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
Enactment of Senator McConnell's Bear Protection Act will ensure that those who seek to profit by the reckless destruction of America's bears can be punished appropriately for their illegal and immoral activity.
[Page: S7093] GPO's PDF
Mr. McConnell's bill does not impact a state's ability to manage its resident bear population or a lawful hunter's ability to hunt bears in accordance with applicable state laws and regulations. The Bear Protection Act is not about bear hunting--it's about ending bear poaching. This is a laudable goal that all Americans should support.
American citizens should not sit by helplessly while bears are slaughtered, their gallbladders ripped out and the carcass unceremoniously left to rot. It's time to take a stand against bear poachers and profiteers. Congratulations to Senator McConnell for taking up the charge.
--
AMERICAN ZOO AND AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION,
Silver Spring, MD, June 26, 2001.
Hon. MITCH
MCCONNELL,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
DEAR SENATOR MCCONNELL: I am writing on behalf of the 196 accredited members of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) in support of your proposed Bear Protection Act of 2001.
AZA institutions draw over 135 million visitors annually and have more than 5 million zoo and aquarium members who provide almost $100 million in support. Collectively, these institutions teach more than 12 million people each year in living classrooms, dedicate over $50 million annually to education programs, invest over $50 million annually to scientific research and support over 1,300 field conservation and research projects in 80 countries.
In addition, AZA member institutions have established the Species Survival Plan (SSP) program--a long-term plan involving genetically-diverse breeding, habitat preservation, public education, field conservation and supportive research to ensure survival for many threatened and endangered species. Currently, AZA member institutions are involved in 96 different SSP programs throughout the world, including four species of bear --sloth, sun, spectacled and the giant panda.
It is in this context that AZA expresses its support for the Bear Protection Act. There is little question that most populations of the world's eight bear species have experienced significant declines during this century, particularly in parts of Europe and Asia. Habitat loss has been the major reason for this decline, although overhunting and poaching have also been factors in some cases, especially in Asia. In recent years, the commercial trade of bear body parts, in particular gallbladders and bile, for use in traditional Asian medicines has been implicated as the driving force behind the illegal hunting of some bear populations. Analyses by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), TRAFFIC and other organizations have documented the existence of illicit commercial markets and smuggling rings for bear body parts.
Recent information suggests that this is not only an overseas issue but a domestic one as well. The American black bear is listed on Appendix II of CITES due to the similarity of appearance to other listed bear species, and conservation and management of black bear populations remains largely in the hands of the states. Most states prohibit commercial trade in bear parts but there are some states that still allow commercial trade of products from bears taken within their borders. Several other states do not explicitly prohibit the commercial trade in parts from bears taken within the borders of other jurisdictions. This has raised concerns that inconsistent state laws may facilitate illegal trade and laundering of bear parts.
The relatively high value of the wild bear parts, particularly viscera, on the international market warrants that continued action be taken to minimize the threat or potential threat of illegal trade. Your bill provides the necessary first step for closing the potential loopholes that are afforded to bear poachers and dealers by fragmented state laws. Equally important, the bill encourages dialogue between the U.S. and countries known to be leading importers, exporters, and consumers of bear viscera in an attempt to coordinate efforts to protect threatened and endangered bear populations worldwide.
AZA applauds your efforts in this important wildlife conservation matter. In addition, AZA stands ready to work with you to ensure that the necessary funds are authorized and appropriate for the effective administration and enforcement of this critical work.
Please feel free to contact AZA if you have any question or comments.
Regards,
Sydney J. Butler,
Executive Director.
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. ENZI):
S. 1126. A bill to facilitate the deployment of broadband telecommunications services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. ENZI):
S. 1127. A bill to stimulate the deployment of advanced telecommunications services in rural areas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, next week our nation will celebrate Independence Day. Yet, as we celebrate the land of opportunity that is America, we must keep in mind those who, even in this great nation, do not have the same opportunities as everyone else. In rural communities across the nation, an entire segment of our population does not have the opportunity to access powerful broadband communications services representing the high-speed, high-capacity on-ramps to the information super highway. Why? Because for all intents and purposes broadband does not exist in most of rural America.
Broadband is increasing the speeds and capacity with which consumers and businesses alike access the Internet, and opening up a whole new world of information, e-commerce, real-time high quality telemedicine, distance learning, and entertainment. The power of broadband will level the playing field between rural and urban communities in a global economy.
