ASSESSING THE ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY ACT 

OF 1998 

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 21, 2002 

Serial No. 107-52 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2002 

81-200 pdf 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 

 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia DAVID WU, Oregon 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania SUSAN DAVIS, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

 RIC KELLER, Florida 

 TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

VACANCY

Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

 John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS 

 HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California, Chairman

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia, Vice Chairman PATSY MINK, Hawaii

JOHN BOEHNER, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware RON KIND, Wisconsin 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

FRED UPTON, Michigan BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 
iii

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents...........................................................................................................................iii 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C..................................................................................................................... 2 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER PATSY T. MINK, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ..................... 5 

STATEMENT OF MARK SCHULTZ, DIRECTOR, ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 

PARTNERSHIP, NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA

...................................................................................................................................................... 10 

STATEMENT OF PAUL RASINSKI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARYLAND 

TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND........................... 13 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDEPENDENT 

EMPOWERMENT CENTER, MANASSAS, VIRGINIA........................................................... 15 

STATEMENT OF CAROL NOVAK, PARENT, TAMPA, FLORIDA...................................... 17 

APPENDIX A - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. 

“BUCK” McKEON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ........................................................................... 33 

APPENDIX B - LETTERS REGARDING THE ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY ACT 

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY RANKING MEMBER PATSY T. MINK, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................................... 41 

APPENDIX C - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER PATSY T. 

MINK, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................................. 101 

APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MARK SCHULTZ, DIRECTOR, ASSISTIVE 

TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIP, NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 

LINCOLN, NEBRASKA ........................................................................................................... 107
iv

APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PAUL RASINSKI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

MARYLAND TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. 117 

APPENDIX F - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

INDEPENDENT EMPOWERMENT CENTER, MANASSAS, VIRGINIA............................ 127 

APPENDIX G - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CAROL NOVAK, PARENT, TAMPA, 

FLORIDA ................................................................................................................................... 133 

APPENDIX H - WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY GUS 

ESTRELLA, SENIOR POLICY ADVOCATE, UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY 

ASSOCIATIONS, WASHINGTON, D.C.................................................................................. 139 

APPENDIX I - WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY RALPH W. 

MOHNEY, JR., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, RETURN-TO-WORK SERVICES, 

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION .................................................................................... 147 

APPENDIX J - WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY ROBERT A. 

STODDEN, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY CENTERS ON DISABILITIES, 

AND DIRECTOR, CENTER ON DISABILITY STUDIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF 

HAWAII, MANOA .................................................................................................................... 159 

APPENDIX K - WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE 

AMERICAN OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY ASSOCIATION, BETHESDA, MARYLAND 171 

APPENDIX L - WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY NANCY 

CREAGHEAD, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING 

ASSOCIATION, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND........................................................................ 175 

APPENDIX M - WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY STEVEN I. 

JACOBS, PRESIDENT, IDEAL (INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES: ENABLING 

ADVOCACY LINK) AT THE NCR CORPORATION ............................................................ 181 

APPENDIX N - LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY DAVID SCHERER, 

OUTREACH COORDINATOR, DAKOTALINK, RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA........... 185 

APPENDIX O - WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY DIANE 

GOLDEN, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF TECH ACT PROJECTS, SPRINGFIELD, 

ILLINOIS.................................................................................................................................... 189 

APPENDIX P - DOCUMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE ASSISTIVE 

TECHNOLOGY LOAN FUND AUTHORITY, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA............................. 197 

Table of Indexes.......................................................................................................................... 203 
1

HEARING ON ASSESSING THE ASSISTIVE 

TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 1998 

___________________________________________________

Thursday, March 21, 2002 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

 The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House 

Office Building, Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

 Present: Representatives McKeon, Isakson, Osborne, Mink, Tierney, Rivers, and Hinojosa. 

 Also present: Representative Hoyer. 

 Staff present: Blake Hegeman, Legislative Assistant; Charles Hokanson, Professional Staff; 

Sally Lovejoy, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Patrick Lyden, Professional 

Staff Member; Krisann Pearce, Deputy Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; 

Whitney Rhoades, Professional Staff Member; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern 

Coordinator; Heather Valentine, Press Secretary; Mark Zuckerman, Minority General Counsel; Joe 

Novotny, Minority Staff Assistant/Education; and Brendan O'Neil, Minority Legislative 

Associate/Education. 

Chairman McKeon. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness 

will come to order. 
2

 I apologize to those of you who were here at 10:00. We had a little mix-up in the timing, 

but I appreciate you all being very prompt. 

 We are meeting today to hear testimony on assessing the Assistive Technology Act of 1998.

Under committee rule 12(b), opening statements are limited to the chairman and ranking minority 

member of the subcommittee. Therefore, if other members have statements, they will be included 

in the record. 

 With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open 14 days to allow 

member statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in 

the official hearing record. 

 Without objection, so ordered. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

 Good morning, again. We have a full audience. We appreciate all of you coming here. I 

know some of you have come from a long way to be here with us, and we appreciate that. 

 As a Congress, we finished up our voting for the week yesterday. So, fortunately, we will 

not be interrupted with any votes, and we can pay full attention to your testimonies. That is a good 

thing.

 Thank you for joining us for this important hearing today to hear testimony on the 

achievements of the assistive technology programs funded under the federal Assistive Technology 

Act of 1998, the AT Act, and on what should be the future federal role in this area. 

 Today, all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, 

the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, have a State 

Assistive Technology Project funded under Title I of the AT Act. 

 These state AT Projects provide a variety of services and programs, such as information and 

referral services, assessment for appropriate assistive technology, equipment demonstration and 

buy-out, and refurbished assistive technology equipment. 

 The federal grants to these state AT Projects are administered through the National Institute 

of Disability and Rehabilitation Research at the U.S. Department of Education. 

 Earlier this week, my staff and I toured the District of Columbia assistive technology 

resource center to learn more about how the center works with the AT Act. 
3

 It was a very informative visit, and we learned how the Center handles referrals from 

various government agencies and how the Center works with a child, student, or adult to find out 

what services and equipment work best for them. I want to thank those members of that 

organization that gave us that tour. I appreciate their efforts. 

 We also saw and observed demonstrations of many of the devices that are used by those 

needing assistive technology. In addition to the state AT Projects funded under Title I of the AT 

Act, Title III provides federal assistance for state alternative financing programs, such as lowinterest loan programs offered through the state AT Projects and local or regional banks that assist 

individuals with disabilities seeking to purchase assistive technology at a cost they can afford. 

 Currently, 32 states offer financial loan programs that provide loans at low-interest rates to 

individuals with disabilities. Sixteen of these loan programs are funded under Title III of the AT 

Act.

 Assistive technology typically purchased through these programs include vans or vehicle 

modifications, wheelchairs, adapted computers and other equipment that assists individuals with 

disabilities in obtaining or maintaining employment or in increasing their mobility or adaptability 

in a home, school, or community environment. 

 One important reason for holding this hearing is to gather information that will help this 

subcommittee assess whether these federal assistive technology programs, especially the state grant 

programs funded under Title I, have fulfilled their original purpose. 

 When Congress first acted in 1988 to provide technology-related assistance for individuals 

with disabilities, it created a 10-year state grants program to provide seed money to establish 

systems within each state for improving access to assistive technology for individuals with 

disabilities.

 Many now argue that the state grants programs now operating in every state have fulfilled 

the Act's mandate to increase access to, availability of, and funding for assistive technology 

through state efforts and national initiatives. 

 More specifically, the 1994 amendments to the 1988 act included an explicit sunset 

provision indicating that federal funding would begin to decrease in the final three years of the 

program, and would completely cease at the end of 10 full years of funding. 

 States were to take fiscal responsibility for these programs when federal funding ceased, 

and have known this now for eight years. 

 In 1998, Congress extended funding so the states that did not receive initial funding until 

1994 could receive their full 10 years of funding under the AT Act. 

 States who had been in the program prior to 1994 were given three additional years of 

funding to continue meeting the federal mandate, allowing them additional time to address the 

significant changes in electronic technology for people with disabilities that were being developed 
4

in the late 1990s. 

 Under current law, federal funding phases out over the final two years of the program. 

First, it is reduced to 75 percent and then to 50 percent of the original funding level. This was done 

so as to encourage states to take responsibility for the state systems developed under the AT Act as 

federal funding was gradually phased out. 

 In fact, Mr. Goodling, the former chairman of this committee, felt very strongly that the 

Federal Government should only provide seed money for state system development, and that this 

program should not become another never-ending federal program. 

