Author: Steve Cohen

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Protect Net Neutrality

The free flow of information is critical not only to facilitate our commerce, but to ensure that our democracy thrives. While the First Amendment protects us from government attempts to suppress speech, protections from large corporations that use their market dominance to act as self-appointed information “gatekeepers” are not constitutionally guaranteed.

9th District Congressman Steve Cohen

Yet the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is supposed to protect and promote the public interest in the telecommunications industry, has undertaken an aggressive effort to repeal strong legal protections for net neutrality that ensure that information can flow unimpeded on the internet. As a result Americans could soon wake up in a country where online dissent has been diminished or sidelined. The informed commentary of marginal groups seeking to shape opinion could be blocked, slowed down, or otherwise given disfavored treatment by internet service providers serving their own commercial or even ideological interests and stifle the dissemination of accurate but unpopular views.

This fear of a top-down corporate suppression of opinion is not far-fetched. It’s the predictable consequence of a plan long sought by broadband service providers: To repeal the FCC 2015 Open Internet Order, which mandates equal treatment of content over the internet by broadband service providers. The commission’s chairman, Ajit Pai, has scheduled a vote to do just that on December 14. The FCC should reject this effort.

Chairman Pai’s plan would be a catastrophe for both technical innovation and civil discourse. Without net neutrality, a handful of dominant corporations that are both broadband providers and content providers could be in a position to stifle competing content and would have an obvious economic incentive to do so. Not only would this prevent new innovators from entering the marketplace, it would also allow such companies to decide what content is available to their customers and would also allow them to make access to competing content difficult if not impossible. In addition to being bad for consumers, such content discrimination is bad for democracy, for it potentially impedes citizens’ ability to receive the information they need to understand proposed policies, debate them and, if necessary, organize opposition to them.

The proposed FCC order repeals the strong net neutrality framework established in 2015 and would repeal the 2015 Order’s bans on blocking, throttling or paid prioritization – three of the gravest threats to equal access. Current rules prohibit broadband providers from blocking a website, slowing a website down or providing differential speeds for different websites based on whether the content provider has paid for faster service. This type of conduct by broadband providers could limit or block access to political dissent, marginal or minority views and complex ideas that help a healthy society function.

I have joined more than 40 of several of my colleagues in asking the FCC to abandon this extremely unpopular plan and to maintain strong net neutrality protections.

Strong net neutrality protections have proven to be one of the most important consumer protections of our time. Net neutrality is extremely popular because people realize slowing streaming speeds to discourage consumers from some sites just doesn’t seem fair. Blocking access to competitors seems unfairly restrictive. Rigging the market for the profit of a handful of internet service providers doesn’t appeal to people already rightly suspicious of corporate control of their lives.

Beyond all that, the proposed rule is not good for competition, innovation or creativity. Broadband investment has continued to surge under the open rules and could decline in a pay-to-play internet world. Slowing or crippling access to some websites is not innovation. A free internet permits access to all users, regardless of ability to pay. We don’t want an internet in which an elite has access to critical information or services and others are priced out.

The end of internet neutrality cannot be allowed to occur without a fight. What the FCC chairman has proposed would change the way we communicate, and not for the better.

Congressman Steve Cohen represents Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

The Future of Energy

It is an unfortunate fact that low-income and minority Americans are more likely to live near power plants. Communities living in such close proximity also bear the brunt of the negative health impacts caused by the pollution spewed from these power plants. Due to these historic disproportional impacts, it is imperative that we ensure that those who have been harmed by power plant pollution see the benefits of our nation’s transition to a clean energy economy.

The Clean Power Plan, part of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, will be our nation’s first comprehensive regulation aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. Coal plants emit 77 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from our nation’s power sector, as well as millions of tons of hazardous air pollutants that contribute to the formation of harmful ground-level ozone. Ground-level ozone and hazardous air pollutants are particularly dangerous for vulnerable populations, like children and the elderly.

Additionally, ground-level ozone increases smog, which contributes to respiratory illnesses such as asthma and can cause reduced lung function, particularly for adults who spend more time outdoors. Carbon dioxide emissions contribute to the ever-growing threat of climate change, which is predicted to impact historically disadvantaged communities more severely than others due to increases in extreme weather and more extreme heat. 

The Clean Power Plan will not only reduce carbon dioxide and the accompanying suite of harmful air pollutants emitted by coal plants, but it will also spur the development of clean energy resources such as solar and wind and increase energy efficiency.

