THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
[Page: S5281] GPO's PDF---
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Internet Regulatory Freedom Act of 1999. This legislation will help assure that the enormous benefits of advanced telecommunications services are accessible to all Americans, no matter where they live, what they do, or how much they earn.
Advanced telecommunications is a critical component of our economic and social well-being. Information technology now accounts for over one-third of our economic growth. The estimates are that advanced, high-speed Internet services, once fully deployed, will grow to a $150 billion a year market.
What this means is simple: Americans with access to high-speed Internet service will get the best of what the Internet has to offer in the way of on-line commerce, advanced interactive educational services, telemedicine, telecommuting, and video-on-demand. But what it also means is that Americans who don't have access to high-speed Internet service won't enjoy these same advantages.
Mr. President, Congress cannot stand idly by and allow that to happen.
Advanced high-speed data service finally gives us the means to assure that all Americans really are given a fair shake in terms of economic, social, and educational opportunities. Information Age telecommunications can serve as a great equalizer, eliminating the disadvantages of geographic isolation and socioeconomic status that have carried over from the Industrial Age. But unless these services are available to all Americans on fair and affordable terms, Industrial Age disadvantages will be perpetuated, not eliminated, in the Information Age.
As things now stand, however, the availability of advanced high-speed data service on fair and affordable terms is seriously threatened. Currently, only 2 percent of all American homes are served by networks capable of providing high-speed data service. Of this tiny number, most get high-speed Internet access through cable modems. This is a comparatively costly service --about $500 per year --and most cable modem subscribers are unable to use their own Internet service provider unless they also buy the same service from the cable system's own Internet service provider. This arrangement puts high-speed Internet service beyond the reach of Americans not served by cable service, and limits the choices available to those who are.
If this situation is allowed to continue, many Americans who live in remote areas or who don't make a lot of money won't get high-speed Internet service anywhere near as fast as others will. And, given how critical high-speed data service is becoming to virtually every segment of our everyday lives, creating advanced Internet ``haves'' and ``have nots'' will perpetuate the very social inequalities that our laws otherwise seek to eliminate.
This need not happen. Our nation's local telephone company lines go to almost every home in America, and local telephone companies are ready and willing to upgrade them to provide advanced high-speed data service.
They are ready and willing, Mr. President, but they are not able--at least, not as fully able as the cable companies are. That's because the local telephone companies operate under unique legal and regulatory restrictions. These restrictions are designed
[Page: S5282] GPO's PDF
Mr. President, it's very expensive for to build high-speed data networks. Unnecessary regulation increases this already-steep cost and thereby limits the deployment of services to people and places that might otherwise receive them--and many of them are people and places that won't otherwise be served. This legislation will get rid of this unnecessary regulation, thereby facilitating the buildout of the advanced data networks necessary to give more Americans access to high-speed Internet service at a cheaper price and with a greater array of service possibilities.
That's called ``competition,'' Mr. President, and some people don't like it very much. AT&T, for example, owns cable TV giant TCI and its proprietary Internet service provider @Home. AT&T doesn't face the same regulatory restrictions as the telephone companies do, and AT&T will fight furiously to retain these restrictions so that it can continue to enjoy the ``first-move'' advantage it now has in the market for high-speed Internet service. So will other local telephone company competitors such as MCI/Worldcom, many of whom, like AT&T, prefer gaming the regulatory process to competing in the marketplace.
They're right about one thing, Mr. President--competition sure isn't nice. It's tough. Some companies win, and some companies lose. But the important thing to me is this: with competition, consumers win.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act effectively nationalized telephone industry competition. That's one of the many reasons I voted against it. As subsequent events have shown, the Act has been a complete and utter failure insofar as most Americans are concerned. All the average consumer has gotten are higher prices for many existing services, with little or no new competitive offerings. Most of the advantages have accrued to gigantic, constantly-merging telecommunications companies and the big business customers they serve.
Mr. President, we must not let this misguided law produce the same misbegotten results when it comes to making high-speed data services available and affordable to all Americans. The service is too important, and the stakes are too high.
Even the former Soviet Union managed to recognize that centralized planning was a flat failure, and abandoned it decades ago. It's time we started doing the same with centralized competition planning under the 1996 Act, and advanced data services are the best place to start. Unfettered competition, not federally-micromanaged regulation, is the best way of making sure that high-speed data services will be widely available and affordable. That's what I want, that's what consumers deserve, and that's what this legislation will do.
