[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AT 20--CELEBRATING OUR PROGRESS,
AFFIRMING OUR COMMITMENT
=======================================================================
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
__________
JULY 22, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-110
__________
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
57-559 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
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
TED DEUTCH, Florida TOM ROONEY, Florida
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
DANIEL MAFFEI, New York
JARED POLIS, Colorado
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
----------
JULY 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
The Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia, and Member, Subcommittee
on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties......... 5
The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, and Member, Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties................ 6
The Honorable Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wisconsin, and Member, Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties................ 17
WITNESSES
The Honorable Steny H. Hoyer, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
The Honorable James R. Langevin, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Rhode Island
Oral Testimony................................................. 12
Prepared Statement............................................. 14
The Honorable Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Rights Division, United States Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 20
Prepared Statement............................................. 23
The Honorable Richard Thornburgh
Oral Testimony................................................. 39
Prepared Statement............................................. 42
Ms. Cheryl Sensenbrenner, Immediate Past Board Chair, American
Association of People With Disabilities
Oral Testimony................................................. 59
Prepared Statement............................................. 62
Lt. Col. Gregory D. Gadson, Director, U.S. Army Wounded Warrior
Program
Oral Testimony................................................. 71
Prepared Statement............................................. 72
Mr. Jonathan M. Young, Chairman, National Council on Disability
Oral Testimony................................................. 76
Prepared Statement............................................. 79
Ms. Casandra Cox, Member, Policy Committee, Coalition of
Institutionalized Aged and Disabled
Oral Testimony................................................. 86
Prepared Statement............................................. 88
Ms. Adrian Villalobos, Intern, National Disability Rights Network
Oral Testimony................................................. 91
Prepared Statement............................................. 94
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Tammy Baldwin, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and
Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and
Civil Liberties................................................ 18
APPENDIX
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
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AT 20--CELEBRATING OUR PROGRESS,
AFFIRMING OUR COMMITMENT
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 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 2:30 p.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerrold
Nadler (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Nadler, Conyers, Watt, Scott,
Baldwin, Cohen, Jackson Lee, Sensenbrenner, and Franks.
Staff Present: (Majority) David Lachmann, Subcommittee
Chief of Staff; Heather Sawyer, Counsel; Elizabeth Kendall,
Counsel; and Paul Taylor, Minority Counsel.
Mr. Nadler. I call this meeting of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties to order. We
have four panels today, we will endeavor to do this with some
dispatch. To begin with, I recognize myself for an opening
statement. This hearing commemorates the 20th anniversary of
the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and provides us
with an opportunity to reflect on our progress and affirm our
commitment to achieving the ADA's full promise.
Heralded at its signing in 1990 as an emancipation
proclamation for people with disabilities, the goals of the ADA
are lofty, and embody core principals that made this Nation
great. Equality of opportunity, independence and integration.
Through broad non-discrimination, directives aimed at
employers, government entities, and places of public
accommodation, and requirements of reasonable accommodation and
modification that are designed to dismantle architectural and
societal barriers, the ADA has transformed our world.
Some of those changes are visible: lifts on busses,
elevators and subway stations; power assisted and wider doors,
designated parking spots, curb cuts; and as with today's
hearing, closed captioning. Others are not so visible but are
powerfully important nonetheless. Those less visable changes,
the slow breakdown of the disabling stereotypes, myths,
prejudice and stigma are also happening because of the
increased access and opportunity made possible by the ADA.
As we witness and benefit from the contributions of family
members, colleagues and neighbors with disabilities, outdated
and misguided beliefs are challenged and changed. While we
still have a long way to go, our passage of the ADA Amendments
Act of 2008 is yet another mark of our progress on this front.
Through the ADA Amendments Act, we responded to the Supreme
Court's unduly narrow interpretation of the definition of
disability, and reaffirmed our commitment to focusing on
ability; the ability to do a job, to participate in programs,
services or activities, or to thrive in a community-based
setting, rather than the degree or severity of our limitations.
Thus we will hear from the witnesses who are with us here
today, we have much to celebrate.
We also know that we have not reached the finish line, and
that much work remains. As you will hear today from Assistant
Attorney General Thomas Perez and Casandra Cox, we must
continue working to end the unnecessary institutionalization of
people with disabilities.
Ms. Cox was placed in an adult home following a short
hospitalization. Despite her request for assistance in finding
an appropriate community-based placement, she remained in that
home for 3 years until she was able--through persistence and
good luck in being selected for a State pilot program--to find
a community-based placement where she has thrived.
The ADA's promise of integration and independence should
not depend on persistence or on luck. More than 10 years ago in
Olmstead v. L.C., the Supreme Court declared that unnecessary
institutionalization violates the ADA, and that States must
ensure that individuals receive services in the least
restrictive setting possible. Yet thousands of individuals like
Ms. Cox--individuals who can and should receive services in
community-based settings--remain warehoused in large
institutions. This remains true despite the fact that former
residents are thriving in supportive settings at costs that are
lower than, or equal to, the cost of institutional care.
Work to make public transit systems and brick and mortar
structures accessible also remains unfinished. Twenty years
after the ADA required readily achievable changes to existing
structures and set out standards for new buildings, many brick
and mortar facilities remain inaccessible. And while we have
made great strides in our public transit systems, significant
gaps and ongoing problems remain.
Continued noncompliance with Titles II and III of the ADA
is inexcusable. While we should continue to pursue proposals
that promote voluntary compliance like the Department of
Justice's Project Civic Access, we should rightly reject any
measure that threatens the ADA's promise of access and
integration. Even as we press forward to ensure greater access
to physical places and programs and services, we cannot lose
sight of the need to ensure that evolving technologies are also
accessible.
In the 20 years since the ADA's passage, technology has
revolutionized the way we work, learn, shop and socialize.
While these events ultimately may offer individuals with
disabilities unprecedented access and opportunities, we have
yet to see that full potential realized.
During a Subcommittee hearing this past spring focusing on
access to emerging technology as a civil rights issue under the
ADA, we urged the Department of Justice to issue regulations
and additional guidance to achieve greater compliance with the
ADA's equal access obligations with regard to the Internet and
other evolving technologies. I hope we hear more today about
the Department's plans to do so.
As we celebrate our progress and set our sights on the
challenges that remain, I would like to take a moment to
recognize and thank my colleague, Jim Sensenbrenner. My
colleague from Wisconsin first introduced the ADA Restoration
Act in the 109th Congress and worked with the majority leader,
Representative Steny Hoyer--who is one of the ADA's greatest
champions, and who we are also honored to have here with us
today--to ensure passage of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 in
the 110th Congress.
The full Judiciary Committee favorably reported that bill
by unanimous vote. For those of you who are not that familiar
with this Committee, the full agreement on anything in this
Committee is, to say the least, unusual. And I thank the
Ranking Member for his leadership, and I thank all of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for setting aside our
differences on other issues to come together on such a
critically important issue. Our collaboration on the ADA
Amendments Act which was then passed by on overwhelming
majority of the House, illustrates an enduring bipartisan
commitment to achieving the full civil rights for Americans
with disabilities, some of whom are with us today to share
their stories and to bear testament to the real impact that the
ADA has had on the lives of millions. It shows that when we can
lay aside our differences for a common purpose, we can achieve
great things.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and to
working toward the day when the full promise of the ADA is
finally achieved. I yield back and recognize for an opening
statement, the distinguished Ranking Member.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Twenty years ago, this country took a significant step forward
in eliminating the barriers that far too long kept disabled
Americans from fully participating in everything the American
dream has to offer. Prior to the Americans With Disabilities
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, the discriminatory
treatment employed by others created a vicious cycle that
perpetuated false stereotypes. 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 26th, 1990, broke this vicious
cycle by helping restore the full meaning of legal 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 Majority Leader Hoyer
to achieve the enactment of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008,
which further fulfilled the promise of the ADA making clear the
intent of Congress to cover a broad group of individuals with
disabilities under the Act. That legislation served to
eliminate the problem of the 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 a
witness here today, was dogged in her advocacy for that
legislation. In fact, when she got people to commit to
cosponsoring the ADA, and they came up to me and said they had
second thoughts about that, I said call up Cheryl. None of them
did.
Congress intended for the ADA to expand its broad
protections into five areas, including the employment sector of
the services programs and benefits provided by State and local
governments, places of public accommodation and the services
they provide, transportation services and facilities and
telecommunication services. Equally important are the changes
in societal attitudes that are starting to occur as a result of
the ADA, particularly as it relates to the educational and
employment opportunities of disabled Americans.
Increased educational and employment opportunities have
allowed disabled Americans to experience higher graduation
rates, higher employment rates and lower rates of poverty than
before. Because of the ADA, disabled citizens no longer live in
isolation, but live as independent self-sufficient members of
our communities.
Many of the witnesses at our hearing today can speak about
the progress and promise of the ADA from personal experience.
Those witnesses include a young man who suffered a disability
at the age of 8, and who has come of age under the ADA. His is
a story of integration into schools and peer groups that likely
could not have been told if it were not for the ADA. Our
witnesses include a woman who has moved successfully from adult
home to her own apartment with some support and assistance. The
approval of her transition was not as easy as it should have
been, but now that her move has been approved, hers is a story
of increased independence and personal fulfillment that also
could not have been told if it were not for the ADA. The
bipartisan witnesses here today include a former Republican
Attorney General governor of Pennsylvania and a Member of
Congress.
In essence, the ADA is not about statutory text or legal
jargon, it is about individual human beings who are not able to
explore and develop more of their own capabilities. Becoming
more self-sufficient is essential to human happiness, and that
is what the ADA has made possible. It has made the world not
only more accessible, it has made it a happier place. Fewer
Federal laws can claim as much so clearly that we rightfully
celebrate the ADA here today. The ADA has been one of the most
effective civil rights laws ever passed by Congress. Its
continued effectiveness is paramount to ensuring that the
transformation that our Nation has undergone continues into the
future, and that the guarantees and promises on which this
country was established continued to be recognized on behalf of
all of its citizens. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman, I now recognize for an
opening statement, the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing to commemorate the 20th Anniversary of the
Americans With Disabilities Act and to examine the progress we
have made as well as the direction we need to continue to move
in toward the future.
In 1990, then-President George H.W. Bush signed the
Americans With Disabilities Act into law. It was the most
significant piece of Federal civil rights legislation since the
signing of the Civil Rights Act by President Johnson in 1964
and 1965. There has been a tremendous success and as a result
of the, ADA, millions more Americans with disabilities are
actively participating in the workforce as employers in
government and private businesses alike, are required to make
reasonable accommodations whenever feasible to encourage and
enable individuals with disabilities to participate in the
social and economic fabric of American life. But it was not the
first legislation to do so.
Mr. Chairman, in early 1980's, when I was a member of the
general assembly, 64 disability organizations formed an
organization called INVEST, Insure Virginians Equal Status
Today to pass a State statute in Virginia to protect
individuals with disabilities from discrimination. I was a
Member of the Senate Committee that considered the legislation,
and we dealt with many of the contentious issues such as what
is a reasonable accommodation, and we worked through all of
those issues. And in 1985, the Virginians With Disabilities Act
was signed into law by then-Governor Charles S. Robb. Today,
the Act protects nearly 1 million residents of the Commonwealth
of Virginia. This Act acknowledged that, ``it is the policy of
the Commonwealth to encourage and enable persons with
disabilities to participate fully and equally in the social and
economic life'' and it protects Virginians with disabilities
from discrimination and employment, education, housing, voting
and places of public accommodation.
It preceded the Federal Americans with disabilities Act by
5 years. And many of the key concepts of the Virginia statute
formed the basis of the ADA. The landmark Virginians with
Disabilities Act was the Commonwealth's commitment to encourage
persons with disabilities to participate fully in the social
and economic life of the commonwealth. Five years later the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was enacted to protect
all Americans against discrimination on the basis of
disability.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud that 20 years later, we're able to
look back upon the passage of the Federal Americans with
Disabilities Act and recognize the importance of this
legislation and the changes made in American society. But our
work is not yet done. The law is stable and cannot stand still,
it must continue to evolve. We must continue to revisit the ADA
and to examine whether it is accomplishing its purpose. And
when we find it is not, we must be willing to make changes
necessary to do so.
One recent example of this willingness occurred in last
Congress when we passed Americans With Disabilities Amendment
Act of 2008 which was signed into law by President George W.
Bush and became effective January 1st, 2009. The ADA Amendments
Act restored the ADA to Congress's original intent by
clarifying that coverage under the ADA is broad and covers
anyone who faces unfair discrimination because of disability,
and it overturned several court decisions that held people with
disabilities would lose their coverage under the ADA simply
because their condition is treatable with medication but can be
addressed with the help of assistive technology.
That legislation was the direct result of the business and
disability communities working together to rectify a problem
that was created by the courts. It is my hope that this kind of
commitment, determination and cooperation will continue into
the future so that individuals with disabilities will forever
be able to secure, and maintain employment without fear of
being discriminated against because of their disability.
I thank you for holding the hearing, Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to hearing our witnesses today.
Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman. Without objection, all
Members have 5 legislative days to submit opening statements
for inclusion in the record. Without objection the Chair will
be authorized to declare a recess to the hearing. I notice that
we've just been joined by the gentleman from Tennessee who will
be recognized for a brief opening statement.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak. When I was in the State
legislature I helped pass the State ADA bill in Tennessee, and
there were people who didn't understand the need for it. Is a
great need, and whenever I drive and I see curb cuts and I see
people with wheelchairs using those curb cuts I think of how
great that bill is and how necessary it was and how callous it
was for people to think we didn't need to pass such a bill. Any
opportunities we give people who have disabilities, and in all
cases, it is there but for the grace of God, that everybody
should have the opportunity to have full access to all the
opportunities that the country offers. This city is tourist
friendly and people get around and walk, and if you're in a
wheelchair you need to have those curb cuts, you need
opportunities to have hand braces and whatever.
