March on Washington

March on Washington

Braille MonitorMay-June 1986
(back)(contents)(next)
March on Washington
In late January or early February of
each year the blind of the nation assemble
in Washington to talk with
Congress. Attendance at the March on
Washington grows larger every year, and
1986 was no exception. The group topped
300. Almost every state was represented.
President
Jernigan gaveled the first
briefing session to order Sunday evening,
February 2. His remarks set the
tone for an exciting three days to
follow. More and more one begins to
feel the thrill of a national convention
as the March on Washington begins. As
with our convention sessions, the Sunday
evening briefing is truly a working
meeting. It gives those in attendance a
chance to prepare for the Monday, Tuesday,
and Wednesday visits to Capitol
Hill. Tours of the National Center for
the Blind in Baltimore are also planned.
Many who come to the March set time
aside to visit the National Center in
order to experience the dynamics of the
activities at national headquarters.
There is an excitement, a feeling of
enthusiasm, and a sense of commitment
which is unique and uplifting.

On the morning of Wednesday, February 5, we had the opportunity to show our
numbers (and the interest represented by
our presence) at a Congressional hearing
held by two subcommittees of the House
of Representatives. The hearing dealt
with Postal Service matters. Members of
Congress were interested in learning the
facts behind the appointment of a new
Postmaster General, but the hearing also
presented opportunity for members of the
House Subcommittee to question Postal
officials about their intentions with
respect to the continuation of reduced
rate postal services and Free Matter for
the Blind and Handicapped. Of course,
the fact that we were there in such
numbers encouraged such questions. It
is rare to see such a big turnout at a
hearing dealing with the Postal Service.
We were already filling the chairs in
the hearing room when many of the
Washington regulars arrived. It was
standing room only by the time the
Chairman rapped the gavel.

As the hearing proceeded, several
members of the House Subcommittees
raised questions relating to the future
of the federal subsidy to the Postal
Service known as "Revenue Foregone."
Our presence in the room clearly had an
impact. Representative William Ford
(Chairman of the House Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service) explained our
concerns in some detail and specifically
named the National Federation of the
Blind in expressing his personal dissatisfaction
with plans to end the
postal subsidy.
The issues raised during the March on
Washington continue to be important well
beyond the date of March itself. A
"Legislative Memorandum" and three fact
sheets are reprinted here. These are
the materials we distributed to each
Congressional office. In many cases
they were given to the Senator or Representative personally.
For more information please contact:
James Gashel
Director of Governmental Affairs
(301) 659-9314

