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
Contents Display
With this bill, we can correct an important gap in our efforts to reduce such accidents. Under current law, NTSB investigations of grade crossing accidents are undertaken only in select cases, as highway accident investigations. The bill would consider grade
[Page: S5045] GPO's PDF
We need better information on fatal grade crossing accidents so we can do more to prevent unnecessary loss of life. According to National Railroad Administration Safety Statistics, more than 4,000 accidents per year occur at grade crossings. In 2000, 425 of these resulted in fatalities. Most fatalities occur at what are called passive grade crossings, those offering no warning or signal to a motorist of an oncoming train. Of Minnesota's more than 8,000 railroad grade crossings, three-fourths are passive crossings. The safety of such passive crossings is substantially dependent on such factors as physical layout and the adequacy of the view for drivers of approaching trains. To make good safety choices, communities, transportation agencies and departments at the local, state and federal levels need better information. That is one reason site-specific accident information is so necessary.
NTSB investigations are essential not only to prevent future accidents, through recommendations on operating rules such as speed limits, warning or separation devices, improved signaling, signage, improvements for driver visibility and increased enforcement of stop signs at passive crossings. But their investigations often are also the only means of addressing the role of railroads and their personnel in accidents.
This important issue has been brought to my attention by two passionate rail safety advocates in Minnesota, Lillian and Gerry Nybo. I have worked closely with the Nybos, who have been at the forefront of a national movement, ``Citizens Against Railroad Tragedies.'' Their 18-year-old son, Gerry, Jr., was killed three years ago this week at an unguarded rail grade crossing in Audubon Township in Becker County, Minnesota. He has just graduated from high school, and his life was full of promise. He friend Ryan Nelson was killed in the same accident. This legislation is needed to give families such as the Nybos, who have lost family members, the results of investigation into the facts and causes of these accidents. It is in memory of Gerry Nybo, Jr. that I introduce this legislation today.
My hope in introducing this bill is to give communities the information they need to improve safety at dangerous intersections. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and 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:
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 ``Fatal Grade Crossing Accident Investigations Act''.
SEC. 2. GRADE CROSSING ACCIDENTS.
Section 1131(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``, including a railroad grade crossing accident,''; and
(2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``, including a railroad grade crossing accident,'' after ``railroad accident''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY.
The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to railroad grade crossing accidents that occur on or after that date.
By Mr. LIEBERMAN:
S. 2582. A bill to require a report to Congress on a national strategy for the deployment of high speed broadband Internet telecommunications services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in 1943, the chairman of a famous American electronics company said, ``I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.'' Good guess. Industry has repeatedly exceeded expectations like that one, and helped the American economy as a whole exceed expectations
New questions are now reverberating from Silicon Valley to Pennsylvania Avenue. How do we catch the next great wave of innovation and ingenuity to unleash the next great boom of productivity and opportunity? How do we find new ways to translate our enormous technological prowess into real economic progress for the American people?
I rise today to introduce what I believe will be a roadmap to revitalization. It's premised on the extraordinary promise of high-speed Internet to help us return to high-intensity growth; by revolutionizing the way we communicate and live our lives. Its goal is to highlight the challenges we face in tapping the transformative potential of broadband technology, to spur agreement on a national strategy for accelerating its development and deployment , and ultimately to help bring on what we all hope will be the broadband boom.
Our country's last big boom was fueled by the most reliable, resilient, and renewable source of energy around: America's creative genius. Government paved the road, first with R&D funding, then in the 1990s with sound budget policies, but it was our innovation industries that made it happen. In fact, the information technology sector, which made up only 4 percent of GDP, was responsible for a remarkable 30 percent of all economic growth between 1995 and 2000.
Today, America's high-tech industries, which have survived the big bust that followed the big bang of the 1990s, haven't lost their edge. Information technology and the innovation economy, for example, are still among our greatest national resources. But as we've emerged from recession, many businesses across the country have been increasingly concerned about our recovery. How strong will it be? How long will it last?
Many in Washington have recognized that broadband can and must be a big part of the solution. But most policymakers have been focusing on short-term obstacles to the next small jump in speed. I think we need a larger and longer vision here. We need to look over the horizon and ask what it will take to usher in advanced broadband that will make speeds of 10 to 100 megabits per second available all across the country, so that we can truly unleash the tremendous economic potential of this technology.