Personally as a child, I had polio and that's just
something that happens, you get the virus or don't get the
virus. It has nothing to do with anything else. So many
illnesses are that way. It is the lottery of life. And we ought
to protect it, it is like insurance. And it is a great
insurance that the American government can give. I appreciate
the ADA and what it does for folks and gives them better
opportunities. I'm happy to be here and I thank people who were
the original sponsors, Mr. Langevin and Mr. Hoyer, for their
work on this and the Chairman. Thank you. I yield back the
remainder of my time.
Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman. I am now pleased to
introduce two of our esteemed colleagues. Congressman Steny
Hoyer is the majority leader of the House of Representatives,
and the Representative of Maryland's 5th congressional
district. He was elected to the Maryland Senate at age 27, and
at 35, he was chosen as its president, making him the youngest
president in the Senate in State history. Now serving his
fifteenth term in the House, he's the longest serving Member in
the House of Representatives for Maryland in history. Among his
many legislative accomplishments, Congressman Hoyer is known
for guiding the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act in
1990, and he has continued to fight for the rights of the
disabled through his leadership in the passage of the ADA
Amendments Act of 2008.
Congressman Jim Langevin is the Representative of Rhode
Island's second congressional district. Congressman Langevin
first ran for public office in 1986. He was elected as delegate
to Rhode Island's constitutional convention and served as its
secretary. Two years later, he won an election to the Rhode
Island House of Representatives. 1994 Congressman Langevin
became Secretary of State of Rhode Island, an office in which
he served until his first election to Congress in 2000.
Congressman Langevin is a Member of the House Armed Services
Committee and Chair of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. He
also serves on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
and on the House Committee on the Budget. I am pleased to
welcome you both.
I would now like to begin by recognizing Mr. Hoyer.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE STENY H. HOYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you much. I appreciate this
opportunity to be here, both with Jim Langevin--the green
light's on. Am I on? I appreciate the opportunity to be here
with Mr. Langevin in particular. What a symbol he is of the
success of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I'm also, of
course, very pleased to be here with my friend, Jim
Sensenbrenner, and the chief lobbyist in his household----
Mr. Nadler. Steny, could bring the mike a little closer to
you?
Mr. Hoyer. There? All right, I'm still pleased to be here.
I was saying about Jim and Cheryl Sensenbrenner, who have been
two giants in the promotion of the Americans With Disabilities
Act in its passage and the continuing focus to make sure that
its promise was realized. And I thank them both for their help.
It was a bipartisan bill, overwhelmingly passed in the House
and the Senate. I want to mention, of course, Senator Kennedy,
who is not with us, but who was extraordinarily important in
passing the ADA. I also want to mention Senator Harkin in the
Senate who was the principal coordinator of the efforts in the
Senate. And of course, the Chairman of this Committee, John
Conyers, who was so important in the passage of this bill.
Everybody has mentioned, of course, Dick Thornburgh,
Attorney General Thornburgh, Governor Thornburgh, he and his
wife, both giants in the support of and education of so many of
us on the challenge confronting those with disabilities. It has
been mentioned over and over again, but this is a historic
time, 20 years, 2 decades since the passage of the Americans
With Disabilities Act. The first President Bush signed into law
one of the most consequential pieces of civil rights
legislation in recent memory.
Indeed, as Mr. Scott pointed out it has been called, and I
think you did as well, Mr. Chairman, the most significant civil
rights legislation in 25 years, since the passage in 1965 of
the Civil Rights Act of 1965.
In the ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House
President Bush said this, and I quote, ``With today's signing
of the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act every man,
woman and child with a disability can now pass through once
closed doors into a bright new era of equality, independence
and freedom.'' In large measure he was right. Those doors
certainly have come open. Tens of millions of Americans with
disabilities now enjoy rights, the rest of us have long taken
for granted. The right to use the same streets, theaters,
restrooms, offices, the right to prove themselves in the
workplace. And focus on the content of their character and
their abilities, not their disabilities. To succeed on their
talent and drive alone. We all understand why there are cuts in
the sidewalk as has been mentioned, in every street corner,
kneeling buses on our city streets, elevators on the Metro,
ramps to movie theaters, and accessible restrooms and
handicapped parking almost everywhere.
Each one, Mr. Chairman, is a sign of a pledge. A promise of
an America that excludes none of its people from its spirit of
equal opportunity. I have observed numerous times over the last
couple of days that in our declaration of independence, we said
that all men and all women, included hopefully generically in
that term, were created equal and endowed by their creator with
certain unalienable rights, among these life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
On a regular basis, America has had to look at that promise
of 1776 and said it was not living out the pledge of that
promise, whether it was the Civil War, the 13th or 14th
Amendment when we said African American citizens were not
treated in a manner consistent with that promise, or whether it
was in the early part of the last century when we said to women
in this country, we have not lived out the promise that we
made, or whether it was in the late '50's and '60's when we
said again to African-Americans that not withstanding
constitutional amendments, not withstanding a Civil War we were
still discriminating against fellow citizens on the basis of
the color of their skin.
So we adopted in 1964 and '65, and indeed in '57, and since
then, reminders to ourselves that we had not reached the
promise of that pledge. Again, in 1990, Mr. Chairman, we again
reaffirmed that the pursuit of happiness should be open in
America to all, and that we ought to facilitate that pursuit by
all irrespective of any challenges they confronted.
The ADA was a demonstration of just how much we can
accomplish when Republicans and Democrats, business leaders and
activists work together to strengthen the ideals that unite us
as Americans. The ADA wasn't simply a collection of rules, as
Mr. Sensenbrenner has so correctly observed in his opening
statement. It was a set of principals that we have to work to
adapt to changing times. That's what Congress did when we
strengthened the ADA and returned it to its original intent by
passing the ADA Amendment Act.
Again, I want to thank my friend, Jim Sensenbrenner and his
wife Cheryl for being giants in the leadership in effecting
those amendments which said to the Supreme Court and to America
that we needed to focus on discrimination, not on the
disability. Whether disabled or perceived to be disabled, if
one were discriminated against on that basis, we meant in the
law that that was against the law. Those amendments restated
and reemphasized that proposition.
Again with strong support, that bill was passed and signed
by President Bush's son. How appropriate the father and son
would be able to sign both the original Disabilities Act and
the confirmation of the intent of that Act. That's what we did
today when we announced that we made the House rostrum
wheelchair accessible for the first time. I mentioned a little
earlier today Mr. Chairman in a press conference that Josh
Grobin, a famous singer that many of you know with a wonderful
voice sings a song You Lift Me Up.
The song essentially says you lift me up to walk on
troubled waters and to climb mountains. The last line of that
song is you lift me up beyond what I can be--actually it says
to more than I can be. I said today as we had a press
conference about the rostrum being made accessible to Jim
Langevin, who will, on Monday, preside as we consider
legislation regarding the Americans With Disabilities Act, Jim
Langevin will be lifted up by a mechanical device, which under
the statute is called a reasonable accommodation, because he is
fully able to preside by intellect and by character. But until
just a couple of months ago, that rostrum was not accessible.
How proud all of us will be when Jim Langevin will be lifted up
to preside over the House of Representatives for all Americans
to see, and indeed people around the world, that America does
not believe that there ought to be barriers to participation
and inclusion.
That's what the Americans with Disabilities Act said, and
that's what its predecessor, the Civil Rights Act said, that we
wanted to open up and make clear that America was a land of
opportunity, not just for some, not just for White men, but for
peoples of all colors, of all races, of all nationalities, of
all distinctions that were not related to ability and
character. Jim Langevin will preside on July 26th, 2010, two
decades after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The ADA's mission of inclusion and equal opportunity is, of
course, as all have observed, still a work in progress, as is
the pledge that was made in 1776 for the pursuit of happiness.
We understand even in America that that pledge has not yet been
fully redeemed, and this Committee more than most--and this
Subcommittee, more than most, is ever vigilant to seek the full
realization of that promise. Now, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and
the Members for that.
Americans with disabilities are still disproportionately,
however, less likely to have a job and more likely to be poor
than their fellow Americans. Many Americans with disabilities
still struggle to get equal treatment in the classroom, to find
transportation to work or to cast ballots independently or
privately. Changing technologies, as you said, Mr. Chairman,
from touch screens to Internet broadcast pose new accessibility
challenges.
So Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, Mr. Conyers,
I mentioned you before that. No one has been in the fight for
civil liberties for constitutional guarantees for those who
have been shut out and discriminated against more than you. And
we honor you this day for the role that you played in the
passage of the Americans with Disabilities.
Mr. Chairman, as we mark this anniversary let's remember
the work that we have in front of us. The ADA made America a
model for other nations and a world leader on one of the
central challenges of human rights. It is my hope that Congress
will live up to the legacy of the ADA and continue to maintain
that leadership. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I'm
honored to be here, as I said, with Mr. Langevin and Mr.
Conyers and all of you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoyer follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steny H. Hoyer, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Maryland, and House Majority Leader
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I will now recognize the Honorable
Jim Langevin.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Sensenbrenner, and of course, Chairman Conyers. Let me thank
you for the opportunity to offer my testimony as we commemorate
the 20th Anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Let me, in particular, say what a privilege it is for me to be
sitting next to Majority Leader Hoyer, a true champion and
visionary and leader in the passage of the Americans With
Disabilities Act.
Today, many of us have nearly forgotten an era in which it
was commonplace for a person to be denied employment because
she was blind or unable to attend University because he was in
a wheelchair. Yet, it was only a generation ago when the
societal norm was to treat individuals with disabilities as
second class citizens. As a Member of the House of
Representatives, founder and co-chairman of the bipartisan
disabilities caucus, and someone who has lived with the
challenges of a disability, both before and after the ADA's
enactment in 1990, I have experienced firsthand the profound
changes that this law has affected within our society.
When I was paralyzed almost 30 years ago at the age of 16,
my life changed forever and as I lay in a hospital bed, I
wondered what life could possibly have in store for me next,
what opportunities would I have in life? How would I find my
path knowing the challenges ahead of me? But I drew strength
and inspiration with other people with disabilities who had
gone on to accomplish things in their own lives that were
meaningful to them and they taught me that there certainly was
life after a disability.
I was also incredibly lucky to have the support of my
family and my community, and of course, my deep faith in God
got me through one of the most challenging times in my life.
Along with that and my family and my community, whose
generosity and concern ultimately made me want to get to Rhode
Island to a career in public service. But for many individuals
with disabilities, they were not as lucky or as fortunate.
For all of us, the ADA has been a profoundly life altering
law that has provided new opportunities and fundamentally
changed the way society views and treats people with
disabilities. Changing the hearts and minds of a Nation only
comes with extraordinary leadership, and I just would like to
take a moment once again to recognize my colleague and someone
who has also been a mentor, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
Twenty years ago, he was so instrumental in passing the
Americans With Disabilities Act. So many ways he was important
in obviously leading through and passing the single most
important civil rights law to disabled individuals in our
country's history. And let me just say to Steny that I will
never forget that it is largely thanks to your vision and your
leadership that I am here serving in the Congress today.
Of course, leader Hoyer was not alone in his vision and his
efforts to guarantee equal rights for the disabled. He was
joined by giants in the civil rights community and disabilities
community. Civil rights pioneers, if you will like Allen Reich
and Justin and Yoshiko Dart, Tony Coehlo, a former Member of
Congress, a colleague who I am proud to call friend, Senators
like Senator Kennedy and Senator Harkin and the distinguished
Ranking Member of this Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner and so many
others. They all played an unmistakable role in the passage of
the ADA which codified the collective ideal that no one should
suffer discrimination because of a disability. It shattered
barriers, opening schools, sidewalks, public transportation,
public accommodations and work places to millions of
individuals.
And we're also making progress even today in the halls of
Congress. When I arrived 10 years ago as the first quadriplegic
to serve in the House, some changes had to be made to
accommodate my service, beginning with Speaker Hastert and
continuing on under Speaker Pelosi's leadership. I've been
overwhelmed by this bipartisan effort and by the commitment to
make the Capitol complex fully accessible to Members of
Congress, staff and visitors.
Let me say that I am particularly happy to report, as
leader Hoyer mentioned, that the Speaker's rostrum now has just
been made fully accessible to wheelchair users.
On Monday, I will have the truly humbling honor and
thrilling experience of presiding over the House of
Representatives for the very first time. Let me say that I've
often said that I may be the first quadriplegic Member to serve
in Congress, but I certainly will not be the last. And I am so
excited for all those people with disabilities who will come
after me and who will serve in this body. I hope that this
historic moment will serve as an inspiration and reminder to
all that we can always overcome challenges, always overcome
obstacles, and that we can always reach new heights. We just
need the tools to do it.
It is more important than ever that we connect businesses
with resources to create more employment opportunities.
Obviously, our work is not yet done until every person with a
disability who can work and wants to work can find a job.
We also make transportation and technology more accessible
and available, and we must provide more resources to teachers
and students to achieve a better education. And we must focus
on income and asset development so families have the means to
become productive members of their community. And finally, we
need to inform individuals with disabilities of their rights
under the ADA and what resources are available should they face
discrimination at any level.
Mr. Chairman, we've come so far, but we, so much, of
course, have more work ahead of us. Disabilities don't
discriminate on the basis of party affiliation, income or
gender. Instead, they have, of course, the unique ability to
unite us in common purpose. If we act in the courage and
commitment of our predecessors then we will provide the means
for every individual to realize the true promise of the ADA.