By increasing renewable energy resources, we will create much-needed jobs in the clean energy sector. According to national business leaders, more than 18,000 jobs were announced in the clean energy sector in the third quarter of 2014 alone. A study released by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that if the Clean Power Plan is enacted, 274,000 jobs related to energy efficiency will be created over the next five years.

One important aspect of jobs in the clean energy sector is that many are accessible to those without advanced degrees and are generally higher-paying jobs compared to other jobs attainable to those with similar education backgrounds. The typical wage for someone employed in a clean energy industry — about $44,000 — is 13 percent higher than the typical wage earned by Americans. Perhaps most important, these jobs will be created at the local level and cannot be exported.

This clean energy revolution can and should benefit low-income communities by increasing the availability of higher-paying jobs and providing these communities access to low-cost, safe, and clean energy resources. Energy efficiency programs can reduce a family’s energy bills in both the short- and long-term. Experience has shown that well-designed and adequately funded energy efficiency programs can trim utility bills and limit exposure to pollution by reducing reliance on traditional forms of energy such as coal plants.

Increased access to funding for energy efficiency improvements is especially important for limited-income households, which spend disproportionately higher amounts of their monthly income on electric bills and often live in homes or apartments lacking proper insulation with old, inefficient appliances.

Last month, Vanderbilt University Law School and Medical Center hosted a two-day forum on the Clean Power Plan. This forum allowed doctors, lawyers, scholars, business leaders, and policymakers an opportunity to discuss how we can work to protect our state and citizens from the threats of climate change while benefiting from the positive impacts of a transition to a clean energy economy.

For new jobs, energy savings, health benefits, and basic economic fairness, we should invest in clean energy resources in order to level the playing field for disadvantaged communities. I stand ready to work with the Tennessee Valley Authority, leaders in the energy industry, and my colleagues in Congress to make this commitment a reality.

We can and must do more to focus on the fair distribution of both the benefits and the burdens related to how we produce and consume energy.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Detoxing Drug Laws

When Congress returns to session in September, we will have a full plate, but it’s past time for the drug policy debate to move to the forefront.

At a cost of billions of dollars and with few positive results to show for it, 40 years of the War on Drugs has overcrowded our jails, perpetuated and exacerbated racial disparities in our society, and created a generation of Americans with little education and few job prospects.

For decades, I have fought for a fairer and smarter approach, particularly for marijuana. Finally, after many years in the political wilderness, I’m buoyed by rising public support for a better approach.

For the first time, a majority of Americans now support the legalization of marijuana — 52 percent according to a recent Pew Research poll.

This month, Attorney General Holder garnered bipartisan support for an overhaul to the Department of Justice’s draconian prosecution policies that have resulted in overly harsh and lengthy sentences — particularly for people of color.

His announcement follows the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the unfair and racially biased 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for those arrested for crack offenses — often low-income minorities — and those arrested with essentially the same drug in powder form — cocaine — who are more likely to be white.

And, in recent weeks, many have joined my call for President Obama to use his commutation power to help those who were convicted before the Fair Sentencing Act became law and are now serving sentences that no longer align with American priorities.

Public sentiment is building to reform our drug laws. Congress must catch up.

I am proud of my long-standing record on reforming our drug laws, though my positions have not always been politically popular. For example, in 1992, I was the sole opponent to repealing Tennessee’s medical marijuana law in the state Senate, and I was the author of the Tennessee Medical Marijuana Act to restore that important provision.

We must stop punishing those who are prescribed marijuana by their doctors to help treat the pernicious effects of cancer and other medical conditions. We should finally accept the reality that marijuana has many positive effects on a wide variety of patients.

As chair of the state and local government committee in the Tennessee Senate, I also led the fight against privatizing prisons, because I recognized that for-profit prisons would have an incentive to keep as many people locked up for as long as possible — including minor, nonviolent drug offenders who are now often incarcerated far longer than necessary for public safety. 

I also fought to end the “cash register justice” system, which encourages law enforcement agencies to pursue the wrong priorities. And I repeatedly pressed the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation to focus on hard drugs like meth, crack, and heroin rather than wasting their resources on marijuana. Unfortunately, those pleas fell on deaf ears at the time.

Since arriving in Congress, I’ve continued to lead the fight for drug reform and worked to push the administration and my colleagues in the right direction. I’ve spoken with and written directly to both President Obama and Attorney General Holder to share my concern with the direction of their drug policies, particularly about the government’s continued targeting of individuals and businesses who fully comply with relevant marijuana laws in their states.

As Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis said, states are “the laboratories of democracy.” If those laboratories are to make any sort of breakthrough, the federal government must give them that chance.

