A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to improve screening for colorectal cancer for TRICARE beneficiaries over the age of 50.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will preserve the open, unrestricted nature of the Internet. I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Inouye, with whom I have worked closely to draft this bill. I also want to acknowledge Senator Wyden, who has introduced similar net neutrality legislation, for his leadership on this issue.

Having risen from its humble beginnings as an obscure tool for a few tech-savvy enthusiasts, the Internet now stands as the epicenter of commerce today. An April 2006 Pew Internet study cites that 73 percent of adults in the U.S. now use the Internet, 45 percent of whom use it for making major financial decisions. Last year alone, over $1.7 trillion in transactions took place on the Internet, and today 725,000 small businesses use e-commerce giant eBay as a way to reach customers. Because anyone, anywhere, can communicate and transact business with virtually any corner of the globe with an Internet connection, the benefits of the Internet on small businesses--and on rural places like my home State of Maine--cannot be overstated.

The Internet became a robust engine of economic development by enabling anyone with a good idea to connect to consumers and compete on a level playing field for consumers' business. Anyone can send an e- mail or set up a Web site at little or no cost, and the marketplace has picked winners and losers, rather than an arbitrary gatekeeper.

When users log onto the Internet, they take a lot of things for granted. They assume that they will be able to access whatever Web site they want, when they want to--and if they have a broadband connection, they expect this to happen at a high speed, regardless of what Web site they choose. They also assume that they can use any feature they like, anytime they choose--watching online videos, searching for information, making purchases, and sending e-mails and instant messages. They assume that they can attach devices to make their online experience better-- things such as Web cameras, game controllers, or extra hard drives. What they are assuming is called ``net neutrality,'' the principle at the core of the Internet's DNA. The idea is that the Internet should be open and free, restricted by no one.

Unfortunately, all this may change very soon if Congress does not take action. In August 2005, the Federal Communications Commission issued an order removing virtually all regulation of Internet facilities that connect homes and businesses to the World Wide Web. Among the regulations lifted were the long-standing non-discrimination rules that required the owners of Internet facilities networks--in most cases cable and telephone companies--to allow delivery of all Internet content to the end user at the same speed, refraining from blocking any Web sites. These long-standing rules have enabled small businesses in Maine and across the country to have the same access to customers as giant corporations. Yet without the protections of the legislation we introduce today, those small businesses may be reduced to second-class citizen status on the Web.

Telephone and cable companies supply broadband Internet service to 98 percent of Internet subscribers in this country. Recently, executives from several of the largest of these firms publicly indicated their intention to charge fees to Web site operators before giving them access to their highspeed lines, and relegate those who do not pay up to the slower transmission lines. A Web site owned by a company who is a competitor could even be blocked entirely.

Anyone who has sat frustrated at a computer screen waiting for a file to download knows what this means for the those Web site owners not willing to pay up: their sites and applications will run at a slower pace, thus turning away consumers. These Internet companies, e-mail services, and Web site owners will be relegated to the Information ``Dirt Road''--the Information Superhighway will be reserved for those companies who are willing to pay the toll. Worst of all, consumers and businesses who rely on these Internet services will be completely powerless, since it is beyond their control as to which Web site owners are willing to pay the fees.

The legislation we introduce today keeps the rules where they always have been, until last year. First, the bill bars network operators from blocking, degrading or impairing Internet traffic. Second, the bill ensures that network operators are not allowed to create a two-tiered Internet--an Internet that treats those who can afford to do business with large nationwide broadband providers more favorably than those who do not. Virtually everyone has called for more widespread deployment of broadband facilities: this bill ensures that those high-speed networks are available for all users of the Internet.

This legislation already enjoys support from a broad spectrum of groups who care about Internet freedom, such as the Consumer's Union, the Parent's Television Council, the Gun Owners of America, the American Library Association, and the Christian Coalition. Altogether over 140 organizations have backed our efforts to prevent discrimination the Internet.