Legislative Memorandum
From: Members of the National
Federation of the Blind
To: Members of the 99th Congress
Re: The blind: Priorities for the
99th Congress, Second Session
One out of every five hundred of the
U.S. population is blind, and fifty
thousand people in our country become
blind each year. Even more, the social
effects of blindness magnify its impact
to include families, relatives, friends,
colleagues at work, and others. In
short, millions of our citizens are
affected to a considerable degree by
laws and public policies concerning the
blind. B pite its widespread impact,
blindness is one of the most misunderstood
conditions. So we have
formed the National Federation of the
Blind (NFB) to increase public understanding
about blindness and to build
greater awareness among the blind themselves.
NFB is a private sector voluntary
organization maintained and controlled
by the blind. It is a resource
of knowledge and personal help with
everyday problems for thousands of blind
men and women. We are proud of our
self-help philosophy and achievements.
But decisions that will be made during
this session of the 99th Congress could
bring our programs to a halt, or severely
curtail them. Therefore, certain
actions must be taken.
(1) Congress should establish and
assure stability in postage rates paid
by nonprofit organizations, including
NFB. This request seeks sufficient
appropriations to meet "revenue foregone"
expenses of the U.S. Postal Service,
and to handle mailings by nonprofit
organizations sent at reduced postage
rates. Under existing law and appropriations
levels, nonprofit organizations
are required to pay approximately
40% more for using reduced-rate third
class postage than comparable postage
rates actually in effect even one year
ago. But the rates could rise by
another 70% next October if a budget
plan to eliminate payments to the postal
service is accepted by Congress.
Nothing can be more critical to a
voluntary, private sector group of citizens
than to have affordable, stable
postage rates for mass communications.
Paying the postal service's commercial
rates for necessary use of the mails
would force us to dismantle many programs.
Survival for many national
organizations (including NFB) would be
threatened. If communications with
blind persons and the public at large
are cut, a time bomb is created since
fewer people will understand anything
about blindness and even fewer will know
of the continuing need to help. Then,
the downward spiral is in motion, with
fewer people helped and even fewer people
helping. Soon the benefits are
gone.
This does not overstate how vulnerable
we are to the postal rate crisis if
Congress fails to approve adequate funding. The fact sheet entitled "Crisis In
Nonprofit Mail Rates Means Serious Harm
to the Blind" explains the current situation
and gives details on how members
of the 99th Congress can help.
(2) Congress should act to insure fair
treatment for the blind in air travel.
This request seeks a Congressional probe
against the blind by means of irrational
restrictions imposed upon the blind
under the guise of federal procedures.
Under existing federal regulations (14
CFR 121.586) certified air carriers are
allowed discretion in establishing their
own rules for transporting any person
who may need assistance in exiting
quickly in an emergency. The rule,
promulgated in 1977, was originally
intended as a directive for air carriers
to transport the handicapped. The procedures
should facilitate air travel and
not impair freedom of movement. But
blind people have become victims of the
air carrier procedures (or interpretations
of these procedures) by misguided
airline personnel. Since blindness is
not an obstacle in air travel, the procedures
for the handicapped should have
no application to the blind whatsoever.
Even so, airline personnel insist upon
enforcing certain restrictions which
they alone have determined should be
followed. There are even examples of
blind persons being placed under arrest
for peacefully sitting in seats assigned
to them by the airline. This occurs
when some airlines seek to enforce
various seating restrictions they have
established without specific guidance
from the Federal Aviation Administration.
The fact sheet entitled "Travel
By Air, Discrimination And Chaos For The
Blind," gives details about current
incidents and suggests how Congress
might help.
(3) Congress should enact the "Fair
Insurance Coverage Act" to prohibit
unfair discrimination in insurance based
on blindness or degree of blindness.
This proposal (pending in the 99th Congress,
Second Session) is being made by
Representative Jim Bates of California
and Senator Charles Mathias of Maryland.
It seeks a federal ban on extra premiums
and denials of insurance coverage faced
by blind people. Existing law does not
provide such protection for anyone on an
interstate basis. Thirty-five
have already passed laws or regulations
relating to insurance discrimination
against the blind, but discriminatory
insurance practices still continue in
some of these states, and in others
where no laws or regulations now exist.
Congress should now examine the question
and enact a comprehensive federal policy.
The fact sheet entitled "Insurance
Discrimination Against The Blind" explains
the status of current efforts in
Congress and in the states and gives
details on the current need for federal
legislation. Blind people are asking
for your help in securing positive action
by Congress and the Executive
Branch in the areas explained in the
attached fact sheets. To the extent
necessary, new legislation to achieve
these and other objectives will be
introduced in the 99th Congress. Other
actions to support our objectives may be
taken by individual members independently.
Many priorities confront this
session of Congress, but the needs of
the nation's blind must not be overlooked
during this year's legislative
agenda. We of the National Federation
of the Blind stand ready to assist our
representatives and senators in understanding our needs and to taking meaningful
action to address them.

