Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will designate our manager as the manager of our time, Senator Kerry. Let me make a couple of brief remarks. Many of our colleagues, obviously, want to speak to this issue. First of all, our caucus is united, as we have been throughout this debate, on this very important issue. I hope the American people will see it for what it is. We are not deceived, and they shouldn't be either. This will be an effort, this afternoon, to kill this bill. The gun is on the other side. They will shoot it dead. It will be dead if those votes occur this afternoon as we predict they will vote. That is a tragedy. That is a tragedy. Three thousand kids a day start smoking; 1,000 kids a day die early because they started too early. That is what is at stake. I hope it is more than just a coincidence that, a night after we raised $10 million downtown, they raised $10 million downtown. We vote today to kill the tobacco bill. I am amazed, really, at the logic of some of our colleagues on the other side. How many colleagues have come to the floor to say we cannot pass this legislation until we include the marriage penalty, until we include the drug amendment, until we include some cap on lawyers' fees. Guess what. We spent the last 4 weeks doing just that: We passed a marriage penalty; we passed a drug enforcement amendment; we passed, now, some limit on legal fees. I will guarantee that virtually every one of our colleagues on the other side, in spite of that, having voted for it, will vote to kill this bill. It is amazing to me that I have heard even our majority leader say we can't pass this legislation until we address the marriage penalty, that we can't address this bill completely until we have done the drug issue. We have done those, and now we are being told it is too heavy, we can't pass it. The majority leader just said, ``I can't think of a way to bring this to closure.'' I can. If the Democrats were in the majority, we would bring this bill to closure, because I would vote for cloture. I would vote for cloture this afternoon, and every one of our Democratic colleagues would vote for it as well. We would bring an end to this bill. There is no mystery to it. You get 60 votes. We have more than 40 on this side. All we need is a fraction of the caucus on that side and we would bring this vote to closure. There is no mystery here. Let me say, as my colleagues have noted, this is not over. This bill may be dead, but tobacco legislation is not dead. We will continue to come back. I will tell my colleagues right now, we will not let this issue die. We will continue to come back. There are, as the Senator from California noted, some principles that ought to unite us as Republicans and Democrats. We ought to be united on stopping kids from smoking. We will continue to pursue other methods, other ways, other legislation, but we will keep at it. So I hope we can agree on principles. I hope we will all agree that even though that bill may die today, the issue does not die. The issue will continue to live until we are victorious. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield myself a couple of minutes, and then yield the remainder of the time to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from New Jersey. Mr. President, let there be no misunderstanding what it is we are doing here. This is one more effort to kill this bill. If it wasn't dead the first time, they are going to try to ensure that on the second shot it dies. That is what this is about. I think it would be much better if we just voted it up or down, yes or no. Instead, some of our colleagues on the other side are hiding in the rocks. They want to shoot and kill that bill so nobody knows who it was who killed it. Well, this will kill it pure and simple, and it is a cynical approach to killing it, because it is an amazing demonstration, in my view, of political juxtaposition here that the very Senators who will vote to kill it by not supporting the waiver on the point of order are the very Senators who offered the amendments on taxes and on drugs and on the other amendments that brought us to this point. The very Senators who said we have to have a tax bill, we have to have a drug bill, we have to have all these other amendments added before we can support this legislation are now going to vote not to waive the point of order to bring the bill down. So I hope there is no misunderstanding about what is at stake here. We are going to kill this bill tonight. I should say they are going to kill this bill tonight. But they are going to try to use this ruse of saying, now that we have loaded it up, it is too heavy; now that we have loaded it up, we can't afford to carry it further. Mr. President, that is a disappointment. The fact remains that this bill dies tonight, but the issue will live. And some day in the not too distant future, we will pass tobacco legislation that will rectify what we are doing tonight. This is wrong. I hope nobody misunderstands what this vote is about. They killed the bill tonight by voting not to waive this point of order. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act for the bill, the committee substitute, and the pending Gramm motion to recommit. What is the parliamentary order, given our unanimous consent agreement? How much time is on each side?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I assume that means there is approximately 12 or 13 minutes per side.