And I am confident that on this 20th anniversary of the passage
of the Americans With Disabilities Act, that there is a better
America, a stronger America ahead of us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Langevin follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable James R. Langevin,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Rhode Island
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, and thank you for your testimony and
for your work on this and other subjects over the years. I know
our colleagues have very busy schedules, so if there are no
questions they are excused with our thanks.
Second panel. I would ask the witness Attorney General
Thomas Perez to take his place. I understand the gentlelady
from Wisconsin seeks recognition for a brief statement. Without
objection, I yield to her.
Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased
that you are holding this important hearing on the Americans
With Disabilities Act and its impact 20 years following its
passage. And I want to join my colleagues in appreciating the
testimony of our first panel and our successor panels of
witness.
I think it is really important that we take the time to
recognize this milestone and celebrate the good work that is
happening across the country to remove barriers and improve
lives for Americans with disabilities. And I do hope that by
celebrating this anniversary, we can refocus on the work that
lies still ahead.
Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my special thanks to the ADA
Wisconsin Partnership, the Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy,
the Wisconsin Board for People With Developmental Disabilities,
and the numerous Wisconsin State organizations which have been
instrumental in promoting full implementation of the ADA across
the State of Wisconsin. We could not have made the great
strides we have made without their very hard work and
attention.
I also want to recognize the American Association of People
With Disabilities and thank them for their summer internship
program here on Capitol Hill for students with disabilities. My
office was lucky enough to be placed with an intern through
this program, Meredith Nichols, who has been an incredible
asset to the work that we do. She is also a fellow Smithy, my
alma mater. I have been pleased to really get to know her a
little bit and I'm glad to see she is in the audience here
today.
I would like to ask that my full statement be submitted for
the record and will close by thanking you again, Mr. Chairman,
for holding this hearing. It is really my hope that it will
serve to highlight the positive outcomes from the ADA as well
as provide a strong record of our commitment to take the next
steps in insuring all Americans with disabilities are able to
lead full and fulfilling lives. I yield back my remaining time.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, without objection, your full
statement will be recorded in the record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Baldwin follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Member, Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Nadler. In interest of proceeding to our witnesses and
mindful of our busy schedules, I ask that other Members submit
their statements for the record. I now introduce our witness,
our second panel. Thomas Perez was nominated by President Obama
to serve as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights
Division and was sworn in October 8, 2009. Mr. Perez previously
served as the Secretary of Maryland's Department of Labor,
licensing and regulation, which protects consumers through the
enforcement of a wide range of consumer rights, including the
mortgage setting.
From 2002 until 2006 he was a member of the Montgomery
County Council. Earlier in his career he spent 12 years in
Federal public service, most of them as career attorney with
the Civil Rights Division. Mr. Perez later served as Deputy
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Attorney
General Janet Reno. He received a bachelor's degree from Brown
University, a Master's of Public Policy from the John F.
Kennedy School of Government, and a Juris Doctorate from
Harvard Law School.
I am pleased to welcome you, your written statement will be
made part of the record in entirety. I would ask you to
summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. I don't have to
tell you what the light means, you've been here before. So--
before we begin it is customary for the Committee to swear in
its witnesses. Please stand and raise your right hand to take
the oath.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Let the record reflect the witness
answered in the affirmative. Mr. Perez, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS E. PEREZ, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
Mr. Perez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be
back in front of your Committee. Thank for your leadership on
this and so many other issues. And I want to also to thank
Ranking Member Sensenbrenner for his unflagging leadership and
being a consistent voice on behalf of people with disabilities,
as well as his wife, Cheryl Sensenbrenner who has been
recognized appropriately with great frequency.
I also want to thank Chairman Conyers for his leadership,
not only on this, but so many other issues affecting vulnerable
people. I would be remiss if I didn't thank the former Attorney
General Thornburgh, who among other things, gave me my first
job at the Department of Justice in 1989. And I will also note
for the record that he was my boss's boss, because Attorney
General Holder also worked as a career civil servant under
Attorney General Thornburgh, who also has a wife who has been a
champion of disability rights. So I want to say thank you to
all of them and so many others.
The enactment, as you know, of the ADA, was a model of
bipartisan efforts to advance the greater good. The ADA has
literally opened doors and opportunities for individuals with
disabilities across the Nation. At the Civil Rights Division,
we have used all of our tools in our law enforcement arsenal to
give full force to the meaning of ADA. We have filed lawsuits
and reached consent decrees, filed the amicus briefs and
obtained other critical relief in a number of cases.
We have also a robust technical assistance program that has
helped millions of people understand the ADA. In a typical week
through the ADA information line, we answer thousands of calls
from businesses, government officials, people with disabilities
and concerned citizens and ada.gov receives more than 1.5
million hits.
The ADA mediation program has helped resolve complaints
more effectively, efficiently, and equitably. Since January
2001 we have successfully completed more than 2,000 mediations.
Under Project Civic Access, we work cooperatively with local
governments to identify barriers and develop plans for
compliance. We have reached over 180 agreements to date.
We continue to use our regulatory authority to give full
force and meaning to the ADA. In fact, the Department will soon
be publishing four advance notices of proposed rulemaking
seeking public comment on establishing accessibility
requirements for Web sites, movie theaters, equipment and
furniture, including but not limited to medical equipment, and
911 call-taking technology. As so many people have pointed out,
we have, indeed, accomplished a lot, but as my former boss,
Senator Kennedy often said, civil rights is the unfinished
business of America and disability rights is no exception.
One of the biggest challenges we face is the unnecessary
institutionalization of people with disabilities. For so many
people with disabilities, as we will hear from our one witness,
institutionalization deprives them of the ability to make even
the most basic decisions about their lives. In 1999 the court's
decision in the Olmstead case recognized that the unjustified
institutionalization of people with disabilities violates the
ADA. And our Olmstead enforcement has been a top priority of
the division.
Over the past year, we filed briefs in cases in
Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, Illinois, Florida, New
Jersey, California, and filed lawsuits in Arkansas, Georgia and
intervened in a case in New York. We have been involved in a
case in Florida where we obtained a Federal ruling for a woman
named Michele Haddad, a person with a disability who was living
at home. And the only way she could continue to live in a home,
according to the State, was to go into a nursing home and stay
there for at least 60 days and then apply to go back home, that
made no sense to us and fortunately that made no sense to the
court.
Meanwhile, in the last 20 years, technological advances in
the way we communicate, learn, play and work made life easier
for a lot of people with disabilities, but new technologies
have also posed significant challenges. It has been the
position of the Department since the late '90's that Title III
of the ADA applies to Web sites. I mentioned the notice of
proposed--the input that we will be seeking on this issue, but
we are not waiting for that input to enforce the ADA. We
reached a settlement recently in a case involving the use of
the Amazon Kindle by a number of universities, because the
Kindle was not fully accessible for people with disabilities.
In addition to reaching those settlements with five
universities, we worked together with the Department of
Education to issue a letter to all college and university
presidents nationwide asking them to voluntarily refrain from
requiring the use of any devices that are not accessible to all
students.
We still confront hardened attitudes and blatant
discrimination, such as an attorney who refused to allow a
perspective client to bring her guide dog into his office. An
RV park that refused to allow an HIV positive child of a family
that was on vacation at that park to use the swimming pool and
shower facilities. We have indeed made a lot of progress, but
regrettably, we have a lot of work that remains ahead.
I am proud to serve with the dedicated career professionals
in the Department of Justice who, in the finest tradition of
Attorney General Thornburgh and all who have followed him have
made enforcement of the Americans With Disabilities Act a top
priority.
Thank you for your time, sir. I'm happy to answer any
questions you may have, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perez follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Thomas E. Perez
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Nadler. I thank our witness and will begin the
questioning by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
You said the Department will soon issue regulations for
Title II and III to address new issues that have come up since
regulations were last published in 1992. We pressured deputy
Mr. Bagenstos on this issue in our April hearing, so this is
welcome news. Can you give us more detail on your current
timeline on issuing those upcoming regulations, and include
clarification and confirmation of the Department's long-
standing position on the Title III of the ADA applies to Web
sites? I think you just implied that by talking about Kindles.
Mr. Perez. I just mentioned that. And again, we will very
soon be issuing the four advanced notices of proposed
rulemaking, and those, again, apply to the issues of
accessible--accessibility requirements for Web sites,
captioning in movie theaters, equipment and furniture. We've
heard a lot about accessibility of medical requirement, health
reform is a key development, but if a person with a disability
can't access the doctor's office or access the medical
equipment, then having insurance is Pyrrhic. And so we're
asking about that.
And then also 911, the next generation 911 call-taking
technology. And so we're soliciting public input on all of
those areas. We're also, as you correctly point out, and I hope
that we can complete this work in the very near future on the
broader Title II, Title III, all the disability regs that you
had mentioned and Mr. Bagenstos mentioned. And I can assure you
that I have people behind me that have been working feverishly
and many more who can't be here because they continue to work
feverishly because we recognize the critical importance of this
issue.
Mr. Nadler. I appreciate that. Now, in addition to Web
sites, you mentioned other technologies in your statement
including E-readers, ticket kiosks, cell phones. I assume those
will also be covered.
Mr. Perez. Yes, we are looking at all those issues.
Technology should be the best friend of a person with
disabilities.
Mr. Nadler. Well, that answers my next question, I think.
Will the guidance be sufficiently forward looking to provide
some guidance if technologies continue to evolve.
Mr. Perez. We sure hope so, and that's where we're looking
for the public to comment on. We certainly want to make these
regulations enduring documents that can survive the evolution
of technologies.
Mr. Nadler. So you want to broaden the scope to ensure
you're not lagging behind this technology.
Mr. Perez. I would agree.
Mr. Nadler. During a Senate HELP Committee hearing on
Olmstead in June, where you also testified, another witness
Robert Bernstein, president and director of the Bazelon Center
here in Washington, testified that, and I'll quote, ``positive
outcomes in support of housing can be achieved at a cost lower
than or, at most, equal to institutional care.'' Do you agree
with that, I assume?
Mr. Perez. I do. And the Olmstead decision, as I said,
giving meaning to that is a critical priority. I personally met
with the governor of Georgia to talk about Georgia's
compliance, and we have a lawsuit pending against Georgia. I
hope we can resolve it and create a template for the work
elsewhere. Creating sustainable housing is a critical component
because as you move people in the communities, you have to have
the community infrastructure.
Mr. Nadler. You might consider meeting with the Mayor of
New York because we have a case in front of Judge Garaufis and
the Mayor and some others seem to be resistant to his
conclusion on this.
Mr. Perez. We have a full docket of cases, Mr. Chairman, in
front of Judge Garaufis, including the Fire Department of New
York City and the case that you mentioned.
Mr. Nadler. In many of the Olmstead enforcement cases, the
Department participates as amicus or intervenes in existing
suits that have been brought by protection advocacy agencies.
That is to say, the Congressionally-created disability rights
agencies that represent and advocate for people with
disabilities in each State. It appears that the P&A system is
critical part of the ADA enforcement scheme. Would you agree
with that, and how well do you think it is working?
Mr. Perez. I absolutely agree with that. And when you look
at the cases that we're doing across the country, Georgia, for
instance, we would not be able to be where we are without the
help of the P&As. And in fact, in the Connecticut brief that we
filed a while back, the issue was standing for the P&A, and so
we have recognized that P&As must serve the role in many cases
of that private Attorney General and that is why I
wholeheartedly concur with your statement.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you and lastly with regard to the P&As
Olmstead enforcement work, are those often class action suits?
Class action--do you think that these class action suits are an
effective way to bring these cases, and is there anything about
how such cases are being brought that you could recommend
needing change?
Mr. Perez. We have been using a number of tools in our law
enforcement arsenal to address the Olmstead issue. Some of the
cases have been individual, some have been institution wide.
And right now, I feel like we've been well equipped to address
the Olmstead issues, except that they exist in so many States
across the country. So we have a great volume of work, and will
continue to put as many resources as we can to bear on this.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much, my time has expired, I now
recognize the distinguished Chairman of the full Committee for
5 minutes.
Mr. Conyers. The gentleman from--thank you very much. We
appreciate all your hard work. You sent me this process and
procedure for beginning the regulatory process to get the law
in motion. As we all know, the law can't become effective until
the regulations are created for it to guide all that are
involved. Could you go through that for me, what you sent me?
Mr. Perez. Sure. I sent you a list that had paragraphs on
it. The first 2 paragraphs, this is basically a to-do list in
the ADA regulatory front. And the first two items, final rules
implementing Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act,
that applies to State and local governments. Final rules
implementing Title III of the ADA, that's the public
accommodations piece. And as I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we are
feverishly working on those and hope to complete them as soon
as possible.
The final three on that list, are the ANPRMs on the issue
of Internet accessibility. If you're applying for a job these
days and most places, people apply online, and if you're a
person with a disability and the Web site isn't accessible,
it's hard to get that job and that is perhaps one explanation--
--
Mr. Conyers. Define ANPRM.
Mr. Perez. The ANPRM is an acronym that basically, it's an
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking and what we're seeking
is public input in the case of the accessible Web sites. What
people in the general public think about how Web sites should
be regulated, and that will inform our judgment in putting
forth a notice of proposed rulemaking. And so when you put out
the advance notice of proposed rule making, it ensures that the
notice of proposed rule making that comes out later is more
fully informed.
Mr. Conyers. We wanted you to talk about the, finally, the
challenges of Title II and Title III, how the governments would
be involved in II, and how public accommodations would be
involved in III.
Mr. Perez. Well, we continue--the challenges in Title II
include the fact that there are so many States where we have
seen people with disabilities who are unnecessarily
institutionalized, and that's why to get back to Chairman
Nadler's question about the role of P&As, we have these
challenges across the country. And so the volume of work is
remarkable. In so many--yes, sir.
Mr. Conyers. You know what you're saying is that there are
so many seniors that are warehoused in institutions at the
State and local level, right?