The first is the fact that the high-speed cable modem service being rolled out by AT&T on many of the nation's cable television systems favors its own proprietary Internet service provider, which limits consumer choice. Although AT&T's cable customers can access AOL or other Internet service providers of their own choice, they must first pass through, and pay for, AT&T's own Internet service provider, @Home. The fact that it typically costs around $500 a year to subscribe to @Home is a big disincentive to paying even more to access another service provider.
The second problem is every bit as troubling. Even though cable subscribers have only limited choice in accessing high-speed Internet service, 98 percent of Americans are even worse off, because they aren't served by any network that can carry high-speed Internet services.
Obviously, Mr. President, telephone networks serve almost everybody, and the large telephone companies very much want to convert their networks and make these services available to subscribers who might not otherwise get them, especially in rural and low-income areas, and also provide competitive alternatives for AT&T's cable modem subscribers. But, although AT&T can roll out cable modem service in a virtually regulation-free environment, federal regulation significantly impedes the ability of telephone companies to do the same thing.
Mr. President, this is blatantly unfair to the telephone companies--but that's not the worst of it. The benefits of business development, employment, and economic growth will go where the advanced data networks go. If these benefits go to urbanized, high-income areas first, the resulting disparities may well be difficult, if not impossible, to equalize.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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:
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 ``Internet Regulatory Freedom Act of 1999''.
SECTION 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to eliminate unnecessary regulation that impedes making advanced Internet service available to all Americans at affordable rates.
SECTION 3. PROVISIONS OF INTERNET SERVICES.
Part I of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
``SEC. 231. PROVISION OF INTERENT SERVICES.
``(a) POLICY.--Since Internet services are inherently interstate in nature, it is the policy of the United States to assure that all Americans have the opportunity to benefit from access to advanced Internet service at affordable rates by eliminating regulation that impedes the competitive deployment of advanced broadband data networks.
``(b) FREEDOM FROM REGULATION; LIMITATIONS ON COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY.--Notwithstanding any other provision, including section 271, of this Act, nothing in this Act applies to, or grants authority to Commission with respect to--
``(1) the imposition of wholesale discount obligations on bulk offerings of advanced services to providers of Internet services or telecommunications carriers under section 251(c)(4), or the duty to provide as network elements, under section 251(c)(3), the facilities and equipment used exclusively to provide Internet services;
``(2) technical standards or specifications for the provisions of Internet services; or
``(3) the provision of Internet services.
``(c) INTERNET SERVICES DEFINED.--In this section, the term `Internet services' means services, other than voice-only telecommunication services, that consist of, or include--
``(1) the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds by means of the Internet or any other network that includes Internet protocol-based or other packet-switched or equivalent technology, including the facilities and equipment exclusively used to provide those services; and
``(2) the transmission of data between a user and the Internet or such other network.
``(d) ISP NOT A PROVIDER OF INTRASTATE COMMUNICATION SERVICES.--A provider of Internet services may not be considered to be a carrier providing intrastate communication service described in section 2(b)(1) because it provides Internet services.''.
By Mr. KENNEDY:
S. 1044. A bill to require coverage for colorectal cancer screenings; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
THE ELIMINATE COLORECTAL CANCER ACT OF 1999
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today we are introducing a bill that will require all private insurers to provide coverage for screening tests for colorectal cancer. More than 56,000 Americans die from colon cancer each year and we know that the vast majority of these tragedies could have been prevented by early detection and treatment.
Millions of Americans are at risk of contracting colon cancer during their lifetime. Persons over age 50 are particularly vulnerable, and so are family members of those who have had this illness. Effective treatments are well-established for this disease, but it must be detected early in order for the treatment to be successful.
Unfortunately, fewer than 20 percent of Americans take advantage of the routine screening tests that can identify those who have the disease or who are at risk. Too many physicians fail to recommend or even mention it. The cost of screening those at risk is minor compared to the savings gained by reducing the overall costs of treatment, suffering, lost productivity, and premature death.
As many colon cancer survivors have told us, early recognition and treatment are essential to winning this battle. Over 90% of people who have been
[Page: S5283] GPO's PDF
People on Medicare already have the right to these screening tests. The legislation we are introducing today will extend the same benefit to everyone else who has private insurance coverage. Under our proposal, coverage for screening tests will be available to anyone over age 50, and also to younger persons who are at risk for the disease or who have specific symptoms. The type of tests and frequency of tests would be determined by the doctor and the patient. This is a very reasonable and cost-effective measure that is essential to prevent thousands of unnecessary deaths.
