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
(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.
(2) A proposal for policies to foster and maintain competition among firms offering broadband telecommunications service, including competition to deploy high speed broadband Internet of 10 Mbps-100 Mbps.
(3) A proposal for incentives to enhance demand for high speed broadband Internet telecommunications service, including demand for purposes of serving Federal mission areas such as homeland security, distance learning, health, scientific collaboration, and electronic commerce.
(4) A proposal for incentives to facilitate and enhance the supply of high speed broadband Internet telecommunications service.
(5) A proposal to enhance global electronic commerce.
(6) A proposal for the optimal allocation of Federal Government resources on research and development regarding high speed broadband Internet telecommunications service, including recommendations for the allocation and prioritization of Federal funds.
(7) A proposal for the optimal allocation of spectrum in furtherance of the deployment of high speed broadband Internet telecommunications service.
(8) An assessment of various limitations to the deployment of high speed broadband Internet telecommunications service, including matters relating to taxation, privacy, security, spamming, content, intellectual property, and rights-of-way, and proposals for eliminating or alleviating such limitations.
(9) An assessment of the impact of the proposals under this subsection on structural productivity and employment growth in the United States and on the international economic competitiveness of the United States.
(10) Any other proposals or matters on the deployment of high speed broadband Internet telecommunications services that the President considers appropriate.
(c) FORM.--The report under subsection (a) shall include a draft proposal of any legislation required to implement the goal described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b), and of any of the proposals set forth under paragraphs (2) through (8) and (10) of that subsection (b).
--
Broadband : A 21st Century Technology and Productivity Strategy
Over one hundred and fifty years ago, a new technology emerged that grabbed the imaginations of the public and the purse strings of investors. It was a technology that promised to bring people closer together and to greatly stimulate the economy of that time. In order to succeed, that new technology required that the land be crisscrossed with a network upon which news could be carried and goods could be traded.
Bankers funded hundreds of startup companies that were built to take advantage of the new network. Investors clamored to purchase shares at rapidly rising prices. And then, after little more than a decade of overbuilding the infrastructure, it all fell apart as shares plunged 85% and hundreds of businesses and banks went under.
The technology was steam-driven railroad and this is the story told in the May 13th issue of Business Week. The analogies to the Information Technology boom of the 1990s are unmistakable and the lessons are invaluable. But the most important part of the story is what happened after the railroad bubble burst.
Within two decades, railroads were carrying four times as many people as they had at the height of the boom. The tracks were cleared, leaving the most solid companies and the best of the rail technologies to survive. According to W. Brian Arthur, an economist at the Santa Fe Institute, the survivors then developed new strategies that resulted in the industry's greatest growth and had the greatest impact on business and society of that time.
We now find ourselves in the same situation that the railroads were in as they developed their new strategies, except the technology is now broadband . It is clear that broadband will revolutionize business and society in our time, just as the railroads did in theirs. But it is also a confusing time, as many different interests emerge with many different agendas. The issues to be faced are many and they are complex. For some, there will be no easy answers. But it is time for us to have a national strategy that addresses these issues in a coherent and comprehensive manner.
My staff has assembled this report over the past ten months with extensive input from industry, academia, and government. It was no small undertaking and I particularly thank Skip Watts and Chuck Ludlam of my office. While there have been numerous bills offered in Congress dealing with isolated components of broadband policy, this report is the first to identify the full range of issues that must be considered as part of a national broadband strategy designed to stimulate economic expansion.
As the first in a series of legislative initiatives, I will introduce the National Broadband Strategy Act of 2002 next week. This bill highlights the need for a carefully planned national strategy to provide universal availability of broadband and to motivate research and advances in broadband applications and content. It calls upon the Administration to recommend a coherent, cross-agency national broadband strategy in a series of key government policy areas, to Congress.
I want to emphasize that while there is an ongoing competitive scramble to reach the lower broadband speeds, we need to also pay real attention to advanced broadband and to attaining those much higher speeds. The report's Executive Summary identifies four key elements that will be integral to advanced broadband deployment . The elements include an FCC regulatory plan, tax incentives, research on advanced infrastructure technology, and deployment of applications.
As with the railroads of the mid-1800s, broadband is now poised to whistle in a new period of economic growth. We must do all that we can to nurture this emerging technology and to stimulate the development of new killer applications in the fields of education, medicine, government, and science. Commerce and entertainment will not trail far behind. The tracks of rail are now the ``pipes'' of broadband .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Broadband deployment must become a national priority. Major economic growth and productivity gains can be realized by making affordable high-speed broadband Internet connections--which are already enjoyed by many universities and large businesses--widely available to American homes, schools, and small businesses.