Mr. Perez. Well, I'm actually saying that there are people
of all ages that are unnecessarily institutionalized. The
Georgia case for instance, there was a 14-year-old girl who had
a psychiatric issue, she could have lived in the community, but
because of the absence of a community infrastructure, she was
in an institution. They didn't know how to treat her properly.
And so one of the side effects of her medication was it made
her constipated, and because she wasn't treated properly she
quite literally, her bowels imploded and she died. She did not
have to die, Mr. Chairman, but she did.
And that is an example of what happens when we have
situations like this. So Olmstead, as you will see from talking
to one of the witnesses who will be here, is about real people
who are overcoming barriers, but then real people who have
frankly unnecessarily lost their lives.
Mr. Conyers. So there is a continuing problem of old people
and the wrong people being institutionalized and we're trying
to get at it through Title II.
Mr. Perez. Yes, we are, that's one mechanism that is being
used. We are also working very closely with our colleagues at
the Department of Health and Human Services to use the Medicaid
program and to use other funding streams so that we can promote
care and treatment in community-based settings instead of
institutional settings. I testified recently with a Senate
Committee with my colleague Cindy Mann from the Department of
Health and Human Services, so money is a great point of
leverage.
Mr. Conyers. Some of us are thinking about approaching
Chairman Nadler about a hearing on this area of the disability
laws because we need to shine a spotlight on it and maybe we
will do that.
I understand the need to seek additional input, but can you
make sure that the basic legal principle that Title II and III
require accessible technology like Web sites is issued, maybe
even sooner than most of the regs.
Mr. Perez. We're working very hard on all of these, and I
agree with you that accessible technologies is critical. And so
we're working on multiple fronts on the advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking that I discussed. But then on the actual
cases that we're working on where we already have a
jurisdictional hook like the Kindle cases, we're working very
hard on those as well.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I think we may be able to get one
more question in before we recess for votes. I will now
recognize the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the unlikely event
that we might be able to excuse Mr. Perez before the next vote,
I will be very short. I just want to make a comment about
having been across the hall at a hearing about unemployment and
how we address that. I was about to miss this hearing and how
delighted I am that I came in to hear the testimony of Steny
Hoyer--as least the end of the testimony of Steny Hoyer and our
colleague, Jim Langevin, and how inspiring that has been.
So I am fully supportive, and it sounds like the Department
of Justice has its hands full doing this work.
And, with that, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Perez, for being with us today.
When we passed the bill in Virginia, one of the constant
refrains was the question of what is a reasonable
accommodation. Do you have complaints over that question,
whether a requested accommodation is reasonable or not?
Mr. Perez. That is an issue that continues to get
litigated, and it is very fact-specific.
Mr. Scott. What kind of expenses do you impose on people
under the idea of being reasonable?
Mr. Perez. Well, again, it is difficult to give a one-size-
fits-all answer to that question. There are certainly expenses
that can be imposed, and the determination a court has to make
is whether the expense becomes so prohibitively expensive as to
constitute fundamental alteration of the program. And those
cases are always, you know, very much fact-specific. And we
obviously have had a lot of success in terms of making entire
communities accessible through our projects, civic access, and
other programs.
Mr. Scott. Many facilities are grandfathered because they
were built before 1990. Are we having problems with the fact
that they are not compliant?
Mr. Perez. We sometimes have challenges in communities that
have those older structures. And we have worked very hard. I
mentioned the technical assistance that we provide. It has been
our experience, quite frequently, that communities want to come
into compliance even if there may not be a statutory mandate.
And so, we have architects that are actually on staff in
our Disability Rights Section. And so, they are put to robust
use in a host of circumstances: Stadiums come to mind, a lot of
stadiums that were constructed long ago, things of that nature.
Mr. Scott. Does the Department charge for that advice?
Mr. Perez. I would have to look into that. I don't know the
answer to that, sir.
Mr. Scott. In terms of employment discrimination and
enforcement of discrimination, are you enforcing religious
discrimination, as well? For example, are we still allowing
Federal contractors to practice religious discrimination if
they call themselves faith-based?
Mr. Perez. Well, we have a number of cases involving--there
is a transit administration--it is not an ADA case, but I think
it was in New York, involving discrimination against people who
wear a headscarf in the workplace.
We had a case recently in Oregon where we worked with the
State of Oregon. They had a law on the books that had been a
longstanding law that discriminated against religious
minorities in the school context. We worked to get that
repealed.
And we will continue to work on those issues as the facts
present.
Mr. Scott. And is it the policy of this Administration to
allow discrimination based on religion by people who are using
Federal money?
Mr. Perez. No, it is not, sir.
Mr. Scott. Can faith-based organizations running Federal
programs discriminate based on religion?
Mr. Perez. Those issues have been the subject of a lot of
review, and it is my understanding that those continue to be
under review at the White House and with all of the affected
agencies.
And so I would prefer to get back to you with a precise
answer to that question, because I know there has been fairly
robust dialogue in that area across government because a number
of questions have been raised in that area.
Mr. Scott. You are the Assistant Attorney General for Civil
Rights?
Mr. Perez. That is correct, sir. And there are a number of
other entities that are involved in the implementation of these
laws throughout various agencies.
Mr. Scott. Is it possible for a faith-based organization
running a Federal program to discriminate solely on the basis
of religion? That is, to have a policy that, say, we don't hire
Catholics and Jews. I mean, is that possible?
Mr. Perez. Again, as I think I mentioned, the Department
continues to be committed to ensuring that we partner with
faith-based organizations in a manner that is, indeed,
consistent with our laws. And we, as I said, have a robust
process of evaluation under way to address the issues that are
the subject of your questioning.
Mr. Scott. Is that a ``yes'' or a ``no''?
Mr. Perez. Again, we continue to be committed----
Mr. Scott. What is the prohibition against a faith-based
organization practicing religious discrimination in employment
with Federal money?
Mr. Perez. Well, again, sir, I am happy to convene the
appropriate people in the Federal Government who have been
spearheading this issue to sit down and discuss the concerns
that you have.
And, again, we remain committed to ensuring that we partner
with faith-based organizations in a manner that is consistent
with all of our laws.
Mr. Scott. You can't give a ``yes'' answer, that this
Administration allows the discrimination or doesn't allow the
discrimination?
Mr. Perez. Again, sir, we are committed to rooting out
discrimination, and we are committed to ensuring that we
partner with faith-based organizations----
Mr. Nadler. The----
Mr. Perez [continuing]. In a manner that is, indeed,
consistent with our laws.
Mr. Scott. I think the Chairman is rescuing you from this
line of questioning.
Mr. Nadler. I am, indeed. The time of the gentleman has
expired, and we have very little time right now.
The gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Franks. Mr. Chairman, there is some bipartisanship here
today, and I want to try to keep it. I don't often quote
Democrats, but there was a famous Democrat by the name of
Hubert Humphrey, who once said that, ``Society is measured by
how it treats those in the dawn of life, those in the shadows
of life, and those in the twilight of life.'' And I think there
is some effort being made today to try to help those in the
shadows of life, and I commend it.
And I want to especially express my appreciation to Mr.
Sensenbrenner for his commitment in this area. I know there are
a lot of areas of potential disagreement.
I was struck by the fact that, in your last discussion
there, that it sounded like you were suggesting that there
might be some change in policy in this Administration, as
opposed to the last Administration, related to religious groups
being able to hire on religious grounds. I think that is what
my colleague was trying to get at.
And, as I understand, there is not a change in policy
because of the longstanding realization that, to suggest that
religious organizations like churches couldn't hire--you know,
that a Jewish synagogue had to hire a Baptist rectory or
something like that, would be sort of ridiculous. And I am
hoping that we haven't changed the policy and that we continue
to recognize religious freedom in that regard, to be able to
hire based on a religious basis.
And I commend your efforts to repeal any law that would say
that someone couldn't wear a scarf of a Muslim perspective.
Religious freedom is at the core of all of our other freedoms.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
We now have 54 seconds, but 346 people haven't voted yet,
so it is not that dire.
We have two votes on the floor. After this vote, there is a
5-minute vote. We will recess the hearing and reconvene as soon
as those two votes are finished.
I thank Mr. Perez and excuse him.
And while we are gone, I hope our next panel--which is to
say, Attorney General Thornburgh--will take a seat at the
table.
The hearing is recessed until the conclusion of these
votes.
Mr. Perez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Recess.]
Mr. Nadler. We will now proceed with our third panel. The
witness has just taken his place. In the interest of time, I
will now introduce him.
Richard Thornburgh is currently counsel to the
international law firm of K&L Gates LLP in its Washington,
D.C., office. He previously served as Governor of Pennsylvania,
Attorney General of the United States under Presidents Reagan
and George H.W. Bush, and Under Secretary General of the United
Nations.
As Attorney General, Mr. Thornburgh played a leading role
in the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its
implementation. And as the parent of a son with physical and
intellectual disabilities, he has taken a special interest in
the needs of people with disabilities.
In 2002, he received the Wiley Branton Award of the
Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban
Affairs in recognition of his commitment to the civil rights of
people with disabilities.
Mr. Thornburgh was educated at Yale, where he obtained an
engineering degree, and at the University of Pittsburgh Law
School.
Before I turn the microphone over to Attorney General
Thornburgh, I would also like to recognize former Attorney
General Janet Reno, who sends her regrets that she is not able
to join us today.
Under Attorney General Reno's stewardship, the Department
of Justice set a standard for the vigorous and appropriate
enforcement of the ADA that has continued to this day. While we
miss having her with us to celebrate this 20th anniversary, we
thank her for the key role that she has played in creating a
legacy of equality and justice for people with disabilities.
Now I am pleased to welcome you, Attorney General
Thornburgh. Your written statement will be made part of the
record in its entirety. I would ask you to summarize your
testimony in 5 minutes or less.
Before we begin, it is customary for the Committee to swear
in its witnesses.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Nadler. Let the record reflect the witness answered in
the affirmative.
I now recognize you for your statement.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD THORNBURGH
Mr. Thornburgh. Thank you, Chairman Nadler--and I also
extend my thanks to Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, and ask that
you convey my best wishes to Chairman Conyers, a long-time
friend and sometime adversary over the years--to have the
opportunity to be with you today to reflect on the 20th
anniversary of the signing into law of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
You will forgive me, I trust, if I share with you today
some of my own experiences and views, both professional and
personal, as a long-time advocate for disability rights. In
particular, I want to focus on the role played in my life by
the ADA, the most important civil rights legislation passed
since the 1960's.
Let me begin with a story. As some of you may know, on July
1, 1960, 50 years ago, our son Peter, then an infant only 4
months old, was involved in a dreadful automobile accident that
took the life of his mother, my first wife.
For a considerable period of time thereafter, Peter's life
was very much in doubt. He had suffered multiple skull
fractures and extensive brain damage that were to result in
severe physical and intellectual disability. After 6 months of
intensive hospital care under the loving supervision of the
Sisters of Mercy in our hometown of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Peter returned home just before Christmas, and we began life
anew.
After spending 3 years as a single parent to Peter and his
two older brothers, I was blessed to meet Ginny Judson, a 23-
year-old schoolteacher. And we were married 46 years ago and,
in 1966, added a fourth son to our family.
She is today the director of the Interfaith Initiative at
the American Association of People with Disabilities here in
Washington, helping religious congregations of all faiths to
identify and remove barriers to worship for people with all
types of disabilities.
But her most important advocacy was and is on behalf of our
son Peter. Peter Thornburgh today, although still very limited,
lives semi-independently in a supervised apartment near
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. He works as a volunteer in the local
food bank, where, in his words, he ``helps poor people.'' He
has his own circle of friends and is welcomed by his church and
in many other community activities. We have been proud to share
Peter's journey with him.
As good fortune would have it, I have also been blessed
with opportunities to apply lessons learned from being Peter's
dad in public life, as well, most notably as Attorney General
of the United States in the Cabinet of President George H.W.
Bush, where I served as the point man in the effort to obtain
congressional passage of the ADA.
The ADA, as has been noted, developed bipartisan support in
the Congress under pressure from the disability community, in
cooperation with parents, professionals, and providers, who saw
the need to extend the protection of civil rights laws to those
with disabilities. The bill was not a quota bill, not one
designed to give special preference or set-asides to persons
with disabilities, but was fashioned to empower them to
participate in the mainstream of American life.
As I noted when I testified on behalf of the Bush
administration before this Committee on October 12, 1989, the
ADA is fair, balanced legislation. It ensures that persons with
disabilities in this country enjoy access to the mainstream of
American life. It builds on an extensive body of statutes, case
law, and regulations to avoid unnecessary confusion. It allows
maximum flexibility for compliance, and it does not place undue
burdens on Americans who must comply.
On July 26, 1990, the ADA was signed into law by President
Bush on a glorious summer day in a ceremony held on the south
lawn of the White House. Some 3,000 persons, with and without
disabilities, and their family members looked on and cheered
and cheered as President Bush called to let the shameful wall
of exclusion finally come tumbling down.
After 20 years of the ADA, we see significant changes, as
the Chairman and the majority leader have noted. We see new
designated parking spaces at the local convenience store, a
ramp at the neighborhood movie theater, a sign language
interpreter at public gatherings, Braille on the ATM machines
or the elevators of the local hotel, and, most of all, persons
with disabilities gaining more access to community living and
to employment, although clearly not yet in the numbers we would
like to see.
Employment, in particular, is problematical, as there has
been no net increase in the percentage of Americans with
disabilities employed in the past 20 years.
The ADA has been good for people with disabilities, but,
more important, it has been good for America, helping to
fulfill the promise inherent in our democratic ideals.