Mr. DASCHLE. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DASCHLE. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I have, I simply ask that there be 5 minutes equally divided between votes so that we might talk about the specific vote and its ramifications prior to the time we cast it. I ask if the majority leader has any problem with that?

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to ask the majority leader two questions. First, with regard to the cloture motion, he and I have talked about this matter. The motion itself says: We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the committee substitute. . . And it is signed, of course, by 16 Senators, including the distinguished majority leader. If, indeed, it is his position that he will vote against the cloture motion, I am curious as to how he can be signing the cloture motion.

Mr. DASCHLE. Well, Mr. President, I just say, I have never heard of it before. I think it is highly unusual, but certainly that is the majority leader's prerogative. I just call attention to this interesting juxtaposition of filing cloture and then voting against it. Another question I have relates to the Budget Act point of order. Is it the majority leader's understanding that those who vote not to waive the budget point of order will then be voting against those amendments that the Senate has adopted, including the amendment on marriage penalty and the amendment on drug enforcement; is that the understanding of the majority leader?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object, just for clarification.

Mr. DASCHLE. There may be some confusion. I ask there be an intervening period of at least 5 minutes prior to the second vote so we can have an opportunity to discuss the ramifications.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to waive.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished majority leader in introducing this bill to promote the reuse and recycling of scrap materials. There is broad agreement that more should be done to establish a climate in which businesses are encouraged to recycle scrap materials in an environmentally sound manner. We should make every effort to expand the responsible and beneficial use and reuse of this waste as soon as possible. While I remain hopeful that bipartisan negotiators will be able to work out differences on broad-based Superfund reform, it appears unlikely that Congress will achieve that goal this year. That is particularly unfortunate, because there are many elements of Superfund reform for which there is agreement and for which we should move forward as expeditiously as possible, including establishing greater incentives for brownfields redevelopment, and providing liability relief to deserving municipalities and small businesses. There are a number of important Superfund issues on which there continues to be significant disagreement. Despite the fact that resolution of these issues is unlikely in the near-term, we should not allow ourselves to adjourn this year without making a strong effort to enact those reforms on which there is broad agreement. Therefore, I am very pleased that Senator Lott has taken the initiative to move forward with this important element of Superfund reform. With enactment of this legislation, we will foster additional scrap recycling in America, thereby reducing the stream of waste materials now sent to landfills and other solid waste management facilities. By doing so, we will help to eliminate the fears of many businesses of potential Superfund liabilities even if they pursue legitimate means to recycle scrap materials. By clarifying the liability rules for recycling transactions under Superfund, this legislation will place recyclers on a more even playing field compared with those who produce goods using virgin materials. In conclusion, Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this timely legislation with Senator Lott. This is an important step in providing meaningful reform and clarification to the Superfund law and I encourage all my colleagues to support this effort to promote scrap recycling as soon as possible.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished majority leader in introducing this bill to promote the reuse and recycling of scrap materials. There is broad agreement that more should be done to establish a climate in which businesses are encouraged to recycle scrap materials in an environmentally sound manner. We should make every effort to expand the responsible and beneficial use and reuse of this waste as soon as possible. While I remain hopeful that bipartisan negotiators will be able to work out differences on broad-based Superfund reform, it appears unlikely that Congress will achieve that goal this year. That is particularly unfortunate, because there are many elements of Superfund reform for which there is agreement and for which we should move forward as expeditiously as possible, including establishing greater incentives for brownfields redevelopment, and providing liability relief to deserving municipalities and small businesses. There are a number of important Superfund issues on which there continues to be significant