[Electronics-talk] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials

[Renee M Zelickson]

depends on the moment
Such a business.

On Jan 28, 2009, at 1:39 PM, David Andrews wrote:

>
>
>
> Legislative Agenda of Blind Americans:
> Priorities for the 111th Congress, FIRST Session
>
>
>          The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) is the oldest  
> and largest organization of blind people in the United States.  As  
> the Voice of the Nation’s Blind, we present the collective views of  
> blind people throughout society.  All of our leaders and the vast  
> majority of our members are blind, but anyone can participate in our  
> movement.  There are an estimated 1.3 million blind people in the  
> United States, and every year approximately 75,000 Americans become  
> blind.  The social and economic consequences of blindness affect not  
> only blind people, but also our families, our friends, and our  
> coworkers.
>
>          Three legislative initiatives demand the immediate  
> attention of the 111th Congress in its first session:
> 1.     We urge Congress to ensure the safety of blind and other  
> pedestrians by passing the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act.  This  
> legislation would require the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to:
> ·       Begin a study within ninety days of its enactment to  
> determine the most practical means of assuring that blind and other  
> pedestrians receive essentially similar information to what they now  
> receive from sound emitted by internal combustion engines;
> ·       Determine the minimum amount of sound necessary to offer  
> sufficient information for blind pedestrians to make safe travel  
> judgments based on appropriate scientific research and consultation  
> with blind Americans and other affected groups;
> ·       Within two years of beginning the study, promulgate a motor  
> vehicle safety standard to address the needs of blind and other  
> pedestrians by requiring either a minimum level of sound or an  
> equally effective means of providing the same information as is  
> available from hearing internal combustion engines; and
> ·       Apply the standard to all motor vehicles manufactured or  
> sold in the United States beginning no later than two years after  
> the date it is promulgated.
>
>
> 2.     We urge Congress to work with blind Americans to create a  
> Technology Bill of Rights for the Blind that mandates consumer  
> electronics, home appliances, and office equipment to provide user  
> interfaces that are accessible through nonvisual means.  This  
> legislation should:
>
> ·       Mandate that all consumer electronics, home appliances, and  
> office equipment be designed so that blind people can access the  
> same functions as sighted people through nonvisual means and with  
> substantially equivalent ease of use;
>
> ·       Create a commission comprised of essential stakeholders to  
> establish standards for nonvisual accessibility of electronic  
> devices intended for use in the home or office;
> ·       Endow the commission with enforcement powers or locate it  
> within a government agency having such powers; and
> ·       Authorize it to reexamine and rewrite standards to keep pace  
> with the evolution of consumer electronic technology.
>
> 3.     We urge Congress to promote and facilitate the transition by  
> blind Americans from recipients of Social Security Disability  
> Insurance benefits to income-earning, taxpaying, productive members  
> of the American workforce by enacting legislation to:
>
> ·       Replace the monthly earnings penalty with a graduated 3- 
> for-1 phase-out (i.e., a $1 reduction in benefits for each $3 earned  
> above the limit);
>
> ·       Replace the monthly earnings test with an annualized  
> earnings test with an amount equal to twelve times. Substantial  
> Gainful Activity amount; and
>
> ·       Establish an impairment-related work expense deduction for  
> blind Social Security Disability Insurance beneficiaries equal to  
> the amount applicable for this deduction when determining an  
> appropriate income subsidy under Medicare Part D or 16.3 percent of  
> earnings, whichever is greater.
>
>
>          For more information about these priorities, please see  
> below or consult the attached fact sheets.
>
>          Blind Americans need your help to achieve our goals of  
> economic security, increased opportunity, and full integration into  
> American society on a basis of equality.  Enactment of these  
> legislative proposals will represent important steps toward reaching  
> these goals.  We need the help and support of each member of  
> Congress.  Our success benefits not only us, but the whole of  
> America as well.  In this time of national economic insecurity,  
> these measures will contribute to increasing the tax base and  
> encouraging the purchase of consumer goods.
