[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 91 (Thursday, June 19, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8241-S8242]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Pryor):
  S. 1294. A bill to authorize grants for community telecommunications 
infrastructure planning and market development, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
help rural and underserved communities across the country get connected 
to the information economy.
  Today I am introducing the Community Telecommunication Planning Act 
of 2003. I am proud to have Senators Boxer, Cantwell, Kennedy, Leahy, 
and Pryor as original cosponsors. This bill will give small and rural 
communities a new tool to attract high speed services and economic 
development.
  Representative Inslee from my home State, along with several other 
members, will soon introduce a companion bill in the House. I 
appreciate him working with me to meet this challenge.
  I am especially proud of how this legislation came about. For the 
last four years, I've been working with a group of community leaders in 
Washington State to find ways to help communities get connected to 
advanced telecommunications services.
  I want to take a moment to thank the members of my Rural 
Telecommunication Working Group for their hard work on this bill. The 
members include: Brent Bahrenburg, Gregg Caudell, Dee Christensen, Dave 
Danner, Louis Fox, Tami Garrow, Larry Hall, Rod Fleck, Ray King, Dale 
King, Terry Lawhead, Dick Llarman, Jim Lowery, Jim Miller, Joe Poire, 
Skye Richendrfer, Ted Sprague, Jim Schmit, and Ron Yenney.
  We met as a working group, and we held forums around the State that 
attracted hundreds of people. We've tapped the ideas of experts, 
service providers and people from across the State who are working to 
get their communities connected. The result is this legislation, which 
I am proud to say is part of Washington State's contribution to our 
national effort to connect all parts of our country to the Internet.
  The bill was originally introduced in the 107th Congress. I was able 
to attach a version of it to the Farm Bill. Unfortunately, the 
provision was removed during Conference.
  This bill addresses a real need in many communities. While urban and 
suburban areas have strong competition between telecommunications 
providers, many small and rural communities are far removed from the 
services they need.
  We must ensure that all communities have access to advanced 
telecommunications like high speed internet access and the wireless 
Internet. Just as yesterday's infrastructure was built of roads and 
bridges, today our infrastructure includes advanced telecom services.
  Advanced telecommunications can enrich our lives through activities 
like distance-learning, and they can even save lives through efforts 
like telemedicine. The key is access. Access to these services is 
already turning some small companies in rural communities into 
international marketers of goods and services.
  Unfortunately, many small and rural communities are having trouble 
getting the access they need. Before communities can take advantage of 
some of the help and incentives that are out there, they need to work 
together and got through a community planning process. Community plans 
identify the needs and level of demand, create a vision for the future, 
and show what all the players must do to meet the telecom needs of 
their community for today and tomorrow. These plans take resources to 
develop, and my bill would provide those funds.
  Providers say they're more likely to invest in an area if it has a 
plan that makes a business case for the costly infrastructure 
investment. Communities want to provide them with that plan, but they 
need help developing it. Unfortunately, many communities get struck on 
that first step. They don't have the resources to do the studies and 
planning required to attract service. So the members of my Working 
Group came up with a solution: have the Federal Government provide 
competitive grants that local communities can use to develop their 
plans. I took that idea and put it into this bill.
  After determining what services they need, communities must then go 
out and make a market case to providers. That is why I've added 
``market development'' to the list of allowable uses of grant funding.
  While this bill deals with new technology, it's really just an 
extension of the infrastructure support the federal government 
traditionally provides to communities.
  The Federal Government already provides money to help communities 
plan other infrastructure improvements--everything from roads and 
bridges to wastewater facilities. Because today's economic 
infrastructure includes advanced telecom services, I believe the 
Federal Government should provide similar support for local technology 
infrastructure.
  In summary, this bill would provide rural and underserved communities 
with grant money for creating community plans, technical assessments 
and other analytical work, and it would allow these communities to use 
the funding to market these plans to providers.
  With these grants, communities will be able to turn their desire for 
access into real access that can improve their communities and 
strengthen their economies. This bill can open the door for thousands 
of small and rural areas across our country to tap the potential of the 
information economy.
  I urge the Senate to support this bill, and I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to see it passed.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1294

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Community Telecommunications 
     Planning Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. COMMUNITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLANNING GRANTS.

       (a) Authority To Make Grants.--Each Secretary concerned 
     may, using amounts authorized to be appropriated by the 
     applicable paragraph of subsection (g), make grants to 
     eligible entities described in subsection (b) for the 
     community telecommunications infrastructure planning and 
     market development purposes described in subsection (c).
       (b) Eligible Entities.--An entity eligible for a grant 
     under this section is any local or tribal government, local 
     non-profit entity, cooperative, public utility, or other 
     public entity that proposes to use the amount of the grant 
     for the community telecommunications infrastructure planning 
     and market development purposes described in subsection (c).
       (c) Community Telecommunications Infrastructure Planning 
     and Market Development.--Amounts from a grant made under this 
     section shall be used for purposes of facilitating the 
     development of a telecommunications infrastructure and market 
     development plan for a locality by various means, including--
       (1) by encouraging the involvement in the development of 
     the plan of interested elements of the community concerned, 
     including the business community, governments, 
     telecommunications providers, and secondary and, where 
     applicable, post-secondary educational institutions and their 
     students;
       (2) by enhancing the focus of the development of the plan 
     on a wide range of telecommunications needs in the community 
     concerned, including needs relating to local business, 
     education, health care, and government;
       (3) by enhancing the identification of a wide range of 
     potential solutions for such needs through advanced 
     telecommunications infrastructure; and
       (4) by any other means that the Secretary concerned 
     considers appropriate.

[[Page S8242]]

       (d) Grant Priority for Planning for Rural and Underserved 
     Areas.--In making grants under this section, each Secretary 
     concerned shall give priority to eligible entities that 
     propose to use the grants for community telecommunications 
     infrastructure planning and market development for rural 
     areas or underserved areas.
       (e) Administration.--Each Secretary concerned shall 
     establish such administrative requirements for grants under 
     this section, including requirements for applications for 
     such grants, as such Secretary considers appropriate.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Rural area.--The term ``rural area'' means any county 
     having a population density of less than 300 people per 
     square mile as determined in the 2000 decennial census.
       (2) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned'' 
     means each of the following:
       (A) The Secretary of Commerce.
       (B) The Secretary of Agriculture.
       (C) The Secretary of Education.
       (3) Underserved area.--The term ``underserved area'' means 
     any census tract as determined in the 2000 decennial census 
     which is located in--
       (A) an empowerment zone or enterprise community designated 
     under section 1391 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       (B) the District of Columbia Enterprise Zone established 
     under section 1400 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       (C) a renewal community designated under section 1400E of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       (D) a low-income community designated under section 45D of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (g) Authorizations of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for purposes of making grants under this 
     section--
       (1) for the Department of Commerce--
       (A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
       (B) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year;
       (2) for the Department of Agriculture--
       (A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
       (B) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year; and
       (3) for the Department of Education--
       (A) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
       (B) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year.
                                 ______