disagreement. Despite the fact that resolution of these issues is unlikely in the near-term, we should not allow ourselves to adjourn this year without making a strong effort to enact those reforms on which there is broad agreement. Therefore, I am very pleased that Senator Lott has taken the initiative to move forward with this important element of Superfund reform. With enactment of this legislation, we will foster additional scrap recycling in America, thereby reducing the stream of waste materials now sent to landfills and other solid waste management facilities. By doing so, we will help to eliminate the fears of many businesses of potential Superfund liabilities even if they pursue legitimate means to recycle scrap materials. By clarifying the liability rules for recycling transactions under Superfund, this legislation will place recyclers on a more even playing field compared with those who produce goods using virgin materials. In conclusion, Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this timely legislation with Senator Lott. This is an important step in providing meaningful reform and clarification to the Superfund law and I encourage all my colleagues to support this effort to promote scrap recycling as soon as possible.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to express my support and admiration of small business owners and entrepreneurs as we reflect on another successful National Small Business Week. It is appropriate that we recognize the contributions and achievements entrepreneurs have made to strengthen our communities and our national economy. Small businesses account for 99.7% all the employers in the country and employ 53.7 percent of the private work force. Senate Democrats have demonstrated their support of small business by advocating increased funding for the reauthorization of the Small Business Administration, supporting targeted tax relief, ensuring responsible regulatory relief, and increasing procurement opportunities for small businesses. Small businesses are changing the face of the economy by creating jobs and bringing prosperity to small towns and cities across the country. One such small business is the Roundup Building Center, owned by Doug and Julie Kapsch in Belle Fourche, South Dakota. As part of National Small Business week, Doug and Julie have been awarded special recognition from the Small Business Administration as the South Dakota Small Business Owners of the Year. Doug and Julie became business owners under a rather unique set of circumstances. In 1990, a fire destroyed much of the Belle Fourche Building Center, which Doug managed at the time. Faced with adversity, Doug and Julie saw an opportunity. After the fire, Doug contacted the former owner of the Belle Fourche Building Center, and the Kapschs began building their business. Today, Doug and Julie's business, the Roundup Building Center, serves the tri-state area of South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana by providing local contractors and do-it-yourself builders with a variety of building supplies. The business has grown by approximately 10 percent a year under Doug and Julie's management. As successful small business owners, Doug and Julie have shown that hard work, initiative, and a bit of risk-taking can produce big dividends. I congratulate them on their success and wish them many more profitable years of business. I would also like to commend another woman who has made significant contributions to South Dakota's small business community. Sandra Christenson, President of Heartland Paper Council, has been appointed by the Small Business Administrator to serve on the National Women's Business Council. The Council advises the President and the Administrator on small business issues especially important to women. After serving as President of Triangle School Service in Sioux Falls, Sandra was named President of Heartland Paper Company in 1989. In this capacity, she oversees 170 employees and the company's seven thousand customers. Heartland Paper has been a vibrant member of the Sioux Falls business community under Sandra's leadership, and I am confident that with her leadership and experience, Sandra is uniquely qualified to represent the views of women business leaders and rural America before the Council. Small businesses are vitally important to South Dakota's economy, and I truly appreciate the contributions that Sandra, Doug and Julie have made to our state's small business community. They join countless other small business owners across the country who have helped make America's vibrant economy the envy of the world.