[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 19 (Friday, February 18, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E285]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   INTRODUCTION OF THE ``VIDEO DESCRIPTION RESTORATION ACT OF 2005''

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 17, 2005

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``Video Description 
Restoration Act of 2005.'' Mr. Speaker, we have a long history in 
telecommunications policy of trying to ensure that the benefits of 
technology reach all segments of American society. Our policies, 
enacted by Congress and implemented by the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC), has sought to further the three principal goals of 
telecommunications policy, namely, universal service, diversity, and 
localism--even as such policy objectives are buffeted by rapid 
technological change and competition.
  For instance, in the late 1980s, the Telecommunications Subcommittee 
enacted legislation to include a decoder chip in all televisions to 
ensure that the deaf and hard-of-hearing community had affordable 
access to closed captioning. While the industry opposed such efforts as 
being too costly, with exaggerated claims of how much the price of 
televisions would rise as a result of this mandate, the technology cost 
was minimal and now turns out to be about a dollar a set. The FCC's 
video description rules were designed to similarly serve a community, 
in this case the blind community, in a modest effort to ensure that 
television was available to that community. Video description is the 
insertion of narration about the visual setting and background when 
that information is not already included in the audio portion of the 
program. Because television is a mainstay for information, news, and 
family-oriented viewing in the home, it is important that steps are 
taken, in furtherance of longstanding universal service goals, to reach 
the blind community.
  This bill would restore the video programming rules. Recently the DC 
Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the rules, alleging that the 
Commission did not have sufficient authority to promulgate such rules. 
Passage of this legislation would remove any ambiguity. I believe 
Congress ought to give the Commission clear guidance that such rules 
should be reinstated in a way that no court could question the intent 
of Congress that the Commission should have such authority. Moreover, 
by approving such legislation, Congress can also establish that such 
video description rules do not regulate content in violation of any 
Constitutional protections. Broadcasters are free to air whatever 
content they wish over the course of a week. The video description 
rules simply require that a modest portion of such speech be made 
available to all listeners, including those who cannot see. The 
regulations would not stipulate which speech is acceptable, favored, or 
otherwise and broadcasters can choose which speech they wish to make 
available to the blind community. In fact, rather than infringing upon 
speech, the rules celebrate it, essentially saying that such speech is 
so important, so valued, that more Americans deserve to be able to hear 
it over their public airwaves, as broadcast by public licensees who are 
required by law to serve the public interest.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will move legislation this year to re-
instate these important video description rules and look forward to 
working with all of my colleagues on this issue in the weeks and months 
ahead.

                          ____________________