| |
|
 |
|
SEPTEMBER 2005 |
|
| Bill Sparks Debate Over Nationa Telecom-Law Rewrite |
The National Grange has been involved in recent years in many lobbying efforts to ensure that universal access to telecommunications technologies will be available to rural consumers at affordable costs. Among these technologies is high speed internet or broadband service. Rural telecommunications companies, while they represent a tiny percentage of the U.S. market share, are responsible for about 40 percent of rural lines, indicating that the high cost of deploying fiber to rural areas is still a barrier to access. The Grange believes that successful investment in building new broadband networks in sparsely populated rural communities will be driven less from regulation and more from competition among various service providers using different technology platforms. For example, competitive video service providers, such as telephone and power companies, will soon be able to provide video service over new fiber and IP-based broadband networks, if the current regulations that require competitive companies to receive thousands of cable franchising requirements from local communities nationwide can be reformed.
he first comprehensive reform bill to address many of these issues, the Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act of 2005 (S. 1504), was recently introduced by Senator John Ensign (R-NV). Ensign’s bill abolishes the requirement that video service providers get a cable franchise agreement to provide video service and prohibits municipalities and states from regulating the rates or service of telephone providers. It assures consumer access to Internet phone service and sets federal consumer protection standards. Also, all types of communications providers - cable, telephone and wireless companies – will be treated under the same set of rule.
The National Grange lauds Ensign’s bill as a hopeful start in the direction of reducing government market control, promoting competition, and inspiring the creation of new telecom jobs, while promoting more consumer choice, better technologies, and more investment. However, the bill does not address the issue of how to reform universal service policies that assure rural citizens in high cost rural communities access to affordable telephone service. “ The Universal Service Fund (USF) reform should be incorporated in any final legislation to ensure the continuation of basic, modern telephone services in rural areas where the maintenance costs for lines and facilities would otherwise be too high to justify these investments,” National Grange Legislative Director Leroy Watson said. “In the prescription to heal the nation’s flawed telecom laws, maintaining universal service programs for rural and remote communities is the most important treatment.” The Grange will keep monitoring this legislation to insure that rural communities continue to enjoy existing telephone services as well as advanced  telecommunications services, such as high speed broadband.
|
| Partnership for Prescription Assistance (PPA) Marks 100 Days of Advance |
|
On July 26, the Partnership for Prescription Assistance (PPA) passed the 100-day mark and released a report highlighting the program’s outstanding success – matching over 600,000 patients with prescription assistance programs in just 100 days. The PPA was created in April by a coalition – led by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America ( PhRMA) – whose membership includes pharmaceutical companies, health providers, patient advocates and community groups brought together to craft a new national program to help millions of qualifying patients find access to free or deeply discounted prescription medications they need. The National Grange became a founding member of the coalition in order to make it easier for rural citizens to find prescription assistance programs they are eligible for. The PPA allows patients to receive access to more than 475 public, private, and non-profit prescription assistance program, including Medicare, through the toll-free number 1-888-4PPA-NOW or website www.pparx.org Applications and registration for these prescription assistance programs are all free. The report released by the PPA also found more than 900,000 people have explored the website or called for information so far.
A recent survey said more than half of all Americans are unaware that pharmaceutical companies have programs to provide free, or nearly free, prescription drugs to patients in need. More than 90% of those contacting the PPA have never before enrolled in a patient assistance program, even though they could have qualified for assistance for years. Billy Tauzin, president of the PhRMA, said millions more could enroll if only they knew these programs existed. To raise awareness about patient assistance programs, the PhRMA Board of Directors recently voted to spend additional multi-million dollars over the next year.
Rural areas are some of the most challenging places for the PPA to reach eligible patients. "Rural residents, who generally have lower incomes than urban dwellers, spend a higher proportion of personal income on prescription drug coverage than the urban residents. The higher proportion of out-of-pocket prescription drug costs among rural working families increases the risk that they will either neglect their medications or take lower dosages," said Bill Steel, President of the National Grange. The Grange has been actively involved in the PPA outreach programs such as the “Help is Here Express” bus tour campaign. It also has been executing “The Grange Uninsured Prescription Assistance Campaign” - introducing the PPA program - to promote local Grange members’ familiarity with how they can get help paying for prescription drugs. Any Granges that would like to join the nationwide education campaign for prescription assistance campaign may contact Shaletta Espie at 1-888-4Grange, ext. 116.
|
| President Bush Signs Energy Bill and Highway Bill into Law |
The National Grange applauds the recent enactment of two bills which have a major impact on rural America – the energy bill and the highway bill. Before summer recess, lawmakers put an end to a lengthy dispute over these bills and sent them to the President’s desk. President Bush signed the energy bill on August 8 and signed the highway bill two days later. The National Grange’s efforts to push Congress and the White House to pass them without delay have been successful.