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to say farewell to a wonderful group of young men and women who have served as Senate pages over the last five months, and thank them for the contributions they make to the day-to-day operations of the Senate. This particular group of pages has served with distinction and has done a marvelous job of balancing their responsibilities to their studies and to this body. Page life is not easy. I suspect few people understand the rigorous nature of the page's work. On a typical day, pages rise early and are in school by 6:15 a.m. After several hours in school each morning, pages then report to the Capitol to prepare the Senate Chamber for the day's session. Throughout the day, pages are called upon to perform a wide array of tasks--from obtaining copies of documents and reports for Senators to use during debate, to running errands between the Capitol and the Senate office buildings, to lending a hand at our weekly conference luncheons. Once we finish our business here for the day--no matter what time-- the pages return to the dorm to prepare for the next day's classes and Senate session and, we hope, get some much-needed sleep. Even with all of this, they continually discharge their tasks efficiently and cheerfully. This page class had the good fortune to be present on the Senate floor for several landmark votes, including NATO expansion and IRS reform. I hope before they leave they will see us pass a comprehensive national bill to reduce teen smoking. It seems to me that would be a fitting way to thank these particular young people for their service to their country. I hope every person in this page class gained some insight into the need for individuals to become involved in community and civic activities. The future of our nation strongly depends on the generations who will follow us in this august body. I look forward to the possibility that one or more of this fine group of young people will return as a Member of the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I would like to read into the Record the names and hometowns of each of the Senate pages to whom we are saying goodbye today. They are: Philip Amylon, North Scituate, RI; Sarah Argue, Little Rock, AR; Marisa Boling, LaCrosse, WI; Sara Cannon, Seaford, DE; Colin Davis, Sioux Falls, SD; Laney Fitzgerald, Montgomery, AL; Sarah Flynn, Nashua, NH; Sarah Fowler, Kansas City, MO; Julia Le, Wilbraham, MA; Bari Lurie, Milwaukee, WI; Monique Luse, Farmington Hills, MI; Shana Marshall, Scottsburg, IN; Josh Melgaard, Pierre, SD; Sina Nazemi, Woodinville, WA; Georgia Sheridan, Santa Fe, NM; Michael Stahler, Lyndonville, VT; Angela Swanson, Springville, UT; Dan Teague, Concord, NH; Amanda Anderson, SC; Ashley Anderson, SC; Hunter Holmes, SC; Erin Lindsay, SC; Jennifer Lowry, UT; Stacie Seigler, SC; Tamarah Siegel, RI; and Bradley Wolters, WI. I am sure all of my colleagues--I know all of my colleagues join me in thanking these fine young men and women and wish them well as they proceed to a new phase of their life. We thank them for their services. We thank them for being who they are. We thank them for being so good at what they were to us over the last several months. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 35 years ago, President Kennedy took the bold first step to secure equal pay for women. Although there has been much progress since 1963, women continue to earn less than men. That is why we mut take action to improve and strengthen President Kennedy's landmark law and ensure that America's working women and families are paid the wages they deserve. In 1963, President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act prohibiting employers from paying women less than men for the same job. Knowing that the legislation was merely a first step in the right direction, President Kennedy noted that ``much remains to be done to achieve full equality of economic opportunity.'' While the Equal Pay Act prohibited discrimination against women in terms of wages, substantial pay disparities continue to exist. Women still earn, on average, only 74 cents to a man's dollar. That's why fair pay continues to be a major issue for American women and working families. In fact, the dramatic increase in the number of women in the work force and the number of families who depend on women's earnings make fair pay a matter of justice and necessity now more than ever. My state of South Dakota has the highest percentage in the nation of working mothers with children under the age of 6. These families need and deserve both parents to be paid fairly for an honest day's work. Now is the time to take another step toward fair pay and equal treatment for all people. Last year, I introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act to address the glaring inequities between men's and women's earnings. The bill seeks to eliminate the wage gap by beefing up enforcement of the Equal Pay Act, increasing penalties for pay discrimination, and lifting the gag rule imposed by many employees who forbid employees from discussing their wages with their co-workers. The bill would also ensure that employers who make real strides in establishing fair and equal workplaces would be recognized and celebrated. As we commemorate the 35th anniversary of the passage of the Equal Pay Act, I join my colleagues, the President, and the Vice President in calling on Congress to schedule a vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act, and renew our efforts to advance the principles of equal pay for equal work. Through the Paycheck Fairness Act, Democrats honor and continue President Kennedy's legacy of equality for a better workplace economy, and country.