[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ACHIEVING THE PROMISES OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT IN THE
DIGITAL AGE--CURRENT ISSUES, CHALLENGES, AND OPPORTUNITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION,
CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 22, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-95
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-070 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MAXINE WATERS, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee STEVE KING, Iowa
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
Georgia LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico JIM JORDAN, Ohio
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois TED POE, Texas
JUDY CHU, California JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM ROONEY, Florida
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
DANIEL MAFFEI, New York
[Vacant]
Perry Apelbaum, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Sean McLaughlin, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
------
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia Wisconsin
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts TOM ROONEY, Florida
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., STEVE KING, Iowa
Georgia TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan JIM JORDAN, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
JUDY CHU, California
David Lachmann, Chief of Staff
Paul B. Taylor, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
APRIL 22, 2010
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties................ 1
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil
Liberties...................................................... 3
WITNESSES
The Honorable Samuel R. Bagenstos, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Mark D. Richert, Esq., Director, Public Policy, American
Foundation for the Blind
Oral Testimony................................................. 22
Prepared Statement............................................. 24
Ms. Judy Brewer, Director, Web Accessibility Initiative, World
Wide Web Consortium
Oral Testimony................................................. 34
Prepared Statement............................................. 36
Mr. Steven I. Jacobs, President, Ideal Group, Inc.
Oral Testimony................................................. 40
Prepared Statement............................................. 42
Mr. Daniel F. Goldstein, Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP
Oral Testimony................................................. 79
Prepared Statement............................................. 82
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil
Liberties...................................................... 105
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson,
Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia,
and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and
Civil Liberties................................................ 106
ACHIEVING THE PROMISES OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT IN THE
DIGITAL AGE--CURRENT ISSUES, CHALLENGES, AND OPPORTUNITIES
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:10 p.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerrold
Nadler (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Nadler, Scott, Jackson Lee, Chu,
and Sensenbrenner.
Staff Present: (Majority) David Lachmann, Subcommittee
Chief of Staff; Heather Sawyer, Counsel; and Paul Taylor,
Minority Counsel.
Mr. Nadler. This hearing of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties will come to
order please.
Before we begin, if you want to take advantage of the sign
language interpreter for today's hearing, we have reserved some
seats up front for that purpose.
I would also ask those of you with cameras please refrain
from taking flash pictures today.
We will start by I will recognize myself for a 5-minute
opening statement.
Today's hearing examines the application of the Americans
with Disabilities Act in the digital age. This July, we will
celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.
Often described as the most sweeping civil rights
legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADA
embodies our promise that the gateways to participation in
American society, avenues to work, public services, and public
accommodations will be open to people with disabilities. We
renewed that promise 2 years ago when we came together in a
fully bipartisan effort to pass the ADA Amendments Act of 2008,
which responded to court decisions interpreting the definition
of disability too narrowly and in a manner that was completely
at odds with the broad remedial purposes of this great law. I
want to thank the Ranking Member, my colleague from Wisconsin,
Jim Sensenbrenner, the Chairman of the full Committee, John
Conyers, and the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, for their
particular leadership on that bill.
Today's oversight hearing shows that our commitment to
achieving the ADA's promise did not end 2 years ago. That
commitment endures, and as the world around us changes and new
gateways to participation in American life are opened, we must
ensure that people with disabilities are included.
When Congress passed the ADA 20 years ago, we were not
communicating by e-mail, blog, or tweet; we were not filling
virtual shopping carts with clothes, books, music, and food; we
weren't banking, renewing our driver's licenses, paying taxes
or registering for and taking classes online.
Congress could not have foreseen these advances in
technology. Despite Congress' great cognitive powers, it could
not have foreseen these advances in technology which are now an
integral part of our daily lives. Yet Congress understood that
the world around us would change and believed that the
nondiscrimination mandate contained in the ADA should be broad
and flexible enough to keep pace.
As one Committee report explained, we quote, intend that
the types of accommodation and services provided to individuals
with disabilities under all of the titles of this bill should
keep pace with the rapidly changing technology of the times,
closed quote.
Today, we have a chance to hear from the Department of
Justice and other experts on whether Congress' expectation is
being met. Through informal guidance, the Department
consistently has taken the position that public and private
entities must ensure that individuals with disabilities have
equal access when the goods or services are provided over the
Internet or through other evolving technologies. But the
Department has yet to modernize its regulations to make that
clear, and the courts have struggled to articulate a consistent
approach.
This lack of clarity is harmful and places individuals with
disabilities at great risk of being left behind. It also leaves
public and private entities uncertain as to whether they are
subject to and, for that matter, in compliance with ADA
requirements. I therefore urge the Department to update its
regulations and hope to hear today about its plans to issue
guidance that clarifies application of the law and provides
meaningful resources for entities seeking to comply.
With this additional clarity and guidance, I am hopeful
that we will avoid a repeat of the problems that we encountered
with the court's misinterpretation of the definition of the
word ``disability'' in the ADA. In correcting the courts unduly
restrictive interpretation of this term, we made clear that we
will not tolerate a narrow reading of the ADA.
That same message should apply with full force as the
courts interpret and apply key phrases like ``place of public
accommodation'' in Title III of the Act. The notion that
Congress prohibited discrimination only when it occurs in a
physical place or required structural changes only to physical
places is not consistent with the spirit and the plain language
of the law.
In recognizing and seeking to remove barriers that had
limited access and opportunity of individuals with
disabilities, Congress certainly did require changes to
physical structures, but that was not all. Congress also
required, among other things, reasonable accommodations and
modifications to policies, practices, services, or activities,
the provision of auxiliary aides, and the removal of
communication barriers. None of these requirements can
accurately be characterized as limited to physical spaces.
I am confident that removing barriers, whether they occur
in physical or cyberspace, and ensuring accessibility and equal
opportunity when jobs, public services, and public
accommodations rely upon access to new technologies benefits
all of us. I am also confident that achieving this goal is not
unduly burdensome, and it will not staunch innovation or
creativity.
Having been fortunate enough to work with a young attorney
on the Subcommittee who, in addition to being brilliant and
thoughtful, is also blind, I have seen and enjoyed the benefits
that a few simple accommodations can bring. And I can assure
you that we all have a lot to lose if and when those
accommodations are not made.
I am pleased to welcome our witnesses today, and I look
forward to hearing from them on how we can continue to ensure
that the promise of the ADA is achieved in the digital age.
The Chair will now recognize the distinguished Ranking
Member for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Twenty years ago, this country took a significant step
forward in eliminating the barriers that for far too long kept
disabled Americans from fully participating in the American
dream. Prior to the ADA Act of 1990, disabled Americans faced
not only physical barriers in almost all aspects of society but
also attitudinal barriers which relegated them to a form of
second-class citizenship. Moreover, because Federal and State
laws were ill-equipped to protect disabled Americans at the
time, false stereotypes and discriminatory treatment employed
by others created a vicious cycle. As a result, disabled
Americans experienced lower graduation and employment rates,
higher poverty rates, and less personal freedom and
independence than more able-bodied citizens.
The ADA enacted on July 26, 1990, broke this vicious cycle
by helping restore the full meaning of equal protection under
the law. Like the civil rights laws that came before it, this
landmark bipartisan law has worked to transform our Nation. As
a result of the ADA, fewer citizens are judged by their
physical and mental impairments and are now evaluated according
to their character and qualifications.
In the last Congress, I worked with Chairman Conyers and
Majority Leader Hoyer to achieve the enactment of the ADA
Amendments Act of 2008, which further fulfilled the promise of
the ADA by resolving the intent of Congress to cover a broad
group of individuals with disabilities under the Act. That
legislation served to eliminate the problems of courts focusing
too heavily on whether individuals are covered by the law
rather than on whether discrimination occurred.
My wife, Cheryl, who was then chairman of the board of the
American Association of People with Disabilities and who is in
the audience today, was dogged in her advocacy for that
legislation. Many members report still hurting when she hit
them over the head with her cane.
Still, the fight for fair and equal access continues.
Through the ADA's clear and comprehensive national mandate for
the elimination of discrimination against individuals with
disabilities, communities have visibly become more accessible
and more friendly to disabled citizens. The ADA has encouraged
conscious change to our infrastructures, governments,
businesses, policies, and practices.
Part of that changing infrastructure is the Internet. With
the ever-expanding and increasingly inexpensive bandwidth,
technology is now helping to solve many accessibility issues by
allowing the disabled to interact more easily with other
people, businesses, and government from their own homes. Just
like buildings, Web sites can be designed to meet the needs of
everyone, including the disabled.
In our new digital age, an accessible online environment is
part of what is required by the ADA's reasonable accommodation
standard, as Federal appeals courts have already recognized.