If we allow companies to set up tollbooths along the Information Superhighway, we will fundamentally alter every Internet user's experience and stifle the entrepreneurship that flourishes on the world's last remaining

frontier. Network operators should not have the power to decide which Web pages load faster, which content their customers can access, and whose data has the highest priority. Network operators already enjoy near-monopolistic privileges in many markets across the country. Should this market power now be extended to messaging services, streaming video, or online shopping, just to name a few?

Consumers should decide which businesses succeed and which fail, not network providers. What has made the Internet such a remarkable success is the ability of consumers everywhere to use the connection they pay for to experience a world of their own choosing on their own terms. Earlier this month, the New York Times endorsed the legislation in an editorial when it called for ``a strong net neutrality bill that would prohibit broadband providers from creating a two-tiered Internet. Senators who care about the Internet and Internet users should get behind it.'' I hope my colleagues join me in supporting the Internet Freedom Preservation Act.

Mr. President, today my colleague Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Internet Freedom Preservation Act.

Internet freedom, known as net neutrality, is one of the most important issues facing us as the telecommunications landscape continues to change, and frankly, how this issue is resolved could determine whether our Nation continues to be a world leader in the area of innovation and technology.

Consumers, businesses, and the very marketplace of ideas have benefited from the historically open nature of the Internet.

From the largest of corporations to the person working alone in a garage, all have had the ability to offer their content, services, and applications over the Internet and to reach consumers, because of this open structure of the Internet and the existence of net neutrality nondiscrimination rules.

I think it is important to point the wide variety of groups that have called for the preservation of strong net neutrality protections: groups as diverse as Consumers Union, AARP, Microsoft, Amazon, Gun Owners of America, and the National Religious Broadcasters, and over 150 organizations or companies so far have weighed in on this important issue.

The Internet, and the broadband network operators that bring the Internet to businesses and consumers, have enabled even the most rural town in my State of North Dakota to be connected to the rest of the world, and this connection has brought economic opportunities, and advances in health and education that could otherwise not have been possible.

Now, however, the open nature of the Internet is at risk. It is at risk because of actions by the Federal Communications Commission, and because of the lack of competition in the broadband market.

Non-discrimination rules that existed for years on broadband providers have been removed, leaving only the marketplace to act as a check. The problem is, however, that the broadband marketplace is highly concentrated--98 percent of consumers get their broadband from either cable modem or DSL, and up to 50 percent of consumers can only get their broadband from one broadband provider.

Thus, the situation is not a marketplace of players on an equal footing. Broadband network operators have substantial market power and the incentive to use it. There have been public statements by some of their CEOs that have made clear that they intend to use that leverage to exact payments from content providers and to operate as gatekeepers.

These broadband network operators have become more than just the pipe that carries content, services, and applications to a consumer; they now are in the business of these content, services and applications as well. Thus, they have the leverage, and the incentive to favor their own services over competition.

Until now the Internet has been driven by consumers and innovators, which have in turn, encouraged broadband deployment.

Consumers pay for their Internet connection, and expect that they can go anywhere they lawfully want to on the Internet.

But without maintaining the longstanding nondiscrimination rules that have been in place for decades, the Internet could go from being driven by consumers and innovators to bring dictated by network operators.

What will be the impact on the next great application or service over the Internet if the very first thing the next start-up has to do is work out an agreement with the broadband provider?

What will be the impact on consumers if their choices are artificially limited by their broadband providers as to what VOIP or video service they can get?

I agree that broadband network operators are investing millions of dollars in building the next generation of infrastructure, and I commend them for that. Under our bill they will still be able to be compensated for their investments, as they are now, by charging for their broadband connections.

But they should not be able to put up additional tolls on the Internet, or erect barricades to competition that will change the nature of the Internet as we know it.

Our bill will preserve the freedom and the openness of the Internet that we have come to take for granted, but that is now at risk.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation that I introduce today with Senator Snowe.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a simple bill that would give military dependents and retirees the same choices for colon cancer screening that every Medicare beneficiary and every Federal employee enjoys. This legislation requires Tricare to abandon its overly restrictive and outdated policy of limiting coverage of screening colonoscopy to a small group of high-risk individuals. By contrast, for several years both Medicare and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program have paid for screening colonoscopy to detect cancer in average-risk people, and my bill simply applies this same standard to the Tricare program.

