Thanks for your e-mail about H.R. 3101. We used the Congressional Research Service summary of the bill, which I’ve pasted below, for the short description included in the constituent response letter, and it is helpful to have your insight on the legislation as we continue to review the measure. Thanks again for providing your explanation of the bill.Below this, Shaffron copied and pasted the content of the CRS summary, with one key sentence bolded. The sentence, which is highlighted in the graphic underneath, is "Requires, unless it would be an undue burden (significant difficulty or expense), that equipment and services for advanced communications be usable by individuals with disabilities."
HOW can that be interpreted to mean that HR 3101 would require the altering of technology as stated in the previous blog post?! Did Wolf's office read that sentence and twist it around to mean that HR 3101 would force technology companies to change their technology??
If this is an example of why we are having difficulty getting Representatives to support HR 3101, no wonder we are having trouble! This is what we need to educate Representatives about. Requiring that technology be accessible does not mean changing the underlying technology! It means adding things on top of the technology, such as video captions or a CC button on a remote control! Indeed, after Caption Action 2 forwarded Shaffron's email to a key HR 3101 advocate, that advocate remarked, "A clear sign of the need for remedial education."