Students are coming to expect better access to long-distance
learning courses, consumers are reasonably expecting an easier
transaction with businesses, and citizens are expecting better
interaction with their government.
While lawsuits continue to spur greater accommodations
within the digital landscape, technology is rapidly making it
easier for ADA-covered entities to avoid lawsuits by simply
providing reasonable accommodations. That may have been the
case a decade ago that companies wondered how they could make
online interactions with the disabled more accommodating. But
today the question is how do we do it and should give way to
just do it as the advance of technology makes former excuse
making incredibly untenable.
The ADA has been one of the most effective pieces of civil
rights laws passed by Congress. This continued effectiveness is
paramount to ensuring that the transformation that our Nation
has undergone continues in the future and that the guarantees
and promises on which this country was established continue to
be recognized on behalf of all of our citizens.
I am happy that all of our witnesses are here today and
that they will tell us more about how technology is helping to
make compliance with the ADA even easier.
I thank the Chairman for the time and yield back.
Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentlemen.
In the interest of proceeding to our witnesses and mindful
of our busy schedules I ask that other Members submit their
statements for the record.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit opening statements for inclusion in the record.
Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare
a recess of the hearing, which, since the House is not in
session, we expect no votes, I don't expect to have to do.
We will now turn to our first panel. As we ask questions of
our witnesses, the Chair will recognize Members in the order of
their seniority in the Subcommittee, alternating between
majority and minority, provided that the Member is present when
his or her turn arrives. Members who are not present when their
turns begin will be recognized after the other Members have had
the opportunity to ask their questions. The Chair reserves the
right to accommodate a Member who is unavoidably late or only
able to be with us for a short time.
Our first witness and our first panel is Samuel Bagenstos,
who is the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the
Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. As
Principal Deputy AAG, Mr. Bagenstos assists in the overall
management of the Division and directly supervises the
Division's appellate and disability rights sections, as well as
the disability rights work of the Division's special litigation
section.
From 1994 to 1997, he worked as a career attorney in the
appellate section of the Division. Prior to rejoining the
Department, Mr. Bagenstos was a law professor, having taught at
Harvard, Washington University at St. Louis, UCLA, and the
University of Michigan. He is a graduate of the University of
North Carolina and received his J.D. magna cum laude from
Harvard law school.
I am pleased to welcome you. Your written statement in its
entirety--and I will address this to the witnesses in our
second panel, too, so I will say it in the plural. Your written
statements in their entirety will be made part of the record.
I would ask each witness to summarize his or her testimony
in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that time, there
is a timing light at the table. When 1 minute remains, the
light will switch from green to yellow and then red when the 5
minutes are up. I will lightly tap the gavel when the light
turns yellow and then tap it harder when it turns red.
Before we begin, it is customary for the Committee to swear
in its witnesses. If you would please raise your right hand to
take the oath.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Nadler. Let the record reflect that the witness
answered in the affirmative.
I will now recognize Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Bagenstos for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SAMUEL R. BAGENSTOS, PRINCIPAL
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Chairman Nadler and Members of
the Committee. It's a great pleasure and honor to appear today
to discuss the rights of individuals with disabilities to
access emerging technologies, particularly as we come up to the
20th anniversary of the ADA this summer.
Under the ADA, access to the Internet and emerging
technologies is not simply a technical matter, it's a
fundamental issue of civil rights. And as more and more of our
social infrastructure is made available on the Internet, and in
some cases exclusively online, and as emerging technologies
play an increasingly central role in education, employment, and
other important areas of civic and economic life, access to
information and electronic technologies is increasingly
becoming the gateway civil rights issue for persons with
disabilities.
The Internet and emerging technologies certainly hold
enormous promise for people with disabilities, just as they do
for everyone else. But a digital divide exists and threatens to
grow between people with and without disabilities. When Web
sites are inaccessible because they incorporate untagged
images, for example, that can't be read by a screen reader,
individuals with disabilities are shut out of the opportunities
that the Web site provides. And inaccessible Web sites that are
operated by State and local governments or private businesses
undermine the ADA's promise that people with disabilities will
have full and equal access to all areas of civic and economic
life.
Where schools use electronic text or e-book readers that
are inaccessible because, for example, they lack a text-to-
speech function, they deny people with disabilities the full
and equal access to class materials and opportunities that the
ADA demands.
Ensuring that people with disabilities have an equal
opportunity to access the benefits of emerging technologies is
an essential part of our disability rights enforcement at the
Department of Justice. We have long taken the position that
both State and local government Web sites and the Web sites of
private entities that are public accommodations, whether or not
they operate exclusively online, are covered by the ADA. In
other words, entities covered by both Title II and Title III of
the statute are required by law to ensure that their sites are
fully accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The Department is considering issuing guidance or
additional regulations on the range of issues that arise with
regard to the Internet sites of private businesses that are
public accommodations covered by Title III of the ADA, and in
so doing we intend to solicit public comment from the broad
range of parties interested in the issue.
There's no doubt that the Internet sites of State and local
government entities are covered by Title II of the ADA. As to
places of public accommodation, there are only two cases, both
in Federal District Court, that specifically address the
application of ADA Title III, and those cases have reached
differing conclusions.
Mr. Nadler. Don't assume everybody knows what Title III is
automatically. Describe that in one sentence.
Mr. Bagenstos. Title III of the ADA, meaning the part that
covers places of public accommodation.
But the position of the Department of Justice has been
clear. Title III applies to the Internet sites and services of
private entities that meet the definition of public
accommodations set forth in the statute, whether or not they
operate exclusively online, and the implementing regulation.
The Department first made this position public in a 1996
letter from Assistant Attorney General Patrick which did not
specifically address online-only enterprises. But later the
Department filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit in a case
called Hooks v. OKBridge, which involved a Web-only business
and explained that businesses providing services solely over
the Internet are subject to the ADA's prohibitions on
discrimination on the basis of disability. And we continue to
endorse that position.
There are several sets of standards that I'm happy to talk
about how to make Web sites accessible. But I want to talk
about another area that we're also working in in the emerging
technology area.
We're also working aggressively in terms of e-book readers.
In June of last year, we received several complaints from the
National Federation of the Blind, the American Council of the
Blind, and the Coalition of Disability Rights Groups that are
known as the Reading Rights Coalition which allege that
colleges or universities were violating their obligations under
the ADA by having students use electronic book readers that
were inaccessible to individuals who were blind for course
materials.
We investigated each complaint. In January, we announced
that we had reached separate settlement agreements with Case
Western University, Reed College and Pace University;
subsequently also Princeton and Arizona State Universities.
These settlement agreements provide that the universities will
not purchase, require, or in any way incorporate into their
curriculum the Kindle DX or any other dedicated electronic book
reader to the extent it's not fully accessible to individuals
who are blind or have low vision. These agreements underscore
that requiring the use of emerging technology in the classroom
that is inaccessible to persons with disabilities is
discrimination that's prohibited by the ADA in 504.
The happy result, during the course of our investigations
and negotiations with these colleges, Amazon.com, which is not
covered by the ADA directly, announced that it is intending to
make the Kindle DX fully accessible to individuals who are
blind or have low vision by extending its text-to-speech
feature to these functions by the end of the year 2010.
As we come to realize anew each day, the pace of
technological change is amazing and what appeared impossible
just months or years ago is now commonplace. Advancing
technologies can open doors for people with disabilities and
provide the means for them to have a full, equal, and
integrated experience and access to American life. But
technological advances will leave people with disabilities
behind if technology developers and manufacturers do not make
their new products accessible. We must make sure that the legal
protections to the rights of individuals with disabilities are
sufficiently strong to ensure opportunities for everyone, and
we must avoid the travesty that would occur if the doors that
are opening for Americans with advancing technologies were
closed for individuals with disabilities simply because we are
not vigilant.
Thanks, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bagenstos follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Samuel R. Bagenstos
__________
Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much, and we will begin the
questioning by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Sir, you testified that the Department is considering
issuing guidance with regard to Internet sites of public
accommodations. Can you give us a stronger commitment for the
record that the Department will update its regulations?
Mr. Bagenstos. It's certainly our intention to update our
regulations, absolutely.
Mr. Nadler. Can you give us a date?
Mr. Bagenstos. I can't give you a date because, obviously,
it's a process within the Department.
Mr. Nadler. An estimated ETA.
Mr. Bagenstos. We intend to make an announcement on
something like this in the months ahead.
Mr. Nadler. In several months, in other words.
Mr. Bagenstos. Yes.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. Thank you.
The Department's consistent position has been, as you've
stated, that Titles 2 and 3 reach covered entities operating in
cyberspace. What is the legal requirement placed on them? Must
they make Web sites themselves accessible or are there other
alternatives?
Mr. Bagenstos. Well, the legal requirements are the
requirements that apply to any business, first of all, that's
covered by the public accommodations' provision of the ADA. So
they have to provide individuals with disabilities the full and
equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, and accommodations of the business.