In a soft economic climate with limited prospects for near-term recovery, broadband deployment is a necessary condition for the restoration of capital spending in the information technology sector. Such investments were the critical drivers of the non-inflationary growth that characterized the late 1990s. Broadband , which can play a pivotal role in encouraging investments in information technology, has the potential to transform education, health care, government, entertainment, and commerce.
Of course, embracing broadband as a vehicle for economic growth raises the question, ``How fast is fast enough for truly advanced emerging applications?'' The telecom, cable, and satellite industries are now providing Internet access at speeds typically less than 1.5 megabits per second (Mbps). A review of existing and likely technologies, however, suggests that we have only achieved the first level of broadband speeds. On the foreseeable horizon are technologies that offer advanced broadband speeds of 10 Mbps in the near-term, and 100 Mbps in the medium-term. A national strategy needs to focus on this advanced broadband opportunity. Arguably, it will be at these advanced speed ranges that the greatest benefits from broadband will come.
A successful strategy to accelerate the deployment of broadband will lead to immeasurable benefits to the quality of life and economy of the American people. But a successful strategy must encompass various issues in a comprehensive and coherent manner, and the debate must not become mired in any one debate. What we need is a sensible, intelligent approach that addresses the full range of issues within the context of an interrelated framework, not the piecemeal process that has brought us to the present confusion and controversies.
This strategy must recognize a truth that sometimes becomes lost in the multiplicity of debates over such issues as the regulation of telephone and cable companies. What is overlooked--and must be recognized--is that demand will drive the next phase of broadband expansion. Strong demand from consumers, smaller businesses, and even big businesses that currently have high-speed Internet connectivity, will produce a cycle of innovation and growth. But demand, in turn, requires that applications of real value be developed. It requires, in other words, ``killer applications'' that justify, in the minds of consumers, the price of progressively faster broadband connections.
The private sector will need to invest hundreds of billions of dollars before widespread broadband access becomes a reality. Government nevertheless has an important role to play as broadband suppliers face novel challenges in the areas of Internet privacy, security, spam, copyright protection, spectrum allocation, and rights-of-way. It is vital that, in these and other areas, government remain ``technology-neutral'' and that competition between the delivery technologies exist alongside competition within the technologies. This will allow the best and most cost-effective delivery systems to emerge, meeting the varied needs of different people and different regions across this diverse country.
There are, however, many ways that government, through a national strategy, can accelerate the life cycle of development and competition for emerging broadband technologies. It can do so by stimulating both the demand and supply side of broadband deployment . On the demand side, government should lead the way in generating demand by expanding e-government services to the public and to businesses, and by supporting the development of broadband tools for e-education and e-healthcare. E-entertainment
[Page: S5048] GPO's PDF
As the first in a series of legislative initiatives, Senator Lieberman will introduce the National Broadband Strategy Act of 2002. This bill highlights the need for a coherent and comprehensive national strategy for providing widespread availability of broadband and for motivating research and advances in broadband applications and content. Because broadband implementation has been piecemeal, and stalled in significant part because numerous government agencies have failed to act quickly in deciding a wide range of broadband issues now pending before them, the bill calls upon the Administration to recommend a coherent, cross-agency national broadband strategy in a series of key government policy areas.
Parallel to that, and focusing on how we will get to truly advanced broadband speeds (in the range of 10 Mbps and 100 Mbps), Senator Lieberman will introduce over the next few months a series of substantive pieces of legislation addressing four key elements integral to a national strategy for advanced broadband deployment . The key elements are:
(1) FCC Regulatory Framework: Direct the FCC to explore all of the broadband deployment and delivery technology options to enable us to reach advanced broadband speeds. Retaining technological neutrality, the FCC will be asked to develop the regulatory framework to enable and implement a plan to deploy this advanced Internet capability.
(2) Tax Credits: Establish tax credits and incentives for a range of advanced broadband deployment and broadband utilization efforts. These could include credits for infrastructure deployment , equipment implementation, employee utilization, installation in atypical settings, and innovative applications.
(3) Advanced Infrastructure R&D: Ensure that fundamental R&D issues are tackled in a coordinated manner to overcome the scientific and technological barriers to advanced widespread broadband deployment . The U.S. has already established successful interagency and interdisciplinary initiatives under the National Information Technology Research & Development Program to advance critical IT technologies. We must leverage our existing expertise in these programs to resolve fundamental obstacles to effective broadband deployment and hasten the next generation of technologies. A cooperative R&D program, including government, industry and universities, will be critical to advanced broadband .