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to explain this particular amendment because I believe it is very important that everyone understand the juxtaposition of the Democratic amendment and the so- called Gramm amendment. A vote for the Gramm amendment was a vote either to take about $120 billion of budget surpluses away from our effort to shore up Social Security or to drain 80 percent of the money out of the tobacco trust fund, money that would otherwise be going to States' antismoking efforts, medical research and farmers. That is the choice presented by the Gramm amendment from 2008 through 2022. That was the problem we had with the Gramm amendment. In the out years, after 2008, it either took so much money out of Social Security and out of the surplus, or it took 80 percent of the tobacco money. We were not satisfied with this choice. We were not supportive of, first, the overall amount of money to be taken, and, secondly, the pots from which it was to be taken. That is only the first problem--where the money to fund the tax cut would be drawn from in the out years. The second problem is that, in the first ten years, the revised amendment costs 50 percent more than the Democratic alternative; that is, $46 billion versus about $31 billion. But, here is the catch: it actually delivers far less marriage penalty tax relief. So while it costs more, it does far less with regard to the marriage penalty itself. The reason for that is about 60 percent of the Republican tax cut goes to couples who have a marriage bonus in the sense that they pay less if they are married than if they filed single returns. Keep in mind that today about 52 percent of those who are married get a marriage bonus. There is actually an incentive built into the Tax Code to be married. The other 48 percent incur a marriage penalty. Sixty percent of the Gramm amendment goes to those who have a marriage bonus. So, in addition to the current marriage bonus, they will get a Gramm bonus. In our view, given the fact that this additional bonus costs so much and comes from either Social Security or tobacco, the additional Gramm bonus does not make a lot of sense. The Democratic alternative, by contrast, focuses about 90 percent of its tax cut on families who are actually penalized by providing a 20% deduction against the income of the lesser-earning spouse, phased out between $50,000 and $60,000 of family income. If the Republicans were genuinely interested in the marriage penalty relief problem as Senator Gramm and others have proclaimed, they would vote for the Democratic amendment. It would provide a bigger cut in the marriage penalty for most couples than the Gramm amendment over the next 10 years. Let me give a couple of examples. A couple making $35,000, with income split $20,000 and $15,000 between the two spouses, would see the following circumstances if this amendment were to pass. In the year 2002, under Gramm the couple would receive an average additional income of about $1,000. By comparison, under our 20-percent second earner deduction alternative, the couple would receive an additional reduction of $3,000, that is, 20 percent of $15,000. Mr. President, that represents about three times as large a tax deduction and would provide nearly three times as much tax relief-- three times more tax relief under the Democratic amendment than under the so-called Gramm amendment. Next, take a couple making $50,000, split $25,000 and $25,000 between the two spouses. Again, under the Gramm amendment the couple would receive an average additional deduction of about $1,000 in 2002. By contrast, our amendment would provide an extra $5,000 deduction, representing five times the amount of relief as under the Gramm amendment. So because we target our benefit to those who are actually penalized by the penalty rather than spread it across those who now enjoy a tax bonus for being married, we are able to deal with the penalty in a far more consequential way over the next ten years. To recap, the Gramm amendment costs 50 percent more over the first 10 years than the Democratic alternative and gives far less marriage penalty relief during this period. It makes more sense to redirect the additional $15 billion that Senator Gramm spends on bigger marriage bonuses to the original purposes of this bill--to public health, to research, to state programs, and to farmers. That in essence is the difference between our two approaches. Let's spend and invest those resources on the things that this bill is designed to do. Let's do as Senator Gramm suggests, focus on the problem he has described, that is, the marriage penalty, and try to deal with it as effectively as we can. By following that counsel, by taking that approach, we should pass the Democratic amendment, we should ultimately accept this compromise and the balance that it reflects, a balance between investments in public health and tax reductions. This is a prudent balance that recognizes the importance of this tobacco legislation as it was originally intended. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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. 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 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.