When a business is operating through a Web site, whether as
an adjunct to a bricks-and-mortar operation or simply on a Web
site, those principles imply a set of requirements, a
requirement to make sure that everything on the Web site is
fully accessible. Or we have said in the past that there are
ways in which it's conceivable theoretically for a business to
provide the exact equivalent of what's on the Web site not
through the Web site to people with disabilities. That might be
by having someone available 24 hours a day to answer questions.
But we were very clear that, to the extent that's what on
the Web provides a unique experience or a unique opportunity
for people who use the Web, that unique experience or
opportunity has to be provided to people with disabilities. And
I think that's the essence of the Kindle case.
Mr. Nadler. So you say, in effect, a Web site must be
equally accessible or if that is not the case something else
equally effective.
Mr. Bagenstos. Right. It has to be equally effective in
providing all the opportunities.
Mr. Nadler. And it must be as convenient, I assume.
Mr. Bagenstos. Yes.
Mr. Nadler. In other words, 24 hours.
What alternatives might qualify, given the relative ease
and convenience of the Internet or other emerging technologies
like the e-readers noted in your testimony?
Mr. Bagenstos. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the first part of
the question.
Mr. Nadler. What alternatives might qualify, given the
relative ease and convenience of the Internet, like the e-
readers noted in your testimony, for example.
Mr. Bagenstos. Right. I think that in the case of the e-
readers it's difficult to think of the alternatives that
qualify. Because what the e-reader provides is not just access
to the information that would be in a textbook but a way of
accessing that information that is uniquely convenient that
allows for searching in uniquely good ways. And so that would
have to be provided to people with disabilities. In that
context, because these devices are so revolutionary, it may be
difficult to have anything else that's equivalent to it, and if
there is nothing else that's equivalent to it then the e-reader
or the Internet site or whatever must be made fully accessible.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez in a recent speech at
a disability law symposium noted a number of different
technologies. He mentioned Web sites, cell phones, ticket
kiosks, and other devices that currently are not accessible to
people with disabilities. Will the Department be updating its
guidance to address this full range of issues?
Mr. Bagenstos. We are certainly looking into that full
range of issues, what's going to be exactly and what comes out.
I think we intend to issue technical assistance about all those
issues at some point, and we're also looking into a regulatory
solution as well.
Mr. Nadler. You testified that the Department has provided
letter advice and filed amicus briefs but that the courts still
have reached different conclusions on the coverage of Web sites
under Title III. What is the Department's game plan for getting
better results in consistency in cases going forward? And,
specifically, also, is part of your game plan or might it be to
ask for some legislative changes?
Mr. Bagenstos. Well, we haven't asked for some legislative
changes.
Mr. Nadler. You have not.
Mr. Bagenstos. We have not. We think that the statute is
clear, and we think there's been just very little litigation
under it and certainly especially litigation in which we have
participated. So our game plan is to do a couple of things.
First of all, we want to do more in the regulation, guidance,
technical assistance area to make clear what our position is.
Mr. Nadler. Make clear to the courts.
Mr. Bagenstos. Make clear to the courts and to the public
what our position is. And also to provide assistance as to how
to comply. And then at the same time to look strategically at
cases that exist and cases that we might bring, complaints that
come to us, and look for opportunities to make our position
clear.
That's something we did in the Kindle case. It's not with
respect to the Internet. But with respect to e-book readers,
when the complaints came to us, we saw this as an exceptionally
important area to make clear it needs to be accessible to
people with disabilities and so decided to jump right into it.
And that's the kind of thing we're doing.
Mr. Nadler. My last question is, in the cases involving the
Kindle DX, you testified that technology existed for Amazon to
make the Kindle usable by blind students but that it hadn't
done so although is now planning to do so. Why hadn't they and
what happens when the technology does not yet exist to make a
new technology accessible? Does the school or business have to
hold up using the new technology until it can be made
accessible?
Mr. Bagenstos. I don't know about Amazon.com's motives. I
can tell you the general pattern that we've seen in disability
rights through the years, and it's true in technological areas
as well as in all older sorts of accessibility areas, has been
just a failure to think of the market of people with
disabilities as a market that products are designed for,
institutions are being designed for.
The technology certainly exists. It's in other devices.
Amazon is going to put it into the Kindle. So the technology
certainly exists. And as to why it wasn't put in there, I think
it's just----
Mr. Nadler. They didn't think of it.
Mr. Bagenstos [continuing]. Less of people with
disabilities that Congress adopted the ADA to combat.
Mr. Nadler. And my second question, when the technology
does not yet exist to make a new technology accessible, does
the school of business have to hold up using that new
technology until it can be made accessible?
Mr. Bagenstos. I guess a couple of points about that.
Often, in a typical case, it is quite possible to make the
technology accessible. I think there are cases where, to the
extent there is a case where for a period there is no means of
making the technology accessible, what a school or an
institution has to do is provide something that, to the
greatest extent possible, gives people with disabilities the
same experience in terms of convenience in terms of all the
opportunities provided by the technology. That may be
difficult.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. Thank you.
My time is expired. I will now recognize the gentleman from
Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
As I understand it, the access is both the employees and
the customers.
Mr. Bagenstos. Yes, that's right. Different provisions of
the ADA apply. Title I of the ADA applies with respect to
employees. Title III with respect to customers. But, yes, the
statute requires access for both.
Mr. Scott. You talked about books. One of the ways you can
make books accessible to those who are blind is to have audio
tape recordings. Many books are published in audio tape. Could
you comply with the ADA by having someone read the book and
make your own copy without getting into copyright
complications?
Mr. Bagenstos. I think the copyright issues here I know
have been a significant source of discussion. Mr. Goldstein,
who is going to testify on the next panel, has engaged in some
litigation around that and I think might have a useful
discussion of the parameters of those issues.
And certainly copyright issues are not issues that we deal
with in the Civil Rights Division. There are many ways without
running afoul of copyright to provide equal and full access to
people with disabilities to the text that appears in books.
Mr. Scott. One of the things you have to do with employees
is make reasonable accommodations. Do we need any new laws to
clarify what a reasonable accommodation is, and how much
expense would you have to go to to stay within the realm of
reasonableness?
We had an ADA equivalent in Virginia before the ADA, and
one of the things we put in that law was a presumption that
anything under $500 was presumptively reasonable. Do you have
any guidelines on what's reasonable and what's not in terms of
expense to accommodate employees' disabilities?
Mr. Bagenstos. What the statute provides is that an
employer is required to provide a reasonable accommodation that
doesn't lead to undue hardship. And the statute talks about
what undue hardship means as being especially difficult or
especially expensive and gives a series of factors for that. As
to what's a reasonable accommodation, there is a degree to
which in the case law what the courts look at is a rough
proportionality kind of a rule. So Congress when it adopted the
ADA originally resisted imposing any specific number targets
because----
Mr. Scott. We found in Virginia that 80 percent--just to
get past the legislative process, found that 80 percent of the
accommodations could be done under $500, so that's why we came
up with that number.
Mr. Bagenstos. Right. And I think that is true nationwide
as well. In all of the studies of accommodation that I've seen
in the employment sector, the overwhelming majority of
accommodations occur at less than $500, that's true. Many have
no direct costs at all. And so certainly there are a lot of
cases where there ought to be no argument about what's a
reasonable accommodation.
Mr. Scott. So we do not need to clarify the law. You can
work with the law that we have on what a reasonable
accommodation is.
Mr. Bagenstos. That's certainly what we've been working
with for a number of years.
What we have seen before the ADA amendments Act was a lot
of cases getting knocked out before they got to the point of
reasonable accommodation being defined or elaborated. So I
think we have to see what's going to happen now that courts
will be less able to kick cases out just on the grounds that
the plaintiff doesn't have a disability after Congress adopted
the ADA amendment, so we will have to look into that.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Nadler. I thank the Assistant Attorney General.
I'm sorry. I didn't see Ms. Chu. I now recognize the
gentlelady from California.
Ms. Chu. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm so pleased to welcome you here today, Mr. Bagenstos;
and I commend your many years of service as an educator. And
certainly I can relate my--I understand you came from UCLA.
Mr. Bagenstos. I did teach at UCLA for a while, yes.
Ms. Chu. Okay. Right. And as one who taught there as well I
certainly am concerned about how students with disabilities are
utilizing the digital classroom technologies.
After hearing about your example of the Kindle projects
that were there with the pilot project in the university
classrooms, I wanted to ask you what the role of the DOJ is in
creating and providing guidance for all universities who may
want to test, buy, or use new classroom technologies in the
future.