As a member of the House judiciary committee, I have also spoken directly to drug policy leaders, including FBI director Robert Mueller and drug enforcement administrator Michele Leonhart when they testified before the committee.

My message has been clear: People who pose no risk to society should not be in prison longer than necessary — if at all. We must reform our laws, and the president should commute the sentences of those serving outdated terms so that our nation can make better use of its increasingly limited resources.

Advocating for drug policy reform has often been a lonely pursuit. But I entered public service so that I could speak up on important issues, whether they were popular or not, and give voice to the voiceless.

After decades of fighting against a policy I thought was hurting this country — by throwing away the lives of millions of people and wasting precious resources — I’m pleased to see that public support is growing for those seeking to change these unjust laws. I’ll continue to lead the charge in Congress to see that our laws better reflect the values of our society.

Steve Cohen, a Democrat, is in his fourth term as the representative for Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Protect Student Loans

A college education should not be only for the lucky few, but should be an opportunity for all those with skill and determination. Given the opportunity to better themselves through higher education, individuals can provide for their families and strengthen our country. A college degree is also becoming essential to a growing number of jobs in the new 21st-century economy.

Congressman Steve Cohen

But with college tuition growing rapidly, the doors of opportunity are closing on more of today’s students. Indeed, tuition rates at four-year colleges and universities have risen over 32 percent in the last decade as a direct result of falling support for higher education by states. This is driving many young Americans to assume historically high levels of student debt. Student loan debt now exceeds credit card debt in the U.S., creating a large burden on graduates.

The problem will only get worse if Congress does not act soon. On July 1, 2013, interest rates on subsidized Stafford students will double, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Congress extended the 3.4 percent rate last year through the 2012-13 academic year, but it is now scheduled to double to 6.8 percent on July 1st. This will increase costs for more than 7 million students. Every year that Congress doesn’t act to block this doubling will cost these students $1,000.

Students and families cannot wait any longer to know how much they will owe on their student loans in the coming academic year. The House Republican leadership must quickly bring up legislation to prevent the doubling of these student loan rates.

With the job market still recovering and interest rates for banks at historic lows, we should not be asking students with the greatest need to be burdened by higher loan costs.

Democrats in Congress overhauled the college student loan program — ending a flawed system that gave away billions in federal subsidies to private banks that simply acted as middle-men and putting those taxpayer dollars directly in the hands of students to pay for their education.

There is no good reason to allow rates for students to double at this time. Now we need to take the next step and prevent this looming rate hike on July 1st. Further, Congress should restore fair treatment to Americans in severe financial distress whose debts include private student loans.

Unlike federally backed student loans, many private loans have variable interest rates with no caps. Nor do they have the same deferments or other critical consumer protections associated with federal student loans. This may make it difficult for recent graduates who are looking for jobs or are entering the workforce in entry-level positions to keep their loans in good standing.

Before 2005, private student loans issued by for-profit lenders were appropriately treated like credit card debt and other similar types of unsecured consumer debt in bankruptcy. Then, without any hearings, Congress changed the bankruptcy law to make private student loans made by private, for-profit lenders extremely difficult to discharge in bankruptcy.

Congress should act immediately to pass my bill, H.R. 532, the Private Student Loan Fairness Act, to give Americans the same protections on private student loans that they had just a few short years ago.

Student loans should be an investment that pays off — and can be reasonably paid off. Unlike Pell Grants, which provide a vital benefit to low-income families and students, student loans also benefit many middle-class families who need our support. Failing to pass these pieces of legislation will make it harder for smart, hard-working Americans to join and stay in the middle class.

Making college more affordable is vital to fostering America’s economic competitiveness. Business leaders know it is vital for many young Americans to be educated beyond high school. If more of today’s students cannot afford college, businesses will not have the workers with the education and training they need to keep our economy competitive and dynamic far into the future.

Making college more affordable and ensuring that recent graduates will not be unduly burdened by student loans are keys to America’s economic future. Let’s stop the interest rate hike, allow private student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy, and ensure that reasonable financial aid opportunities are available to current and future students.

U.S. representative Steve Cohen (D-Memphis) represents the 9th Congressional District of Tennessee.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Keep the Faith

Editor’s note: Governor Phil Bredesen proposes to spend “excess” lottery revenues to endow a statewide pre-kindergarten program. State senator Cohen urges instead that the money be used to raise the ceiling of lottery-funded college scholarships. (See Politics, p. 11, for more information.)

The current debate about how to spend lottery revenues sidesteps a critical point: The determination of how lottery funds must be spent was made by the voters in November 2002.