Yes, progress is being made, but it is no time to rest on
our laurels or to savor our accomplishments. Important issues
remain unresolved, as the ADA has moved from public debate in
legislative halls all of the way to the United States Supreme
Court.
Increasingly, our courts have been called upon to decide a
number of issues arising from passage of the ADA. While the
results have been mixed, Supreme Court cases such as Olmstead
and Lane v. Tennessee, in each of which I was proud to file a
friend of the court brief, have buttressed the right of people
with disabilities to participate more fully in the mainstream
of American life.
And remedial legislative action has been undertaken, most
notably in the ADA Amendments Act of 2009, to cure some of the
anomalies arising from adverse court decisions in the field of
employment law.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I must tell you that when I look
back on all that has been accomplished through the passage of
the ADA and other laws that date all of the way back to section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, I quickly come to
realize that none of these statutes were on the books in 1960
when our beloved son Peter was so seriously injured. It is only
during his lifetime that we have taken these giant steps
forward.
On behalf of all of the Peter Thornburghs of our Nation and
their families and loved ones, I extend to you our heartfelt
thanks and congratulations for your willingness to fight for
their dignity and respect.
We wish this Congress Godspeed in further endeavors,
including the ratification in the Senate of the United Nations
convention on disability rights. And we pay tribute to this
landmark effort, this ADA, which empowers all people to live as
they choose in their communities. What a magnificent way to
celebrate human dignity, is the anniversary--20th anniversary--
of the ADA.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thornburgh follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Richard Thornburg
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Nadler. I thank you.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes to question the
witness.
Sir, you mentioned that your son Peter lives semi-
independently in a supervised apartment near Harrisburg. What
does it mean to Peter that he lives in an apartment rather than
in a larger institutional setting?
Mr. Thornburgh. It means that he is able to participate in
his community, that he is able to make decisions about his
lifestyle, with the help of staff, to be sure. But he is not
living the regimented, compartmentalized, segmented life that
institutional care involves.
One of the major challenges we had to face when I was
Governor of Pennsylvania was the preponderance of the
population of people with mental and psychiatric problems being
confined in institutions. And I remember very well the day when
our appropriations for community-based living first exceeded
the appropriations for institutionalized care. That was the day
we broke out the champagne, Mr. Chairman, because that was a
distinctive message sent to the people of Pennsylvania.
Now, there is no question that there are some persons who
require institutional care. And I know parents who have had to
face up to that reality. That is something that we had to
consider in Peter's case, to be honest with you, at the time,
because there was so little development of community-based
care. But we had the right advice and good support, and he has
been able to live a much more fuller life.
Mr. Nadler. And what does it mean to you and the rest of
the family, in a way beyond what it means to him? I think you
may have answered that already.
Mr. Thornburgh. Well, obviously, those of us who have
disability in our families become, almost automatically,
advocates for disability rights. We learn a lot of things. We
learn that disability is nothing to be ashamed of, that it is
part of the fabric of life. We learn of the potential that
exists for using the abilities of people with disabilities
without focusing strictly on their disability. We learn of the
vast support network that is out there that is waiting to be
utilized and, if utilized, can magnify the opportunities for
people with disabilities.
I think that there is a fraternity among parents and family
members of people with disabilities that has few rivals in this
Nation.
Mr. Nadler. Now, we sometimes hear arguments or concerns
that complying with the requirements of the ADA is just too
costly. You were the Governor of Pennsylvania during
economically tough times. How would you respond to that
concern?
Mr. Thornburgh. I'm sorry, the question was about
accommodating----
Mr. Nadler. That compliance with the ADA is sometimes said
to be too costly. You were the Governor during tough times. How
would you respond to that?
Mr. Thornburgh. We were sensitive to that during the time
that the bill was wending its way through, and we heard those
remonstratives about the additional cost it would involve.
Let me answer that in two ways, first by personal example.
When I was the Attorney General, we took as our number-one
draft choice in the White House fellows that were available
that year a man, then young man, now deceased, unfortunately,
named Drew Batavia. Drew had suffered an auto accident and had
spinal cord injuries and had to rely on his mobile chair to get
him around.
But if you walked into Drew's office, you saw this: You saw
his computer keyboard mounted on the wall and his telephone
mounted on the wall and his desk raised a little bit so that he
could slide underneath. And he used a mouse stick to utilize
both of those. That was a reasonable accommodation, and it is
one that made him extremely valuable.
He had a Harvard law degree and a Stanford business degree,
so he was a real pro. But in olden times, pre-ADA or pre-
sensitivity to these needs, he would have been a neglected
resource.
Second question, I wish Attorney General Reno were here,
because she and I, after 5 years of the ADA, agreed to look
into the question of cost on accommodations. And we ended up
writing a joint op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal, of all
places, to point out that the average cost of most
accommodations that were made was minimal--in fact, almost de
minimis, as the lawyers would say. And I am advised that the
average cost today has gone no higher.
What it requires is some ingenuity and working with the
person with the disability to see what their real needs are.
There is no one-size-fits-all answer to these things.
So I think that is an objection that just doesn't play out
in reality and is specious, at best.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Let me ask you one final general question. What do you
think Congress should do next to ensure that the promise of the
ADA is kept? What should we do?
Mr. Thornburgh. I think the emphasis has to be on
employment. It is a tough nut to crack. We have difficult
economic times. Able-bodied people, people without disabilities
are unable to get work, in many cases, in spite of vast
qualifications. But that shouldn't be an excuse for neglecting
the initiatives that are necessary to build an economic base
for people with disabilities.
And I think the answer there lays, in some respects, in the
field of technology. I'm sure you, as I, have seen many people
who have severe disabilities--an inability, in some cases, in
cerebral palsy, for example--to articulate brilliant thoughts,
and yet, through the use of technology, can.
Mr. Nadler. Stephen Hawking comes to mind.
Mr. Thornburgh. Yes, exactly, there you go. But there are
more Stephen Hawkings out there waiting to be developed. And
through the application of technology and a sensitive aid
structure for those folks, they will be important contributors
to our future growth. So I think that is probably the area I
would put the greatest emphasis on.
Number two, Olmstead, you know, how do we further and
propel the movement of people from institutionalized care into
group homes and into community-based living.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
My time has expired. I recognize the gentleman from
Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Governor, you were Governor before the ADA, is that right?
Mr. Thornburgh. I was.
Mr. Scott. But as Governor, you can imagine that there are
cost challenges in complying with the ADA. Could you speak to
how Governors comply with State buildings, bringing them into
compliance?
Mr. Thornburgh. Well, I think what we did in Pennsylvania,
partly because of my own sensitivity to these problems, was to
try to be a little bit ahead of the curve. We would search out
people with disabilities who were qualified to do State jobs
and see what the needs were that they had that could be
rectified, in terms of architectural barriers, first.
The attitudinal barriers were the things that had to go,
and mostly by example, of getting somebody who had a disability
into a job, watching how they progressed and seeing how well
they did. That broke that barrier down pronto, no question
about that.
But the thing about the ADA, Congressman Scott, is that it
was the catalyst and the symbol that propelled the change that
truly has been dramatic. I mean, when you and I stop to think
of when we grew up what kinds of symbols of inclusion there
were around--nada. I can't think of any. And yet, as we have
all talked about today, what we have come to expect is to see
those kinds of aids that sometimes are very subtle, sometimes
very dramatic, that empower people to live what we would call a
normal life.
Mr. Scott. Now, also, as a Governor, you know the
challenges in funding things like supportive housing. One of
the challenges that I dealt with as a State legislator was what
we called the ``woodwork effect.'' It is much cheaper to have
someone with home health care than going into a nursing home.
But when you provide the home health care, there are so many
people who are eligible for that that were at home roughing it,
that the total budget actually goes up on that line item.
Do you have the same problem with providing supportive
housing, that, although, as you have suggested, it is cheaper
in supportive housing than in an institution, that once you
start providing the service, the costs go up, and to save money
on the State budget, you just wait for people to go into an
institution and actually save money, doing that, on the overall
budget?
Mr. Thornburgh. Yeah. I can only speak theoretically as a
former Governor, because, to be honest with you, during that
time, the concept of people staying in their homes was just
developing. The concept of removing them from institutions was
well under way, and, as I said, we were able to accomplish
that. But where do you place these people? And that had not
developed at all.
What I was intrigued by was my first encounters with
centers for independent living, for people with physical
disabilities in particular, which are truly astounding in their
potential, not just from a money standpoint, but from the
standpoint of integrating people into the community.
My fear is that, because of the unknowns inherent in the
health care reform bill that you all have passed--and I don't
pass judgment on that, but there clearly are some unknowns
about the cost factors there; and particularly in Medicaid, by
expanding the population available, there may be pressure at
the State level to reduce the amount of services available for
post-Olmstead services--that it is pretty easy, if you are
going to cut, to look at that as a source when you are dealing
with these expanded eligibility provisions. So the jury is
still out on that.
But I am a firm believer, from having observed it and
participated in it, that community-based living is miles ahead
of any kind of institutionalized care or nursing home care.
Mr. Scott. I agree with you. The question is funding.
When you said that you were paying more for home care than
for institutional care, did you achieve that by increasing home
care or decreasing institutional care?
Mr. Thornburgh. My guess? Probably a little of this, a
little of that. That is what governing is about, isn't it?
Making tough choices and coming up with a proper balance.
Because, as we are reminded daily, we don't have unlimited
resources in this or any other area.
Mr. Scott. Well, I would hope that we would try to invest
as much as we can in home health and really relieve a lot of
pain and suffering and anxiety. So, to the extent that we can
fund those, I think we are a lot better off.
Mr. Thornburgh. Count me in.
Mr. Scott. I appreciate your testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman.
I recognize the gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very,
very important hearing, and I thank you and the Ranking Member
of the Subcommittee for focusing on not only the 20th-year
anniversary, but what are the next steps, going forward.
I am reminded of that time of celebration when this bill
was passed. And I think one of the striking elements of the
bill was the amazing bipartisanship that it generated, the
recognition by everyone that it was long overdue.
And, in that vein, I think the words of President George
H.W. Bush clearly spoke to the heightened excitement and
emotion of the time, when he indicated that he considered the
Americans with Disabilities Act as the Emancipation
Proclamation for people with disabilities and called for the
shameful wall of exclusion of people with disabilities from
Main Street American life to finally come tumbling down.
And, Governor, Attorney General, I believe that we have
made some steps toward that. And as the co-chair of the
Congressional Children's Caucus, I would like to focus you on
some of the thoughts that I believe you may have raised--and I
apologize for not hearing your testimony. I was detained on the
floor.
But you seem to have stated, to put an emphasis on
providing community-based services for children and adults with
disabilities as an alternative to large and isolated
institutional settings. I would like you to describe some of
those programs that you may have implemented, the benefits to
them.
And, as I recall, on many occasions in my town hall
meetings, there will always be that one parent, among others,
that will be vocal enough to come up and ask a question about a
disabled child. ``What are the resources? My school district is
not being responsive.'' So I think we still have ways to go.
But we have made great strides where we have not
institutionalized those who are disabled, as particularly with
what we would call mental disabilities, whether it is something
that is from a physical aspect that disables a child, but also
from a perspective where one might perceive that they could not
learn, Down syndrome, for example, where we have found amazing
success stories.
But if you could answer that, and then I want to follow up
with a broader question.
Mr. Thornburgh. Surely.
I answer that question with, kind of, two hats on,
Congresswoman, in this sense: as a parent of a child with a
severe intellectual disability, now 50 years old; and as one
who was involved in the negotiations that led to the passage of
the act and has followed the act in its implementation after
its passage.
I don't think anyone can underestimate the impact of the
Olmstead case in this regard. If the Olmstead case had been
decided otherwise and given communities across the United
States an excuse to back off of the deinstitutionalization
process, which was well under way by that time, we would not be
talking about progress today. We would be talking about dealing
with an entirely different population, a truly disabled
population, institutionalized by our government's activities.
But mercifully, that didn't happen.
And although Justice Ginsberg's decision in Olmstead was
really not as clarion a call in support of the community-based
treatment model as we would have liked, it did open the door--
well, it, more than that, shut the door on the arguments that
this was not an admissible way to deal with people with
disabilities.
So I think that the mechanisms available are group homes,
are support to families who retain children with disabilities
in their homes. Our son lives in an assisted community
environment. He is semi-independent, as I said, in an
apartment. All of those, I think, in the aggregate, pale in
cost when you look at the cost, the massive proven costs on the
record, of our prior institutional regimen.
So it can't be a cost factor. And it has to be a factor
that depends on the wit and the imagination of people who are
in this field, in government, aided, advised, and abetted by a
very vocal community of parents and providers and caregivers
that have traditionally been at the front end of advocacy in
this country.
So I don't go down either the path of saying that this is
too difficult to do or the path that says we can't afford it. I
think both of those are inadmissible conclusions. But they
require in the alternative some real thinking and some real
ingenuity about how we are going to reach that goal.
And, as you obviously know from your own constituency, how
they respond when having that kind of environment for
particularly, a child with a disability, is as rewarding as I
can imagine.
Ms. Jackson Lee. It is worth the investment, you are
saying.
Just finally, do you see any obvious legal impediment today
that does not comport with President Bush's pronouncement, as
well as the fact of the instruction of that act, which said
that it is a national mandate to eliminate discrimination as it
relates to individuals with disabilities? Do you see something
that we should immediately be looking at?
Mr. Thornburgh. Yeah, I am pleased you mentioned his call
for the shameful wall of exclusion to come tumbling down. He
got that line, as you may know, from the fact that the Berlin
Wall had just--as a shameful wall of inclusion, had come
tumbling down. And it was a marvelous metaphor and, I think,
captured the goals of people who were assembled that day, in
those words in very succinct terms.
