John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, and Senators Frahm, Stevens, Leahy, McConnell, and Bingaman, I send a printed amendment to the desk. At the proper time I will ask that it be set aside.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is an amendment that I am offering on behalf of myself and those Senators that I just listed. This amendment is supported by the Association of American Publishers, the National Federation of the Blind, the American Foundation for the Blind, the American Printing House for the Blind, Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic, and the U.S. Copyright Office. It also has the support of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and we are waiting for approval by the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee before proceeding. Mr. President, the amendment I am proposing along with those Senators I mentioned is an amendment to the legislative branch appropriations bill regarding books for the blind. In 1931, the Library of Congress National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped was established by an act of Congress. Since then, funding for this immensely valuable program has been included in the legislative branch bill, which, of course, funds the Library of Congress. The National Library Service and a handful of nonprofit organizations reproduce in specialized formats published material that is readily available to sighted individuals in libraries, bookstores, newsstands and countless other locations. Specialized formats refers to braille, sound recordings--either on cassette or phonorecord--and new digital formats that can be used for special software. To make certain that recorded books and magazines are only used by those for whom they are intended, they are recorded at a speed that simply does not work on standard tape players. The National Library Service provides special tape players and record players to eligible individuals. This equipment is not generally available to the public. To be eligible to receive this special equipment, an applicant must be certified by a qualified professional such as a doctor, nurse or social worker that he or she is unable to use standard print. The National Library Service selects the books to reproduce in these specialized formats. Frequently, the National Library Service issues request after request only to wait months for a response from the publisher. These delays are not because the publishers have a desire to withhold permission; it is simply a low priority. They just set it aside. There are still 17 books from the 1995 best seller list for which permission is still pending. For our Nation's more than 54,000 blind elementary and secondary school students, this is a great problem. The American Printing House for the Blind in Louisville, KY, is the primary producer of braille textbooks. It is a challenge to reproduce today's highly visible textbooks in braille format. Maps, charts, graphs, and illustrations that take up one page in a standard textbook may require multiple pages of braille or tactile graphics to convey the same information. All in all, it can take a full year to produce a braille textbook. Added time consumed by trying to get permission from publishers makes it certain that the blind student is not in sync with his classmates. The amendment Senator Frahm and others and I are introducing seeks to end the unintended censorship of blind students' access to current information. The amendment, as I say, is endorsed by the Association of American Publishers, the National Federation of the Blind, the American Foundation for the Blind, the American Printing House for the Blind, and the U.S. Copyright Office. This is a very simple amendment. This says groups that produce specialized formats for the blind no longer are required to gain permission from the copyright holder before beginning production. It is based on an agreement that was reached last January between the Association of American Publishers and the National Federation of the Blind. It includes a very narrow definition of those who are eligible to undertake such production and applies the definition for eligibility used by the National Library Service to those who receive reproductions. So, Mr. President, as has been said by a member of the National Federation of the Blind, It should be obvious that the delays here present a significant barrier which must be overcome if blind people are to be informed and literate. It is not too much to say that living successfully in our modern society often depends upon being able to communicate ideas and facts both orally and in writing. I conclude by a statement from Marybeth Peters, who is the Register of Copyrights at the Library of Congress. In testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee she said, Blind and physically handicapped readers have a legitimate need for prompt and timely access as soon as possible after works become available to the general reading public. Textbook materials in particular are commonly out of date within 1 to 2 years, superseded by new editions. Passage of this amendment will permit the speedy access to information that blind people need. It is my understanding the managers of the bill are prepared to accept the amendment, but we are waiting for the approval of the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. So, Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill and hope that when we receive the approval, as I expect we will, of the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, if I am not here, the manager of the bill might be able to call up this amendment and have it considered in my absence. I ask the manager and the ranking member of the committee, if we receive the approval--the only thing we are waiting for is the approval of the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. If I could pass that on, when it is received, to the managers, if they could then call up the amendment if I am not here.