Today I rise to introduce the Rural Broadband Deployment Act of 2001 and the Broadband Deployment and Competition Enhancement Act of 2001. Two bills designed to ensure that all Americans have access to the advantages of broadband connections. I would like to thank my colleague from Wyoming, Senator ENZI, for his cosponsorship and support. These two bills, together or individually, will ensure broadband deployment in our nation's rural areas, and will enable us to renew our long-standing commitment that rural communities have access to the same telecommunications resources as urban communities.
My singular objective, in both bills, is high-speed Internet access for everybody in America by 2007.
This is a bipartisan objective. The Democratic party has announced its intention to ensure universal access to broadband by the end of this decade. I commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their recognition of the importance of broadband and I look forward to working with them to achieve our common goal.
New approaches will be needed to achieve universal broadband availability. Some of my colleagues have introduced legislation consisting of tax incentives or loan subsidies. Programs such as these can help to deliver on the commitment to make broadband universally available, but these proposals alone will not achieve that goal. Deregulation has a key role to play in this effort.
Deregulation has been the driver of broadband deployment to date: cable companies, largely deregulated by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, have invested almost 50 billion dollars in upgrades to their networks. These upgrades have in turn enabled them to deploy broadband, and cable companies now serve 70 percent of the broadband market. Satellite companies, also
unregulated in the broadband market, are deploying one-way high-speed Internet access and are working to deploy two-way broadband services. Some companies are utilizing wireless cable licenses to deploy broadband, and they too are unregulated in the broadband market.
Deregulation is a powerful motivator for the deployment of new technologies and services. Unregulated small cable companies, and all but unregulated rural and small telephone companies are taking advantage of their regulatory status to deliver broadband to rural consumers.
The broadband market, distinct from the local telephone market, is new. Yet, federal and State regulators are placing local telephone competition regulations on broadband-specific facilities deployed by incumbent local exchange carriers, ILECs, the only regulated broadband service providers, as if they were part and parcel of their local telephone service. This is simply not the case. The local telephone market is not synonymous with the broadband market. The disparate regulatory treatment of phone companies deploying broadband and all other broadband service providers is serving to deny broadband to many rural communities.
Broadband facilities being deployed by ILECs throughout our cities and towns require billions of dollars of capital investment in new infrastructure that must be added to the existing telephone network. The sparse populations of rural communities already diminish
[Page: S7094] GPO's PDF
As a result, rural telephone exchanges owned by regulated telephone companies are not being upgraded for broadband services even while unregulated companies seem to be capable of making that substantial investment. In Wellington, Kansas, a rural community with around 10,000 residents, a small unregulated cable company called Sumner Cable has deployed broadband service. Yet, Southwestern Bell, the local regulated telephone company and a Bell operating company, is not deploying broadband. Different regulatory treatments of these companies creates the incentive for one to deploy broadband, but not the other. This is being seen throughout our nation's rural communities, and is particularly disappointing. The Bell operating companies serve approximately 65 percent of rural telephone lines like those found in Wellington.
Broadband is certainly being deployed at a much faster rate in urban markets than rural markets. But that does not mean all is well in our nation's cities. Today, broadband deployment in urban markets is being characterized by the market dominance of the cable TV industry, unregulated in the broadband market, which serves approximately 70 percent of all broadband subscribers. This is good for consumers. Cable companies have taken full advantage of their deregulated status, and the inherent economic incentives, to deploy new technologies and provide new services to consumers. But while the cable industry finishes rebuilding its entire infrastructure with digital technology that permits it to offer broadband, ILECs are, in many instances, not making the same investment to rebuild their infrastructure.
The Broadband Deployment and Competition Enhancement Act of 2001 promotes broadband deployment in rural markets by requiring ILECs to deploy to all of their telephone exchange subscribers within 5 years. In exchange, ILEC broadband services are placed on a more level-playing field with their broadband competitors. This is achieved by deregulating only those new technologies added to the local telephone network that make broadband possible over telephone lines. By permitting ILECs to compete on a level playing field with their broadband competitors in their urban markets, we can create the proper balance between requirements and incentives.
The limited deregulation in this legislation will not affect competition in the local telephone market. CLECs will still have access to the entire legacy telephone network to use as they see fit, and they will still be permitted to combine their own broadband equipment with the telephone network to compete in the broadband market. In those parts of the local telephone network where new network architecture must be deployed to make broadband possible, CLECs are free to add their own facilities to the network so they can compete for every potential broadband subscriber in a market.
In Kansas, we have many farms and small rural communities. I grew up on a farm near Parker, Kansas. My hometown has 250 people. My singular goal in introducing this legislation is to facilitate rural broadband deployment. Given the importance of ensuring broadband is deployed in rural communities, I have elected to introduce two different bills on the same issue. I am willing to pursue either approach depending on which one will get us to the day of ubiquitous broadband.