Why is this bill so important? Colon cancer is highly curable when detected and treated early but extremely lethal when it reaches an advanced stage. Early detection and prompt treatment are the keys to surviving colon cancer. Among those whose colon cancer has been cured by modern diagnostic and treatment methods are President Reagan, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, and our colleague Senator Burns, to name just a few.

Why is access to colonoscopy so critical? At present, gastroenterologists overwhelmingly recommend colonoscopy as the preferred method to use for screening of colon cancer in average risk individuals over 50. Colonoscopy is more sensitive than other methods of screening in detecting colonic neoplasia, pre-cancerous changes or full-blown cancers, at an early stage; colonoscopy is more reliable in finding colonic neoplasia in the upper \2/3\ of the colon; and colonoscopy permits biopsy and removal of abnormal tissue as soon as it is discovered, in a single procedure. In fact, medical specialists refer to colonoscopy as the ``gold standard'' for colon cancer screening.

Since, 2001, the Medicare Program has permitted the use of colonoscopy to screen for colon cancer in ``average risk'' individuals, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program has used the same criteria since 2003. But the Tricare medical program for military beneficiaries clings to an outmoded policy that authorizes screening colonoscopy to detect colon cancer only for only a very narrowly defined group of ``high risk'' people, not the much broader group of ``average risk'' individuals covered by the Medicare and FEHBP programs. By failing to keep up with modern medical practice, as well as with other federal health programs, Tricare seems to be inappropriately restricting access to a potentially lifesaving tool for early cancer detection. The resulting unnecessary delay in detection of colon cancer puts our military community at needless risk.

To remedy this situation, my bill requires the Tricare program to use the same criteria as the Medicare program in paying for screening colonoscopy. My bill does not mandate that screening colonoscopy be used for colon cancer detection in Tricare beneficiaries; that decision is left to Tricare patients and their doctors. Rather, this legislation simply affords Tricare participants the same options that Federal employees and Medicare beneficiaries have enjoyed for some time.

Frankly, I see no logical reason why those who have served our country in uniform for over 20 years, and the family members of those currently on active duty, should not have access to the same high- quality medical choices offered to our senior citizens and to our Federal workers. The policy on colon cancer screening that has worked well for 42 million Medicare beneficiaries and 9 million FEHBP participants, a policy that is endorsed by most medical specialists, seems totally appropriate for the Tricare population. It is time to bring the Tricare program's colon cancer screening criteria into the 21st century.

Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense legislation

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a simple bill that would give military dependents and retirees the same choices for colon cancer screening that every Medicare beneficiary and every Federal employee enjoys. This legislation requires Tricare to abandon its overly restrictive and outdated policy of limiting coverage of screening colonoscopy to a small group of high-risk individuals. By contrast, for several years both Medicare and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program have paid for screening colonoscopy to detect cancer in average-risk people, and my bill simply applies this same standard to the Tricare program.

Why is this bill so important? Colon cancer is highly curable when detected and treated early but extremely lethal when it reaches an advanced stage. Early detection and prompt treatment are the keys to surviving colon cancer. Among those whose colon cancer has been cured by modern diagnostic and treatment methods are President Reagan, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, and our colleague Senator Burns, to name just a few.

Why is access to colonoscopy so critical? At present, gastroenterologists overwhelmingly recommend colonoscopy as the preferred method to use for screening of colon cancer in average risk individuals over 50. Colonoscopy is more sensitive than other methods of screening in detecting colonic neoplasia, pre-cancerous changes or full-blown cancers, at an early stage; colonoscopy is more reliable in finding colonic neoplasia in the upper \2/3\ of the colon; and colonoscopy permits biopsy and removal of abnormal tissue as soon as it is discovered, in a single procedure. In fact, medical specialists refer to colonoscopy as the ``gold standard'' for colon cancer screening.