Mr. Bagenstos. I think we have a very significant role. One
of the reasons why we wanted to pursue these Kindle
investigations was to make clear that this is a very important
technology. It's a technology that can provide lots of
opportunities for people but that it was leaving people with
some disabilities behind and that we need to make clear to
universities that their obligations of nondiscrimination and
accommodation apply not just in the bricks-and-mortar physical
world but also in terms of these electronic devices.
I think also something that we ought to do and we will do
is, based on our enforcement experience, having dealt with a
few of these cases, issue some broader, more perspective
guidance to regulate institutions; and we intend to do a number
of things in that regard in the months to come.
Ms. Chu. Are you going to be releasing common guidelines to
schools so that they can design their pilot projects to
adequately include students with disabilities?
Mr. Bagenstos. What we certainly intend to do is
communicate with schools in a general and prospective way that
there are ways of doing this that harness the benefit of
emerging technologies and keep people with disabilities having
full access, and so that's something we intend to do.
Ms. Chu. And are you working with the Department of Ed. to
make sure that these guidelines are distributed?
Mr. Bagenstos. We are working with the Department of
Education to figure out exactly how and when we are going to
talk to the universities and the schools about how they can
comply with their obligations under the ADA and, of course,
also the Rehabilitation Act, so, yeah.
Ms. Chu. There are more online classes in the universities
now, and currently there are over 6,500 online courses
available. What would happen if a disabled person was mandated
to take a course like this but the technology was not available
to them?
Mr. Bagenstos. Well, I think you're defining something that
would probably be a violation of the ADA or the Rehabilitation
Act. To the extent that online courses exist, I mean, it's
relatively simple to make them accessible. If there's something
special and unique about them, and one of the things that's
unique about them is the convenience factor, at least in many
cases, then that ought to be made accessible. Or an individual
with a disability shouldn't certainly be required to take a
course where there's an alternative that is inaccessible.
Ms. Chu. There are many businesses that try to avoid ADA
compliance by claiming that it's an undue burden on business,
and yet there is a way to make a Web site useful for a blind
person or putting captions on an online video that would appear
to not cost a lot of money. What is the Justice Department's
position on this issue with regard to businesses reacting to
lawsuits seeking to make their online services available to
disabled Americans?
Mr. Bagenstos. Well, certainly we believe that, and it's
our experience that the kinds of changes that need to be made
to make Web sites accessible are not especially difficult or
expensive. There's always, you know, some transition cost, but
the things you're talking about, captioning of videos, that's
something that a number of institutions do that is not
especially costly. And that may be the most costly thing. I
mean, if you look at tagging of images or something like that
or providing a means for computers to kind of read where
keyboard controls should be used, again, not that difficult. I
mean, these are fairly simple technological solutions. So our
experience is it's not that complicated or expensive.
Ms. Chu. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, and I thank the witness.
We will now proceed with our second panel, and I would ask
the witnesses on our second panel to take their places.
In the interest of time, I will introduce you while you are
taking your seats.
Mark Richert is Director of Public Policy for the American
Foundation for the Blind, which I am proud to say is
headquartered in my district. A member of the Florida bar since
1993, Mr. Richert served as the AFB's primary representative to
the Congress and to Federal agencies with responsibility for
programs, services, and enforcement of rights important to
individuals with vision laws.
Additionally, Mr. Richert serves as a co-chair of the Civil
Rights Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities and is a co-founder of the Coalition of
Organizations for Accessible Technology, a cross-disability
coalition advocating for the rights of all people with
disabilities to full access to digital age telecommunications
and video technologies.
Judy Brewer directs the Web Accessibility Initiative at the
World Wide Web Consortium. Since 1997, she has worked to ensure
that the W3C technologies support accessibility, promoting
standardization efforts for W3C awareness and implementation of
Web accessibility internationally and ensuring effective
dialogue among industry, the disability community,
accessibility researchers, and government on development of
consensus-based accessibility solutions.
She holds a research appointment at MIT's computer science
and artificial intelligence laboratory and is a consultant at
the European Research Consortium on Informatics and
Mathematics.
Steve Jacobs has been in the computer industry for 35 years
and is President of IDEAL Group, whose subsidiary companies
provide services and applications to make new technologies
available to the disability community. Mr. Jacobs previously
served as chairman of AT&T Global Information Solutions Project
Freedom, which pioneered the use of interactive video
technology in support of sign language communication over the
Internet. Mr. Jacobs is a 1973 graduate of Ohio State
University.
And, finally, Daniel Goldstein is an attorney with the law
firm of Brown, Goldstein and Levy. He has been practicing
disability rights law for nearly 25 years and through
litigation has worked to, among other things, increase
accessibility to the Internet to make consumer kiosks such as
ATMs accessible, to make voting accessible through suits
against States and counties, and to make mainstream digital
book systems accessible through suits against educational
institutions. Before setting up his private practice in 1982,
Mr. Goldstein was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District
of Maryland for 6 years.
I am pleased to welcome all of you. I will not repeat the
boilerplate that we usually go into about the timing lights. I
presume you've heard that.
Your written statements will be made part of the record in
their entirety.
But it is customary before we begin for the Committee to
swear in its witnesses. Would you please raise your right hands
to take the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Nadler. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered
in the affirmative. Thank you.
We will begin by recognizing our witnesses. I will begin by
recognizing Mr. Richert for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF MARK D. RICHERT, ESQ., DIRECTOR, PUBLIC POLICY,
AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND
Mr. Richert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Committee. It's such a pleasure to be here and to listen
to that first panel and Mr. Bagenstos' comments. It is a thrill
to hear that the Department of Justice is exercising the kind
of leadership that we know the Department can and indeed has
for such a long time with respect to folks with disabilities
and their needs for technology equity.
For us and for folks with disabilities generally the
question has never been does the ADA apply to the Internet. The
question really or the issue really is that the ADA applies
today, as it always has, to employers, to State, and local
government entities, to public accommodations. And we know that
the ADA and the promise of full inclusion that the ADA stands
for cannot be avoided simply because we go online in this 21st
century.
The statement that we submitted for the record I think has
a lot of compelling stories. We asked folks with disabilities
from across the country to sort of weigh in and give their own
personal perspective on how they deal with technology in the
Internet every day and, quite frankly, some of the stories are
heart wrenching. I'll only just share one here, because I think
it connects well with what Mr. Bagenstos was talking about.
Pat from California tells us that her bank is very
reluctant to provide to her the kind of information that's
available to everybody else online. She happens to be a woman
who is visually impaired, and she's alerted the bank to this
challenge that indeed the site is inaccessible. She cannot
manage her checking account the way everybody else can, she
can't check her balance, she can't find out exactly whether or
not the bank is levying annoying extra charges and the like
and, quite frankly, she has a right----
Mr. Nadler. So, unlike the rest of us, she's not annoyed?
Mr. Richert. Yeah. You're fair to draw that conclusion, I
guess.
She's alerted them to this issue and, quite frankly, the
response to her is we will be happy to read through your
statements over the phone. And she's told them in no uncertain
terms, probably in more polite terms than I would use if I were
in her situation, that, you know, it's going to take forever to
read through a bank statement and, quite frankly, it doesn't
provide her the same level of accuracy and independence with
the use of that statement as everyone else is given.
That's just simply not acceptable. If a person with a
disability showed up in person at the bank and the bank refused
to provide services to them, I think we would all find that
disgusting, let alone a violation of the law. And, quite
clearly, we can't tolerate that kind of conduct in a digital
age. And it's great not only to know that the ADA provides a
remedy but to hear it affirmed again today, and I look forward
to the kind of guidance that we expect to see.
We know that people with disabilities are not utilizing the
benefits, the full benefits of the Internet as do all of the
rest of us. Data, such as we have it, would suggest that at
least 60 percent of Americans have some kind of ability to
connect to the Internet. That data, of course, is a couple of
years old, which means naturally it's a light year's time
difference, so undoubtedly that number is much higher. The same
numbers would suggest that less than 30 percent of people with
disabilities have access to the Internet.
And the Federal Communications Commission similarly did a
survey in the last few months asking the question of the folks
who don't have access to the Internet, let's find out more
about who those folks are so we can address the issue and make
sure that folks are given connection to broadband and to the
Internet. And they found that something like 39 percent of the
people who are not connected to the Internet are folks with
disabilities. That's pretty astounding.
There are lots of reasons for why that's the case. We know,
of course, that affordability is a major limiter for folks
access with and without disabilities to high-speed data and
broadband. But we also know that inaccessibility exacerbates
the problem. And what we need to do is to look, frankly, to the
future to opportunities to address the inaccessibility of the
Web and to make sure, frankly, that the technologies that are
used to access to get online and to browse and enjoy full
inclusion along with everybody else are themselves accessible.