Fact Sheet Crisis In Nonprofit Mail
Rates
Means Serious Harm To The Blind
The Issue: During this session, Congress
will decide whether federal funds
will continue to aid the blind and
others by meeting some of the costs for
free and reduced rate mailings carried
by the United States Postal Service
(USPS). Many nonprofit organizations,
such as the National Federation of the
Blind (NFB), may not survive if forced
to pay commercial postage rates. Yet,
this would be the effect of budget proposals
to terminate or reduce federal
aid for nonprofit groups to use the
mails.
Nonprofit Postage Rates Bring Help To The Blind: Holding the line on nonprofit
postage rates will mean the difference
between life or death for groups
such as NFB which operate in the private
sector. Voluntary initiatives made by
the blind themselves without government
expense (such as public education campaigns
and drives for more employment
opportunities for the blind) will
decline or cease altogether if postage
rates rise further. Materials and resources
aimed at personal adjustment and
self-help for the blind, provided without
government cost, will not be
available. Organized consultation by
the blind themselves to assist in developing
technology or to advise officials
of public programs will not be
possible. Communication links among the
blind to share information, knowledge,
and resources will be gone. Above all,
the ability to encourage the blind
toward self-betterment, growth, and productive
living will be lost. This is
tangible help made possible now because
of federally provided special mail
rates. The rates allow for educational
communications and fund raising to enlist
community, private sector support
for the efforts of the blind to help
themselves. NFB's programs help reduce
dependency by the blind upon the government.
That in itself is a benefit to
all taxpayers. But if Congress decides
not to use tax money to encourage these
private initiatives, demand will rise
from among the blind for more help from
public agencies financed by state and
federal tax dollars. Costs to the
federal treasury for publicly run programs
will rise while private efforts
cease or suffer.
How Congress Can Help: (1) Vote for a
budget resolution containing sufficient
authority for appropriations to maintain
nonprofit postage rates at current
levels.
(2) Vote for appropriations measures
which provide sufficient funds so nonprofit
postage rates will not increase
further during 1986 or 1987. The FY
1986 appropriation is $748 million.
$833 million may be needed for FY 1987,
but the amount may be lower depending
upon the outcome of budget reconciliation
legislation and upon recommendations
being studied by the Postal Rate
Commission.
Current Crisis and Background: Under
the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act
federal revenues pay for mail service
authorized by law at free or reduced
rates. Communications by nonprofit organizations
and "free matter for the blind and handicapped" directly benefit
the blind. Also (among others) political
parties, newspaper and periodical
publishers, schools, and libraries are
also aided by the appropriation known
technically as "revenue foregone."
This is a target in the current round
of budget cuts. In 1981, 1982, and
1985, there were unsuccessful attempts
to eliminate budget authority for the
revenue foregone appropriation, but Congress
wisely resisted. Again this year
the President's budget may request complete
elimination of revenue foregone
payments to USPS. Then, no funds would
be available to mail books for the blind
postage free or to support use of the
mails on behalf of the blind by NFB and
other nonprofit groups.
7.4 cents per piece is the current
third-class nonprofit rate. (At this
writing--mid-April of 1986--it is 8.7
cents.) One year ago the comparable
rate was 5.2 cents per piece. If the
budget plan wins out to eliminate the
revenue foregone payment, the third
class nonprofit rate would be increased
by another 70% later this year, and for
the first time books for the blind would
have to be sent at prohibitively expensive
commercial postage rates. 12.5
cents per piece is the current commercial
third-class rate. Without adequate
appropriations to meet the difference,
this would be the amount charged to
nonprofit organizations. At the 12.5
cent third-class per piece rate, an
organization mailing one million pieces
would pay $125,000 as opposed to $74,000
for a similar mailing presently. If a
nonprofit group mails ten million pieces
annually (many do), a postage rate increase
of one cent will result in an
increased postage charge of $100,000 for
that group. That increase may mean the
difference between continuing to provide
help and closing down altogether because
postage costs are too high. Paying more
to USPS for postage takes money directly
from program services which now help the
blind. It would be impossible to contact
new potential contributors to raise
additional revenues. If communications
with blind persons and the public at
large are cut, a time bomb is created
since fewer people will understand anything
about blindness and even fewer
will know of the continuing need to
help. The inevitable result is a downward
spiral, with fewer people helped
and fewer people helping. Soon the
self-help organizations of the blind
will be destroyed. These are the
unanticipated ripple effects of rising
postal rates, but they are nonetheless
very real. The ability to communicate
at an affordable cost is vital. Without
it, many worthy efforts on behalf of the
nation's blind will diminish or die
altogether. Since fifty thousand Americans
become blind each year, there must
either be continued widespread mailings
to the general public to inform them
about blindness and how to deal with it
or else an increasing number of the
newly blinded will not be found until it
is too late and they are hopelessly
doomed to continuing dependence.