“The Energy Policy Act of 2005,” a 1,724-page bill with 12.3 billion budget over 10 years, is geared to promote alternative energy sources, conservation, and energy efficiency. The National Grange welcomes this bill especially because it promotes increased production and use of renewable fuels made from commonly grown crops on the U.S. farm – corn and soybeans. The bill contains a renewable fuels standard that mandates an increase in the use of fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. It also extends the biodiesel tax credit from 2006 to 2008. The bill also encourages development of alternative fuels by banning the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) over four years. The National Grange has supported banning the use of MTBE in motor fuels and substituting it with ethanol, biodiesel or other alternative fuels. On the subject of global warming the bill endorses a voluntary program of financial incentives to limit greenhouse gas emissions rather than a mandatory reduction, which is in line with the Grange policy.
However, the bill failed to include a provision for opening the ANWR. Some lawmakers alleged that the bill would never have been signed if the ANWR had been taken in. Yet the debate over the Arctic drilling did not end – it is likely to be put on the table again in Congress in September.
Another long awaited bill which has been finally enacted is “T he Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).” Its total six-yearfunding level will be $286.4 billion. Of this amount, 79% is provided for highway programs, 18.5% is provided for transit, and the remaining 2.5% is for behavioral safety grants and enforcement. In total, a more than 30% increase in funding will be delivered to highway programs over the previous six-year bill.
Rural road safety improvements are a component of the Highway Safety Improvement Program and will be funded at $90 million per year. “Rural America needs adequate resources to improve its roads and bridges for their safety and efficiency. Nearly 43,000 lives are lost each year in motor vehicle crashes and about 60% of all fatalities occur on rural two-lane roads,” said National Grange President Bill Steel. “ The $90 million directed to rural road safety projects will reduce the fatal accidents on rural roads.” The National Grange had worked closely with the American Highway Users Alliance, which the National Grange helped organize in1946, in supporting the SAFETEA to ensure especially adequate resources and attention for rural roads and subsequent rural growth.
|
| National Grange Endorses Small Business Health Fairness Act |
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Small Business Health Fairness Act on July 26 on a 263-165 vote. H.R. 525 would allow small business associations like the National Grange and rural electric cooperatives to offer standardized health insurance programs to their members across the nation the same way that corporations and labor unions can already today. With this bill, small businesses will be permitted to band together to purchase health insurance through Association Health Plans (AHPs) to lower health insurance premiums. The National Grange applauds the House for approving the bill and urges Senate to act promptly on a companion bill S. 406.
A growing number of Americans do not have insurance coverage for prescription medicines and other health care services. 45 million Americans were uninsured in 2003, up from 43.6 million in 2002. Many of the newly uninsured are small business employees whose employers cannot afford to offer health plans to their workers. In fact, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, 63 percent of the 27 million uninsured workers in America are employed by small businesses with fewer than 100 employees. Currently, Americans who work for firms with fewer than 25 employees are half as likely to have health insurance as those who work for companies with 1000 or more workers.
"By allowing small businesses to join together to purchase health benefits through trade and professional organizations, AHPs will help small businesses pool together to gain the negotiating leverage currently enjoyed by big businesses and labor unions. AHPs level the playing field for small business workers and their families, who comprise the majority of the uninsured,” U.S. Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao said in her press statement applauding House passage of H.R. 525.
The National Grange has supported the Small Business Health Fairness Act as a legislation which would allow professional associations to offer members group health insurance on a national basis thus making it more affordable.
|
Guest Editorial - Flag Statute: Just Another Red Herring
By: Richard Parker the Willaims Professor of Law at Harvard Law School |
Don’t Be Deceived by Bennett-Conrad Bill
Once again, a large majority of the U.S. Senate is committed to send the flag amendment to the states for an up-or-down vote by representatives of the people. Once again, this majority may be just shy of the required two-thirds. And, once again, a few swing senators are coming up with old excuses for stifling a uniquely democratic process of constitutional lawmaking.
These senators say they agree with most Americans: Congress should be allowed, as in the past, to protect the flag from physical desecration. They say there’s a need to protect the American flag from defecation, urination and burning. They do not claim it would somehow erode free speech to do so. “But, but…” Here is where the excuses come in.
First, they insist there’s another way. A flag-protection statute, they say, would be better than a constitutional amendment. This misses the point. The point of the constitutional amendment is precisely to permit the enactment of a statute. A senator who supports a statute must support the amendment. There is no way around it.