We know that this can be done. The American Foundation for
the Blind has proudly worked with Marriott Corporation. Others
with whom we partner, the American Council of the Blind and
others, have worked certainly with CBS and Rite Aid and Radio
Shack. All of these groups and companies have committed to the
concept that Web access is a right and, frankly, is good
business and have found success in making the Web more
accessible.
But we need to look more to the future, and I think this
hearing talks about challenges and opportunities. Quite
frankly, one of the major policy opportunities that this
Congress has is to remember that Web accessibility is not and
cannot be considered in isolation. We can't talk about Web
accessibility without talking about the technologies that gets
you there.
One of the best things that this Congress can do and in my
mind one of the best ways to commemorate the 20th anniversary
of the Americans with Disabilities Act this year would be to
promptly pass H.R. 3101, the 21st Century Communications and
Video Accessibility Act introduced by Mr. Markey. And that is,
in fact, bipartisan legislation. Once passed, this legislation
will ensure that more and more of the technologies that we
use--the mobile technologies that we use that connect to the
Internet--are themselves accessible. Most are not, and we can
do better.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
opportunity. I really appreciate you and indeed all Members of
this Subcommittee for the attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Richert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark D. Richert
__________
Mr. Nadler. I thank you, and I now recognize Ms. Brewer for
5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF JUDY BREWER, DIRECTOR, WEB ACCESSIBILITY
INITIATIVE, WORLD WIDE WEB CONSORTIUM
Ms. Brewer. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank
you for this opportunity to talk with you again regarding
accessibility of the Web.
My name is Judy Brewer, and I direct the Web Accessibility
Initiative at the World Wide Web Consortium.
For the Web to work, computers need to be able to talk to
each other across the Internet in the same computer languages,
and W3C is where those languages are agreed upon. W3C has
developed over 100 technical standards and guidelines ranging
from HTML and XML to graphics, math, voice, rich media, mobile
devices, Web services, linked data, security privacy, e-
government, internationalization and more.
Among its other work, W3C hosts the Web Accessibility
Initiative. WAI develops standards, guidelines, and resources
to make the Web accessible for people with disabilities. It
ensures accessibility of all those W3C technologies that I
listed a moment ago and develops educational resources to
support Web accessibility.
WAI is supported in part by the National Institute on
Disability and Rehabilitation Research at the U.S. Department
of Education and others. My comments do not necessarily
represent those of WAI's funders.
Ten years ago, this Subcommittee invited me to address
early questions about Web accessibility. A discussion that
started with many myths and misperceptions concluded with a
much clearer picture of the realities and promise of Web
accessibility.
In the intervening years, we've shown that businesses can
flourish while producing accessible Web sites and services.
We've shown that a multi-stakeholder process that includes
industry, disability organizations, accessibility researchers,
and governments can develop consensus solutions.
We've developed guidelines and standards for Web content,
authoring tools, browsers, media players, and rich Internet
applications.
In particular, we've shown that the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines, WCAG 2.0, are feasible for simple mom
and pop Web sites, as well as for complex and dynamically
generated million-page Web sites; are technology neutral,
meaning they can be applied to any Web technology; and are more
sustainable, yet support innovation.
Web developers from around the world have shown that
accessible Web sites can be colorful, media rich, dynamic,
interactive, device independent, and international.
The Web has changed immensely in the past 10 years. Many of
our activities have moved to the Web. We get our education,
jobs, health care, and tax forms online, buy music, clothes,
and tickets, get our news, and not only buy but also read our
books online. We use our mobile phones to do our banking and
our laptops to make phone calls. We do social networking with
colleagues, family and friends.
In contrast to 10 years ago, many of these services exist
only on the Web through real-time transactions yet are as vital
to our social and economic life today as any bricks-and-mortar
business of the past.
W3C's consensus-based standards development process, multi-
stakeholder participation, broad public reviews, and
implementation testing prior to finalization of standards have
been an advantage to the development of the Web as a whole and
equally to Web accessibility. These processes have enabled the
disability community to be present at the design table for Web
standards, to influence technologies that are newly moving onto
the Web, and to influence accessibility of Web-based interfaces
as they move beyond the traditional Web into environments such
as household devices and medical equipment.
In 2008, the standards process produced the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. The U.S. Access Board has stated
its intent to harmonize the Web portions of its Section 508
regulations with WCAG 2. WCAG has been referenced in the
Department of Justice ADA technical assistance manual and in
negotiated settlements within banking, retail, and sports
sectors. During the past year, we've seen countries in Europe
as well as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and many others move
from other Web accessibility standards to WCAG 2. This
standards harmonization is immensely helpful because it creates
a unified market and drives improvements in software, such as
authoring tools, that can facilitate Web accessibility.
Surveys of Web accessibility progress continue to show
barriers, the majority of which are due to failure to apply
existing solutions, despite the good business case for Web
accessibility. Barriers include missing alternative text for
images, missing captions for audio, forms that ``time out''
before you can submit them, images that flash and may cause
seizures, text that moves or refreshes before you can interact
with it, and Web sites that don't work well with assistive
technologies that some people with disabilities rely on. The
impact on people with disabilities ranges from exclusion from
social networks, to missed school admissions, lost jobs, and an
inability to access lifesaving health care information.
There are many opportunities to improve and accelerate Web
accessibility. These include publishing existing data on
compliance of Federal Web sites with Section 508 requirements
and conducting new studies that evaluate gaps in ADA compliance
across Title II and Title III entities; communicating the
applicability of the ADA to the Web more clearly, with updated
guidance reflecting the benefits of standards harmonization at
international, Federal, and State levels; promoting development
of improved authoring tools that facilitate the production of
accessible Web content and that include accessible templates
for Web site development; continuing research and development
on accessibility techniques for new technologies, improved
accessibility supports for cognitive disabilities, and more
affordable assistive technologies.
I would like to express my gratitude to the many hard-
working participants and supporters around the world in the
ongoing work on Web accessibility, and my sincere thanks to the
Subcommittee for your continued attention to accessibility of
information technologies.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brewer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Judy Brewer
__________
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
I will now recognize Mr. Jacobs for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF STEVEN I. JACOBS,
PRESIDENT, IDEAL GROUP, INC.
Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Chairman and other Members of the
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to present testimony
at this important hearing.
My name is Steve Jacobs. I've been in the computer industry
for 35 years. As president of IDEAL Group, a 2002 spin-off from
IDEAL at NCR Corporation, I've been intimately involved in the
technological issues, challenges, and opportunities being
discussed here today.
As part of my testimony, I am going to show by example that
there are alternatives to certain beliefs and concerns held by
those who feel it isn't reasonable, technically possible, or
economically feasible to design accessible electronic and
information technology.
Over the past 10 years, our industry has grown
exponentially, which, on the surface, can easily appear to
exacerbate technology accessibility issues. The number of
Internet users has risen from 361 million 10 years ago to over
1.8 billion users today. If this growth rate continues, half
the world's population will be using the Internet by the end of
2012.
Web-based social networking applications and Web sites are
now frequented by over half a billion people. 4.1 billion SMS
messages are being sent on a daily basis. The number of
organizations using Web-delivered applications, like Google
apps, is tens of millions and increasing rapidly. 6,500 college
courses are offered online. Shopping and making travel
arrangements online is less expensive than brick-and-mortar
alternatives. The trend in online learning is headed skyward,
because it is a less expensive method of delivering course
materials to wider audiences of students.
Technology is woven into every aspect of life as we know it
today. The ADA is about civil rights of people with
disabilities. When technology is inaccessible to people with
disabilities seeking to access the same resources as their
nondisabled counterparts, it violates their civil rights.
I manage four companies that market E&IT products and
services. All of our solutions are accessible to people with
disabilities. It is now more reasonable, technically possible,
economically feasible, and profitable to develop accessible
E&IT than ever before in history.
For example, up until recently, individuals who are blind
had to pay $300 to $400 extra just to screenreader enable a
cell phone. And it's separate, and separate but equal has a
rather ugly history in this country. It's not equal. Then along
came Google with Android, which is a free, open-source
operating system for cell phones. All Android cell phones come
with a free screen reader, as well as other accessibility
applications. The iPhone and iPad include free accessibility
features, including screen readers.
Google and Apple are not in business to lose money. They
would not be integrating accessibility features into their
devices for free were it not technically possible, economically
feasible, and profitable.
Google provides free tools and platforms that enable
companies to develop accessible Web-based applications. For
example, one of our companies, Apps4Android, was formed in
January of 2009. They develop accessible applications for
Android cell phones. In 15 months, our user base grew from zero
to 600,000 users in 25 countries. The focus of our apps are
assistive technology apps, by the way.
If our small company can be successful designing and
selling accessible applications, so can other companies. It
used to be technically difficult and expensive to retrofit Web-
based applications to be accessible. That's no longer the case.