It seems clear that, no matter how worthy broad-based deregulation is in the broadband market, any such effort must navigate through the typical back and forth between the baby Bells, long distance companies, and now CLECs. If a more limited approach can avoid the traditional ``phone wars'' then I am happy to put forth such an alternative.
The Rural Broadband Deployment Act of 2001 is a more geographically limited approach to spurring broadband deployment. It includes broader deregulation of ILEC broadband services, but limits that deregulation only to rural communities. By ramping up the deregulation, yet restricting the size of the market where that deregulation is applied, it is my intention to create the same balance of requirements that I previously mentioned.
I realize that introducing two pieces of legislation on the same issue on the same day is a bit unorthodox. But given the clear need and importance of universal broadband, I feel it is my duty to do anything I can to move this debate forward. Providing alternatives for the consideration of my colleagues is part of this process.
I urge my colleagues to give consideration to either of these bills, and I urge your cosponsorship.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of Senator Brownback's Broadband Deployment and Competition Enhancement Act of 2001. I thank my colleague from Kansas for drafting this innovative legislation to help solve the problem of the lack of availability of advanced telecommunications services in rural areas.
Telecommunications has come a long way from the days of the party line and operator assisted calls. Telecommunications services have allowed entrepreneurs to locate their business anywhere they can get a dial tone and have helped to bring jobs to rural America. I have been working to encourage more infrastructure development as a way of creating a business environment that will attract new jobs to the places that need them.
The 20th Century has seen the economy of the United States and the world change from an industrial economy to an information economy. We are only at the beginning of the ``Information Revolution'' and now is the best time for private industry and government to take a pro-active role in helping to create the business and regulatory conditions necessary to encourage the widespread deployment of advanced telecommunications services.
Since 1995, the State of Wyoming has been attempting to create a competitive local phone market that would have a multitude of competitors and result in lower rates. The cost of providing service in Wyoming is significantly higher than in other areas of the Nation due to our low population and long distances between towns. This has caused many companies to pass Wyoming by in search of easier profits in urban areas and leave many of our towns with only one choice for broadband service, if they have a provider at all.
One of the reasons why advanced services have been slowly deployed is that Wyoming's wide open spaces make the telecommunications needs of our residents very different than people in urban areas. The economic model of the industry is to serve areas with a high population density in order to keep costs low. In the West, it's harder to make that model work, but the independent telephone companies, Qwest and the cable companies are working hard to offer their customers a full complement of services at a reasonable price, many services that urban telephone customers take for granted.
High speed Internet access has been delayed for two reasons, cost and availability. Advanced telecommunications services can help to build Wyoming's economy. Companies are beginning to realize that our State has a ready work force and the lower costs of doing business are making companies choose Wyoming. Many existing businesses are taking advantage of the Internet to bring their products and services to the world. Where once a store was limited to only being able to serve those within driving distance of it, now it can bring Wyoming to the world. This cannot take place without the continued roll out of broadband business services.
Wyoming has for many years been promoting the benefits of telecommuting. People living around the State have been able to connect to their office via computer and remain in contact with clients. Telecommuting now requires high speed access and that is available in some limited areas. In other areas, the only data access is via a regular dial-up modem. There are companies that are deploying digital subscriber lines and cable modems, but those locations are limited and the price is too high to be adopted by a majority of Wyoming residents. Over time that price will come down, but this is not a call for public subsidies or government mandates, but a call for more competition and deregulation. Competition will bring lower prices and
[Page: S7095] GPO's PDF
That is why I am an original cosponsor of Senator BROWNBACK's bill. His bill creates a deregulatory regime that is backed by specific performance requirements and strong enforcement provisions.
The bill requires Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, ILEC's, to be able to provide advanced services to all of its customers within 5 years of the enactment of this legislation in order to receive the benefits of deregulation. This ensures that companies will bring advanced services and competition to rural areas by giving a hard deadline for companies to complete their build-out.
Advanced services would be deregulated by exempting them from the requirements that ILECs make packet switching and fiber available to competitors at below cost rates. This would specifically deregulate the equipment that makes it possible to provide advanced services over traditional phone lines. The bill also exempts fiber optic lines owned by ILECs from below cost pricing if the fiber is deployed either to the home or in areas that never had telephone infrastructure before. I believe that this will be key to making the economics of rural advanced services more favorable for companies wanting to invest in rural broadband
| <<< | >>> |
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