The science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke once said, ``Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'' Well, the next generation Internet passes that test. It has the ability to levitate productivity, make millions of jobs appear, and transport our economy into the future. And there won't be any sleight of hand involved. Sometimes, there won't even be wires attached.
In education, for example, universities, school districts, and private companies have already started rolling out impressive applications of advanced broadband . We're not just talking about streaming video with questions sent through instant messenger. Broadband can transform the very nature of instruction, right at the time when schools need more flexible and more powerful learning tools to meet higher standards.
In healthcare, the possibilities are equally exciting: hospitals without walls, instantaneous remote monitoring of patient vitals, comprehensive informatics databases that are available to professionals everywhere. We even saw the first remote surgery pioneered last fall, when two surgeons in New York operated on a patient in Strasbourg, France.
Indeed, advanced broadband's ability to both increase economic opportunities and improve society in so many fields, from law to finance, from entertainment to agriculture, and from homeland defense to international defense, are just astounding.
These days, computing power is expanding at an incredible rate. But networking speed is way behind computing speed. Industry can't make the best use of the computing potential that's available without the pipes that bring it home to consumers and businesses--including and especially small businesses. While we have some good arteries, we don't have the capillaries to carry data all the way.
I stand here today to say that we in government can't let this potentially fertile field of technology lie fallow. We need to make the most of this moment, in which the high-speed Internet is on the cusp of catalyzing a quantum leap in our economy. Which is to say, we need to lead, and seed.
Unfortunately, the case for making broadband deployment a priority of a
[Page: S5046] GPO's PDF
Last week I released a white paper entitled Broadband : A 21st Century Technology and Productivity Strategy and today I introduce the National Broadband Strategy Act of 2002. The white paper analyzes the challenges. The legislation will compel us to meet them, requiring the Administration to develop a national broadband strategy within six months of passage.
Taken together, and working in conjunction with insightful leaders and groups in the tech community, I am confident these measures can spark the development and implementation of a coherent, cross-agency strategy to eliminate obstacles, create incentives, and encourage industry innovation.
In the upcoming months, I'll follow up this report and legislation with proposals on how to reach truly advanced broadband , the speed I mentioned before, upwards of 10 megabits per second. There is no focus on this need now, and that's where government particularly needs to lead and seed.
The follow-up legislation I'll propose in the coming months will call on the FCC to develop a regulatory framework to meet the challenges of the next generation Net: propose tax credits for the deployment of advanced broadband , encourage research and development on advanced broadband infrastructure that will enable this technology to reach into all the corners and crevices of the country, and present a program to incentivize research and development on major applications in areas where government plays a central role, including education, healthcare, and e-government.
The public sector cannot and should not manage this effort. Our future will fortunately be in the hands of thousands of individual innovators. Nor should the government be choosing winners and losers. To benefit consumers, government must be pro-broadband , but technology neutral about how business gets there, by encouraging innovation and maximizing competition. Government must clear the path so that business innovators can march forward.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation. I request unanimous consent that the introductory materials to my whitepaper and the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD. I note to my colleagues that the full text of the whitepaper is available on my web site, http://lieberman.senate.gov.
There being no objection, the material 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 ``National Broadband Strategy Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States needs to develop a long-term investment and growth strategy that will restore the unprecedented gains in structural economic productivity with high employment growth experienced by the United States in the late 1990s.
(2) The gains in structural productivity with high employment growth in the late 1990s resulted from unprecedented investments in information and communication technology.
(3) It was the precipitous decline in these investments that took the United States economy into recession before September 11, 2001.
(4) The United States needs to focus on stimulating resurgence in these investments to regain vibrant growth in structural productivity and high employment growth.
(5) If productivity increases at the rate of 1.5 percent per year, the standard of living will double about every 46 years, or about every two generations. On the other hand, if productivity increases at the rate of 3 percent per year, the standard of living will double about every 23 years, or about every generation. This difference results from the so-called miracle of compounding. To take advantage of compounding, a long-term economic strategy for the United States must focus on structural productivity growth.