Lottery proceeds are constitutionally dedicated to college scholarships. “Excess” revenues are directed to pre-kindergarten and after-school programs and capital outlay. The intent of the law, the ballot language, the electoral debate, and the constitutional amendment itself all direct lottery revenues to scholarships first.

Any other agenda ignores the legislative intent of the amendment and the will of the people. I am confident that lottery revenues will prove sufficient for their primary purpose of scholarships and, ultimately, for pre-K as well.

In 2002 and 2003, education experts met for months, crafting lottery legislation. They recommended scholarships of $4,000 for students attending four-year schools and $2,000 for students attending junior colleges.

During the implementation of lottery legislation in 2003, fears based on faulty revenue figures were used to convince lawmakers that the needed funds would not be available. Ultimately, scholarships were scaled back to ceilings of $1,500 for two-year colleges and $3,000 for four-year institutions.

Those fears proved to be unfounded. In 2003, I told the state Senate that the lottery would net $210 million its first year. That is also what the state funding board, based on 11 months of sales, forecast for the first fiscal year. The lottery actually netted $235 million.

In its first year, the Tennessee lottery raised twice as much as was spent on scholarships. The extremely conservative state funding board has projected lottery revenues of $220 million for next year — enough for full scholarships and abundant excess too.

In December, the federal Department of Education announced financial eligibility changes that are expected to take away Pell grants from 80,000 to 90,000 students nationwide and reduce the amount of Pell grants for another 1.3 million students. More than 86,000 Tennesseans now receive Pell grants. Last year, tuition was increased by both the University of Tennessee and the Board of Regents. Tuition will be increased again this year, further diminishing the value of a $3,000 scholarship.

I have a fiduciary duty, based on a contract with the voters in the 2002 election, to ensure that there are $4,000 lottery scholarships, as promised.

These are not trivial matters to Tennessee families. Lottery revenues should not be in play because some want to divert lottery funds, contrary to the people’s constitutional mandate. Continuing to award students “half a loaf” is not best for our state.

The Legislature needs to fulfill its mandate from the citizens of Tennessee. Government cannot deal in broken promises and expect public trust. I urge everyone, especially those who are beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries of lottery scholarships, to contact your state senator and state representative and urge that lottery revenues adequately fund college scholarships, as promised. n

State senator Steve Cohen, D-Midtown, is universally regarded as the “father” of the Tennessee lottery, having labored 19 years in the Legislature to get it established.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Keep HOPE Alive

Since becoming a state senator in 1982, one of my

primary legislative goals was to permit Tennesseans to

vote on a state lottery. The struggle to accomplish this

goal was often lonely and discouraging as the process

to amend our state Constitution is one of the most difficult in

the nation. However, my constituents as well as citizens from

across the state never stopped encouraging me to persevere so

they could vote on their Constitution.

Because Tennesseans never gave up, I never gave up.

On November 5th, the people spoke and changed our state

Constitution to permit the General Assembly to create a

lottery. Although it was the culmination of two decades of

work and the most gratifying legislative victory of my career,

the real work began on November 6th.

The formation of a lottery corporation is the equivalent

of building a Fortune 500 company from scratch.

Representative Chris Newton (R-Cleveland), the House sponsor of the

constitutional referendum and the sponsor of the lottery

legislation, and I are committed to ensuring that Tennessee has the

best lottery in the nation, well-run and above reproach.

To that end we have stated, throughout the

legislative process and the campaign to pass the referendum,

that Tennessee’s lottery and HOPE scholarship program

would be patterned on Georgia’s, which is the nation’s flagship

lottery and scholarship program.

As is always the case when money is involved, all

quarters are heard from. It is perfectly understandable

that every legislator, school administrator, and parent

would want to do what is best for their constituents,

school, and child, respectively. However, the General

Assembly must be fiscally conservative in establishing standards

for the lottery scholarships to assure that we have not

promised what cannot be delivered.

To understand how such can be successfully done,

we need look no farther than Georgia. When

Georgia’s HOPE scholarship program began, a 3.0 was

required for receipt of a HOPE scholarship, although any

student could attend technical school without the GPA

requirement. Students are given a tangible reason to

improve their grades, and the prospect of graduating from

college without incurring debt is beneficial to the student,

the student’s family, and the state’s economy.

Lowering the GPA requirement, as has been

suggested by some, would dilute the power of the program’s

incentive and would be prohibitively expensive. Tennessee’s

lottery scholarship program was touted as a means of

encouraging students to achieve, rewarding their achievement, and

keeping the best and brightest in our state, and I believe that

is what Tennesseans expect our HOPE program to do.