Google's AxsJAX is an environment that enables developers to
create dynamically changing scripts that make Web applications
more accessible even after the fact. Another of our subsidiary
companies, IDEAL Conference, has been providing fully
accessible distance learning, online conferencing, and webinar
services to hundreds of thousands of users over the past 8
years. Approximately 40 percent of our users are individuals
with hearing impairments, people who are deaf, consumers with
vision loss, people with speech disabilities, and persons with
mobility disabilities.
It makes good business sense, is reasonable, technically
possible, economically feasible, and profitable for us to do
what we do. We are in business to make money. Just imagine the
possibilities if large companies currently developing similar
but inaccessible products would do the same.
In closing, I encourage all of you not to permit the
sometimes exaggerated perceptions of accessible design issues
and challenges cloud the fact that there are now more
opportunities than ever before in history to design accessible
and profitable E&IT products and services.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jacobs follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven I. Jacobs
__________
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. And I will now recognize Mr.
Goldstein for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DANIEL F. GOLDSTEIN,
BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP
Mr. Goldstein. Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure and honor to
be here. I was extraordinarily heartened by your opening
statement and wish you would consider a second career as a
Federal judge. Before I go to my statement, I want to mention
that, from firsthand meetings with Amazon, I can answer your
question if it's still in your mind.
Electronic information is woven into the fabric of our
lives, from the Internet to cell phones to, most recently, e-
books like the Kindle. Because digital information consists of
zeros and ones, it is not inherently visual or tactile or aural
but rather can be displayed in any one or all three of those
manners. So it holds great promise to change the lives of those
with print disabilities and those who are deaf. Instead of
persons with those disabilities needing separate and rarely
comparable accommodations, there is the potential for
mainstream access. Unfortunately, at present, digital
information is often only displayed for one sense, excluding
persons with disabilities from participation in these
innovations.
Mainstream access to digital information could be
transformative. Consider e-books. The contents of an e-book
could be displayed on a refreshable Braille display or it could
be read out loud. The number of books available on the Kindle
since the Kindle was first introduced on the market in
November, 2007, already exceeds all of the Braille books
currently available to blind readers.
When commercial e-books are accessible to those with print
disabilities, which includes not just the blind but those with
a host of other disabilities like dyslexia or, for that matter,
severe arthritis, their disability will no longer exclude them
from mainstream participation in reading what the rest of us
read.
The ADA has played a valuable role in helping the
disability community move toward full integration into American
society. In the field of technology, the ADA has been
instrumental in making some Web sites, workplace software
applications, ATMs, point of sale machines, cell phones, and e-
book reading devices accessible to people with disabilities.
However, as we stand here today, we are not even halfway there
on making the Internet accessible; and we are even further away
from equal access to technology used in the workplace and those
offered through public accommodations like educational
institutions.
In the educational sector, the accessibility gap is
particularly severe. A 2008 study found that 97 percent of
university home pages contain significant accessibility
barriers. Even as online education is steeply increasing and
digital books, course management systems, and other
technologies have become an integral part of postsecondary and
K-12 education, most of these technologies are gratuitously
inaccessible.
The barriers to technology are not for the most part the
result of intractable technological issues and need not slow
down innovation. Where an understanding of ADA obligations and
commitment to accessibility exist, accessibility is achieved.
For example, Microsoft's first release of Windows Vista and
Windows 7 were accessible from day one; and the same is true of
Apple's iPad, which was recently released to much hoopla.
Clearly, accessibility has not hampered these companies'
innovation.
The ADA is a tremendous normative statement of the
importance we attach as a Nation to equal opportunity without
regard to disability. However, the need for clarity as to its
application to the digital age is significant.
Title III of the ADA applies to public accommodations. We
believe both the intent and the language of the ADA cover Web
sites and other digital information and services provided by
these covered entities, regardless of whether those
accommodations also operate brick-and-mortar locations.
On behalf of the NFB, I have filed two lawsuits in Federal
Court against companies for violating Title III by failing to
make their Web sites accessible to the blind, one against
America Online in 1999 and one more recently against Target. In
both instances, the companies decided to make their Web sites
accessible and settled, so we have not yet been able to
establish judicial precedent that eCommerce falls within the
ADA.
Opponents of applying Title III to Web sites might point to
a line of reasoning that a place of public accommodation must
be an actual ``physical place.'' One District Court has wrongly
applied such reasoning. This approach stands in stark contrast
to the commonsense view that the phrase ``public
accommodation'' encompasses more than just physical structures.
Most circuit court cases addressing the ``physical place''
argument have been in the context of insurance. So we don't
currently know what conclusion the courts would reach on this
precise question.
In today's increasingly online society, limiting the ADA or
any civil rights law only to those businesses that operate in
physical facilities would undermine the ADA's essential purpose
to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities in
the basic day-to-day activities that are a fundamental part of
living and functioning in the community.
The near future will see the further spread of digital
information in critical sectors, including health care records,
education, employment, commerce, and social life. If we do not
ensure that people with disabilities have equal access to
digital information, they face greater exclusion from
participation in our society. If we do not ensure that
application of the ADA to public accommodations Web sites is
clear, accessible electronic resources will continue to be hit
or miss; and covered entities will continue to take their
chances.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel F. Goldstein
__________
Mr. Nadler. Well, thank you.
I'll begin and, apparently, end the questioning with
myself. I will not limit it to 5 minutes.
For Mr. Goldstein first, in the Target case, the court
found that Target's Web site was covered at least to the extent
that there is overlap between products in the Web site and in
Target's brick and mortar stores. How did that ruling impact
Target's behavior?
Mr. Goldstein. Well, there was also a claim brought under
California's Unruh Act, which is not a public accommodation
statute but applies to business establishments. And Target, as
a business establishment, made the whole Web site susceptible
to the claim under State law. The two claims together convinced
Target that it was time to fix their site; and that's what they
did, the entire site.
Mr. Nadler. And did other businesses take notice of the
ruling and increase their efforts toward accessibility?
Mr. Goldstein. Indeed. A study that had been done of major
retailing sites both before and after the lawsuit showed that
there was a one-third increase in accessibility of major retail
Web sites.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Now, it sounds like there have been a number of voluntary
agreements under which businesses have taken steps to make
their Web sites accessible. What's your sense as to why
businesses appear not to be taking sufficient steps on their
own without having to be contacted about potential litigation?
Mr. Goldstein. There's not a one-size-fits-all answer. Part
of it is that something as simple as Web site developers when
they compete for the bid to develop the company's new Web site
list accessibility as an option as a separate line item on the
price.
Mr. Nadler. Why is that? Why do they list it as an option?
Don't they know the law?
Mr. Goldstein. Well, but the Web site developers aren't
subject, unfortunately, to Title III. There's no joint and
several liability here. So you want to compete on price. And
what happens is between the procurement officer wanting to look
good to the boss and the Web site developer wanting to offer
the best price, a lot of this happens without----
Mr. Nadler. So they are misleading their clients?
Mr. Goldstein. Well, they may be leading their client to a
position where they are liable and end up with lawsuits.
Mr. Nadler. Well, they are misleading their clients as to
the law, no?
Mr. Goldstein. I don't know that they are advising the
client on the law, but they are certainly leaving the client
high and dry.
Mr. Nadler. They are putting them in a bad legal position.
Mr. Goldstein. Yes, in a very bad legal position.
Mr. Nadler. Do you think that regulations from DOJ may
impact on this dynamic?
Mr. Goldstein. I think they would be a huge help.
Mr. Nadler. And that regulations from DOJ should directly
address this problem of Web site developers directing their
clients into a vulnerable position?
Mr. Goldstein. I think that would be extremely helpful.
Mr. Nadler. Now you testified that we are not even halfway
there in achieving accessibility. How do we accelerate the pace
and get businesses and schools to do better?
Mr. Goldstein. Well, I think the Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division's decision to become active in this area
is going to accelerate things tremendously. I was very excited
by what Mr. Bagenstos said today, and the conversations we have
had with the Civil Rights Division convince me they are for
real.
Mr. Nadler. I don't know if Mr. Bagenstos is still here,
but if he is not you might want to mention to him your
conclusion or your answer to my question about DOJ regulations
on Web site developers.
Mr. Goldstein. It is an excellent idea, and I will pass it
along.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Let me just ask if anyone else want to comment on the last
couple of questions. Yes, Ms. Brewer.
Ms. Brewer. Yes, my impression is that there are a number
of issues which sometimes cause delay in implementation, and
they can start from a very simple level of lack of sufficient
awareness and training for the developers, managers' decision,
competing design priorities, and so forth.
I work for an international standards consortium. I get
phone calls from people saying, does the ADA apply to my
business? So my impression is that there is a lack of clarity:
If it does, what should I use? And so I think there is a lack
of clarity not just with regard to coverage but what standard
to apply. It may be that those things might also help in terms
of the compliance. There may also be other things that can
accelerate implementation, such as improved authoring tools and
so forth.