Fact Sheet
Travel By Air--Discrimination
And
Chaos For The Blind
The Problem: Most blind people who
travel by air can do so independently
without limitation or undue concern on the part of the airlines. But procedures
which most airlines have developed
and filed with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) subject blind
air travelers to unreasonable and often
intolerable restrictions. With growing
frequency, this results in confrontations
causing numerous delayed departures
and the detaining of blind
passengers without justifiable grounds.
Unreasonable practices include prohibitions
on seat assignments in emergency
exit rows, but not by all airlines
at all times from such seats in such
rows; other restrictive seating requirements,
imposed by some airlines and not
by others, aimed at placing blind passengers
at or near the back of evacuation
lines; special instructions given
to the blind by some airlines stating a
requirement to stay seated in the event
of an emergency in order to leave the
aircraft at or near the back of the flow
of passengers; required pre-boarding of
blind persons so as to separate them
from the rest of the passenger load; and
other procedures exercised by some airlines
which deprive the blind of freedom
of movement and personal dignity.
It is not uncommon for airline personnel
to enforce these limits with a
vengeance. Some blind people have been
attacked physically during confrontations
provoked by airline personnel. In
other cases, verbal abuse has been used
to embarass blind people in front of
other airline passengers in an attempt
to ridicule the blind and to force them
into submission. A shocking pattern of
such incidents has been documented by
the National Federation of the Blind.
In the space of eleven months, beginning
in November, 1984, five blind people
were actually arrested by law enforcement
authorities acting on behalf of
airline personnel. All were not charged
or later found to be not guilty of any
wrongdoing. These arrests are the most
extreme instances, but less dramatic
incidents now form a pattern of almost
daily occurance.
Solution: The appropriate Committees
and Subcommittees of the Congress should
examine current procedures and practices
of the commercial aviation industry
relating to air transportation of the
blind. The investigation should include
oversight hearings to receive testimony
from blind persons, industry representatives,
and federal transportation officials.
Then, Congress should direct the
Department of Transportation to pursue
an action plan with specific objectives
to assure that the present impediments
to normal air travel for the blind are
removed.
Background: Until 1977, federal policies
pertaining to air travel by the
blind (or the handicapped, as well) were
no different than for other passengers
using commercial aviation. In fact,
despite some less frequent (although
annoying) incidents prior to 197 7, air
travel for most blind people was comparatively
trouble-free.
Then, the FAA entered the picture by
promulgating a rule under the heading
"Authority to Refuse Transportation."
This regulation is still in effect and
found at 14C FR 121.586. It applies to
anyone who is determined by the airline
to be a passenger who may need someone
else's assistance to exit quickly in an
emergency. When the regulation was
issued, federal officials said that
airlines were required to transport the
handicapped. However, service would not
be required for any person determined to need assistance if the person could not
be carried by the airline in accordance
with its written procedures. Thus, each
airline is given wide discretion in
issuing these procedures, so long as
they are placed on file with the FAA.
But an analysis conducted by the
National Federation of the Blind has
shown that many airlines do not even
foilow their own procedures, and most
have procedures which are different from
those which they have actually filed
with the FAA. The procedures of many
airlines allow for discriminatory restrictions
to be placed on air travel
for the blind. Yet, the FAA has declined
to disapprove these requirements.
According to FAA officials, airlines are
free to establish any procedures they like, so long as the procedures meet
federal safety standards administered
and applied by the FAA. But officials
say that any airline procedures which do
not have a bearing on safety fall outside
the FAA's jurisdiction. The result
is that airline personnel are allowed to
badger the blind with verbal and physical
abuse while federal authorities
stand by with a "hands off" posture.
How Members of Congress Can Help: Each member of Congress can help by
calling for early scheduling of a Congressional
investigation of these practices.
Where appropriate, informal contracts
might also be made with airline
executives to secure their cooperation
in reviewing and revising company policies.
All opportunities to raise these
issues with aviation industry and
federal officials should be considered.
Report language in the appropriation's
bill for the Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies might also be
offered, directing the Department of
Transportation to initiate corrective
action on behalf of the blind.