The reason, of course, is that a bare 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court for the first time in our history, 15 years ago, held that specific statutory protection of the flag is impermissible. The five justices said physical desecration is “speech” and that singling out the American flag for protection amounts, in itself, to favoring one point of view over other competing points of view. Under this reasoning, not just one statute, but any flag-protection statute, will be invalid.
The swing senators claim to disagree with the Court. But they are reluctant to back up their disagreement with their vote. Instead, they want to imagine the Court never did and said what it did and said.
When pressed on this point, they move on to a second excuse for blocking progress of the amendment. The Court, they imagine, will soon change its mind. This is a fantasy.
Four justices have joined the Court since it last faced the flag-protection issue. Of them, three – David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer – would surely stick with the Court’s previous decision. Along with two others – Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy – who were in the majority 15 years ago, that makes a majority of five. If the fourth new justice, Clarence Thomas, were to agree with Scalia, as he often does, that would make six. What is more, the justice thought most likely to retire in the next several years – John Paul Stevens- was in dissent on the issue as was departing Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and William Rehnquist. Their replacement with pro-flag-protection successors would make no difference at all.
Again, there is no alternative. The swing senators either must accede to the Court’s continued ban on any statute specifically protecting the flag, a position with which they say they profoundly disagree, or, acting on their professed support for flag protection, they must allow the 50 states to vote on the proposed constitutional amendment – thus permitting correction of what they say is the Court’s mistake.
Now we come to their third excuse. They may grant that there is, in truth, no way to protect the flag from physical desecration without a constitutional amendment. But they worry that any alteration of the Constitution – especially any “amendment of the first 10 amendments” – is a wrong greater than any wrong it would correct. It is more important, so the excuse goes, to protect the Constitution than to protect the flag. This, however, poses a false choice. In fact, it turns things upside-down.
For one thing, it confuses the Constitution with a controversial “interpretation” of it by the Court. The flag amendment would not alter the meaning of the Constitution. It was a handful of justices who did that. What the amendment would do is restore to the Constitution the meaning it had 16 years ago, its original meaning. By permitting protection of the flag, the amendment at the same time protects and preserves the Constitution.
For another thing, the process of amendment does not undercut the Constitution. To the contrary, it is prescribed by the Constitution. What is more, the amendment process is essential to the Constitution’s deepest foundation – the principle of popular sovereignty affirmed in its first words: “We the people.” Making use of this process reaffirms, and thus preserves, that foundation.
Of course, an amendment ought not be undertaken lightly. It ought to have sustained, very substantial popular backing before being sent to the states. Not many could pass that test. But the flag amendment does. For a decade and a half, the overwhelming bulk of the American people have supported it.
The swing senators say they, too, support flag protection. Now the time has come to see if they really do.
|
Kelo Speaks At Grange Meeting
By: Scott Bill Hirst, Legislative Committee Chairman of North Stonington Community Grange in CT
|
On Friday August 12 th, Ms. Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Kelo v. New London U. S. spoke at the North Stonington Community Grange No.138, in North Stonington, CT. The issue before the Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London involved the constitutional limits on the use of eminent domain powers of the government to take private property from one owner and transfer that property to another private owner exclusively for the second owner’s private use. Sister Cindy Anderson, Master of North Stonington Community Grange presided over the evening that Ms. Kelo spoke.
 |
(L to R: Scott Bill Hirst, Susette Kelo, Diana Urban, and Gordon Gibson) |
Ms. Kelo who lives in New London's Fort Trumbull section lost in a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision this past court term on the issue of the use of eminent domain taking property for private use. However, Ms. Kelo reported to those present at the meeting that she is still maintaining her involvement in the eminent domain issue. “The Redevelopment Agency is now seeking “back rent” from me and the other people who are still on site from the date the Agency took their property until the day they vacate,” Ms. Kelo said. “The Agency condemned my property in 2001 at approximately $145,000 and is now claiming about $45,000 in back rent which they intend to deduct from the settlement figure before I receive it. Other people who are still occupying their former properties are in worse shape than I am.” Connecticut State Representative Diana Urban, R-North Stonington of the 43 rd Assembly District and Gordon Gibson, of Vernon, Connecticut who chairs the Connecticut State Grange Legislative Committee were also present and spoke.
The North Stonington Community Grangers were grateful to Ms. Kelo for taking time from her personal life to speak to them. The Legislative Committee of North Stonington Grange will use the information provided by Ms Kelo to help draft a resolution in support of stopping the use of eminent domain for condemning private property for the exclusive purpose of transferring that property to other private owners that will be presented to the Grange.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
