by Mitch Pomerantz

I am writing this a few days after Donna and my return from a most interesting series of ACB-related meetings in Washington, D.C. and capped off by a full
and productive day on Capitol Hill advocating for four initiatives (more on those shortly). Before going further, however, let me acknowledge the seven
members of our delegation: Beside Donna and myself, our group included Ardis Bazyn, Vincent Calderon, Charles Nabarrete, Karen Shrawder (our first-timer),
and Jeff Thom. Of the 53 members of the California Congressional Delegation we had appointments with 38 as well as with representatives from Senators Boxer
and Feinstein (we dropped off material at the offices of the other 15). Additionally, Ardis was able to meet personally with her congressman, Adam Schiff,
while Donna and I spent close to 30 minutes with our representative, Judy Chu.

Three of the four issues we discussed are hold-overs from 2015: H.R. 729, the Medicare Demonstration of Coverage for Low Vision Devices Act of 2015 (Maloney,
D-NY and Bilirakis, R-FL); H.R. 3535, The Alice Cogswell and Anne Sullivan Macy Act (Cartwright, D-PA and McKinley, R-WV); and ratification of the Marrakesh
Treaty. The fourth issue, described as a regulatory imperative: Making the Internet Accessible for All, is not legislation, but a call to the House of
Representatives for a letter.

Some explanation is in order. Since the Americans with Disabilities Act became law prior to the widespread use of the Internet, no requirement for web
accessibility was included in the ADA regulations. As such, businesses with Internet sites have been forced to comply with the ADA through litigation,
which routinely raise questions regarding the applicability of Titles II and III to web accessibility. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has promised that
regulatory guidance would be developed for over a decade, and in 2010 issued an Announcement for Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (ANPRM) on Information
and Communication Technology (ICT). This past November, however, DOJ announced that it was pushing back release of the Title III proposed regulations until
2018.

In December, Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) along with other senators, sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (which oversees cabinet-level
agencies in such matters) calling for an end to the delays and to move forward toward issuing the Notice of Proposed Rule-Making. ACB's message to members
of the House was to seek similar advocacy efforts through a letter to OMB calling upon it to move forward with DOJ's ICT rule-making.

Briefly, let me review our other three initiatives before moving on to CCB's legislative agenda.

H.R. 729 would evaluate, through a five-year national demonstration project administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, the fiscal impact
of a permanent change to the Social Security Act to allow reimbursement for certain low-vision devices which are the most function-rich that sustain daily
independent living. The devices would be considered "durable medical equipment".

H.R. 3535 would, among its provisions, ensure that every student with vision loss is properly identified regardless of formal disability category or classification
so that all such students, including those with additional disabilities, are counted and properly served; expect states to conduct strategic planning,
and commit such planning to writing, to guarantee that all students who are blind or vision impaired within each state receive all specialized instruction
and services needed provided by properly trained personnel; and clarify that proper evaluation of such students includes evaluation of their needs for
instruction in communication (e.g. Braille instruction and assistive technology proficiency).

The Treaty of Marrakesh would, once ratified by the United States Senate, facilitate access to printed material for people who are blind or who have other
print reading disabilities through a number of provisions designed to protect U.S. copyright holders while making materials available from other nations
who are signatories to the Treaty.

Now for a look at CCB's 2016 legislative initiatives. Our efforts are focused on a pair of guide dog related bills which are supported by Guide Dog Users
of California (GDUC).

SB 1331 (Pavley) addresses matters within the purview of the State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind, the regulatory body overseeing the three licensed
guide dog schools here in California. The bill would: 1. require the Board to be comprised of at least three members who are blind or visually impaired
who use guide dogs and stipulate that one representative from each of the two major consumer organizations representing Californians who are blind or visually
impaired be members of the Board; 2. authorize personnel from a certified guide dog school outside California that previously provided training or instruction
to an individual residing in the state to provide follow-up services to that individual for the guide dog for which training and instruction was originally
provided; 3. place those services beyond the jurisdiction of the Board; 4. require the Board to prepare a fact sheet regarding its various functions and
to post it on the Board's Internet site; and 5. require a licensed guide dog school to provide copies of the fact sheet to every student receiving training.

AB1824 (Chang) would:
1. strengthen criminal provisions relating to dog attacks on service dogs;
2. delete the requirement that the guide, signal, or service dog be in discharge of its duties when the injury or death occurs;
3. make these crimes applicable to the injury or death of dogs that are enrolled in a training school or program for such dogs; and
4. require the defendant convicted of such crimes to make restitution to the victim for medical or medical-related expenses, or for loss of wages as a
direct result of the crime.

That will more than do it for this report. Take care and I hope to see many of you this summer at the ACB National Conference and Convention in Minneapolis.