 This year, 23 states are scheduled to be eliminated from federal funding in this upcoming 

fiscal year. The President's 2003 budget request supports the sunset of these 23 state AT Projects, 

and does not include funding for them. The President, however, has included funding for programs 

under Title III of the AT Act of 1998, which provides funding for the alternative financing 

programs. 

 Many argue that 10 years is sufficient time for each state to have established a state system 

for technology access, and that states should no longer need funds for system development. At this 

point, they note the better use of federal funds is to support the revolving loan fund in Title III of 

the AT Act to help individuals with disabilities purchase assistive technology. 

 On the other hand, many believe that the Federal Government should continue to provide 

assistance to states, because technology - having it and being able to use it - has become a reality of 

daily life. This is something that we should explore with our witnesses here today. 

 Authorization for the AT Act of 1998 expires in fiscal year 2004, and this hearing is aimed 

to provide a sense of how states are doing in their efforts to develop State Assistive Technology 

Projects that successfully provide a system of services to individuals with disabilities. 

 During this hearing, we will hear from the directors of two of these state projects. In 

addition, we will hear from a consumer of assistive technology who obtained low-interest loans 

through a state loan fund authority. 

 Lastly, we will hear from an assistive technology policy expert, who is also the mother of 

an adult son who uses assistive technology, about her recommendations for the future of the AT 

Act of 1998. 

 The subcommittee welcomes your insights. I am sure the witnesses' testimonies will be 

invaluable as we continue to examine assistive technology issues. 

 With that, I would like to recognize Congresswoman Mink for her opening statement. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
5

WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX A 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER PATSY T. MINK, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mrs. Mink. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to join you in welcoming our panel of 

witnesses today, and I look forward to your testimony. 

 This is the first hearing on this subject in nine years, and I am pleased that this 

subcommittee will have a chance to hear about the assistive technology act before its legislative 

sunset in 2004. 

 I want to particularly thank the chairman for calling this hearing, and for his interest in this 

subject area. This act makes a significant difference in the lives of millions of people in our 

country. Fifty-four million Americans have some type of disability, and roughly thirty-four million 

use assistive devices. 

 Assistive technology helps people with disabilities by expanding their educational 

opportunities, integrating them into the workforce, and allowing them to participate in community 

affairs.

 Assistive technology is any equipment that is used to increase or improve the functional 

capabilities of individuals with disabilities. The definition includes a wide array of equipment and 

services.

 Accessibility will involve the use of specialized computer keyboards, screen readers, screen 

enlargers, motorized wheelchairs, speech recognition software, and many, many more items. 

 As the chairman has already gone through the explanation of the legislative history and the 

sunset provisions, I will skip over that and ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to have my 

entire statement put in the record. 

 The sunset provision is a disaster, because it will halt the contributions of the Federal 

Government to a very, very important program. It is not something which cannot be described as a 

task finished by the Federal Government. It is only beginning, and it needs this support to 

continue.

 Every year, new individuals become disabled, and become in need of this assistance for 

their survival, for their education, for their entry into the workplace. So it would be extremely 

shortsighted for this congress to permit it to be sunsetted. 

 So this hearing is really very crucial for the congress and members of this committee to 

understand the importance of this program and the tremendous progress that has been made in the 
6

states that participate. 

 My state is to be sunsetted in the year 2004, and the leadership of my community has 

implored me and the committee and others in their communications not to let the sunset occur. If 

the 23 states are allowed to sunset this year, then surely the rest will fall. And so this year's 

determination is especially crucial. 

Mr. Chairman, I have letters here that I have received from a number of state entities and 

other organizations, and I would ask unanimous consent that this collection of letters be inserted in 

the record at this point. 

Chairman McKeon. So ordered. 

LETTERS REGARDING THE ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY ACT SUBMITTED FOR THE 

RECORD BY RANKING MEMBER PATSY T. MINK, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY 

COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX B 

Mrs. Mink. The administration's explanation of defunding it, I think, is really the point that we 

have to address this year, in the appropriations process. 

 So, I am really pleased that we are joined here in this committee today, Mr. Chairman, by 

one of our, how shall we say it, cardinals of our appropriations committee, because he certainly 

will be in the forefront of our efforts to save this program, and to continue the progress that it has 

made for many, many families. 

 And I will ask that my entire statement, Mr. Chairman, be included in the record at this 

point. Thank you. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER PATSY T. MINK, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX C 

Chairman McKeon. So ordered. Thank you very much. 

 You know, we usually do not introduce people in the audience, but we were bribed by a 

couple of people from Idaho with these Idaho pins. 

 [Laughter.] 

Chairman McKeon. I would like to introduce Dan Brownell and Bernie Henschied, and thank 

you for the bribe. I love Idaho potatoes. 

Mrs. Mink. I need two for earrings. 
7

Chairman McKeon. Mrs. Mink says she needs two, because she wants to wear them for earrings. 

Here is another one. 

 [Laughter.] 

Chairman McKeon. And Laura Williams, from California, drove all the way here in her van, and 

we are happy to have her here, as we are all of you. 

 I know it is not easy to overcome some of the difficulties you have had to cope with in your 

lives, and we really appreciate you making the effort to be here. We are very happy to have - I 

don't think he is a cardinal, I think he would love to be a cardinal, and if something disastrous 

happened in the next election, and the Democrats won the majority, he would be cardinal. 

 But we are really happy to have Mr. Hoyer here, because he is a strong advocate, and I am 

sure he will be very helpful in assuring whatever we need help with in this program, as we go 

forward.

 We are happy to have him join us here, even though he is not a member of the committee. 

We all bow down to the appropriators, and we are happy to have him with us. 

 Our witnesses are from some of our committee members' districts, so we will ask Mr. 

Osborne to introduce Mr. Schultz, and we will ask Mr. Hoyer to introduce Mr. Rasinski. I will 

introduce Mr. Ward, and Mr. Isakson will introduce Ms. Novak. Mr. Osborne? 

Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to introduce Mark Schultz to you today, 

who has served as Director of the Nebraska Assistive Technology Partnership since 1989. 

 The Assistive Technology Partnership provides information on locating funding for 

assistive devices and home modifications, and assists persons with disabilities in the areas of 

employment, independent living, education, and housing. 

 In his 13 years as the head of the Nebraska Assistive Technology Partnership, Mr. Schultz 

has been a strong advocate for persons with disabilities. Under his leadership, the Nebraska 

Assistive Technology Partnership has grown into a model for other states. 

 I am pleased that Mr. Schultz is here today to discuss the role that the Nebraska Assistive 

Technology Partnership has played in implementing the Assistive Technology Act in Nebraska. 

 Welcome, Mark, and we look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Chairman McKeon. Mr. Hoyer? 

Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to appear. I was 

going to sit down there, but there was no microphone, so I came up here, and I appreciate the 

invitation. I want to thank you. 
8

 I want to thank Mrs. Mink, the ranking member, like me, a chairman-in-waiting, for her 

comments. And I want to thank Mr. Isakson and Mr. Osborne for being here, as well. Both of them 

are very involved and very effective members of our House, and I appreciate that. 

 As you may know, Mr. Chairman, I have been working to increase funding for assistive 

technology in my role as a member of the Appropriations Committee. And we, as you know, 

continued for nine states last year's funding. 

 That could not have been done, Mr. Chairman, without your help, and I very much 

appreciate that, and I know all the folks here appreciate that, as well, both you and Mrs. Mink were 

critical.

 I also circulated a letter to our colleagues last year, and sent a letter to the chairman of the 

full committee, Mr. Boehner, and he was helpful, as well. So he is not here, but I wish you would 

pass along my appreciation, and I know the appreciation of everybody here today. 

 I am thankful that we are here today, focusing on the important program in learning about 

the assistive technology program, and discussing its future. You made the observation that it was 

tough for some people to get here. But it was made much easier by assistive technology in a lot of 

different forms. 

 For many people with disabilities, access to assistive technology is the difference, as you 

know, Mr. Chairman, from being able to communicate and not being able to do so; being able to 

dress themselves in the morning, and not being able to; to being able to become self-sufficient and 

being dependent. So this is a critical issue for, literally, millions of Americans. 

 Paul Rasinski, who is the Executive Director of the Maryland Technology Assistance 

Program, was born and raised in Baltimore, Maryland. After graduating from Coppin State 

College, also in Baltimore, he began his career in education as an industrial arts instructor in the 

Baltimore City School System. 

 Paul sustained a spinal cord injury in a sports accident, and spent many years rehabilitating 

his physical health, and endeavoring to develop a new career. 