Fact Sheet
Insurance Discrimination Against The Blind
The Fair Insurance Coverage Act Purpose: To prohibit discrimination in
insurance on the basis of blindness or
degree of blindness. House Bill: H.R.
2741, 99th Congress, First Session
Senate Bill: S. 12 90, 99th Congress,
First Session.
Background: The myths and misconceptions
about blindness in our society
today often manifest themselves in
stereotyped thinking which, upon reasoned
examination, has no basis in fact.
Thus, the blind become victims of unreasonable
and detrimental practices that
are not supported by reliable evidence.
This is how discrimination works against
any minority. But the problem is particularly
acute for blind people because
of the attitudes of kindness and charity
that are commonly exhibited toward them.
Practices common in the insurance
industry exemplify the problem. Discrimination
against the blind by insurance
companies occurs when blind people
are denied coverage or required to pay
extra premiums based solely on grounds
of blindness. Sound actuarial statistics
do not exist to demonstrate that
blindness results in increased risk for
insurance carriers. Yet, underwriting
rules followed by many companies require
extra premiums, place limits on coverage
to be provided under certain conditions,
or deny coverage in some instances altogether.
Some companies will sell their policies at standard rates if a
blind person is a "healthy, well
adjusted individual." But these requirements,
whatever they might mean,
are not specified for non-blind applicants
or policy holders.
Prohibitions Proposed: H.R. 2741
(entitled the Fair Insurance Coverage
Act) has been introduced in the First
Session of the 99th Congress by Representative
Jim Bates of California. S.
1290 (an identical bill) has been introduced
in the United States Senate by
Senator Charles Mathias of Maryland.
These bills seek to enact a federal
prohibition against insurance discrimination
based on blindness. If enacted,
the bills would establish a federal
policy that no insurer shall, because of
blindness or degree of blindness, (1)
refuse to make insurance available to
any applicant for insurance; or (2)
treat any blind applicant or insured
differently than any other applicant or
insured with respect to the terms, conditions,
rates, benefits, or requirements
of any insurance policy or
contract. Observing these requirements
means that insurance rates and coverage
for blind people will be the same as for
sighted people. Conjecture and belief
about hazards due to blindness (used in
the past to establish special rates or
more limited coverage) will not be permitted.
The
Fair Insurance Coverage Act implements
the policy described herein by
clearly defining "discriminatory
actions." States which currently have,
or may later enact, laws relating to
insurance discrimination based on blindness
or degree of blindness are given
prime responsibility for enforcement
within certain time limits during which
complaints of discrimination could not
be brought in federal or state courts of
jurisdiction under the Fair Insurance
Coverage Act. In states where laws do
not exist, or if enforcement does not
occur within the time limits specified,
enforcement of the Fair Insurance Coverage
Act can occur by civil action
brought in an appropriate United States
District Court or in a state court
having jurisdiction. The Attorney
General of the United States is also
authorized to file suit for enforcement
of this Act on issues determined to have
sufficient public importance. Penalties
include recovery of actual and punitive
damages.
Need For Legislation: The need for
legislation to prohibit insurance discrimination
against the blind has been
documented by the National Association
of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in a
model insurance regulation, revised in
December of 1984. The model rule identifies
discrimination based on blindness
as an "unfair trade practice." NAIC's
revised model regulation was issued in
December, 1984, after it was found that
several insurance companies were continuing
to discriminate on the basis of
blindness. As the commissioners noted
in the original report accompanying the
model regulation, there is no factual
basis for the "belief" that blindness
constitutes an increased risk. If the
blind were actually a greater risk, it
would not be a discriminatory practice
to charge higher rates or deny coverage.
The practice of classifying the blind
into a category of increased risk, without
any basis in fact, however, constitutes
discrimination.
Backed by the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners' Model Regulation, thirty-five states have currently
enacted laws or regulatory prohibitions
relating to insurance discrimination
based on blindness. But despite these
positive moves, discrimination still
exists in many jurisdictions. It has
also proven difficult to combat the
policies of a multi-state industry on a
state-by-state basis. Instead of prohibiting
discrimination on an intrastate
basis, therefore, the Fair Insurance
Coverage Act would put in place a national
standard, applicable industrywide,
fulfilling objectives of free
commerce throughout our nation and the
interests of the public at large.

(back)(contents)(next)