>
> ENHANCING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY:  ENSURING THE BLIND CAN CONTINUE TO  
> TRAVEL SAFELY AND INDEPENDENTLY
>
>
> Purpose:  To require hybrid, electric, and other vehicles to emit a  
> minimum level of sound to alert blind and other pedestrians of their  
> presence.
>
> Background:  Until recently independent travel for the blind has  
> been a relatively simple matter, once a blind person has been  
> trained in travel techniques and has learned to use a white cane or  
> travel with a guide dog.  Blind people listen to the sounds of  
> automobile engines to determine the direction, speed, and pattern of  
> traffic.  Sounds from traffic tell blind pedestrians how many  
> vehicles are near them and how fast they are moving, whether the  
> vehicles are accelerating or decelerating, and whether the vehicles  
> are traveling toward, away from, or parallel to them.  With all of  
> this information, blind people can accurately determine when it is  
> safe to advance into an intersection or across a driveway or parking  
> lot.  The information obtained from listening to traffic sounds  
> allows blind people to travel with complete confidence and without  
> assistance. Studies have shown that sighted pedestrians also use  
> this information when traveling.
>
>          Over the past few years, however, vehicles that are  
> completely silent in certain modes of operation have come on the  
> market, and many more silent vehicles are expected in the near  
> future.  These vehicles are designed to have many benefits,  
> including improved fuel efficiency and reduced emissions, but they  
> do not need to be silent in order to achieve these intended  
> benefits.  An unintended consequence of these vehicles as they are  
> currently designed is that they will reduce the independence of  
> blind Americans and endanger the lives, not only of blind people,  
> but also of small children, seniors, cyclists, and runners.
>
>          Currently the most popular of these vehicles is the  
> gasoline-electric hybrid, which alternates between running on a  
> gasoline engine and on battery power (although a few electric  
> automobiles are already on America’s roads and new all-electric  
> models are planned).  The blind of America do not oppose the  
> proliferation of vehicles intended to reduce damage to the  
> environment, but for safety these vehicles must meet a minimum sound  
> standard.
>
>          On April 9, 2008, Congressmen Ed Towns and Cliff Stearns  
> introduced H.R. 5734 (the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of  
> 2008).  This legislation sought to solve the problem of silent cars  
> by authorizing a two-year study to determine the best method for  
> allowing blind individuals to recognize the presence of silent cars,  
> and by requiring that, two years after the study was completed, all  
> new vehicles sold in the United States must comply with the solution  
> determined by the study.  In the 110th Congress, eighty-eight  
> members of the House cosponsored this legislation.
>
> Need for Congressional Action:  For several years the National  
> Federation of the Blind has been concerned about the proliferation  
> of silent vehicles.  Recently automobile manufacturers have  
> acknowledged the problems posed to blind pedestrians by silent  
> vehicle technology and have begun to work with the National  
> Federation of the Blind to seek solutions.  However, federal  
> regulators have indicated that, in the absence of statistics on  
> injuries or deaths caused by hybrid vehicles, nothing can be done.   
> Congress must therefore direct the Department of Transportation to  
> take action.  It is crucial that this problem be addressed before  
> the inevitable avalanche of tragedies involving blind people, small  
> children, seniors, cyclists, runners, and newly blinded veterans  
> shocks the nation.
>
> Proposed Legislation:  Congressmen Towns and Stearns have  
> reintroduced the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act to direct the  
> Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study and establish a motor  
> vehicle safety standard that provides a means of alerting blind and  
> other pedestrians of motor vehicle operation, based on appropriate  
> scientific research and consultation with blind Americans and other  
> affected groups.  This national motor vehicle safety standard must  
> have the following characteristics:
>   * In all phases of operation (including times when the vehicle is  
> at a full stop) vehicles shall be required to emit an omni- 
> directional sound with similar spectral characteristics to those of  
> a modern internal combustion engine.