(4) Application R&D and Deployment : Require federal agencies to undertake R&D and promote the development and availability of major applications in areas where government plays a central role, including e-education, e-medicine, e-government, e-science and homeland security. This could stimulate demand for broadband and promote bridging of the digital divide consistent with the missions of government agencies. And the government should lead by example in moving to expand opportunities for broadband -based e-commerce in federal procurement, bidding, and contracting.
While time and technology will not stop, and our nation's eventual transformation into a broadband society will occur regardless of what steps are taken today, it is ours to choose whether we will be dragged into the next digital age resisting change, or whether we lead others into a new era of economic promise. If we are to take control of our future, we must begin by harnessing the power of broadband as a necessary tool for navigating a world increasingly defined by the speed with which information changes and grows.
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mrs. CLINTON):
S. 2583. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the management of health care services for veterans to place certain low-income veterans in a higher health-care priority category; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON to change the way the Veteran's Administration defines low-income veterans by taking into account variations in the cost of living in different parts of the country. The Corzine-Clinton legislation would make the Veteran's Equitable Resource Allocation just that: Equitable.
More specifically, this bill would replace the national income threshold for consideration in Priority Group 5, currently $24,000 for all parts of the country, with regional thresholds defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This simple but far-reaching proposal would help low income veterans across the country afford quality health care and ensure that Veterans Integrated Service Networks or VISNs receive adequate funding to care for their distinct veterans populations.
Our Nation's veterans have made great sacrifices in defense of American freedom and values, and we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude. The United States Congress must ensure that all American veterans, veterans who have sweated in the trenches to defend liberty, have access to quality health care.
In 1997, Congress implemented the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system, or VERA, to distribute medical care funding provided by the VA. The funding formula was established to better take into account the costs associated with various veteran populations. Unfortunately, the VERA formula that was created fails to take into account regional differences in the cost of living, a significant metric in determining veteran healthcare costs. This oversight in the VERA formula dangerously shortchanges veterans living in regions with high costs of living and elevated health expenses.
To allocate money to the Veterans' Integrated Service Networks, VISNs, VERA divides veterans into seven priority groups. Veterans who have no service-connected disability and whose incomes fall below $24,000 are considered low income and placed in Priority Group 5, while veterans whose incomes exceed this national threshold and qualify for no other special priorities are placed in Priority Group 7c.
Using a national threshold for determining eligibility as a low-income veteran puts veterans living in high cost areas at a decided disadvantage. In New Jersey, HUD's fiscal year 2002 standards for classification as ``low-income'' exceed $24,000 per year in every single county. And some areas exceed the VA baseline by more than 50 percent. Similarly, HUD's ``low-income'' classification for New York City is set at $35,150 and for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, at $40,150.
As a result, regions that have a high cost of living, like VISN 3, which encompasses substantial portions of New Jersey and New York, tend to have a reduced population of Priority Group 5 veterans and an inflated population of Priority Group 7c veterans.
The fundamental inequity of the VERA formula is apparent when you consider that VERA allocations do not take into account the number of veterans classified in Priority Group 7c. With the costs associated with veterans in Priority Group 7c not considered as part of the VERA allocation, and with high cost of living areas possessing inflated populations of Priority Group 7c vets, high cost regions must provide care to thousands of veterans without adequate funding.
This additional financial burden on VISNs with large populations of veterans in Priority Group 7c has had a tremendous impact on VISN 3. Since FY 1996, VISN 3 has experienced a decline in revenue of 10 percent. As a result of the tremendous shortfall in the VISN 3 budget, the VA cannot move forward with plans to open clinics in various locations, including prospective clinics in Monmouth and Passaic Counties. Consequently, veterans in VISN 3 are forced to wait for unreasonably long periods to receive medical care and travel long distances to existing clinics.
Furthermore, miscategorizing which vets qualify as Priority Group 5 unjustifiably reduces access to medical care for thousands of veterans. Under existing rules, veterans placed in Priority Group 7c must provide a copayment to receive medical care at a VA medical facility; Veterans placed in Priority Group 5 receive medical care free of charge. Under the existing framework, low-income vets in high cost areas are often inappropriately placed in Priority Group 7c, and are forced to provide a copayment.
| <<< | >>> |
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