Mr. Nadler. Again, you think the DOJ could help with
regulations here?
Ms. Brewer. It sounds as though it may address the
questions that come in to us, yes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Does anyone else--Mr. Jacobs.
Mr. Jacobs. Yes, I want to make sure I remember the
question correctly. It was, why do you think more companies
have not made their products and services accessible; is that
correct, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Nadler. Well, how we accelerate the pace, yeah.
Mr. Jacobs. Well, there, of course, needs to be more
research. But, from my experience, if you look at who makes the
purchasing decisions in companies, it is executive management,
marketing people, business people, MIS people, computer
science, financial people. If you look at their courses that
they take in college, they are never taught about the business
benefits of accessible design. The individuals who do learn
that, major in ergonomics or other disciplines that teach them
that.
I think one of the solutions could be going back to the
universities, going back to the accreditation agencies, and
working with them and companies to ensure that the right people
are learning the right things.
In addition, I don't see anything wrong with our natural
market forces. If companies stopped purchasing inaccessible
electronic and information technology when accessible versions
of that same technology are available, that does two things. It
makes the statement that, hey, it must be possible to develop
this because we are buying it, and the competition isn't
getting the business. So they have to make a decision. Do we
want their business? Do we want business from other companies?
If we do, maybe we should take a look at what we're doing and
change it.
Mr. Nadler. So you're saying that, despite the market
forces that would operate in a positive direction here, the
ignorance of people making decisions on these questions
operates in a negative direction.
Mr. Jacobs. Yes, I would say their lack of knowledge does
work----
Mr. Nadler. So it is back to the old Edgar Snow question of
the two cultures. Thank you.
Mr. Richert.
Mr. Richert. It is peer pressure. I have got to join--since
the other three did, I have to put myself in.
You asked these questions which are very salient, and one
of the probably biggest things that we could do is use the
buying power of the Federal Government to spur the kind of
development and, frankly, awareness-raising that needs to be
done on the technology solutions that do exist.
Mr. Nadler. Let me stop you right there. That's a very good
idea, but let me ask you, is it your experience that the
procurement officers in the Federal Government are aware of
this and are acting accordingly?
Mr. Richert. Perhaps you might have anticipated that I was
going to go there.
Yes, I think what we do know is that the Federal Government
has not lived up to its responsibilities under section 508 of
the Rehabilitation Act. Twelve years' worth of that law being
on the books has not resulted in the kind of changes that we
need to see. And why is that? I think, such as we know it, we
know that it is not because making Federal Web sites or buying,
procuring technology is so hard to accomplish. It is frankly
bureaucratic inertia.
One of the things that we could be doing, and I would urge
my colleagues from the Justice Department who have heard any of
a number of us say this many times before, that the Justice
Department itself has statutory obligations to monitor and
report on what the Federal Government is doing; and, frankly,
over the course of the last 10 years the Justice Department has
not lived up to those obligations. That would be
extraordinarily helpful in keeping the Federal Government
accountable in living up to its requirements to make technology
that it purchases and that it operates and maintains more
accessible.
Mr. Nadler. I would make the same suggestion to you. You
might want to talk with Mr. Bagenstos about this one, too.
Thank you. My time has expired. I now recognize for 5
minutes the gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the Chairman for this hearing
and also the witnesses that have appeared as well as the
Justice Department.
I think that what I've gleaned and what I--I would not say
be surprised but maybe somewhat disappointed because we live in
a technological society that means that our minds should think
accordingly, and we must look at the vast array of Americans
that are distinctively different and unique. And it looks as
if, wanting to be market savvy, I would work to have the
quality product that allows access to new technologies by the
disabled and, in particular, removing barriers to Web
information which clearly impacts employment, health,
educational, and financial information.
Working with a senior age mother who is in her eighties,
that is not classified as a disability, but it is an aged
person who doesn't live in the world of technology. The kind of
help that is needed to access medical records or medical
information or to provide information is enormous.
So what about the young person or the person who is in the
work market right now? Why should they be denied opportunities
because we haven't thought forthrightly?
So let me ask Mr. Goldstein, who spoke of what I, too,
think is favorable, that the Justice Department will look at
rule making. But in the course of your thoughts or your
positive comments on that, let me ask you the question, is that
going to be fast enough? What do we do in Congress to make sure
that it moves quickly?
And I think you mentioned the Civil Rights Division. And
you're right. What a breath of fresh air under the present
Administration. But is that fast enough? Is there a sense of
urgency? And I happen to think there is. Because as we have a
population of disabled, there are others of an age that are in
the school system, that are going to college. So that question
and then what are the best ways to ensure that accessibility is
considered at the front end when technology is being initially
developed, which includes the private sector.
Mr. Goldstein. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I think regulations, by themselves, are not going to be
fast enough. One of the things that we see with technology is
that technologies that find a place in the market take off
very, very fast and grow at a logarithmic rate. So you can't be
a near follower of technology. If you don't get in on the
ground floor, you get left out.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Right.
Mr. Goldstein. I, of course, think of litigation as a tool,
because that's what I do for a living. But one of the things
that Congress can do here is this isn't all just with the
Department of Justice. The Department of Education can play a
very significant role here because of their responsibility with
respect to Title II and with respect to 504 as far as K through
12 and postsecondary public education is concerned. Health and
Human Services is going to have a lot to say with respect to
health care records. The FCC is going to have a lot to say with
respect to broadband plans. Anything that this Subcommittee or
the Congress can do to heighten the awareness that a disability
isn't an afterthought in going forward, that it needs to be in
there at the ground floor would be of extraordinary assistance.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I like your approach, and I would
just like to offer this before I ask the other witnesses to
comment on the forward-thinking approach, is to make mention of
the fact that in my State alone, the State of Texas, there are
3 million and counting people with disability. And the
University of Texas, you may be familiar with, has established
the Texas Center for Disability Studies, which carefully looks
at different disabilities and finds fresh and new innovative
ways to treat them and make the simpler things in life more
accessible. Maybe institutions like that need to really expand
into the technology area and pull this from a perspective of
the disabled people wanting to be able to help themselves and
not be given something.
With that in mind, I want to compliment my staff, Ms.
Floyd. We're going to introduce a piece of legislation called
the Wonder Act. We have been working with Stevie Wonder, named
after him, by the way. And the Wonder Act, which stands for
ways to open doors through education resources, goes right to
the Department of Education and is designed to impact the
visually impaired students at the elementary, secondary, and
postsecondary level. It addresses major concerns of visually
impaired Americans that were brought to our attention through
meetings with organizations representing those visually
impaired. And we hope to put a technology component in that
legislation, but we want to start early to be able to enhance
the civil rights of the disabled.
Might I just ask in my closing question the other witnesses
to be able to answer the question how do we get in front of
this, as opposed to addressing the question at this point? And
maybe Mr. Richert could start first, and then we'll go to the
witnesses who have not answered the question. And any thoughts
about a bill that deals with the impaired in the early stages,
elementary and secondary. Mr. Richert.
Mr. Richert. Sure. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. I
appreciate that. Wow. Congratulations on your leadership. We
need all the help we can get with respect to raising the
awareness and indeed making substantial changes in our public
policy along the lines that you're describing.
I think one of the things that we've tried to beat the drum
about up here is that access to information is not just
something particularly critical for folks who are blind or
visually impaired. Indeed, it is something that is essential
for all students with disabilities.
Over the course of the last, gosh, 10, 15 years, or more,
we've sort of latched onto this notion of people with print
disabilities, the concept that there are certainly more than
folks like myself who are blind or visually impaired for whom
access to information is very critical and because of
disability they may not be able to interact with a book or
equipment effectively. So I guess I would certainly encourage
you and your colleagues as you're considering the Wonder Act
and other public policy changes to remember that, indeed,
access questions go well beyond folks who are blind or visually
impaired.
That having been said, it sounds cliche, but, quite
frankly, hearings like this are essential to getting, quote,
unquote, out in front of the issue. You would be amazed, or
maybe you wouldn't be, on how much change in technology seems
to happen whenever there is a sense that legislation or
regulation is going to be coming down the pike.
It is fascinating how when hearings take place up here or
there are public hearings that are held around the country, as
there just recently were under the auspices of the Department
of Labor, of the disability employment policy, among many, many
others, how simply having a presence out and about talking
about disability and talking about it in connection with,
frankly, everyday life does so much to get out in front of the
issue. People then start to come to us, all four of us and
plenty of others at this table, to ask us, my gosh, somebody's
got a crazy idea to regulate in this area. How can we get ahead
of this?