>   * The sound should vary in a way that is consistent with the sound  
> of vehicles with combustion engines to indicate whether the vehicle  
> is idling, maintaining a constant speed, accelerating, or  
> decelerating.
>          The standard need not prescribe the apparatus, technology,  
> or method to be used by vehicle manufacturers to achieve the  
> required minimum sound level.  This approach will encourage  
> manufacturers to use innovative and cost-effective techniques to  
> achieve the minimum sound standard.
>          The addition of components to emit a minimum sound  
> discernible by blind and other pedestrians will not negatively  
> affect environmental benefits of gasoline-electric hybrids and other  
> automobiles running on alternate power sources, and the emitted  
> sound need not be loud enough to contribute to noise pollution.   
> Automobiles that operate in complete silence, however, endanger the  
> safety of all of us; silent operation should be viewed as a design  
> flaw comparable to the lack of seat belts or air bags.
>
> Requested Action:  Please support blind Americans by cosponsoring  
> the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act to authorize the U.S.  
> Department of Transportation to establish and promulgate regulations  
> specifying a minimum sound standard for all new automobiles sold in  
> the United States.  In the House of Representatives, members can be  
> added by contacting Emily Khoury in Congressman Towns’s office, or  
> James Thomas in Congressman Stearns’s office.  In the Senate members  
> can support independence for blind Americans by sponsoring companion  
> legislation.
>
>
> Contact Information:
> Jesse Hartle
> Government Programs Specialist
> NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
> Phone:  (410) 659-9314, extension 2233
> Email:  jhartle at nfb.org
>
> A TECHNOLOGY BILL OF RIGHTS FOR THE BLIND
>
>
> Purpose:  To create a Technology Bill of Rights for the Blind that  
> mandates consumer electronics, home appliances, and office equipment  
> to provide user interfaces that are accessible through nonvisual  
> means.
>
> Background:  In recent years rapid advances in microchip and digital  
> technology have led to increasingly complex user interfaces for  
> everyday products like consumer electronics, home appliances, and  
> office equipment.  Many new devices in these categories require user  
> interaction with visual displays, on-screen menus, touch screens,  
> and other user interfaces that are inaccessible to individuals who  
> are blind or have low vision.  No longer are settings on the  
> television, home stereo system, or dishwasher controlled by knobs,  
> switches, and buttons that can be readily identified and whose  
> settings can be easily discerned, with or without the addition of  
> tactile markings by the user.  Moreover, the use of inaccessible  
> interfaces on office equipment such as copiers and fax machines  
> makes these devices unusable by the blind and therefore a potential  
> threat to a blind person’s existing job or a barrier to obtaining  
> new employment.
>
>          This growing threat to the independence and productivity of  
> blind people is unnecessary since digital devices can function  
> without inaccessible interfaces.  Today text-to-speech technology is  
> inexpensive and more nearly ubiquitous than it has ever been; it is  
> used in everything from automated telephone systems to the weather  
> forecasting service broadcast by the National Oceanic and  
> Atmospheric Administration.  Indeed, a few manufacturers have  
> incorporated this technology into their products to create talking  
> menus or to articulate what is on the display; there is no reason  
> why other manufacturers cannot do so as well.  And text-to-speech  
> technology is not the only mechanism by which consumer electronics,  
> home appliances, and office equipment can be made accessible to  
> blind people.
>
> Need for Legislation:  Currently there are no enforceable mandates  
> for manufacturers of consumer electronics, home appliances, or  
> office equipment to make their devices accessible and no  
> accessibility standards to provide guidance to manufacturers on how  
> to avoid creating barriers to access by the blind.  Congress should  
> therefore enact a Technology Bill of Rights for the Blind, which  
> clearly establishes that manufacturers must create accessible user  
> interfaces for their products, provide a means for enforcement, and  
> establish standards that will provide meaningful benchmarks that  
> manufacturers can use to make their products accessible.