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator very much. I do not know what the time schedule is. We may have to move forward rather quickly. So we will get that information regarding the ranking member as soon as we can.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this legislation is welfare reform. We dropped out the changes in Medicaid, and we are told that this is not a Medicaid bill. Yet, this bill permits the States not only to drop eligibility levels for cash assistance--AFDC--but also for Medicaid. The States can throw a woman and small children off cash assistance and at the same time take away their Medicaid, their only chance for any medical services. My amendment says, go ahead, if you wish, reduce eligibility levels for welfare, but Medicaid eligibility levels should remain as they are today. Furthermore, what constitutes income in calculating Medicaid eligibility remains as it is now. In other words, if my amendment is not adopted, States will be able to count school lunches and even disaster relief toward what makes a person eligible for Medicaid. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if you voted yes on the Chafee amendment we just agreed to, then you should vote no on the Roth amendment. The Roth amendment allows States to drastically reduce Medicaid coverage for all groups of women and children. If the Roth amendment prevails and we strike the protections that we just adopted in my amendment, the Roth amendment grandfathers only those AFDC-eligible individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid at the time of enactment. There are no protections for those who meet the same standards after the enactment. Second, it strikes the provisions in my amendment that reinstate the standard for calculating income. Thus, a pregnant woman or 6-year-old child with a family income below the current poverty standards will not qualify for Medicaid coverage if the State adopts a more restrictive income test, such as school lunches or food stamps. Finally, I would say the United States has the highest percentage of children in poverty of any industrial nation in the world. I certainly hope we will not make it worse by denying these children their Medicaid coverage.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, do I understand we have 15 minutes on the new amendment? Is that the proposal? I guess there was never any time agreement, was there?

Mr. CHAFEE. Half hour equally divided.

Mr. CHAFEE. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, under our amendment, we make sure that no low-income mothers and children who are eligible for Medicaid under current law, under the existing law, will lose their health care coverage under Medicaid if the State lowers its eligibility standards for cash assistance or AFDC. Now, this is not some open-ended lifetime entitlement to Medicaid coverage. I am sure that will be raised, and we are ready for that one. All this amendment does is apply current law income and resource standards and methodologies in determining eligibility for Medicaid. If a family's income increases, if there is no longer a dependent child in the home, these folks will lose Medicaid eligibility under our amendment, just as they would under current law. Exactly who are we talking about, Mr. President? First, the individuals we are talking about, their incomes, on an average, are about 38 percent of the poverty level. Some will argue that we do not need this amendment because children under 100 percent of poverty are already covered. In other words, we are worried about these children. Some will say, oh, do not worry about them because if they are at 100 percent of poverty or less, they are covered. But that is not true, Mr. President. By 2002, they will all be covered up to the age of 18, but not until then. Thus, children between the ages of 13 and 18 will not be guaranteed coverage. Their mothers, unless they are pregnant, will lose the guarantees as well. Mr. President, I refer everyone to this chart. Under the bill that we have, pregnant women continue to be covered. Children under 13 are covered. That is under 100 percent of poverty or less. The aged, blind, and disabled are covered. Who loses out? Who is losing out on the guarantees? It is nonpregnant women and children 13 to 18 that are going to fall through the cracks. So, Mr. President, some will argue that we are backtracking from previous welfare reform measures by removing this guarantee. I want to remind my colleagues that both the House and the Senate-passed versions of H.R. 4, which passed here 87 to 12, had the very provision in it that I am talking about, which I am seeking to obtain. You might say, well, if the House version had it and the Senate version had it, then, obviously, when we came to conference, it was there. But it was dropped in conference, in some type of maneuver. Even though it was in both bills that were passed, it was dropped from the freestanding welfare reform bill that passed. I also point out, Mr. President, that the welfare reform bill that passed yesterday in the House of Representatives has this same language that I am talking about here and trying to put into our legislation. Mr. President, if we really want this welfare reform proposal to achieve the results of moving women off of welfare and into work, we should not, in one fell swoop, remove their cash assistance and their medical coverage. This is a prescription, I believe, for failure of welfare reform. Mr. President, I will conclude my section of the remarks before turning it over to the Senator from Louisiana by saying this. In the Finance Committee, we had all kinds of hearings in connection with welfare reform, and two points came clearly through; that, if you want to get individuals off of welfare--and we are particularly talking, in most of these cases, about women--they need support. One of the two things they need in the form of support is child care, adequate child care and the availability of that; second is Medicaid coverage for themselves and for their children. So, Mr. President, I earnestly hope that this amendment will be adopted. I think it is one that the managers will accept. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if the Chair would be good enough to point that out again on a second-degree amendment? It cannot be offered until all time has expired?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from West Virginia 2 minutes. Mr. President, I have how much time?

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to save 2 minutes for the Senator from Florida, who is expected. So I will save that time for him.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CHAFEE. So it seems to me that an individual who is locked in under the present system, as suggested by the second-degree amendment, that individual would make a great mistake to get off Medicaid, because, let's say, the eligibility was dropped and they would not currently qualify. So the key thing is to stay on Medicaid, do not get off.

Mr. CHAFEE. Sure.

Mr. CHAFEE. I am sorry, did I miss a question?

Mr. CHAFEE. I did not say I yielded my time back, I said ``ready to yield my time back.''

Mr. CHAFEE. So I still have time.