When Georgia’s HOPE began, it was restricted to

students with a family income of less than $66,000, and

the amount of money that a student received from a PELL

grant (federal aid for the truly needy) reduced the amount

of HOPE money available to that student. Further,

qualified students choosing to attend private institutions within

Georgia were granted only a $500 HOPE scholarship while

those who attended Georgia’s public colleges were granted

$3,000. Within a few years, as the Georgia lottery flourished,

the income cap and the PELL grant restriction were both

lifted. Also, students choosing to attend private colleges can

now receive a HOPE scholarship of $3,000 as well as qualify

for the Georgia Tuition Equalization Grant of $1,045, for a

total of $4,045 per academic year.

I’m sure that Georgia would have preferred to begin

HOPE at the level at which it now exists, but the Georgia

Legislature understood that the lottery corporation and the

scholarship program had to be self-supporting and no cost to taxpayers.

It was paramount for Georgia, as it is for Tennessee, to be

fiscally conservative at the beginning of the lottery scholarship

program until it is clear what the revenue will be.

I am confident that Tennessee’s HOPE will be as

successful as Georgia’s and that the questions of income and

public or private institutions will be settled to almost

everyone’s satisfaction. The sooner that can be achieved, the

sooner Tennessee’s students will have HOPE.

Steve Cohen is a Democratic state senator from Memphis.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Lottery Yes!

The state lottery in Georgia, upon which Tennessee’s constitutional provision is modeled, has been hailed as the finest scholarship program in the country and the best constitutional lottery provision as well. Tens of thousands of Georgia students have tuition paid through the HOPE scholarship and then join the state’s work force, which fuels Georgia’s economic engine for the 21st century.

Seventy-five percent of the best and brightest students in Georgia now attend Georgia universities rather than the 25 percent prior to the establishment of the HOPE program. SAT scores have risen by 11 percent since the inception of HOPE, and pre-kindergarten programs have provided an early start to children in reading and learning — and a great start toward a HOPE scholarship.

Critic Nell Levin, a state income-tax advocate, missed the point when she wrote in the Flyer last week that “a lottery creates few jobs and no useful product.” It creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and better workers who enter the work force debt-free because of the proceeds of the lottery. Further, when people go out of state to buy lottery tickets they often purchase groceries, alcohol, and gasoline. If those people buy their products in Tennessee, they contribute to Tennessee’s economy and pay Tennessee taxes.

Levin suggests that the lottery will not solve Tennessee’s revenue problems. On this she is right, of course; it will also not cure cancer, malaria, or whooping cough.

It took 17 years to get the lottery on the ballot in Tennessee. Its failure to do so did not help the cause of those who advocate tax reform, and its passage this year will not hinder them either. A lottery isn’t a tax. It is a voluntary form of funding scholarships and participating in a game, which is a form of entertainment. People play the lottery in approximately the same proportions as their income levels. In fact, the typical player is middle income and a high school graduate.

Tennessee’s program has not yet been developed, but I would advocate not allowing Pell grants to be used, as they can be in Georgia, as a credit against lottery scholarships. This would benefit lower-income families while not disadvantaging students from other income levels.

Ours will be one of only three states whose constitutional provision for a lottery mandates education spending on new and specific programs. The amendment requires that the money supplement, not supplant, education funding.

Tennessee may be late getting into the lottery game, but a study by the state’s Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations estimates we will net $300 million for college scholarships and post-secondary technical and educational improvement opportunities, in addition to pre-kindergarten and after-school programs and K-12 capital construction improvements.

We might have made more had we started earlier, but for right now and the past 17 years we have gotten nothing. It is like buying a stock for a penny a share, which climbs to 300 million in the first year. If it should fall to 250 or 200 million, we still bought it for a penny. That is a pretty good investment for Tennessee shareholders whose dividend will be a better-educated work force and citizenry.

I have always played the lottery wherever I go and have won a few small returns. I enjoyed picking the numbers and look forward to seeing the winning numbers. My only regret is that I have helped other states meet their needs rather than my own state.

I look forward to making a voluntary contribution to a Tennessee lottery game and know Tennessee’s future will be better for it. It is a sure-fire winner.

It says yes to Tennessee, it says yes to young people with ambition and ability, and it says no to Tennesseans traveling to Kentucky, Georgia, Missouri, Virginia, and other states — as they have done with more than $200 million — to play the lottery in those states. Lottery yes!

State Senator Steve Cohen is the sponsor of the statewide lottery referendum, coming in 2002.