>
>          Congress need not mandate a single, one-size-fits-all  
> solution for all consumer technology.   Rather any such legislation  
> should mandate regulations that set meaningful accessibility  
> standards, while at the same time allowing manufacturers to select  
> from a menu of potential solutions that, singly or in combination,  
> will allow blind users to operate the technology easily and  
> successfully.  This will not only give manufacturers the freedom and  
> flexibility they desire, but encourage innovations that make  
> consumer technology more usable for everyone.
>
>
>
> Proposed Legislation:  Congress should enact a Technology Bill of  
> Rights for the Blind that:
>
>   * Mandates that all consumer electronics, home appliances, and  
> office equipment  be designed so that blind people are able to  
> access the same functions as sighted people by nonvisual means and  
> with substantially equivalent ease of use; and
>
>   * Creates a commission to establish standards for nonvisual  
> accessibility of electronic devices intended for use in the home or  
> office.  Such a commission should represent all stakeholders,  
> including organizations of the blind; manufacturers of consumer  
> electronics, home appliances, and office equipment or associations  
> representing such manufacturers; and experts on universal design,  
> electronic engineering, and related fields.  This commission should  
> have enforcement powers or be housed within a government agency  
> having such powers (e.g., U.S. Department of Commerce), and should  
> be authorized to reexamine and rewrite standards periodically, as  
> consumer electronic technology continues to evolve.
>
> Requested Action:  Please support blind Americans by introducing  
> legislation to create a Technology Bill of Rights for the Blind (or  
> by cosponsoring once legislation has been introduced) so that blind  
> people will be able to participate fully in all aspects of American  
> society.  Increased access leads to increased independence,  
> increased employment, and increased tax revenue.
>
>
>
> Contact Information:
> James McCarthy
> Government Programs Specialist
> NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
> Phone:  (410) 659-9314, extension 2240
> Email:  jmccarthy at nfb.org
>
> REMOVING THE EARNINGS PENALTY:  A COMMON SENSE WORK INCENTIVE FOR  
> BLIND SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARIES
>
>
> Purpose:  To promote and facilitate the transition by blind  
> Americans from Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)  
> beneficiaries to income-earning, taxpaying, productive members of  
> the American workforce.
>
> Background:  The unemployment rate for working-age blind people is  
> over 70 percent.  Part of the reason for this disproportionately  
> high statistic is the myths and misconceptions about the true  
> capacities of blind people.  These erroneous perceptions are  
> manifested when employers refuse to hire the blind.
>
>          In addition, governmental programs intended to help blind  
> people meet their basic economic needs, especially the SSDI program,  
> have had the unintended consequence of creating an incentive for  
> blind people to remain unemployed or underemployed despite their  
> desire to work.  Low societal expectations result in low  
> representation of the blind in the workforce.  This low  
> representation of the blind reinforces low societal expectations it  
> is a vicious circle that perpetuates systemic employment  
> discrimination against the blind.
>
>          Despite the efforts of the National Federation of the  
> Blind, blindness still has profound social and economic  
> consequences.  Governmental programs should encourage blind people  
> to reach their full employment potential; they should not encourage  
> economic dependence.
>
> Existing Law:  Title II of the Social Security Act provides that  
> disability benefits paid to blind beneficiaries are eliminated if  
> the beneficiary exceeds a monthly earnings limit.  This earnings  
> limit is in effect a penalty imposed on blind Americans when they  
> work.  This penalty imposed by the SSDI program means that, if a  
> blind person earns just $1 over $1,640 (the monthly limit in 2009  
> following a Trial Work Period), all benefits are lost.
>
>          Section 216(i)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act defines  
> blindness as a disability based on objective measurement of acuity  
> and visual field, as opposed to the subjective criterion of  
> inability to perform Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA).  For blind  
> people, doing work valued at the SGA earnings limit terminates  
> benefits but does not terminate disability.  Only blind people not  
> working or those with work earnings below an annually adjusted  
> statutory earnings limit receive benefits.