I don't see any--I think the future is unlimited for
improving the lot of people with disabilities in our society,
in our culture. Once we get over the hurdle, as I think we have
had, that this is just simply too expensive or it is too
difficult--that is not an excuse that Americans have ever
accepted in any field. And in this area, where the payoff, in
terms of lives that are enriched by participation in the
mainstream of America--they should be even less so.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
I yield back. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
And I thank the witness for his participation. The witness
is excused.
We will now proceed with the fourth panel. I will ask the
witnesses to take their place. In the interest of time, I will
introduce the witnesses while they are taking their seats.
Cheryl Sensenbrenner is the immediate past board chair of
the American Association of People With Disabilities, the
largest nonprofit disability member organization in the United
States. Mrs. Sensenbrenner has been married to Congressman Jim
Sensenbrenner, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee and
former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for more than 30
years.
Her younger sister, Tara, has an intellectual disability.
In 1972, as a passenger in a car accident, Mrs. Sensenbrenner
sustained a spinal cord injury at the T12 level. Mrs.
Sensenbrenner has worked in a number of Republican Party
positions, both before and after her injury.
Lieutenant Colonel Gregory Gadson is an inspirational
American whose journey from injury to ability has taken place
within the military. During his service in Operation Iraqi
Freedom in 2007, Lieutenant Colonel Gadson was severely injured
by an improvised explosive device, resulting in the amputation
of both legs above the knee and severe damage to his right arm.
A highly decorated military officer, Lieutenant Colonel
Gadson has served in the U.S. Army for more than 20 years as a
field artillery officer. He has served in every major conflict
of the last two decades, including Operation Desert Shield/
Desert Storm, Kuwait; Operation Joint Forge in Bosnia-
Herzegovina; Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan; and
Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq, where he commanded a new unit
as part of the surge to secure Baghdad in 2007.
He currently serves as the director of the U.S. Army
Wounded Warrior Program, which serves the Army's most severely
wounded, ill, and injured soldiers, veterans, and their
families, fosters their independence, and supports their
transition back to active duty or to civilian life.
Adrian Villalobos is an intern with the National Disability
Rights Network in Washington through sponsorship from the
Southern Education Foundation. He is focusing on special
education and school accessibility policy at NDRN.
At the age of 8, Mr. Villalobos was diagnosed with a T7
spinal cord injury after a major car accident left him
paralyzed from the waist down. He has been an active member of
the disability community for 17 years.
Mr. Villalobos just completed his first year of graduate
studies at the University of Texas at El Paso, where he is
working toward a dual master's degree in public and business
administration.
Casandra Cox is a former resident of an adult home in the
Bronx who successfully transitioned to her own apartment more
than 1 year ago. She is a member of the Policy Committee of the
Coalition of Institutionalized Aged and Disabled, a consumer-
run advocacy organization for adult home and nursing home
residents in New York City.
Earlier this year, New York was ordered to begin moving
residents from several New York City adult homes into supported
community-based settings as part of a Federal court case,
Disability Advocates, Inc. v. Paterson. In that case, Federal
District Court Judge Nicholas Garaufis, of the Southern
District, found the State violated the ADA's integration
mandate by housing approximately 4,300 individuals with mental
disabilities in adult homes which Judge Gaurafis described as,
quote, ``bearing little resemblance to the homes in which
people without disabilities normally live,'' closed quote.
Jonathan Young is chairman of the National Council on
Disability and a senior counsel at the law firm of FoxKiser.
Mr. Young previously served in the Executive Office of the
President as associate director of the White House Office of
Public Liaison and as project director for the National
Rehabilitation Hospital Center for Health and Disability
Research.
Mr. Young earned his B.A. from Messiah College, his J.D.
from Yale, and his Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill.
I am pleased to welcome all of you. Your written statements
will be made part of the record in their entirety. I would like
to remind you to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less.
When 1 minute remains, the light will switch from green to
yellow, and then red when the 5 minutes are up.
Before we begin, it is customary for the Committee to swear
in its witnesses.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Nadler. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered
in the affirmative.
And our first witness I will now recognize is Cheryl
Sensenbrenner.
TESTIMONY OF CHERYL SENSENBRENNER, IMMEDIATE PAST BOARD CHAIR,
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
Mrs. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Congressman Scott. Thank you, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
I will try to be more--the hour is late, and I know that my
testimony is pretty thick in the written form, so I will try
just to highlight a few things and go back to the other people
on the panel.
We are talking about all that has happened in the last 20
years. I, myself, am here today as a family member again,
another a family member. I was here before and after the ADA. I
have a sister that is disabled. I have a son that is disabled.
I, myself, am disabled.
And I look back as I've traveled with my husband over the
last 20 years and see all the difference that ADA has done, not
only for our country but globally, and the initiative and the
different things that countries have done globally by looking
at the United States.
I was thinking about the most northern community in the
entire world, Svalbard, north of Norway, one of the most
accessible places I have ever been to stay. I was thinking
about going to the temples in Japan, where I, with my
wheelchair, can get up any step, any subway, because of the
accommodations they have there. We should be proud of what we
have done, but we also should be proud of the leadership that
we have provided for the world.
But as I reflect on that progress of the last two decades--
and we have heard it all today--I am going to be a bit negative
in my approach, because we've got a ways to go. I think it is
important that we remind ourselves about the pervasive
discrimination then--and around then and then see what is going
on now.
I can remember the cold, snide remarks and the demeaning
looks that my sister, Tara, who has Down syndrome, got every
day--Tara, who has Down syndrome and drove a car since she was
16; Tara, who got her high school diploma; Tara, who keeps on
wanting to work constantly but, because of the limitations of
Supplemental Security Income, can't work as much as she wants
to.
I think also about when I first got back to work after a
year in the hospital--a good job. My father was attorney
general in Wisconsin. We went into the lobby of a bank to cash
my first check, and a bank executive stares at me and says,
``People like that belong on park benches out front and not in
our lobby.'' I remember it very clearly. ``People like that,''
he said. ``People like that.''
People like that are me. People like that are my son.
People like that are my sister. People like that are some of my
dearest friends. People like that are countless Americans.
People like that can be your loved ones, can be your friends,
or maybe even someday it could be you. We don't know what the
future brings and whatever shape our age brings. For instance,
look even today, when we see all of our soldiers coming back
from Iraq and Afghanistan, what did they know that disability
would be in their future.
I told you a little bit about my sister and how much she
wants to work and she has Down syndrome and how proud I am of
her. Let me tell you about our oldest son, Frank.
Frank was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder as a young child, and we had our share of challenges.
Frank is brilliant. Frank is categorized as a genius. But yet,
to find a school that could provide the right combination of
structure, mentoring, and challenging academic work, Frank
could not take a traditional path.
Frank went for a year of high school in Canada. They gave
him a degree. Went and got his college degree in the U.K. And I
am proud to tell you today--and Frank is looking forward to
this testimony--he struggled, and he deserves everything. He is
great. Frank is it on the verge of earning a Ph.D. in finance
from the University of Sydney. And, believe me, he is good. He
interned for the Banking Committee when he was in high school,
by the way.
Also, Frank encouraged me to be tested. Guess who has
attention deficit disorder besides the other thing? Ta-da. So
we've really got--we know disability in our family.
And yet, with education and things, the ADA provides
protection and encouragement to millions of Americans. We're
trying to figure our own course through the world of education,
through the world of employment. We look for help, but we all
have our own unique learning styles, our own way to show what
we can do. And sometimes the professionals can't.
You know, disability is just a natural part of the human
experience, and that is what the ADA started to make us all
understand. And we don't ever know when it may come in our life
or enter, be it friend or ourselves.
I want to tell you one quick story, if I have time, and
then one other note.
You know, we think this is all behind us. In our wonderful
intern program, we have college students come, work in the
Federal Government and also on the Hill. Do you know, last
year, as we went around and we were trying to place some of the
interns--and it is not hard to place, once you have had one of
our interns--we were explaining that this particular stellar
student from Gallaudet would need a sign language interpreter
doing her functioning within the office. And I'm not trying to
pick on this intern coordinator, but the coordinator said,
``Well, what would a deaf person be able to do in a
congressional office?'' Well, as we all know, a deaf person can
do what everyone else could do in a congressional office, as
long as they are provided with reasonable accommodation.
My hope and expectation is that this Committee will take
the opportunity by this anniversary and go back and talk to
your own constituents and talk to the families and find out
what barriers still exist and how you can help open wide the
doors to employment, homeownership, and participation in
society.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Sensenbrenner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cheryl Sensenbrenner
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Lieutenant Colonel Gadson is recognized.
TESTIMONY OF LT. COL. GREGORY D. GADSON, DIRECTOR,
U.S. ARMY WOUNDED WARRIOR PROGRAM
Colonel Gadson. Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member, and
distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify today and share my experience as a
wounded warrior that continues to serve on active duty.
I am appearing today in my personal capacity. Although I am
on active duty with the United States Army, my testimony here
today represents my personal views and does not necessarily
reflect the views of the Army, the Department of Defense, or
the Administration.
See, I was commissioned in 1989 from a United States
military academy, where I played football for 4 years. And for
the past 20-plus years, I have continued to live an active
lifestyle while serving in the United States Army, enjoying
soccer, scuba diving, hiking, and even skiing.
In May of 2007, I was severely wounded by an improvised
explosive device. As a result of those wounds, I lost both of
my legs above the knee and sustained severe damage to my right
arm. As you can imagine, my life was turned upside-down.
Admittedly, prior to being wounded, I had no understanding or
appreciation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. But since
then, I have learned a great deal and appreciate its value to
our society.
I have been fortunate to travel overseas and am repeatedly
struck by the fact that, unlike the United States, foreign
countries do not always consider disabled accessibility a
priority. In fact, in some parts of the world, accessibility is
not even a consideration. I understand how fortunate I am to
live in a country where accessibility is not only the law but
it is truly embraced.
In terms of the uniformed services' day-to-day missions and
functions, adherence to the Americans with Disabilities Act is
not required. However, with the start of Operations Iraqi
Freedom and Enduring Freedom, the Army has begun accommodating
the changing face of its force. The Army has developed and
expanded existing policies, allowing seriously wounded soldiers
to continue to serve on active duty.
From my perspective, the Army leadership embraces the
spirit and the intent of the ADA. I am a testament that the
Army leadership understands those who are severely wounded can
still make valuable contributions through continued service in
uniform to our Nation. Not only have I been allowed to continue
to serve, but I have been given the opportunity to flourish,
grow, and reach my full potential.
Furthermore, I would like to highlight the Army's efforts
with respect to accessibility. I am proud to say that I live in
an ADA-compliant home recently constructed at Fort Belvoir.
Additionally, all newly constructed Warriors in Transition
complexes are also ADA-compliant.
On July 13, 2010, I assumed the duties of director of the
Army Wounded Warrior Program. The United States Army Wounded
Warrior Program assists the Army's most severely wounded, ill,
and injured soldiers and their families. We facilitate their
transition back into active-duty service or their transition
into civilian life. It is a program that takes great care in
making sure that we assist those who have made tremendous
sacrifice in getting back on their feet.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I'm ready to
address any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Lieutenant Colonel Gadson
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory D. Gadson
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Mr. Young is recognized.
TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN M. YOUNG, CHAIRMAN,
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Sensenbrenner, Congressman Scott, Congresswoman Jackson Lee,
other Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here today.
It is a profound honor for me to provide testimony on
behalf of the National Council on Disability. It completes a
circle in my life, and I would like to tell you about that in a
moment.
But let me first say that, in light of what I have been
hearing today, one of the points I want to emphasize is the
critical role of this Committee, this House, this Congress, in
continuing to deliver on the promise of the ADA. The ADA is
neither self-sustaining nor unassailable. And while we
celebrate, we must continue to rededicate.
But let me tell you a little bit from my personal
experience about why your role is so important, among others in
our country. My first encounter with the National Council on
Disability was in 1996 when I began to work on the history of
the Americans with Disabilities Act under a contract with NCD.
I was a Ph.D. candidate in American history, at the time, at
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill writing a
dissertation on the slavery debates.
The irony in my undertaking about the history of the ADA
was it was really my first encounter with the concept of being
a person with a disability, even though I had broken my neck 10
years previously and was partially paralyzed from that injury.
I didn't identify as a person with a disability. I didn't
think of myself as part of a disability community. Disability
was the enemy. I was embarrassed. I wanted to hide. I wanted to
be perceived as normal as I could be. I was only vaguely aware
of the ADA when it passed in 1990, probably much like many
people with disabilities around the country.
I had also gone through a bout of depression and was at the
nadir of that period about the time that I was asked to write
the history of the ADA. In fact, there was a time where I
wasn't even sure I would be able to hold a meaningful job.
But in researching the ADA and interviewing Members of
Congress, advocates in the disability community, some of whom
have been here today, my own internalized stigma about
disability ran headlong into the extraordinary stories of power
and strength, of pride of people with disabilities, and the
extraordinary, collaborative, bipartisan, intense effort to
pass the ADA.
In retrospect, when I penned the closing line of ``Equality
of Opportunity: The Dawn of a New Day,'' it was as much about
my own personal experience in becoming and identifying as a
person with a disability and becoming a part of a community.
Disability became a source of liberation, rather than stigma.
My life gained new purpose and meaning.
So I am grateful for the chance that NCD gave me to write a
history of the ADA. It transformed my life. And this personal
encounter that I had with the ADA, for me through history, is a
story you hear again and again, you've heard from Cheryl,
you've heard from Colonel Gadson.
The ADA, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy once said,
is a teacher of sorts. We depend on the ADA to teach all of us,
individually and our society, about ending exclusion in a very
deliberate and powerful way. As Cheryl suggested, we can't
forget where we have come from, even while we have a long way
to go.