(6) Productivity growth has enabled American workers to produce 30 times as much in goods and services in 1999 as they produced in 1899, with only 5 times as many workers. This growth in productivity has increased the standard of living in the United States from $4,200 in 1899 to $33,740 in 1999 (expressed in 1999 dollars). Growth in structural productivity will bring about growth in wages and salaries, profits, and government tax receipts.
(7) The productivity gains of the United States in the late 1990s broke a 25-year trend. From the early 1970s to the mid-1990s, United States productivity grew sluggishly, at an annual rate of about 1.5 percent. During the final 5 years of the 20th Century, it grew at nearly double that rate.
(8) The high cyclical productivity growth the United States has experienced in 2001 and 2002 results for the most part from a reduction in employment and increased utilization of existing capacity.
(9) The United States needs a strategy to generate structural productivity growth arising from the development and deployment of new technology that enhances both efficiency and employment.
(10) The United States needs to prepare now for the retirement of the Baby Boom generation. If the United States does nothing regarding Social Security, it is estimated that by 2030 the annual shortfall between amounts in the Social Security Trust Fund and the amount required to meet obligations of the Fund will reach $814,000,000,000 (in 1999 dollars). The United States has approximately $7,4000,000,000,000 in obligations coming due, and it advisable to have our fiscal house in order, hopefully with no national debt, when these obligations must be paid. Restoring structural productivity and high employment growth is essential to ensure that the United States can honor these obligations.
(11) Making affordable, high speed broadband Internet connections of 10 Mbps-100 Mbps available to all American homes and small businesses has the potential to restore structural productivity and employment growth.
(12) High speed broadband Internet applications for voice, data, graphics, and video will revolutionize many aspects of life at home, school, and work. High speed broadband Internet will transform health care, commerce, government, and education. The benefits of a successful high speed broadband Internet deployment strategy to the quality of life and economy of the United States will be immeasurable.
(13) Traditionally, the United States is considered the world leader in the development and commercialization of new innovations and technologies. However, the United States lags far behind other countries in broadband deployment , including South Korea, Canada, and Sweden. By 2005, the United States is projected to fall to ninth place in broadband deployment , surpassed by Asian markets in Hong Kong and Singapore, the Scandinavian countries Denmark and Norway, and the Netherlands.
(14) The United States will need high speed broadband Internet for public health, education, and economic welfare, just as the United States now needs universal telephone service. High speed broadband Internet applications are capable of revitalizing the economy and solving countless problems for average Americans. The applications fall into the areas of e-education, e-health, e-commerce, e-government, and e-entertainment.
(15) The benefits that will arise from development and implementation of a national high speed broadband Internet strategy amply justify a priority for such a strategy. The Federal Government will act one way or another on many of the key policy issues affecting broadband deployment . The only question is whether it acts in accordance with a strategy, or piecemeal.
(15) Adopting a national strategy for broadband deployment is consistent with the strategies the United States has adopted to speed deployment of other essential infrastructure, including railroads, electric power, telephone service, and radio and television. Each of those technologies has been the focus of a national economic strategy. There is a consensus that the Northwest Ordinance, Morrill Land-Grant Act, and GI bill, and laws for transcontinental railroads, rural electrification, and the interstate highway system, embodied useful and successful strategies for the future of the United States.
(16) In facilitating high speed broadband Internet deployment , the United States should rely on markets and entrepreneurs and minimize the intrusion of government. Americans need to be creative and innovative when government acts to make sure that it provides value added.
(17) In crafting a comprehensive strategy to advance deployment of high speed broadband Internet, a broad range of policy options should be addressed, and the Administration needs to provide leadership in developing these options and establishing a priority among them.
SEC. 3. NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR HIGH SPEED BROADBAND INTERNET DEPLOYMENT .
(a) STRATEGY FOR INCREASING STRUCTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH.--Not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report setting
[Page: S5047] GPO's PDF
(b) ELEMENTS.--The report under subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) A goal for the deployment of broadband telecommunications services nationwide, including a goal regarding the speeds necessary to facilitate applications needed to stimulate structural productivity and employment growth.
| <<< | >>> |
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
Contents Display