>
> Need for Legislation:  When a blind person enters the workforce,  
> there is no guarantee that wages earned will replace SSDI benefits  
> after taxes are paid and work expenses are deducted.  For example,  
> Jane worked as a customer service representative with an annual  
> income of $35,000 until she became blind from diabetic retinopathy.   
> Jane meets the criteria for SSDI benefits, which provide income of  
> $1,060 a month (or $12,720 a year) tax-free while she is not  
> working.  Jane wants additional income to meet her financial needs.   
> After an adjustment period and blindness skills training, she finds  
> employment as a part-time representative making $10 an hour for 35  
> hours a week.  Jane grosses $350 a week for an average of $1,517 a  
> month.  Using a conservative 25 percent withholding tax, Jane nets  
> $1,137.50 from her work, combined with her $1,060 disability  
> benefit, for a net total of $2,197.50 a month.  If Jane should have  
> the opportunity to work full time (40 hours), her weekly salary  
> would go up to $400 a week for a monthly average of $1,733.  This  
> amount is over the 2009 earnings limit, so Jane loses all of her  
> disability benefits.  Using the same 25 percent tax level, Jane nets  
> only $1,300 a month working an extra five hours a week has cost Jane  
> $897.50 net income (over $10,500 a year).  This example illustrates  
> the work disincentive contained in current law.
>
>          A gradual reduction of $1 in benefits for every $3 earned  
> over the earnings limit would remove the earnings penalty and  
> provide a financial incentive to work.  The benefit amount paid to  
> an individual will gradually decrease, while the individual’s  
> contribution to the Social Security trust fund increases over time.   
> Under this approach, as Jane earns more, she pays more into the  
> trust fund, and her dependence on benefits decreases.
>
>          Monthly earnings evaluations are unnecessarily complicated  
> for both the beneficiaries and the Social Security Administration.   
> Since the medical prognosis for blind people rarely changes, and  
> because blindness is objectively measurable, blind people should be  
> subject to an annual earnings test with the limit equal to the  
> twelve times applicable monthly SGA amount.
>
>          Under current law blind workers frequently pay for items  
> and services related to their disabilities that are necessary for  
> them to work, and they are permitted to subtract these Impairment  
> Related Work Expenses (IRWE) from monthly earnings when determining  
> monthly income.  Properly crediting IRWE poses a serious challenge  
> to the SSDI program and creates a lack of predictability for the  
> blind person trying to determine whether benefits will be  
> available.  To address both issues, Congress should permit SSDI  
> recipients to claim the same amount used when determining an income  
> subsidy under the Medicare prescription drug program, currently 16.3  
> percent.
>
>          Congress should enact legislation to:
> ·       Provide that earnings of blind SSDI beneficiaries in excess  
> of the annual earnings limit result in a gradual benefit reduction  
> of $1 for each $3 earned over the limit;
> ·       Establish an annual earnings test for blind SSDI  
> beneficiaries; and
> ·       Establish one standard IRWE deduction for blind SSDI  
> beneficiaries equal to the amount presently applicable for this  
> deduction when determining an appropriate income subsidy under the  
> Medicare prescription drug program or 16.3 percent of earnings,  
> whichever is greater.
>
> Requested Action:  Please support blind Americans by cosponsoring  
> legislation that provides a common sense work incentive for blind  
> Social Security beneficiaries.
>
> Contact Information:
> James McCarthy
> Government Programs Specialist
> NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
> Phone:  (410) 659-9314, extension 2240
> Email:  jmccarthy at nfb.org
>
> The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link  
> attachments:
>
> 2009-Washington-Seminar-Legislative-Agenda-and-FactSheets.doc
>
>
>
> Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may  
> prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments.   
> Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are  
> handled.  <2009-Washington-Seminar-Legislative-Agenda-and- 
> FactSheets1.doc>_______________________________________________
> Electronics-talk mailing list
> Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info  
> for Electronics-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/renee%40zeli.net


________________
Renee M. Zelickson
renee at zeli.net
www.zeli.net