Since, 2001, the Medicare Program has permitted the use of colonoscopy to screen for colon cancer in ``average risk'' individuals, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program has used the same criteria since 2003. But the Tricare medical program for military beneficiaries clings to an outmoded policy that authorizes screening colonoscopy to detect colon cancer only for only a very narrowly defined group of ``high risk'' people, not the much broader group of ``average risk'' individuals covered by the Medicare and FEHBP programs. By failing to keep up with modern medical practice, as well as with other federal health programs, Tricare seems to be inappropriately restricting access to a potentially lifesaving tool for early cancer detection. The resulting unnecessary delay in detection of colon cancer puts our military community at needless risk.

To remedy this situation, my bill requires the Tricare program to use the same criteria as the Medicare program in paying for screening colonoscopy. My bill does not mandate that screening colonoscopy be used for colon cancer detection in Tricare beneficiaries; that decision is left to Tricare patients and their doctors. Rather, this legislation simply affords Tricare participants the same options that Federal employees and Medicare beneficiaries have enjoyed for some time.

Frankly, I see no logical reason why those who have served our country in uniform for over 20 years, and the family members of those currently on active duty, should not have access to the same high- quality medical choices offered to our senior citizens and to our Federal workers. The policy on colon cancer screening that has worked well for 42 million Medicare beneficiaries and 9 million FEHBP participants, a policy that is endorsed by most medical specialists, seems totally appropriate for the Tricare population. It is time to bring the Tricare program's colon cancer screening criteria into the 21st century.

Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense legislation

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with the distinguished Chairman of the Rules Committee, legislation to ensure that the blind and those with disabilities continue to have free access to electronic editions of periodicals and newspapers. This service is an extension of the existing authorization for the Library of

Congress to provide Braille books, recordings, sound reproduction equipment, musical scores, and other materials to the blind and physically disabled individuals.

Currently, the National Federation of the Blind provides these services through its NFB-NEWSLINE program which has been funded by the Library of Congress through its Books for the Blind program. The NFB- NEWSLINE program is a telephone-based electronic audio newspaper service serving our Nation's 1.3 million blind Americans by providing 23 million minutes of on-demand service in response to 2,600 calls per day at an average cost of 2.7 cents per minute.

Congress established the Books for the Blind program within the Library of Congress in 1931. The program is administered by the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, NLS, which continues to be the primary source of Braille and audio books and magazines for blind adults today. However, until development of the NFB-NEWSLINE program, it was not economically feasible for NLS to provide timely access to newspapers for the blind. Under current production methods, it would require several weeks for NLS to prepare and deliver a single copy of a daily newspaper.

The NFB-NEWSLINE program, however, is designed for real time rapid distribution of the electronic text of newspapers. Under this program, the blind can access daily newspapers on the day of publication through telephone access to the digital text. The funding for this program has been provided by a public-private partnership between NFB-NEWSLINE, state sponsors, including public libraries, rehabilitation agencies, and several affiliates of NFB, and the Library of Congress. Newspaper and magazine content is contributed by many participating news organization and publishers.

The bill Senator Lott and I are introducing today will ensure the continued Federal share of this partnership so that NFB-NEWSLINE can continue to serve as the multi-state provider of this service. Currently, NFB-NEWSLINE provides some level of service to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico by providing local dialing numbers for the blind and disabled to use to access newspapers and periodicals. The annual telecommunications costs for this service is approximately $750,000 which serves approximately 40 percent of the eligible readers.

This bill will enable NFB-NEWSLINE to continue to serve existing readers with improved services while at the same time expanding services to more readers. The bill authorizes $750,000 for this service in fiscal year 2007 and such sums as are necessary in fiscal years 2008-2011. This is a very efficient program that for a very small Federal investment will allow the blind and disabled to more fully participate in their communities through access to the daily news. With the current state of technology, it is simply unacceptable that the blind and disabled do not have real time access to daily newspapers and periodicals.

I commend NFB-NEWSLINE for developing this public-private partnership to serve the needs of the blind and disabled individuals and I pleased to introduce this legislation to ensure the continuation of this program.