``Ugly laws,'' as they were called, pervaded 19th-century
America. The mere appearance of unsightly people was enough to
be excluded. The Smithsonian's American History Museum featured
a sign in one exhibit before the ADA, a beautiful suburban
community with a sign that said, ``No wheelchairs permitted
beyond this point.''
We take for granted now that those things are not allowed,
but we have to maintain vigilance to make sure, because the
attitudes don't change overnight. There is a lot of work to be
done, and it's in that individualized process. And, as I
mentioned, we depend upon Congress to convene hearings like
this to provide opportunities to continue work on things like
personal assistant services in communities.
And the second point along those lines that I want to make
is that I am here with you today as a young person, not having
had any role in passing the ADA, benefiting from the
extraordinary work of you and many others. But we need a new
generation of leaders, in Congress, among congressional staff,
in the advocacy community, in the Administration. And all of
you have a critical role in that educational process that
Justice Kennedy talked about, in continuing to be vigilant in
enforcing the ADA.
I know my time is drawing to a close here. Let me mention
that, as we talk about what the ADA means, it is not just about
raising expectations for our businesses, for our schools, for
our government offices. It is about changing the expectations
of people with disabilities themselves. The ADA is about a
dignity of risk, giving all people with disabilities a chance
to take risks, to succeed, and to fail. There is no guarantee
of success.
As Cheryl pointed out, disability is a natural part of the
human experience. It is not about a particular interest group.
It is a law for all Americans, because all of us, at any point,
could use what the ADA provides, not only when we have
disabilities, but because of what the ADA does to change
society. We have heard about curb cuts. Yes, they help people
with wheelchairs, but take a look at merchants with carts, at
parents with strollers, at bicycle enthusiasts. This law is for
America. It's for our veterans.
A panelist on NCD's summit next week, where we are going to
focus on themes of living, learning, and earning, Sergeant
Pasco, like Colonel Gadson, was severely wounded by, not one,
but two improvised explosive devices. When he joined the
service in 1990, I don't think we thought that the ADA was
about our veterans. But as we undertook two wars in Iraq, the
ADA is changing our society so that we can deliver on the
promise to our soldiers that, when they return, we are making
sure that we appreciate their service not as past veterans but
as continuing contributors to our society.
The work of the National Council on Disability has a
critical role in working with Congress and the Administration.
And let me, in closing, simply say that I am proud that the
legacy, the hope, and the promise of the ADA endure. We know
that much work must be done to transform the law into life, and
together, we can all be a catalyst for our Nation's continued
transformation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan M. Young
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
I'll now recognize Ms. Cox for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF CASANDRA COX, MEMBER, POLICY COMMITTEE, COALITION
OF INSTITUTIONALIZED AGED AND DISABLED
Ms. Cox. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman of
the House Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. It is an honor
to appear before you today as we celebrate the 20th anniversary
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
My name is Casandra Cox, and I am a former resident of
Riverdale Manor Home for Adults, an adult home located in the
Bronx. Prior to moving to Riverdale Manor, I worked 29 years
for Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America.
Towards the end of this period, I became ill and was unable to
continue working. My mental health affected my life to the
extent that I wasn't able to function.
At New York Presbyterian Cornell Medical Center, I
requested an appointment with a social worker and asked for
help. She called Adult Protective Services immediately, and
they took me before the New York State Supreme Court, and the
judge appointed a guardian. With the guardian's help, I was
able to have representation in all aspects of my legal as well
as financial matters.
Eventually, I had to be hospitalized, and voluntarily
entered the Payne Whitney Psychiatric Clinic. I was there for a
period of 3 months. While there, I was evicted from my
apartment. I had no money, and when I was discharged from Payne
Whitney I had no place to go. I was advised that I had two
alternatives: either a shelter or an adult home. To me, a
shelter was a no-brainer, and I had never heard of an adult
home.
An interview at Riverdale Manor, an adult home, was
arranged. I went into shock, as it was less than ideal. My
Payne Whitney case manager accompanied me. She had a lot of
experience and told me on my return that Riverdale Manor was
one of the better homes, in that FEGS was on-site and offered
very good programs.
Mr. Nadler. Just for the record, FEGS is the Federation
Employment and Guidance Service.
Ms. Cox. Yes, absolutely. I reluctantly accepted.
Living in an adult home was one of the most dehumanizing
experiences I have gone though in my life. We were not treated
as adults; we were treated as subhumans. There was always this
undercurrent, ``You are a resident and therefore not quite
normal.'' They talked down to you. There is a stigma present at
all times.
This is also true on the outside. We have to fight this
stigma of the mentally ill at all times.
You live in a regimented setting on a daily basis. Rooms
are shared, and there is no privacy. You have to lock
everything up. Fights break out occasionally. It was very
stressful to live in this institutional setting and not good
for anyone's mental health. While I was a resident, my primary
goal was to get back to life as I knew it before. I was not
encouraged toward that end.
I did become involved with an organization called the
Coalition of Institutionalized Aged and Disabled. CIAD is an
advocacy organization of the mentally ill and elderly who live
in adult homes and nursing homes. I attended a CIAD meeting and
signed The People's Waiting List. It is a list of names of
those residents who wish to move to independent housing.
I joined the CIAD Policy Committee at that time because no
one was offering to help me move to independence. There were
comments from the adult home staff such as, ``Why would you
want to leave? We take care of you. You have everything here.''
If I missed an annual function, I would be told, ``Don't worry,
you'll be here next year. You can go to the one that will
happen next year.'' The mindset was, ``You are here to stay.''
It took me almost 3 years to move out.
As a result of the advocacy of CIAD and the New York State
Coalition for Adult Home Reform, an initiative to move 60 New
York City adult home residents was opened up, and I was able to
be one of those people to move on under this initiative.
These apartments were created by the New York State
legislature. CIAD held housing forums in Brooklyn, Queens, and
the Bronx to help residents. I was one of the lucky 60. It was
a difficult process, but I was willing to do anything to be
able to gain my independence. I celebrated my first year of
independent living this April, and I continue to work with
CIAD.
CIAD filmed my move from Riverdale Manor to my new
apartment, and this video captured the joy of the move, but the
true joy comes from the daily basis of being able to wake up to
a new day filled with the promise of the freedom and reality of
living, as it should be. I cook, clean, wash clothes, shop,
budget, go to movies, and meet friends.
I have support from communal life by my housing provider. I
see a psychiatrist and a therapist, take my medication on a
regular basis, and of course, continue to work with CIAD. I
cannot tell you how wonderful it is to have my life back.
Instead of the dead-end existence of the institution, I am now
able to plan my own day, prepare my own meals and know that I
have a future. My work with CIAD is very important to me, as I
feel I need to be able to pay forward the work that was done to
help me as well as the many others in the past.
As a member of CIAD'S Policy Committee, Adult Home Resident
Veterans Committee, a committee of former residents, and Food
Committee, I am able to go to many of the adult homes in New
York City and observe firsthand the same conditions I have
described to you. Residents who want to and can move on to
independent living have approached me. I will continue to do
all that I can to see that they do move on.
I've witnessed the ADA and worked for many years. I was a
union representative when I worked at Hadassah, and it was at
that time that the ADA was enacted. It was a great help in
protecting employees rights, and I watch as it helps the
handicapped all over the United States in housing,
transportation and employment. I followed with great interest
the DAI versus Paterson trial in New York. Two other CIAD
leaders and former residents testified. I considered the
judge's decision in this case a landmark decision for people
who suffer from mental illness. It is a perfect application of
the ADA as it was meant to protect those who need it most. It
has certainly given me back my life. And for that I am honored
and grateful to help you celebrate the 20th Anniversary of this
great law. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cox follows:]
Prepared Statement of Casandra Cox
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Villalobos.
TESTIMONY OF ADRIAN VILLALOBOS, INTERN,
NATIONAL DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK
Mr. Villalobos. Good afternoon and thank you Chairman
Nadler and Members of the Committee for inviting me here to
share my story today. My name is Adrian Villalobos, and I am
from El Paso, Texas. I'm currently an intern at the National
Disability Rights Network through a fellowship from the
Southern Education Foundation.
July is a very significant month for me. I was born in July
and so was the Americans With Disabilities Act. I also had a
life-changing accident in July. The ADA was 3 years old when my
life changed and I was essentially reborn. Growing up with the
ADA, I consider it my metaphorical big brother. When I was 8, I
was hit by a car. I was in the hospital for 2 months and I
missed my entire summer vacation. The following intensive
outpatient rehabilitation cut into the school year and I missed
6 weeks of classes. It was my first taste of social isolation.
When I finally returned to school in the third grade I was
in a wheelchair at an elementary school that was not
accessible. The right of people with disabilities to be fully
included in society was a new concept. And my parents were
unaware of the services I was now entitled to. One by one, the
third grade teachers refused to have me in their classroom. The
intense feeling of rejection my parents experienced on my
behalf fueled them to push forward. Finally, a teacher agreed
to have me in her class. She and my twin had to drag my chair
through the pebbled walkway all the way around the building to
get to the portables, the only accessible classrooms in the
school.
I was still unable to get into the main building and none
of the restrooms were accessible. To get to the cafeteria and
auditorium, which were detached from the main building, I had
to enter through a loading dock. I remember my return to school
very fondly because of the mutual excitement my peers and I had
to see each other once again. They were happy to see me, their
friend Adrian, not a kid that came back in a wheelchair.
The following school year, my class, now fourth grade was
again assigned to the portables. My parents are frustrated that
my school was inaccessible and continued to push the principal
and school administration, only this time a year after the
accident, my family was more educated about my rights and
pointed to the ADA. The school administration acted, ramps to
the school building and the cafeteria were built, a bathroom
was made accessible and I was allowed to use the elevator
previously restricted to the custodial staff giving me access
to the nurses' station. In elementary school, I got a taste of
basic accommodations.
The administration and my middle school had a completely
different tone, they did not have accessible facilities but
made major changes to their school to make my experience a
positive one. As I was growing, the ADA was growing and the
attitude of inclusion was evolving in a positive way. My
principal wanted me to have the option to attend any school
event or activity I wanted to. He insisted on a modified cello
so could I learn the instrument and play in the school
orchestra. A lift was built so I could get on stage and
participate in the drama club. And a ramp was built across the
highway to the football field. Middle school taught me
inclusion.
By high school, I had good friends, knew how to navigate El
Paso comfortably and felt self-empowered. I attended high
school in a new building that was completely accessible. It was
1999, and the ADA was in full swing. I really understand that
perceived limitations are not actual limitations. And despite
my disability, I was responsible for reaching my potential.
With that self-confidence and motivation, I enrolled in a
liberal arts college in Ohio. Excited to start something
challenging and new, I quickly learned that accessible is not
equal. The college disability office--with only one staff
member--granted an accessible room with an accessible bathroom
and shower. The problem with my room is that it was in the
lobby of my dorm. Everyone else lived on the other side of
locked hallways in the typical freshman hall setting. I was a
guy who lived in the lobby. The gratitude I felt for having an
accessible shower quickly turned to a feeling of isolation. As
I evolved and my needs changed, the accommodations were no
longer adequate. I needed inclusion, the ADA recognized that
too. I didn't survive that college in Ohio, instead I
transferred to the University of Texas at El Paso back to my
friends and family and my network.
But even at the University of Texas at El Paso where I was
accommodated and included, there were obstacles to overcome. On
my graduation day, for example, I was excluded from the
commencement procession because in the words of University
staff, I was a fire hazard. As I've evolved as an individual
with disability, so has the ADA. The concept of disability
rights is no longer new or foreign. I attribute that to the ADA
creating a general awareness of accessibility and inclusion,
more importantly, the people in my life had become aware of
disability rights.
As the ADA evolved, it is important for policymakers to be
proactive about inclusion of all people with disabilities. I am
lucky to have a family that has helped me when I needed it, but
I reflect on others I met along the way. In El Paso many
families don't speak English. I wonder how their children with
disabilities fare. Independent advocates are needed to enforce
the ADA. My experience with disability rights has motivated me
to pursue a career in disability rights policy.
I want to go beyond achieving independence and access for
myself. I want to be an advocate for others as well. I'm now
pursuing a joint degree in public and business administration.
And my first goal is to work with my University to bring to
life the accessibility issues and to participate fully in my
commencement ceremonies when I complete my graduate studies.
Beyond that, I feel limitless. Thank you again for granting me
the opportunity to speak before all of you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Villalobos follows:]
Prepared Statement of Adrian Villalobos
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Scott. [Presiding.] Thank you very much. I want to
thank all the witnesses for their testimony. I think you
articulated extremely well why the ADA is needed, and the
difference between what happened before and what's happened
since. So thank you very much for your testimony.
I now recognize myself for questions. First to Colonel
Gadson, if someone is injured in the service, what job
opportunities are there? And what usually happens in terms of
people that are disabled during the war?
Colonel Gadson. Well, I'll speak for those that are
severely injured and really the process for those that are less
injured are essentially easier. The first thing is about
rehabbing. The military's--and the Army is committed to making
sure that the soldier heals and they get to a point where their
medical conditions are taken care of. At that point, the
medical community will make a determination whether or not the
soldier is able to continue service or not, able-bodied or not
able-bodied.
In my case, I was determined not to be able-bodied because
of the loss of my limbs. At that point, I had an opportunity to
apply to continue on active duty and that's what I pursued.
Mr. Scott. Did you have a absolute right to continue?
Colonel Gadson. It is a right to apply, I would not say it
is a absolute right to continue, no, sir.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Colonel Gadson. It is my opinion, and my interpretation
that you still have to have an ability to contribute and there
are lots of ways to contribute. And I think the military and
the Army is very amenable to allowing you to find a way to
allow you to continue to contribute.