 In 1993, Mr. Chairman, Paul joined the staff of the Maryland Technology Assistance 

Program as the education liaison. The position entails, among other responsibilities, assisting 

parents and educators in the proper selection and use of assistive technology for the individual 

education plans of children with disabilities. 

 Paul was promoted to assistant director in 1996, and on July 1, 1997, assumed the position 

of executive director of Maryland TAP. He has directed the initiation of programs such as the AT 

co-op, that performs as an assistive technology procurement agent for school systems throughout 

the state, and the Maryland AT guaranteed loan program, which you referenced and Mrs. Mink 

referenced at the federal level, that provides guarantees of loans to purchase assistive technology to 

enable citizens of Maryland with disabilities to participate in the promise of our society. 
9

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have such a dedicated spokesperson from the State of 

Maryland before this subcommittee, and thank you for this opportunity. 

Chairman McKeon. Mr. William Ward is the Executive Director of the Independent 

Empowerment Center. Before becoming Executive Director in 1999, he served as a Peer 

Counselor with the Center. 

Mr. Ward currently serves on the Statewide Independent Living Council in Virginia, and 

volunteers with the Manassas Disabilities Services Board. He holds a bachelor's degree in 

Business Administration and Personnel Management from George Mason University. 

 We're happy to have you with us, Mr. Ward. Mr. Isakson? 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is really a treat for me to introduce Carol Hughes 

Novak today, who is going to testify, and to welcome all those testifying. 

 I thought last night, when I finally got to my apartment, how was I going to introduce a lady 

who has really become truly one of my very best friends? I decided the best way to do that was to 

introduce her son, Jonathan, who is here today. Jonathan and I were chatting before this. So, 

Jonathan, this is for you, Bud. 

 Carol and I met about 20 years ago, when we were seeking a handicapped, but accessible, 

playground in Marietta, Georgia, which I represented in the Georgia legislature, and I represent 

today in the Congress of the United States. That playground was built, and it's still usable today, 

and it was accessible for every child, regardless of their ability. 

 Later on, Carol and I became friends, and Jonathan and I became buddies. I watched him 

progress through the Cobb County public schools, and I watched him as an example of the great 

partnership of a loving parent and a compassionate government. And that is a great combination. 

 I had the distinct privilege, as chairman of the state board of education to grant a waiver so 

that, at the age of 22, Jonathan graduated from Wheeler High School in Marietta Georgia, with a B 

average. The only reason Jonathan needed a waiver was because of an absence of foreign 

language, which is often times granted in the public schools, as many of you in education know. 

 Jonathan is a great example of what we are talking about today. I have walked with 

Jonathan, assisted by his power wheelchair. Jonathan, in his accessible van, has traveled to 

political events, and he has traveled to educational events as a testimony to what assistive 

technology can do, and what a loving parent can do. 

 And today, Jonathan and I had a great conversation, thanks to his augmentative technology 

device.

 His mom, Carol, is one of those that have walked the walk. She has made a difference in 

his life. She has ensured that he is more productive, and that he is independent. 
10

 And I can testify, because he is my friend, we have been together so many times, that 

Jonathan's life has been greatly enriched because of his mother, and because of the assistance from 

time to time of rehabilitation services that departments of education and the United States 

government have provided. 

 Jonathan is 25, just about to be 26. And although they moved from my district, because 

Carol recently married, I look forward to seeing them often, because they are, to me, a reminder, 

really, of why all of us are here, and that is to be of assistance to ensure that every American has 

the opportunity to live the most productive and independent life that they can. And to recognize 

that the cost of assisted technology is but a pittance compared to the cost of those that just wish to 

maintain somebody, rather than make them independent. 

 It is an honor and a privilege for me to introduce Carol to you today. And after you have 

heard her testimony, you will understand why her contribution to the lives of millions of Americans 

has been so great in the past, and will be in the future, as she advises this administration and this 

congress on the needs of those in assistive technology. 

 I welcome you, Carol, and I am glad to have you here today. You, too, Jonathan. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. We will now hear from our witnesses. Those of you 

who are new here, you will see those lights in front of you. And when your five minutes starts - we 

will put your full testimonies in the record - but you have five minutes to talk. 

 When the green light comes on, your five minutes starts. When you have one minute left, it 

goes to yellow. And when your time is up, there is a trap door that opens when the red light comes 

on.

 [Laughter.] 

Chairman McKeon. I am just kidding. I do not think there is a trap door there, but we do not want 

to test and find out. 

 We will hear first, then, from Mr. Schultz. 

STATEMENT OF MARK SCHULTZ, DIRECTOR, ASSISTIVE 

TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIP, NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA 

Mr. Schultz. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Mark Schultz. I am the 

Director of the Nebraska Assistive Technology Partnership, one of the 50 states and 6 territories 

receiving federal funding from Title I of the Tech Act. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to 

you today about our accomplishments and areas of improvement that we have been able to identify. 
11

 Nebraska was one of the first nine states to receive a grant under the Tech Act, and is now 

in its 13th year of operations. While I am here to share information particular to Nebraska's 

progress, it is important to note that Tech Act projects across the country have developed a variety 

of diverse strategies and programs that comprise a national assistive technology infrastructure. 

 The flexibility of the Tech Act has allowed each state to prioritize their assistive technology 

system needs and uniquely develop strategies to meet those needs, as appropriate. The bottom line 

is that more and more of the 50 million individuals with a disability in the United States are getting 

and using assistive technology to live independently, to go to school, work, and participate in their 

communities than before the Tech Act was created. 

 The Nebraska Assistive Technology Partnership is a collaboration that has resulted in the 

establishment of a comprehensive program of technology-related services for Nebraskans with 

disabilities.

 Partnering agencies provide us with support through grants and contracts to provide public 

awareness, information and referral services, on-site technical assistance, a mobile assessment and 

evaluation service, funding coordination, training for their staff, equipment loans and equipment 

recycling, and funding for assistive technology devices and home modifications. 

 Some programs also have obtained quotes from contractors and vendors, authorized the 

work to be done, monitored the work, and inspected the completed work. The total amount of 

contracts and grants that we receive for implementation of this collaboration is about $850,000 a 

year. The federal Tech Act provides $379,000, which comprises about 31 percent of our budget. 

 During the last three years, non-Tech Act funds that were spent on equipment and home and 

work site modifications totaled more than $14.9 million. An additional $3.9 million in non-Tech 

Act funds were spent on assistive technology services, such as assessments and technical 

assistance. The $1.4 million of federal support through Title I, over the three-year period, has 

leveraged more than $18.7 million in funding for assistive technology in Nebraska. 

 But rather than dwell on all the statistics about what has been done in our state, I would like 

to tell you a story that I think demonstrates the success that can be achieved when programs have 

the strength of Tech Act coordination behind them. 

 Isela Galindo was born three months premature, and weighed one pound. Lack of oxygen 

to her brain caused multiple cranial hemorrhages. Today, at age 10, Isela experiences bone 

development problems, has little control of her hands, and uses a power wheelchair. 

 She lives in Bayard, Nebraska, which is a very rural part of our state. She lives there with 

her parents, Max and Alicia Galindo, and her brother and sister. The Galindos' two bedroom home 

was small, and not built to accommodate a wheelchair. 

 Alicia had to carry her daughter down a hallway, through a bedroom, and then into the 

small bathroom. The doorway was too narrow for Isela's wheelchair, and there was no space to 

maneuver, once inside. Alicia had to lift her daughter in and out of their claw foot bathtub. A back 
12

injury made it increasingly difficult for Alicia to lift her daughter, as she grew older and heavier. 

 An assessment of the family's needs with the Tech Act program determined that the only 

solution would be an accessible addition to their home. The family could not believe that that was 

possible.

 Thanks to coordinated funding from the Tech Act program, resources were obtained from 

the Department of Economic Development in Nebraska, Health and Human Services, and 

Vocational Rehabilitation to provide over $18,000 to build an accessible bathroom/bedroom 

addition. The addition has adequate space to utilize a lift to assist Isela in and out of bed and her 

wheelchair.

 And before she had her own room, she slept on the floor in her parents' bedroom, because 

there was not enough room for a lift to get close enough to any of the beds in the other rooms. And 

with two more children, they did not have any accessible space. 

 The roll-in shower with grab bars and hand-held shower made bathing easy and safe.

According to one of the agencies involved, the experience of building the addition has helped the 

Galindo family plan for Isela's future. 

 The independence Isela has achieved is the first step towards her self-sufficiency as a 

teenager and as an adult. As an additional benefit, she now has space in her bedroom for a 

computer for school assignments. She was able to obtain that computer through our program's 

recycling program. 

 The state resources that we have used are targeted to specific populations, areas of the state, 

ages, or disability. The Tech Act knows no boundaries, which makes it the glue that holds these 

assorted programs together. 

 Without the federal funding to demonstrate the viability of assistive technology through 

modeling its services or pilot demonstrations, we will have no way to move beyond our current 

service delivery system. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my formal statement. I would be happy to answer any 

questions that members of this subcommittee may have. Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MARK SCHULTZ, DIRECTOR, ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY 

PARTNERSHIP, NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA - 

SEE APPENDIX D 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rasinski? 
13

STATEMENT OF PAUL RASINSKI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARYLAND 

TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 

Mr. Rasinski. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to share our thoughts about our state programs funded by the Assistive Technology 

Act.

 I want to especially thank you, Mr. McKeon, and you, Mrs. Mink, for your leadership on 

this issue. I also want to thank our representative from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, for his outstanding 

efforts in trying to continue funding for the Tech Act. 

 I think I speak for many of us here today when I say that people with disabilities are pleased 

that you have called this hearing to begin an examination of this important program that serves so 

many Americans with disabilities across our country. 

 It has been almost a decade since the House of Representatives held a hearing on this law.

So much has happened over that decade, both in terms of the accomplishments of the state grant 

programs and in the advances that we have seen in technology. Remember, a decade ago, people 

did not even know what e-mail was. 

 As the information age moves us forward with technology, and innovations in our schools, 

homes, and work places, we connect to a national information infrastructure. It is imperative that 

all citizens, including those that are elderly, and those with disabilities, be included in every way.

The Federal Government has an important continuing role to play in ensuring that this happens. 

 State Tech Act Projects support and create a much-needed infrastructure within the states to 

ensure access for people across the country. 

 I would like to kind of move from reading this to you, and sort of give you an idea of what 

is in the future. We feel that when the Tech Act, if it is allowed to terminate, we wonder about 

folks who have a child who has been healthy and a good, productive student in school for 10 or 12 

years, then suddenly has an accident causing brain trauma, maybe paralysis of some kind. Who 

will those parents go to? 

 Right now, they have probably not had any dealings with the Assistive Technology Act, or 

the program. But they are going to need somebody in that short instance that they find out that they 

have a disability, and they are going to have to find some way of connecting with the technology 

that they need. 

 There are senior citizens out there that are just realizing they can't climb the same set of 

stairs that they climbed for the last 40 years. Who will they go to? 

 There are employers out there who are starting to find resumes on the Internet, and they 

find out that they just can't get this person into their building, because the person has a disability. 

But in fact, that is the most important person they could have found for the job that they have to 
14

offer.

 A lot of software products, a lot of computer-related jobs are being filled by persons with 

disabilities. We would like to be able to be in place to connect the businesses with these people. 

 Our program has created one of the Title III loan programs. Along with it, we created a 

non-profit organization that has been negotiating discount prices for assistive technology and 

special education software. We combined the two. 

 Now, a person can come to us, get an evaluation for the proper piece of equipment that they 

need, then turn that around, get a discount price from the cooperative buying program for that piece 

of equipment, and then they get a loan through our program at the same time. 

 So, we have the continuing - not only good for those folks, but also good for the economy at 

the same time - kinds of programs. We are initiating programs like this all the time. We do not 

wait for, or just continue with our INR programs, we know they are a valuable part of what has to 

be done, but at the same time, they are not the only thing. 

 In 2004, the Assistive Technology Act is scheduled for reauthorization by Congress. My 

colleagues and I in the state programs, and many other non-profit organizations around the country 

look forward to working with you to develop new ways to support access to technology for persons 

with disabilities. 

 We hope that you will ensure continued support for the programs in the 50 states and 6 

territories. We believe that this is a federal leadership role, providing the infrastructure and the 

seed money that leverages the great range of programs and services that are critical to people with 

disabilities.

 For example, the Title III programs are administered by Title I state grant programs. If the 

Title I programs disappear, who will provide those Title III programs? 

 We are most grateful to you for your leadership, on behalf of Americans with disabilities, 

who depend on assistive technology for independence, and their full participation in our society.

Thank you very much. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PAUL RASINSKI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARYLAND 

TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND - SEE APPENDIX E 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Mr. Ward? 
15

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

INDEPENDENT EMPOWERMENT CENTER, MANASSAS, VIRGINIA 

Mr. Ward. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Bill 

Ward, and I would like to take a few minutes to share my experiences with you about how the 

Virginia assistive technology system and the Virginia Assistive Technology Loan Fund Authority 

have helped me. 

 On July 1, 1982, my life changed drastically when I had an accident, 20 years ago this year, 

that broke my neck and left me a C3-4 quadriplegic with a spinal cord injury, but I am alive to talk 

about it. I am alive to see my daughter graduate from the University of Virginia this coming year. 

All things are going well. 

 The first thing I think I need to talk about is the fact that what happened to me could happen 

to anyone up there, so you, too, could be a product and someone very much in need of assistive 

technology.

 With me, I think it is hard to believe, at age 50, I could be a poster child for anything, but as 

I sit here, I think I feel like one. I have got the long straw I get at the Chinese restaurants, and the 

man-made, the one that was done by a rehab engineer, my little mouth sticks that I use, which is the 

old style. 

 I can go to Lowe's and buy my tubes to support it, Wal-Mart for my rack that holds up the 

paper so I could see it, and then my $17,000 wheelchair with cell phones connected and 

speakerphones, et cetera, et cetera. Plus, my van is lift-equipped and has electric lock-down on the 

floor.

 These came about, but I would like to take a couple of seconds to talk about my life before 

technology. Without all the technology I had, I was relegated in my transfers and travel to using a 

sliding board for transfers, requiring at least two people to drive me somewhere. 

 Now, someone can drive me, it doesn't have to be a particularly healthy individual, as long 

as they have a valid driver's license. So, I am more concerned about their driving ability these 

days, than their masculinity, or their ability and strength. 

 I was using a manual wheelchair that had to be disassembled, folded, and placed in the 

trunk. This great deal of planning on my part, and effort by people that worked with me made it a 

lot different, and they would have to think a lot more carefully about when and where I went. 

 So, basically, my day of travel was very limited, generally only about one or two stops.

Then I came up to Technology 101, and having gone to a rehab center and found some money on 

my own to buy a lift-equipped van with a four-point tie-down system, which made this my secondgeneration for transportation. 
16

 My current transportation consisted of two parts, and I think it is very important that these 

are very integral parts of assistive technology systems. 

 One of them is getting technical advice from a tech system in Virginia, Virginia Assistive 

Technology Service. They showed me the benefit of electric lock-down systems, the benefits of 

different things, and modern technology that I was able to access, touch, feel, and actually try out 

different things sometimes. 

 I also have a barrier-free lift, which is a new piece of assistive technology that I saw at one 

of the VATS conferences that was held years ago. Consequently, what it does is by having great 

technical assistance, it prevents you from making thousands of dollars in mistakes by purchasing 

the wrong equipment, even if you can get the money from different services. 

 My van that I had then, that I could afford on my own without the assistance of an assistive 

technology loan service, was one that my family and I could afford to buy. It was a much older 

van, with much higher mileage. We made it last me six years. I do a lot of traveling in my job as 

director for the Center for Independent Living. And consequently, the van now has 249,000 miles. 

So you can see, it is very tired. 

 And many occasions on my trip, I hear from different participants at my center who are 

people that have CSRs on how technology has helped them. We refer lots of people first to 

Virginia Assistive Technology Systems so that they can get information and referral, so that they 

don't make many dollars of mistakes. 

 And certainly when I was in the rehab center, with the state picking up the tab, I picked up a 

piece of what I think is useless $800 equipment, which is a page turner. Quite frankly, if you are 

trying to go from A to Z, sipping and puffing will never get you, a page at a time, from apples to 

zebra. With my mouth stick, I can do it a whole lot faster. So, you need that guidance that comes 

from a tech system. 

 But I should also tell you about my disappointments with the bank systems, and banks that 

were concerned about participants not having full-time jobs, and I was part-time. I couldn't even 

consider getting a loan. 

 Banks didn't understand, necessarily, the piece of equipment people were looking for, they 

didn't understand it. Using tech systems and assistive technology loan funds in your state, they 

understand what you are talking about. 

 Sometimes, if you were requesting a small amount, people wanting $500 to $1,000, you 

couldn't get that from a bank. It resulted in sub-standard financing alternatives, where people had 

to get financing from the companies. Many people fall prey to the people that are selling that 

technology. Everybody knows there is good technology, bad technology, and all kinds of schemes 

to finance them. 

 The application process for a loan was very simple. We went to the website, downloaded 

from the list the application, made the application, sent it off with the standard bank form, mailed 
17

the loan to Sun Trust Bank, explaining concerns about different things, and also had the lower 

interest rate because of a buy-down. 

 One of the key things that was important about all of it was the fact that it was consumercontrolled. I have a life because of the two systems involved, the consumer direction was allowed. 

 In conclusion, I would like to be thankful for the ability to access and attain certain modern 

technologies to make life easier for me, and make sure I have a life. In addition, it makes it easier 

for those who provide care for me, by having the assistive technology. 

 Tech products provide direct technical assistance to consumers, service for independent 

living, and service providers and agencies through their information and referral capabilities. The 

assistive technology program has made the money available, and made the reality out of the 

information I received from the tech system. 

 I thank you for your time, and I apologize for running over a few seconds. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDEPENDENT 

EMPOWERMENT CENTER, MANASSAS, VIRGINIA - SEE APPENDIX F 

Chairman McKeon. I am just glad we didn't have to deal with that trap door. I was very much 

enjoying your testimony. 

Ms. Novak? 

 STATEMENT OF CAROL NOVAK, PARENT, TAMPA, FLORIDA 

Ms. Novak. Thank you very much. I am not so good with the technology, am I? 

 I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing on the Assistive Technology Act 

of 1998. Research, data, and statistics are useful in assessing the outcome of public policy. But the 

real experts in assessing outcomes are the people with disabilities who use or need assistive 

technology.

 My son, Jonathan, and I have lived with his cerebral palsy for almost 26 years. During 

those years, we have acquired extensive knowledge of and experience with assistive technology 

and federal assistive technology programs. 

 A variety of assistive technologies enable Jonathan to live a more independent and 

productive life. He uses the power chair for mobility, an accessible van for transportation, an 

augmentative communication device for communication, word prediction software for computer 

access, and a ceiling track lift and transfer system for activities of daily living. He also uses several 

low-tech assistive technologies, such as a plate guard that enables him to eat independently. 
18

 It is important to note that the combined cost of all these technologies that will last over a 

number of years is less than the cost of one year in a nursing home. The main intent of the original 

act passed in 1988 was to provide grants to states for the purpose of increasing awareness of 

assistive technology. 

 That goal has been accomplished, and the state AT Act projects contributed to this 

achievement. Today, there are a number of websites that serve as clearinghouses of information on 

assistive technology. 

 Mainstream resources are now disseminating information on AT, as well. Business Week 

Online has run an assistive technology column on a regular basis for several years. AARP's 

website features a section on tools and gadgets for independent living. Many vendors, from 

Sunrise Medical to Maxi-Aids, have websites, and even my hometown newspaper publishes 

occasional articles on assistive technology. 

 Professional associations, like RESNA, offer conferences and training on assistive 

technology. Industry, in order to comply with section 508 of the Rehab Act, is addressing 

disability access in mainstream electronic, and information technologies. 

 It is no longer necessary or appropriate for federal programs to fund what amounts to 

assistive technology product marketing efforts. Industry and entrepreneurs are now engaged in the 

arena of assistive technology, and the private sector is traditionally more efficient than the public 

sector in exacting change. 

 Reports by the National Council on Disability and the National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research have established that the primary reason people with disabilities don't have 

the technology they need is lack of funding. 

 The existence of a widespread need for assistive technology is affirmed in the nation's 

strategic public health plan, Healthy People 2010, by Goal 6-11, which is to “Reduce the 

proportion of people with disabilities who report not having the assistive devices and technology 

needed.”

 The principal funding sources for assistive technology are Vocational Rehabilitation, VA, 

Medicaid, and school systems when an IDEA student's IEP calls for AT. However, these programs 

serve narrowly defined populations, and many people with disabilities who can benefit from 

assistive technology are not eligible for any of them. 

 Even when a person is eligible for one of these programs, it is often difficult to get funding 

approval for the purchase of assistive technology. Challenging battles and long waiting periods are 

typical. For this reason, I support continued funding to the state protection and advocacy offices to 

advocate for people's assistive technology needs. 

 In the 21st century, ``We need to make capital investments in people, rather than 

maintaining them in lifelong dependence on the government,'' as Newt Gingrich aptly states in 
19

``The Age of Transitions.'' 

 In other words, we should be funding people, not programs. 

 In order to reduce the major barrier to the acquisition of assistive technology - the lack of 

funding - the resources available for assistive technology programs should be directed as follows: 

(1) expanding funding for the alternative financing programs authorized in Title III and supported 

by President Bush in the New Freedom Initiative; (2) promoting assistive technology recycling 

efforts; (3) funding expert assessments; and (4) providing consumer training for the more 

sophisticated devices. 

 Federal assistive technology programs must be responsive to the people they are meant to 

serve, like Jonathan, and they must be responsible to the taxpayer. This is essential to the 

achievement of good public policy, because consumers' need for assistive technology is the reason 

these programs exist, and because it's the taxpayers' money that funds these programs. 

 We can empower people with disabilities by making funding for the purchase of assistive 

technology directly available to them. 

 Increasing their independence and participation through assistive technology will be both 

responsive and responsible. Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CAROL NOVAK, PARENT, TAMPA, FLORIDA - SEE 

APPENDIX G 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. I really enjoyed your testimonies. 

 I was first elected to Congress in 1993, and we had a mandate to balance the budget. And I 

remember when we won the majority, and we were really, you know, pushing hard to balance the 

budget, a lot of people would come to my office and they would say, ``We agree with what you are 

doing, it is really important. We need to get our financial house in order. But don't cut our 

program.'' You know, ``It is a good program.'' 

 That is one of the problems we have to deal with: What programs should we carry out on a 

federal level, and what programs should be carried out on a state level? 

 I have two good friends, Mr. Ward, that did have accidents like yours. They were in the 

prime of their lives, and doing very well. One of them was a great athlete. He was a carpenter, he 

fell off of a roof - and is fortunate to be alive - but he is a paraplegic. And he needs to use these 

services that are provided. 

 Another friend was on a vacation and fell off a ladder, and is a paraplegic. And I have been 

able to do some things to help him, we have been able to get some money to put in a therapeutic 

pool at a university that is going to help, and an article was written in a paper here about pork that 

we got for our district to put in a swimming pool. You know, I can live with those kinds of things, 
20

because I know the people that we have been able to help. 

 As you have been talking, I have been just really thinking a lot about this, and I believe in 

market forces, and I think they are great. I went with my wife one night to get a cell phone, and I 

saw, you know, the technology that was - it is beyond me - but this guy was teaching her all the 

things about how to use this cell phone. 

 But there is a huge market for cell phones. And the market forces will take care of that. 

We don't need to subsidize the sale of cell phones. People can go out and they can get that 

technology.

 But it seems to me that, fortunately, we don't have a huge market of people that need these 

kinds of devices. So, the market isn't going to go out and open up stores to teach people how to use 

these kinds of technologies. If we don't do it, you know, ask people to contribute a little bit of their 

tax money to do these kind of things, the market isn't going to do this. So, the market doesn't work 

in all situations, it seems to me, as one that supports market resources. 

 Your testimonies, the visit that I had the other day, are going to help me in furthering, I 

think, trying to see that we can continue this program. 

 I think probably all the people here are supportive, but we have 435 members in the House, 

we have 100 Senators, and we have the Administration. Can you think of other things, anything 

that you haven't mentioned already, that might help us in talking to our colleagues that are not here 

today, or have not had the opportunity to see how important these projects are, that could be helpful 

to us in arguing on your behalf? 

Mr. Rasinski. Just like we didn't know what was going to happen with technology 10 or 13 years 

ago, when this program started, and we don't know who is going to be disabled in the years to 

come. We could actually look forward to becoming disabled in some way. Every one of us, even 

the most athletic get-about-town kind of person there is now can look forward to some form of 

disability in the future. 

 What we need to do is make sure that they have some place to go, someone to talk with, 

that knows about everything that there is to know about assistive technology. And I am not just 

talking about computer access, I am talking about in the home kinds of things: the ramps, the grab 

bars, the lift, the mobility issues, what kinds of devices go into a vehicle to make it accessible and 

carry a person with a disability using a wheelchair. 

 We are talking about employment. What does a building have to have in it to allow a 

person with a disability to come and go? The types of software that will be developed, we don't 

know what kinds of things will be developed in the future. 

 But if we, right now, strike down the infrastructure that is set in place and becoming day in 

and day out innovators, moving projects and programs into place as the questions and needs occur, 

if we lose that infrastructure, we are going to have to start all over again. 
21

 The few dollars that it takes, compared to some of the other programs that are run in this 

country, can easily be set aside for the Tech Act projects. We are talking $34 million, $35 million 

a year. You guys know that is almost nothing. 

 When it comes to the effect and the snowball effect that we have within our states, we deal 

with other organizations, we network, we ask for funding in other ways to create new programs, the 

monies that we get - Maryland gets $380,000 a year – we will get a few more dollars from the state 

this year, because Maryland is in a sort of budget crunch itself. 

 But those dollars are enhanced by what we do with other private organizations and their 

funding, we do what the educational systems will allow with their funding. It's a tie-in. We do a 

lot of coordination of the needs for persons with disabilities. 

 There isn't another program - there is the Rehabilitation Act that deals with persons of adult 

age who want to be employed. We have IDEA, zeroing in on students of school age. 

 But the Tech Act programs take people from the moment they are born, if they have a 

disability, to the moment they die, when they become senior citizens, and they realize the kinds of 

input that we can have. No other programs or laws cover all those people. 

 We go into all different areas, the home - we even give people a chance to go out and 

recreate. We find devices and services that will take them up into the woods, like everyone else, 

get that free hotdog off the fire, like everyone else loves. 

 We take folks to work, we find out what kinds of technology there are that will help them 

make life a little easier. 

 I know when I was recovering from my initial injury, the first thing I wanted to do is learn 

how to eat again on my own. I watched food get cold on my plate so many days in a row, I said, 

``Help me.'' They came up with all kinds of devices that helped move my arms, and I started eating 

again. You can see it helped. 

 But the idea is that, you know, we don't know what is coming up. And if we strike down an 

infrastructure that is set in place right now for the sake of a few dollars, then, you know, we are 

really doing a disservice to the persons of this country, I think. Thank you. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Ward. I will use my assistant to raise my hand, if that is okay. 

 One of the things I wanted to say - the main thing I said earlier - is that you don't have a 

life. And as Director for the Center for Independent Living, I see that an awful lot of people come 

into my office who worry about how they are going to go from day to day, and we work on 

budgeting issues, and those kinds of things. 
22

 But certainly, without assistive technology, number one, I wouldn't have a job; I wouldn't 

be able to work a full-time job like I do now, as Director for the Center for Independent Living. 

 Like I said, unlike Mr. Rasinski, I don't feed myself, but I am not losing any weight, either.

So I am concerned about that. 

 [Laughter.] 

Mr. Ward. But as far as the Technical Act and technical assistance stuff, certainly I have friends 

that had their accidents prior to 1982, when I had mine. One gentleman had his in 1964. Back 

then, without technology, he was sent home to die, period. 

 He said he was just sent home, they told his mother there was nothing they could do for 

him. He was one of the persons providing care - he just had the will, and his parents and family 

had the will to make sure that he lived. And so whatever they could do without technology, they 

managed, and he survived. 

 He was so glad to have the technology when I got there, he said, ``Bill, it makes it a whole 

lot easier for me to work with a big lug like you.'' 

 So, consequently, we need to keep technology alive. Certainly, I think we don't know how, 

some people don't know, how young technology really is, and how the assistive devices have really 

come into being, greatly, since 1985, because a lot of the information I used, like the first mouth 

stick I used, required you to have to go to a dentist to get a plate made, for example. 

 It cost you $150 a pop to go see the dentist to do that. Then when you dropped and broke it, 

the cast plate had to be redone again, a whole new $150 process. Now, it is a commercially made 

product, because there is a need for it, and a benefit from having this type of technology. The 

problem is, the industry will not do it on its own, and certainly it needs to have those encouraging 

words.

 Like I said earlier, though, we need to make sure that we have systems in place, like tech 

systems, that make sure that we do not buy the wrong kind of technology, and that people don't 

make all kinds of things because, unfortunately, people with disabilities will become prey to the 

public and to the vendors that make these products, if there isn't some kind of a government 

oversight through tech systems and through the assistive technology loan funds that say, ``Wait a 

minute, you have got to make a decent product for people with disabilities, or we are not going to 

finance it. It doesn't get financed, if it doesn't get encouraged by the tech systems.'' 

 Unfortunately, people with disabilities are looking out for some answer and some product 

that is going to help them. And they are not going to be able to get the insight if we don't have the 

financing from other sources to assure that it gets technical oversight, that lemon laws are passed, 

and different things, to make sure that quality products are put out for people with disabilities, 

because sometimes people with disabilities are at their most dire straits, and need the assistance and 

the oversight from the body that comes down through the Tech Act. Thank you. 
23

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. My time is well up. Yes? Mrs. Mink says it is okay. 

Ms. Novak. Like I said, Jonathan and I have had about 26 years of experience living with a 

significant disability, and we spent 20 years in Georgia and we love Georgia. But our experience 

was that the systems, whether it was the Tech Act project, VR, the school system, whatever, were 

not a source of information for us. They never wanted us to know what was available or what 

Jonathan's opportunities were. 

 We found out, because we are resourceful, from other parents, most of the time, 

occasionally from the P&A, which was always a good and supportive resource. 

 That is why, you know, in my opinion, based on our life experience, people with disabilities 

are going to - we are resourceful people. To survive, we have to be resourceful. We are going to 

find out what is out there. 

 And whether you own a computer or not, everybody has access to the Internet. It is very 

rare that people don't have access to the Internet. And you can put in ``assistive technology,'' or 

you know, ``talking computer,'' and you can just get all sorts of information. 

 And what people need is not just to be told, ``This is what you could have, if you had some 

money,'' they need to have funding sources, whether it is loans, grants, whatever, because the other 

agencies, like Voc Rehab, and Medicaid, and things like them, are not willing payers for assistive 

technology. You really have to be assertive. 

 And one of the things that I would also like to suggest - and this goes, actually, way beyond 

the scope of this committee - is that programs need a big-picture view. For example, Medicaid in 

Georgia won't spend more than about $5,500 on a power chair. 

 So, if you happen to have quadriplegia, like these gentlemen, then you are at high risk for 

pressure sores, which can cost about $75,000 in a long hospital stay to treat. They won't spend 

$20,000 on a tilting wheelchair, so that you can shift your weight and not end up with these 

pressures sores. 

 You know, they are actually costing Medicaid an unnecessary $50,000 - you know, or more 

than that, if you have repeated pressure sores - plus human suffering, because they don't have a big 

picture. The DME budget is separate from the acute care budget, and we need some kind of 

overview, so that we can see that, even though $20,000 sounds like a lot of money for a wheelchair, 

how can it be a cost saver in the overall picture. 

 You know, I really feel like in just about every disability program, assistive technology has 

huge cost-saving potential, but I don't think that it is in the overview of the program. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. Mink? 
24

Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I certainly have benefited from all of your 

testimony. And I think that what we need to relate to is the President's recommendation, which 

staff tells me is to continue Title III only, the financing part of this program, to allow the disabled 

community to have access to loans, to finance high-tech assistive technology purchases. 

 Now, my question to Mr. Schultz and others is if the other two titles are eliminated, and the 

state programs are not funded, what impact would it have on an individual first entering into this 

arena of the disabled, to find the kind of technology that they need that is available, and to make a 

wise choice? 

 I ask this question very sincerely, because I am one that cannot even buy a toaster without 

having to look it up to see what is the best buy and what is it capable or not capable of doing. 

 So when it comes to these extremely sophisticated technology, it seems to me to wipe out 

the very people who have the expertise is going to make it extremely difficult for a new disabled 

person to know what is there, how much it costs, what is going to be of particular benefit for the 

individual person. 

 So I would like to have Mr. Schultz and others comment on that, because that is a very 

troubling vacuum, as I see it. 

Mr. Schultz. I would be glad to do that. I think the emphasis on Title III is a necessary emphasis, 

in that it has an important role to play in providing funding for people with disabilities to acquire 

assisted technology. But I think a reliance on that as the only solution is a real problem. 

 For one, the Title I programs are the infrastructure, and in a lot of times, administer the Title 

III programs. So, if you take away that funding, it makes the Title III programs pretty ineffective. 

 In addition to that, in Nebraska, we did a financial capacity study when we first started out, 

about 10 years ago, looking at the ability of families and individuals with disabilities to afford 

assisted technology. And in that study, we were able to determine that about 14 percent of 

Nebraskans with disabilities would be able to qualify, and would be able to pay a loan back. 

 So what we did was focus on the 86 percent of individuals who were going through other 

programs to receive assistance for funding, and to try to get an expansion of those programs to deal 

with their needs. 

 In the programs that we have established, we are seeing a similar trend, in that we operate a 

program that provides funding for independent living services, and that program has provided 

assistance to about 300 individuals over the last few years. And there is a financial participation 

requirement there for individuals who have a certain income and so many assets. 

 In the last three years, only six people have been required to have a financial participation.

And those will probably be the six people that might have been eligible for a Title III loan, if we 

had had a program like that in Nebraska. 
25

 In addition, we do work with the Home Of Your Own Coalition, which is a home 

ownership program. And in that program, we had about 225 requests for assistance over the last 

several years. We have been able to help 25 of those individuals actually obtain a loan and close 

on a home. 

 So, it is a small percentage, when you can see that the majority of people would not be able 

to benefit, in our case, in Nebraska, from a financial loan program like that. So, Title I programs 

really need to be around so they can continue to focus on the other 86 to 90 percent of those people 

who aren't going to be able to obtain equipment through that system. 

 Now, to address your second issue, in regard to appropriateness of equipment, and the 

assessments, and helping individuals determine and make informed decisions about what 

equipment is going to work best for them in their particular situation, we have been doing that with 

a number of programs in our state. 

 And one of those is a Medicaid waiver program, where we were able to get the policy 

changed to include assistive technology and home modifications as a service under that waiver. 

But then they came to us and said, ``We have no way to know what equipment to fund.'' Families 

have no way to know what equipment is appropriate. 

 So they asked us to set up an assessment. So they asked us to set up an assessment service 

to get involved in that direct service, helping families get that equipment, and actually pay for it 

through the Medicaid waiver program. And to the degree that we actually go out there and we help 

train, we help monitor the installation of the equipment or home modification, and we inspect and 

make sure it's done correctly. We find that we are experiencing significant cost savings by doing 

that.

 When families first started coming to us and through the program, they would come to a 

service coordinator and say, ``I have a need for this kind of equipment, or this kind of 

modification,'' and they were told to come back with a couple of quotes. There was very little 

information about whether or not that was the appropriate technology. But if they had two quotes, 

they could get a check for that equipment. 

 Now, with the assessment process, we make sure it is the appropriate equipment. And we 

have been able to reduce the cost significantly, in terms of what is going on. 

 The other aspect of that process is that we are able to then follow up with those individuals, 

to see what is happening with the equipment. By making sure the equipment is appropriate - when 

you look at national statistics, we are looking at an abandonment rate of somewhere between 30 

and 40 percent when we look at those traditional systems - equipment not being used. It is going in 

closets, or being thrown away. 

 With the process that we have set up, the abandonment rate is percent. And most of that is 

because individuals are moving, leaving their homes for one reason or another, or dying. So we are 

able to follow up and get some of that equipment back, put it into a recycling program, and in 
26

effect, reduce the cost of services for that program. 

 We are in our third year with the Medicaid waiver program, and we have actually been able 

to show now, for the first time, that the cost, the average cost of assistive technology for an 

individual going through that program is actually reduced from what it was the previous year, 

because we starting to recycle equipment. If we do not have the Tech Act Title I program, we are 

going to lose the ability to do that. 

Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much. He consumed my five minutes. But I will be back for a second 

round, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Mr. Isakson? 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have learned a lot from all the testimony. Carol, in 

your testimony, you cut a part out of it because you were obeying the five-minute rule. I really 

wanted you to elaborate on the Friends of Adults and Children with Disabilities, a non-profit in 

Atlanta, and your testimony about recycling, which I thought was very helpful, and I would like for 

the other members to know about. 

Ms. Novak. Okay. I think, first of all, that recycling has huge potential for getting assistive 

technology to more people. Also, it has huge potential for making funds go further. 

 In Georgia - and actually, in Atlanta - there is a fabulous faith-based non-profit set up.

They have never had a nickel of government money. They do struggle constantly for operating 

capital, but the man that founded this was a 20-year veteran of the Marine Corps, and I guess he, 

you know, is always faithful. 

 But anyway, this program takes donations, and as Jonathan grew, and outgrew pediatric 

wheelchairs, we donated them there. Medicaid basically owned Jonathan's wheelchair, but they 

had no packing system, they didn't want it back when he outgrew it. So, rather than discard what 

he had outgrown but hadn't worn out, we gave it to FODAC, Friends of Disabled Adults and 

Children.

 They accept manual chairs, power chairs, hospital beds, walkers, augmentative 

communication devices, and computers. And with volunteers and donations, they refurbish them. 

They look as good as new. I would never be ashamed to use a wheelchair, once they have gotten 

through with it. And we have met people that have wheelchairs that they got through FODAC, 

because their insurance didn't pay for it. 

 But this program, actually, when Zel Miller was governor, he went to them and asked them 

to work with Medicaid on setting up a recycling program for the durable medical equipment 

Medicaid purchased. 

 Unfortunately, I think, you know, special interests got the best of that intent, and I think 

probably the new product vendors killed it. It never went through. And it is unfortunate, because a 
27

lot of people who needed assistive technology couldn't get it. 

 Medicare, too, owns the wheelchairs. VA owns what they buy. But they have no way - so 

does Vocational Rehabilitation. They have no way of getting back the computers, or any of the 

other stuff. 

 So all of this stuff, like you said, really does go to waste. And if we had better coordinated 

recycling efforts in the states, I think there is an awful lot of technology that, with just a little bit of 

brushing up or fine-tuning, would be perfectly usable for somebody else. 

 This also happens with things that are purchased through the school system, because it 

belongs to the school system, not the student. They bought a laptop with word prediction software 

for Jonathan to use in high school. When he graduated, he left without that, because it belonged to 

Cobb County Public Schools, and not Jonathan Hughes. 

 We were able to get a replacement for the software to use on our PC at home, but a lot of 

that, then, gets warehoused, because there isn't another student with that particular need. And by 

the time another student comes along with that need, it is either outdated or forgotten. 

 So, we are not being, I think, real conscientious about using technology in the most costeffective way, and I think recycling is a real powerful way to make our dollars go further, and make 

sure more people get what they need in technology. 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have actually seen this operation. And as we deal with 

this, if we can find a way to address her recommendation and be a catalyst - because it is 

unfortunate when Medicaid funds a perfectly good piece of durable equipment, and then when a 

child outgrows it, or an adult moves to another piece, there is not a mechanism for it to be 

reclaimed. 

 And recycling is really not the term, because it portends something that is going to be -. 

Mr. Novak. Right. It is not garbage. 

Mr. Isakson. Instead, you are talking about hard equipment that could be of tremendous value to 

another person, and the economics of that are tremendous. So, I hope we will look at that. I 

appreciate the time and yield back. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Mr. Hinojosa? 

Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say that I, too, want to compliment the 

panelists for having done such an excellent job in empowering us with information so that we can 

do a better job in advocating for your programs. 
28

 I have a young nephew, 30-something, who for the last 20 years has been a quadriplegic.

And I certainly am very well informed, but there was additional information that was presented 

today by you that augments my databank of information, and I appreciate that. 

 I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Patsy Mink for their leadership in 

making this hearing possible, and I am pleased to join all my colleagues present today. 

 I am here to show my appreciation. I am here to tell you that you can count on my help, 

and that I will continue to advocate so that these programs can continue. I know that they are very 

helpful for Americans with disabilities, Americans who need universal design of information 

technology to be able to help themselves and to be able to continue their life. 

 I have one question, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask that of Mr. Ward. As I understand it, 

the act requires the Secretary of Education to produce an annual report to Congress on the activities 

of this act. That is based on section 30.13. To your knowledge, has any report ever been 

produced? 

Mr. Ward. I wouldn't know the answer to that, because I am here as a consumer representative, so 

I didn't do any background research on the Assistive Technology Act. In my duties as Director for 

the Independence Center, I wouldn't know that, but I would think that certainly the Department of 

Rehabilitative Services would. 

 I think the person that heads our Virginia Assistive Technology system is in the room today. 

If you would like to ask that question to him, I am sure that would be okay. 

Mr. Hinojosa. Can anyone else in the panel tell me if a report has ever been written here in the 

last, say, three or five years? 

Mr. Rasinski. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Hinojosa. Not to your knowledge. Mr. Schultz? 

Mr. Schultz. Not to my knowledge, as well. 

Mr. Hinojosa. I thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am a co-convener of a conference that is ongoing 

now at the U.S. Library of Congress, and I am going to ask that I be excused to be able to continue 

in that conference that I have been participating since 8:00 this morning. I wanted to come and be 

here because I think that this is a very important issue. 

 I, like Johnny Isakson from Georgia, also served on the Texas State board of education - he, 

in Georgia - and was chairman of the special populations committee. And so, for eight years, I 

championed this effort. And I am pleased to be here in congress to continue that. 

 So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
29

Chairman McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa, and thank you for that question. We will check 

with the department, and see if we can get them to comply with that. 

Mr. Tierney? 

Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for convening this 

hearing today, and Mrs. Mink, for your leadership on this issue, and all of the witnesses who have 

testified.

 This is, obviously, as Mr. Hinojosa says, a significant and important program and aspect, 

and I think the chairman was right when he said the people that are at this hearing are cognizant of 

that, and want to be helpful. 

 I think one selling point is the chairman's question asked, ``How do we get 535 other 

members moving on this,'' to just acknowledge, I think, that every one of them has either a friend or 

a family member, or at least an acquaintance, who has a situation like this. I think all of us have 

personal situations somewhere within that realm, and I am sure probably everyone in the room 

probably does. 

 Just pointing for a second to the question Mr. Isakson raised about reclaiming some of the 

technology and reusing it. It would seem to me with the websites available, and the Internet 

available, that some existing agency might have the responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to just have an 

inventory, a well-defined inventory of what's available, that would be accessible. That would go a 

long way to dealing with the fact that it gets warehoused and forgotten, as Ms. Novak said. 

 And I would hope that, perhaps, with the context of reauthorizing this, or extending this 

legislation, we might put one small aspect in there, or an appropriate place that would just allow for 

that to happen is one suggestion. 

 It also seems to me - and maybe the witnesses here can help - that there are two times, at 

least, in people's lives when they have a disability, it becomes very difficult in transitional stages, 

when they are going from the adolescence to the adult situation, which we have a tremendous 

amount of problems in our district in terms of employment and living in a self-sustaining manner, 

and the other when people who are probably reaching the age of 50, 55, 60 and their parents are 78, 

79, 80, 82, and no longer able to assist that individual, or pass away. 

 How does assistive technology help us keep those people independent and self-sufficient so 

that they don't necessarily have to go into a nursing home, or be put into an environment where it 

really isn't appropriate for them, in a place we wouldn't want to relegate them to? 

 And anybody who feels -. 

Mr. Rasinski. I would like to -. 

Mr. Tierney. Mr. Rasinski, if you would like to start? Sure. 
30

Mr. Rasinski. You just stated my life. Since my accident in 1977 - I was 24 years old. My parents 

were in their fifties. They have taken care of me up until this point. My dad passed away about 10 

years ago, my mom, at 82, has just become disabled to the degree that she can no longer take care 

of me. 

 But my brothers have stepped in and taken care of me to this point. I have the opportunity, 

with my position, and my income, to move into my own home now. For the last two years I have 

been remodeling it, making it totally accessible. 

 But there are a lot of folks who do not have that opportunity. And there aren't that many 

programs available. The Olmstead Act is trying to lead government and states into taking care of 

that problem, by making monies available, through the waivers, to keep people in their homes by 

either remodeling their homes, making them accessible to the persons with disabilities, or bringing 

in personal assistant care to help the aging caretakers, or the caretakers who just need a break from 

the day-in and day-out. 

 Taking care of a person with a disability is a 24-hour-a-day job. No matter what they can 

do for themselves, there is something they can't do. And those are the kinds of things that the Tech 

Act projects are trying to work on through health care, technology, everything that we can do, we 

are piecing together the different parts that would make it a little easier for everyone involved. 

Mr. Tierney. Mr. Ward, did you want to respond? 

Mr. Ward. Yes. Certainly, technology comes with a price, of course, and certainly more modern 

technology is making life easier, too. They make it so people that have fewer abilities to help 

people with disabilities can still contribute. Like my father couldn't do the tie-downs with the old 

tie-down system, but with the electric lock-downs, he could do much better. 

 I went with two personal assistants to get me in and out of bed to do manual transfers to a 

stair glide, to where I have a lift - the new technology, at a higher cost, of course - in the ceiling 

that is on a track, that actually provides a sling that lifts me up, transports me across the room, 

drops me in the bed, transports me around my house, drops me in the bathtub, you know, available 

to transport me around, drop me in a chair, whatever. 

 It makes it a lot easier so that one person, whether it is my daughter, or whether it is my 

wife, or whether it is just one senior person - it can make it so that people that are helping you - 

they can aid you and help you a little bit longer, too. 

 Of course, better technology, and certainly some of the monies in Virginia have been 

donated and designated towards - by the Statewide Independent Living Council - on getting people 

out of nursing homes. And certainly, some of that is involved in getting people better technology, 

better training. And certainly with the technology, you need to have all those components kind of 

together.

 And certainly, like I said before, I see a lot of technology as a two-component system, and 

maybe there are ways to have some of the tech systems do some of this refurbishing and 
31

reallocating of purchase sources. 

 Certainly, I know at our Center for Independent Living, we take in assistive technology 

from people and try to, I guess, reallocate it to other folks. And certainly people, when they die 

and pass on, they have - we have had two-month-old wheelchairs, for example, that people didn't 

know what they were going to do with. 

 So they said, ``Can you use that at your center?'' So, certainly, we took it as a donation and I 

have to go around to warehouse the stuff until I can loan it out. 

 So these loan programs, and recycling, rehabbing, and the reallocating of materials that are 

purchased in assistive technology certainly need some kind of a clearinghouse. The only ones I 

know of are done by individuals, or done by organizations that are put together through Lions, or 

something like that. 

 But certainly, there is a lot of food for thought, I think, in that arena. And also, like I said, 

the idea to help people with technology, and to deal with this living barrier, too. 

Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much. Thank all of you, very much, for your testimony. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Well, this has been very enlightening. James told me he just 

called over to the Department, and many of the members are over on the Senate side today, because 

they are having their first IDEA hearing over there. 

 So he wasn't able to get an answer. But to our knowledge, there has been no report filed, 

and we will follow up and see that we can get some attention on that. 

 I want to thank the witnesses, and the members that were here today. And I would 

encourage you to stay in touch with us. We will need your help and support as we advocate for 

you, and as we move into the reauthorization process next year, we will be calling on you again for 

further help, because we will want to make any improvements we can. That is the purpose of the 

reauthorization.

 If there is no further business, then, this subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY GUS ESTRELLA, SENIOR 

POLICY ADVOCATE, UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOCIATIONS, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

– SEE APPENDIX H 

WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY RALPH W. MOHNEY, JR., 

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, RETURN-TO-WORK SERVICES, UNUMPROVIDENT 

CORPORATION – SEE APPENDIX I 

WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY ROBERT A. STODDEN, 

PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY CENTERS ON DISABILITIES, AND 
32

DIRECTOR, CENTER ON DISABILITY STUDIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, 

MANOA – SEE APPENDIX J 

WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE AMERICAN 

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY ASSOCIATION, BETHESDA, MARYLAND – SEE APPENDIX 

K

WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY NANCY CREAGHEAD, 

PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOCIATION, ROCKVILLE, 

MARYLAND – SEE APPENDIX L 

WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY STEVEN I. JACOBS, 

PRESIDENT, IDEAL (INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES: ENABLING ADVOCACY 

LINK) AT THE NCR CORPORATION – SEE APPENDIX M 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY DAVID SCHERER, OUTREACH 

COORDINATOR, DAKOTALINK, RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA – SEE APPENDIX N 

WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY DIANE GOLDEN, 

PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF TECH ACT PROJECTS, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS – SEE 

APPENDIX O 

DOCUMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN 

FUND AUTHORITY, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA – SEE APPENDIX P 

LETTERS FROM CONSTITUENTS TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE 

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY ACT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY RANKING 

MEMBER PATSY T. MINK, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE - THESE DOCUMENTS ARE 

CONTAINED IN THE OFFICIAL RECORD, WHICH IS ON FILE WITH THE COMMITTEE 

AND CAN BE VIEWED DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS 

 [Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203

Table of Indexes 

Chairman McKeon, 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 27, 29, 31 

Mr. Hinojosa, 27, 28 

Mr. Hoyer, 7 

Mr. Isakson, 9, 26, 27 

Mr. Osborne, 7 

Mr. Rasinski, 12, 13, 20, 28, 29, 30 

Mr. Schultz, 10, 24, 28 

Mr. Tierney, 29, 30, 31 

Mr. Ward, 9, 14, 15, 21, 22, 28, 30 

Mrs. Mink, 5, 6, 23, 24, 26 

Ms. Novak, 17, 23, 26