Regulation is not the only thing we can do, but it is
certainly one area, and, frankly, raising awareness about this
whole matter is something that can be done just, frankly, from
drawing attention to it and bringing the spotlight to it, as
you're doing today.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, will you allow Mr. Jacobs quickly just to
answer and Ms. Brewer?
Mr. Nadler. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee. If you would, with the Chairman's great
indulgence, I know that we have constituent engagements in our
districts, so I thank you for your courtesy. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for your courtesy.
Mr. Jacobs. The most important think I would like to say is
that you and I have to talk. There are a lot of reasons why
students K through 12 and college students don't have the
assistive technology that they need. It is because of cost. It
is because of licensing limitations. Assistive technology
software is among the only software that I'm aware of in the
marketplace that has not been reduced in price over the past 10
years. Check it out.
There is something called open source software like Firefox
browser, like FileZilla. Hundreds of millions of copies of
high-quality software are out there. There are open-source
assistive technology applications.
We were fortunate enough to be part of a Department of
Education grant. We are in the second phase. We have taken 30
of these applications. They are all high quality, and they
accommodate just about every type of disability you could
imagine. They are free. The student could take them to school
and use them and take them home to do homework. They don't need
to worry about infringing upon the IP rights of the developer,
because these applications are open source.
So my thought is why not look at legislation to have
organizations purchasing AT software first look at open source
software that is free. If they can't find something that meets
a student's needs, then go buy commercial. But I could tell
from you my experience there are a lot of very good
applications out there.
So that is how I would address your question and
congratulations.
Ms. Jackson Lee. We will engage you. You have just given
some very vital information.
Ms. Brewer, do you have a quick response?
Ms. Brewer. Yes, and I appreciate the Congresswoman's
question.
A few comments with regard to the needs of older Web users,
your initial comment. The Web Accessibility Initiative has
conducted an extensive international literature research
regarding the needs of older users who may sometimes have
similar accessibility needs. And the accessibility needs are
actually--the functional needs are pretty much the same as
people with disabilities and are already addressed by existing
Web accessibility guidelines which we have developed with the
World Wide Web Consortium. Our concern is still that these
solutions are not being applied anywhere near as broadly as
people with disabilities and older users need.
You asked about potential accelerators. The clarifying of
applicability of the ADA we believe would help, based on the
questions we get where people are puzzled if they are covered
or not. The clarifying of the standards to use is something
that I also believe would help quite a bit. The adoption of a
multi-stakeholder consensus standard as exists in the area of
Web accessibility can help by removing uncertainty about what
standard to use. It also enables sharing of technical support
resources, enables repurposing of training materials without
having to redevelop those, recreate the wheel each time.
Also, in the IT industry it is very important to know what
your development target is when product managers are making
decisions about what features to implement. And if they see a
range of different standards in every State or in different
parts of the Federal Government, there is much less incentive.
It is also very hard to decide which ones to support. And so
these are things that may indeed help accelerate this.
One other thing would be studies on adoption or
implementation of Web accessibility across different sectors
that relate to Title III, for instance, so that people who work
in the field could more easily address the gaps that seem to be
there. We develop extensive amounts of technical guidance, and
we could target that if we knew where the worst gaps were.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, and I thank the witnesses.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the
witnesses which we will forward. And I ask the witnesses to
respond as promptly as they can so that their answers may be
made part of the record.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record.
With that, we thank the witnesses; and the hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
First and foremost, I would like to extend my gratitude to Chairman
Nadler for holding this important Subcommittee Hearing addressing the
applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act as we navigate
through this digital age, and technologies change day to day. Secondly,
I would like to recognize the Honorable Samuel Bagenstos, the Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Your participation in today's hearing is appreciated and I look forward
to hearing more about what the Department of Justice is doing and plans
to do to address this issue.
I would like to thank our distinguished witness on the second
panel: Mr. Mark Richert, the Director of Public Policy for the American
Foundation for the Blind; Ms. Judy Brewer, Director of the Web
Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium; Mr. Steve
Jacobs, President of the IDEAL Group; and Mr. Daniel F. Goldstein, of
Brown, Goldstein, and Levy, LLP.
As we all know, we live in a technological age. Many of the tasks
that used to require a physical process are now paperless, virtual, and
can be done online. We shop online, apply for jobs online, and pay our
bills online, just to name a few things. Many schools and universities
hold classes online, supplement their curriculums online, and use
electronic versions of textbooks. Many retailers have an online
component, offering exclusive merchandise and internet discounts, while
some conduct all operations online and have given up ``brick and
mortar'' establishments entirely.
We are a digital culture by definition. Ten years ago, only 46% of
adults even used the internet, and of that 46%, only 5% had a broadband
connection and almost none used wireless connections. The present day
portrait of American society is very different. Over 75% of adults use
the internet, and the percentage is even higher for children. Of those
75%, 62% have a broadband connection in their home and 53% use a
wireless connection. Many people even use mobile broadband to
communicate for both business and entertainment purposes.
These advancements in technology, especially with respect to public
services, have made life much more convenient for many Americans in
many ways. In some ways, it has improved accessibility by eliminating
required physical presence and arduous paper processes. While
technology has done a lot of good, it has also created some barriers
that limit accessibility, and in some cases completely alienate, those
Americans who are handicapped or disabled.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was implemented to
ensure inclusion and opportunity for those considered handicapped or
disabled. Congress was aware that technology would continue to evolve
and expressed it belief that the non-discrimination mandate contained
in the ADA would be broad and flexible enough to keep pace. Thus,
ensuring that, as technology evolved, people with disabilities are not
excluded when jobs, public services, or public accommodations that
require access to new technology. However, in 1990, one could not have
imagined that extent of the role which technological innovation plays
in our lives.
Today, just about every business, retailer, government and public
service has a website which is intended to increase accessibility and
make certain processes easier. For those with handicaps and
disabilities, especially those who are blind or hearing-impaired or
cannot manipulate a mouse, there are software programs and make use of
these websites available to those with handicaps--programs read
websites and images.
However, there are simple features that need to be incorporated
into websites in order for these programs to be effective, and many web
designers are likely unaware. Something as simple as adding a caption
to a picture or a photo would make a website more easily translatable.
We need to figure out a way to ensure that these simple facts are known
and implanted, especially on local, state, and federal government
websites, and site that deal with other public services or
accommodations.
In my home state of Texas, over 3 million people have a disability.
The University of Texas has established the Texas Center for
Disabilities Studies which carefully looks at different disabilities
and finds new and innovative ways to treat them and make the simple
things in life more accessible to those with such disabilities. They
have also established the Texas Technology Access Program which leads
the state's efforts to carry out Federal initiatives associated with
the ADA. The programs mission is to increase access for people with
disabilities to assistive technology that provides them more control
over their immediate environments and an enhanced ability to function
independently.
Furthermore, given the subject matter of this hearing, I find it
apropos to mention my plan to soon introduce a piece of legislation
called the ``WONDER Act,'' named after the legendary singer and
humanitarian, Stevie Wonder. The WONDER Act, which stands for ``Ways to
Open Doors through Educational Resources,'' is designed to impact
visually impaired students at the elementary, secondary, and post-
secondary levels. It addresses major concerns of visually impaired
Americans that were brought to my attention through meetings with
organizations representing those who are visually impaired.
Today, we are hoping to figure out what the Department of Justice
can do, and we, as Congress can do to make sure that the ADA continues
to fulfill its goal of inclusion. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield
back the remainder of my time.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, and Member,
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very important hearing on
the Americans with Disabilities Act, commonly referred to as the ADA.
Congress passed the ADA in 1990. The ADA was recently amendment in
2008 to revise the definition of ``disability'' to more broadly
encompass impairments that substantially limit a major life activity.
The ADA is extremely vital as it aims to prohibit discrimination
against individuals with disabilities in American civic and economic
life.
This hearing is important because it will give us the opportunity
to examine how the ADA can achieve its promise of equal opportunity and
full participation for people with disabilities as technology continues
to advance and grow.
The internet and web-based technology has significantly changed our
lives. Today, you can earn a college degree online without ever
stepping foot in a classroom. Our constituents look for jobs online, do
their banking online, and go shopping online.
Years ago, many of these activities could only be done by leaving
one's home and entering a physical building such as a bank, college, or
store.
The times have surely changed. Today, many of us are frustrated
when the internet is down or feel helpless without our BlackBerries
which give us 24 hour access to the internet.
In this digital age, we cannot afford to leave anyone behind. We
must ensure that people with disabilities have the necessary tools to
fully access the internet and all it has to offer. This includes screen
readers, Braille displays, captions for audio, and other assistive
technologies.
Millions of people have disabilities that affect their use of the
web. These individuals have the right to access emerging and innovative
technology. As I think about my constituents, I am anxious to examine
what Congress can do to ensure that individuals with disabilities have
full access to the internet.
I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing, and I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses today.