Hello everyone,
I hope that those of you who had the opportunity to attend the 2008 ACB Legislative Seminar found it to be informative and entertaining. We are now two weeks past our Hill visit day and I wanted to send a friendly reminder regarding two important issues.
I've received some feedback forms from Congressional visits but know there are many more out there. I would encourage those of you who haven't had the opportunity as yet to go to http://www.acb.org/washington/seminar-packet- 2008.html and fill out these forms. This will help me greatly as I continue to move our legislative agenda forward.
As you're completing these forms, it is also an excellent opportunity to follow up with the legislative staff who met with you to inquire about their interest in further pursuing any of our imperatives. By doing this, you have the chance to maintain or enhance your relationship with these individuals and to re-establish ACB's issues.
As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me.
On December 21 the House Energy and Commerce Committee elected to make public draft legislative language that the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology (COAT) had negotiated with committee staff over the past several months. While this draft legislation has been made public, it has not been formally introduced and does not have a bill number.
A summary of the language pertaining to video description and accessible user interfaces appears below. This is a positive step in what we hope are several legislative advancements regarding these issues. There will be more information to come, so stay tuned.
Sec. 202. This section reinstates the FCC's modest regulations on video description. Those rules, originally promulgated in 2001, were struck down by a U.S. Court of Appeals. It authorizes the FCC to promulgate additional rules to (1) ensure that video description services can be transmitted and provided over digital TV technologies, (2) ensure that digital TV equipment can make available the delivery and use of video description, (3) require non-visual access to on-screen emergency warnings and similar televised information, and (4) increase the amount of video description required. It also adds a definition for video programming to include programming distributed over the Internet. This section is intended to ensure the continued accessibility of video programming to Americans with disabilities, as this programming migrates to the Internet.
User Interfaces. Sec. 203. This section requires devices used to receive or display video programming, including devices used to receive and display Internet-based video programming, to be accessible by people with disabilities so that such individuals are able to access all functions of such devices (such as turning these devices on and off, controlling volume and selecting programming). It contains requirements for (1) audio output where on-screen text menus are used to control video programming functions, and (2) a conspicuous means of accessing closed captioning and video description, including a button on remote controls and first-level access to these accessibility features when made available through on-screen menus.
Access Video Programming Guides and Menus. Sec. 204 This section requires multichannel video programming distributors to make their navigational programming guides accessible to people who cannot read the visual display, so that these individuals can make program selections.
This morning the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch held a hearing to discuss the Library of Congress' (LOC) budget request for fiscal year 2009. Much of this hearing focused on the National Library Service (NLS) Digital Talking Book Program and LOC's $12.5 million request.
The discussion surrounding the low level of funding for the program became very contentious as Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL) argued vociferously with chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) that the Digital Talking Book Program should be a top priority of the subcommittee. This very testy exchange occurred after Rep. Wasserman Schultz said that there were other priorities that should take precedence and that this program's funding wasn't a "priority." Reps. LaHood and Tom Latham (R-IA) made it abundantly clear that they would seek to find a way to ensure that the program would receive the original annual funding request so that it could be completed in the original four-year time frame.
It is important to call Reps. LaHood and Latham to let them know that ACB supports their efforts and that we stand ready to assist them in any way possible to ensure a proper funding level for the Digital Talking Book Program. I also feel that it is appropriate to continue calling Rep. Wasserman Schultz's office to reiterate that ACB considers the Digital Talking Book Program a "priority." Contact information for these members is below.
Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL)
Phone: (202) 225-6201
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
Phone: (202) 225-7931
Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA)
Phone: (202) 225-5476
On Nov. 19, a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, heard oral arguments in ACB's suit against the United States Treasury Department. Presentations were made by lawyers for both the Treasury Department and ACB in defense of the positions they had previously taken in their written briefs. The judges peppered the lawyers with questions throughout the proceeding. A brief statement was also made by an attorney representing the National Federation of the Blind, who asserted that blind people already have access to United States currency and that the government has begun to take steps to make it more distinguishable by people with low vision. Therefore, access is not a problem, and besides, this issue is not that important to their membership.
As usual, Jeff Lovitky, arguing ACB's case, did an admirable job in setting forth our position that people who are blind do not currently have meaningful access to U.S. currency, that the decision of the District Court was appropriate, and that we need a court order that will result in the Treasury Department having to come up with a plan for addressing the accessibility issues surrounding paper currency.
At this point, we are engaged in another waiting game. Lovitky estimated that it could take as long as six months to get the decision from the Circuit Court. We will advise you as soon as we hear anything further on the subject.