Mr. Scott. Is there an assessment of what you can do and
are you offered various job opportunities?
Colonel Gadson. I would say yes. Again, you are--you may
not be able to continue in the same military occupational
specialty that you are, but there are quite a few others and
other options so yes, there is an assessment made on whether
you can continue and they offer you opportunities into other
skills.
Mr. Scott. What about housing?
Colonel Gadson. I--as I said, I live in an ADA compliant
home. ADA compliant homes are not uncommon on all military
installations so--as well as barracks.
Mr. Scott. Are there any other services that you need to
continue to be in the military?
Colonel Gadson. No, sir.
Mr. Scott. Is accessibility available for spouses?
Colonel Gadson. Yes, sir. I can't speak to the complete
history of accessibility to spouses and children, but in
general, I've been aware that accessibility for spouses and
children has always been--in my time in the service--has always
been accommodated.
Mr. Scott. Are there more opportunities that could be a
made available if we worked at it harder?
Colonel Gadson. Well, I think we're doing a pretty good job
right now. I'm just getting on board, but I think that there
are tremendous opportunities. There is a paraplegic at Ft.
Campbell that's been allowed to stay, so I think there's--I
think as you look across the board, you will find that if
someone is looking to continue to serve and they show some
abilities that the military is more than accommodating.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
I would like to ask all of the witnesses as legislators
what the legislative priorities should be, if there are any
particular priorities in terms of funding or legislative
changes specifically that we should be looking at--if anyone
has a specific recommendation for legislation. Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. If I might, I would like to speak to one of the
issues that came up earlier in that regard what Ms. Cox
discussed for home and community-based services. One of the
challenges we have on many disability issues is the way things
are costed out, whether it is by OMB or Congressional Budget
Office, and it is sometimes difficult to calculate the relative
benefits versus the costs. I think the reality on home and
community-based services is we don't know as well as we ought
precisely how those costs are going to fare with what you
described as the ``woodworking'' effect.
There have been some analyses where a number of States,
including Maine, when shifting toward more emphasis on long-
term services and supports have actually seen spending decline.
There are a number of States who have seen increases in costs,
but relative to overall rate of growth has been a lower rate of
growth than other States. And so I think one of the things we
might do is actually get a better handle on that, but that is
huge priority for people with disabilities. It goes squarely to
the dignity
of risk that I mentioned earlier. We talk about full
participation, economic self-sufficiency, independent living.
You can't do that if you're out of society in an institution.
So I think that's a basic issue that we need to find a way
to remedy. I think one of the challenges also there, we heard
this a little bit earlier from Assistant Attorney General
Perez, there are coordination issues among different agencies
and different departments. And one of the challenges that I
see, and opportunities for the National Council on Disability,
is to try to work with being sort of a hub with a 360-degree
perspective to try to figure out how we can have agencies and
departments work collaboratively toward consistent
implementation.
Mr. Scott. Any other specific recommendations, Ms.
Sensenbrenner?
Mrs. Sensenbrenner. Yes, again, I don't have specifics, but
I would again agree with Governor Thornburgh, employment is
number 1, you heard it mentioned repeatedly. But that's where
things are not--haven't really increased much at all. Governor
Thornburgh mentioned employment.
Again, I agree with you, Jonathan, the independent living
situation, how we cost that whole thing out and come up with
it. And also again, I have no answers, I'm just telling you
what I would love to see happen, and that is Supplemental
Security Income limitations and how that impacts severely on
people.
Mr. Young. If I might add also to the comment on
employment, I think certainly the National Council on
Disability, we've embraced living, learning and earning as 3
core themes. When you talk about earning, it is not simply wage
labor, it is asset development, the ability to accumulate
assets, a variety of income. It is an opportunity to coordinate
our income support services with our health care policies and
our employment goals.
One thing I want to emphasize, though, there certainly is a
critical role for enforcement. Right now it is possible.
Yesterday I was at an event where a Tony Coehlo award was given
to the National Security Agency. This year they are going to
exceed hiring 20 people with disabilities. That is an effort
they began with a group called Thunder Consulting bringing
qualified people with disabilities. I submit to you if the
National Security Agency with its highest of high requirements
for security clearance and protecting our country can make
dedicated efforts to hire people with disabilities, not because
it is a charity, but because they are finding that they are
phenomenal engineers, budget people, managers within the
National Security Agency. So I think part of the dedication to
employment is more transformative commitments one on one and
individualized, individual companies, individual agencies to
recognize what's possible and not look at what's an okay stick
call.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson
Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think
all of you should be congratulated, this has been enormously
instructive on what are our steps going forward. And really
some of the most descriptive and disturbing stories about the
treatment of the disabled in a variety of ways. And I think it
is important to remind ourselves every day a quote that that
someone else said on a civil rights question, of which the ADA
is: Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere--Dr. King. So as
I ask questions, I want and hope you will continue to build a
story, because that's how legislation is passed.
Mrs. Sensenbrenner, let me say that I do agree on the
Social Security Income threshold. Because I think what you're
saying is that so people can become independent. And many
people don't know that if you were to lose the SSI or Social
Security, you also lose access to services. So it is not just
income, but people want to be independent, and I think that is
going to be particularly strong with respect to Lieutenant
Colonel Gregory Gadson's constituents, so many of our soldiers
are coming back.
Let me pose this question to Mrs. Sensenbrenner just to
take us down memory lane for a second, you mentioned your
sister Tara. Could you just give us a sense of what it would
have been like for Tara if we had had the ADA in place and
whether or not you think the amendments of 2008 were effective
where we I think sort of broaden the definition or included the
definition or clarify the definition of disabilities so others
would not be left out.
Mrs. Sensenbrenner. Okay, I certainly hope it doesn't sound
like I'm evading your question, but this kind of jumps over to
memory lane again when I was listening to Mr. Young and when I
talked to Ted Kennedy, he was with our organization as well.
And the process of self-identify and how some of us, the whole
process of some of us have had opportunities that the average
person wouldn't have so we never self identified, we never
understood or never had to labor as other people did in some
cases.
My sister it was somewhat--I was injured when my sister
was--about the time my sister was born. So we had a symbiotic
relationship. I couldn't move out of bed and she was a little
girl that needed childhood education as we know now. Early
education, when you have an intellectual disability, is so
important. So frankly she would physically help me, and I would
work with her all day on her intellectually. So she was a
little spoiled. She had opportunities that in other words,
other people of her type didn't. I mean, who has Down's
syndrome that can drive a car at 16? She took college classes,
she has Down's syndrome. So that early stimulation helped,
because again we had a special situation because she had a
disabled sister there with her.
But many of her friends are not like that. As a matter of
fact, in some ways, she's a unique woman because she is able to
function so well, you know. None of her boyfriends are as hip
or as cool as she is. And she can do so many things. Her
vocabulary blows my brain away at times.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I think you've answered it because
what you've said is she had her own ADA and her own ADA proved
that that kind of assistance, intervention can change lives.
You've answered and I appreciate it very much. So.
Lieutenant Colonel Gadson, could you--you're doing very
important work, thank you for your service. I think it is
important for the record to reflect what you see in the numbers
of wounded warriors, you dealing with the severely wounded, but
I know you interact with returning soldiers all the time. I
think America needs to hear that although they are courageous
and overcoming a lot of injuries, are we going to be dealing
with these soldiers for a long time? Is that your
understanding?
Colonel Gadson. Yes, ma'am, and the--it has been documented
in history that the scars of war are long and deep. I think our
services have tremendous recognition that we've grown
tremendously in terms of the recognition of those kinds of
wounds, especially the ones that are invisible.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, as you indicated, this is your own
testimony, I think there are going to be thousands that we're
dealing with for a very long time, there are certainly a number
that comes to mind, 165,000 injured soldiers coming back, but
many people think Veterans affairs or assistance, is it
important for those soldiers as they move in civilian life to
have the ADA in place?
Colonel Gadson. Yes, ma'am, I do. I am just amazed as I
said. I'd never really heard or understood the ADA. I think
intuitively though, I didn't understand--I didn't know what the
ADA was, but I think--I also kind of grew up with it and there
are things that you saw that you never really thought were ADA
related.
And so I give myself a little bit more credit for not being
aware of it, but also having an appreciation for it. It is
important, and I recognize that I've been able to do many
things from learning how to ski to learning how to golf because
accessibility is important. And having that accessibility has
been what has been in truly meaningful in my recovery. As
they've all said, self-identify is important, and I've gotten
my confidence back because of access. And I believe I've been
allowed to flourish and continue to grow because our culture,
because our Nation is grateful and makes accessibility a
priority.
Ms. Jackson Lee. It is a very important statement. I'm
going to ask three quick questions. If Mr. Young would take one
question and Ms.--I'm trying to--Ms. Cox will take the other
and Mr. Villalobos take a question as well. Mr. Young, what is
the next battle NCD sees that they have to engage in as relates
to people with disabilities?
Mr. Young. The National Council on Disabilities has a
budget of $3 million with an obligation to advise the President
and the Congress on every manner of disability issues and
policies for the entire Federal Government. It is a tiny agency
with a giant mission. And it is different looking at 54 million
Americans with disabilities and all the issues, and say here is
the one thing we are going to do. I'm not trying to evade your
answer, but I'm going to talk about----
Ms. Jackson Lee. You've set up your problem, you said
you've got $3 million and you have a mountain of a task, you've
already given me your next battle, but go ahead.
Mr. Young. One of the things that's not terribly exciting
but critical is coordination. And there are any number of ways
that we can talk about it, one of them regards our income
support policies. So if we are saying we want people to go to
work but going to work means losing support, and losing SSI
means losing food stamps or access to housing vouchers, our
system isn't working in a coordinated fashion. I understand the
departments are vigorously pursuing departmental missions, and
that's important.
Somehow we need to find a better way to work in a
coordinated fashion. Again, a sweeping challenge, we just heard
front page reports about coordination challenges around
national security issues since 9/11, so it is not unique, FEMA
deals with it. Right now what I'm trying to do more than
anything else is build an agency that is equipped and capable
to answer your charge and to try to deliver on coordinating a
lot of things that are good and in place but not working as
they ought to.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I think you've given me the answer, and I
thank you for that. Maybe we can work on the SSI issue.
Ms. Cox, please understand the question is a positive one,
you hear individuals saying it is dangerous to have individuals
with disabilities living on their own, mainstreaming. What do
you say to that?
Ms. Cox. I say that's not true, definitely not true. When
they set up the 60-bed initiative, we had eight of the people
from my Riverdale Manor adult home, become part of that
initiative. We are all living useful lives, and become part of
the community. We live on a daily basis, as I describe my life;
we take our medication on a regular basis; we're not a danger
to anybody. All 60 of those people are living useful lives and
have become part of the community.
In many instances some of the people who are part of the
CIAD policy committee, one of the guys who is part of the
policy committee worked on the Census, this past Census when he
was one of the Census takers. We do--we do everything everybody
else does because we're normal, we are normal. We have a health
issue, a mental health issue, that's what's wrong with us. And
there's no reason for anybody to be afraid of us at all.
Ms. Jackson Lee. More harm to yourselves. I think you made
an excellent--this is my last question to Mr. Villalobos. Let
me just say that the University of Texas, coming from Texas at
El Paso owes you a graduation. And I'd like to be in a court of
law, put them on a witness stand, and say could you explain to
me what fire hazard means for a young man graduating in his
graduating class and allowing his family to see him proceed
with the rest of the graduating class. That would be too long
for you to answer, but what I do want to have you answer is
this whole idea of growing up as a child that is disabled, you
clarify that it can be done, the elementary school was behind
the times, the children were welcoming and accepting, your high
school students were welcoming and accepting, obviously
college. Give us what we should do to continue to grow that
kind of acceptance as more and more disabled persons, just
because of the nature of life come into the education system.
Mr. Villalobos. Absolutely. As I said, I'm a fellow with
the Southern Education Foundation, and they have these intern
opportunities granted to interns since the celebration of Brown
v. Board of Education since the 2004, 50th anniversary. And
this is so applicable for students with disabilities because
just like it says in the Brown decision, how can you ever
anticipate to have a good citizen participating in the
community if you deny them an education?
This is precisely what's happening with some students with
disabilities. And that's the first time that a child is
introduced to the community and they cultivate that ability to
identify with friends and peers and things of that nature, and
they recognize what they can do and what they can't.
Ultimately, you need to be able to create that bridge. So
it is important within the education setting itself, because
you are creating that ability for them to build upon
themselves. Give them the opportunity to not only recognize
that they not only belong within the school setting, but they
have the right to live in the world. And that's the origin of
how we come to know each other as citizens of the United
States. So it is on that level. And that's how I saw it as well
growing up with the ADA. If I didn't have the ADA on my side, I
wouldn't have been able to participate in my educational
setting. I probably could have been denied an education that
has gotten me here right now.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And other children accepted you?
Mr. Villalobos. Oh absolutely. Like, I think because I'm--
prior to my accident, they loved me for who I was then, they
love me even more now. I just added a unique dynamic to my
personality, and I hold onto my disability as part of my
identity, so disability power definitely.
Ms. Jackson Lee. This has been powerful testimony, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you for your indulgence and I see a lot of
pathways for us to go forward. Most of all for me, I would like
to work on the SSI issue, I've heard it from Veterans who are
likewise on disability in another form. And I hear it now and I
think I want to conclude by saying aren't we the better for now
people accepting and understanding and knowing that we all have
something to contribute in this world. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, and again, I want to thank all of our
witness for their testimony. This has been a tremendous hearing
about the need and the success of the Americans With
Disabilities Act. Without objection, all Members have 5
legislative days to submit to the Chair additional written
questions for the witnesses, which we will forward and ask the
witnesses to respond to as promptly as they can, so the 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. And with that, and without
objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]