Our bill has already received support and endorsements from all the major gastrointestinal professional organizations, the American Cancer Society, the American Gastroenterological Association, the Cancer Research Foundation of America, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, STOP Colon and Rectal Cancer Foundation, the United Ostomy Association, the Colon Cancer Alliance, Cancer Care, Inc., and the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging.
A companion bill is being introduced in the House with the bipartisan leadership of my respected colleagues, Congresswomen LOUISE SLAUGHTER and CONNIE MORELLA. They have rightly emphasized that this disease is one that affects women as much as men. I look forward to working with them and my colleagues here in the Senate to get this very important protective legislation passed.
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. KERREY, and Mr. ROBB):
S. 1045. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an excise tax on persons who acquire structured settlement payments in factoring transactions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PROTECTION ACT
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Structured Settlement Protection Act, together with Senators BAUCUS, GRASSLEY, ROCKEFELLER, BREAUX, and KERREY of Nebraska. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House as H.R. 263, sponsored by Representatives CLAY SHAW and PETE STARK and a broad bipartisan group of Members of the House Ways and Means Committee.
The Act protects structured settlements and the injured victims who are the recipients of the structured settlement payments from the problems caused by a growing practice known as structured settlement factoring.
Structured settlements were developed because of the pitfalls associated with the traditional lump sum form of recovery in serious personal injury cases. All too often a lump sum meant to last for decades or even a lifetime swiftly eroded away. Structured settlements have proven to be a very valuable tool. They provide long-term financial security in the form of an assured stream of payments to persons suffering serious, often profoundly disabling, physical injuries. These payments enable the recipients to meet ongoing medical and basic living expenses without having to resort to the social safety net.
Congress has adopted special tax rules to encourage and govern the use of structured settlements in physical injury cases. By encouraging the use of structured settlements Congress sought to shield victims and their families from pressures to prematurely dissipate their recoveries. Structured settlement payments are non-assignable. This is consistent with worker's compensation payments and various types of federal disability payments which are also non-assignable under applicable law. In each case, this is done to preserve the injured person's long-term financial security.
I am very concerned that in recent months there has been sharp growth in so-called structured settlement factoring transactions. In these transactions, companies induce injured victims to sell off future structured settlement payments for a steeply-discounted lump sum, thereby unraveling the structured settlement and the crucial long-term financial security that it provides to the injured victim. These factoring company purchases directly contravene the intent and policy of Congress in enacting the special structured settlement tax rules. The Treasury Department shares these concerns and has included a similar proposal in the Administration's FY 2000 budget.
An article in the January 25 issue of U.S. News & World Report highlights the growing problem of structured settlement purchases. Orion Olson was bitten by a dog when he was three years old. The dog bite caused him vision and neurological problems. The settlement resulting from his lawsuit called for Mr. Olson to receive $75,000 in periodic payments once he turned 18. Unfortunately, Mr. Olson was lured into selling his payments for a lump sum payment of $16,100. Within six months this money was gone and Mr. Olson was living in a car.
Last year, the National Spinal Cord Injury Association wrote to the Chairman of the Finance Committee strongly supporting the legislation. They stated: [o]ver the past 16 years, structured settlements have proven to be an ideal method for ensuring that persons with disabilities, particularly minors, are not tempted to squander resources designed to last years or even a lifetime. That is why the National Spinal Cord Injury Association is so deeply concerned about the emergence of companies that purchase payments intended for disabled persons at drastic discount. This strikes at the heart of the security Congress intended when it created structured settlements.''
The legislation we are introducing would impose a substantial penalty tax on a factoring company that purchases the structured settlement payments from the injured victim. This is a penalty, not a tax increase. Similar penalties are imposed in a variety of other contexts in the Internal Revenue Code to discourage transactions that undermine Code provisions, such as private foundation prohibited transactions and greenmail. The factoring company would pay the penalty only if it engages in the transaction that Congress has sought to discourage. An exception is provided for genuine court-approved hardship cases to protect the limited instances where a true hardship warrants the sale of future structured settlement payments.
This bipartisan legislation, which is supported by the Treasury Department, should be enacted as soon as possible to stem this growing nationwide problem.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents