costs of 
deploying networks in the prairie states.
  Well, help is on the way and we have begun to make some progress 
towards establishing policies and programs that will help ensure that 
rural America is not left behind.

  First, the recently enacted farm bill contained provisions that 
established a new low-interest broadband loan program for rural areas. 
A generation ago, The Rural Electrification Act established low-
interest loan programs to enable small town cooperatives and 
independent phone companies to emerge and provide telephone service and 
electrical service in the rural and remote areas of the country. As a 
result, we now have ubiquitous and affordable telephone service. Now 
that we are moving into the next generation of telecommunications 
service, i.e., broadband, we need to build upon that model of success. 
Thus, the Senate demonstrated leadership in the Farm Bill debate this 
past year and we managed to pass the most significant broadband 
legislation to date. We provided $100 million for low-interest 
government loans for broadband deployment in rural areas over the next 
seven years. This is going to be very helpful to South Dakota and other 
rural areas, and I am very pleased that we managed to secure the 
passage of this landmark legislation.
  However, the job is far from complete. The broadband debate needs to 
move forward and there are several areas that need to be addressed 
before any of us can honestly say that we have done enough to ensure 
that broadband is going to be deployed throughout the United States.
  Some of my colleagues have introduced legislation that addresses the 
broadband issue from various fronts, and I do see merit in the various 
approaches.
  Senator Rockefeller for example has introduced S. 88, the Broadband 
Internet Access Act. This important legislation would provide tax 
credits to companies that deploy broadband service to rural America. I 
am a cosponsor of S. 88 and worked with Senator Baucus and others to 
include this legislation in the stimulus package passed by the Finance 
Committee. It is unfortunate this package was not adopted by the 
Senate; however, I will continue to work with my colleagues to secure 
passage of S. 88.
  Another colleague, Senator Breaux, has introduced legislation that is 
intended to address the regulatory inequity between cable and telephone 
broadband systems. The Breaux-Nickles legislation, in my judgment, also 
addresses a legitimate issue. The problem with our current circumstance 
is that the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, has decided that 
cable broadband services should not be regulated but that telephone 
broadband services should be regulated. This does not make much sense 
to me. In fact, this circumstance seems to run counter to the technical 
neutrality policy that Congress adopted in the 1996 Telecommunications 
Act. It seems to me that similar services should be treated in similar 
fashion when it comes to government regulation. It does not make much 
sense to say that on the one hand, broadband services delivered by a 
cable company should not be regulated, i.e., are not required to 
provide access to competitors and do not contribute to universal 
service, and on the other hand subject broadband service provided by 
telephone companies to regulations that require open access to 
competitors and mandatory universal service contributions.
  As we debate this issue to determine the appropriate level of 
regulation, we must be certain that we have parity between competitors. 
I still have much to learn about all the implications of the Breaux-
Nickles legislation, but I do know that it does address an important 
issue, the disparity of regulation between cable and telephone 
broadband services.
  Yet another colleague, Senator Hollings, has introduced a bill that 
builds upon the success of the farm bill and would redirect some of the 
existing telephone excise tax money into a broadband investment fund. 
The money in that fund would make even more low-interest loans and 
grants available for broadband deployment in rural areas. His bill 
would also support needed research into new generation broadband 
technologies, especially those that can help bridge the digital divide 
in rural areas. I think his legislation is very thoughtful and I agree 
with the notion that we do indeed need to invest more into loans and 
grants for rural broadband. His bill is, in my judgment, part of the 
solution.
  I realize that there are some strongly held positions on various 
sides of the broadband debate when it comes to the regulatory 
questions. The Congress will need to examine these issues and I am 
confident that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation will continue to debate the various pieces of 
legislation that have been introduced. I also know that there are some 
approaches where we seem to have a consensus, namely the idea that we 
continue to provide low-interest loans and that we maintain the 
universal service system that has helped to make phone service 
affordable. For my part, I intend to engage in these debates from the 
perspective of how rural America is going to participate in the digital 
age. Rural South Dakota is my biggest concern and I hope that my 
colleagues who are working hard on these issues will listen and work 
with those Senators, like myself, who come from rural states to address 
our unique concerns.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important 
issues, I thank my colleagues for their leadership in this area.

                          ____________________