[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 105 (Monday, July 29, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1425-E1426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  AS THE ADA ENTERS ADOLESCENCE, ITS PROMISE REMAINS UNFULFILLED BUT 
                              WITHIN REACH

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. STENY H. HOYER

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 26, 2002

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today, we commemorate the 12th anniversary of 
the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act, the most sweeping civil 
rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  We do so with pride, as we measure our progress. We do so with 
sadness, as we mourn the recent passing of Justin Dart Jr., the ADA's 
``father'' and an indefatigable soldier of justice. And we do so with 
deep concern, as the courts continue to issue decisions that limit the 
ADA's scope and undermine its intent.
  Twelve years ago today, the first President Bush signed the ADA into 
law, hailing it as the ``world's first comprehensive declaration of 
equality for people with disabilities.''
  As the lead House sponsor of this historic law, I knew it would not 
topple centuries of prejudice overnight. But I knew that, over time, it 
could change attitudes and change hearts, and unleash the untapped 
abilities of our disabled brothers and sisters.
  The ADA sent an unmistakable message: It is unacceptable to 
discriminate against the disabled simply because they have a 
disability. And it is illegal.
  The ADA, which enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support, prohibits 
discrimination against the more than 50 million disabled Americans--in 
employment, in public accommodations, in transportation and in 
telecommunications. It recognizes that the disabled belong to the 
American family, and must share in all we have to offer: equality of 
opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-
sufficiency.

[[Page E1426]]

  Its first dozen years have ushered in significant change. Thousands 
of disabled Americans have joined the workforce, many for the first 
times in their lives. The ramps, curb cuts, braille signs and captioned 
television programs that were once novel are now ubiquitous.
  However, despite such demonstrable progress, the ADA increasingly has 
become a legal lightning rod with courts issuing narrow interpretations 
that limit its scope and undermine its intent.
  In its most recent term, for example, the United States Supreme Court 
issued a series of decisions involving the ADA, ruling against the 
claimant each time.
  In Chevron v. Echazabal, the Court held that an employer can keep a 
worker from filling a job that could be harmful to the worker's own 
health, even though the ADA itself only allows employers to deny jobs 
to those who pose a ``direct threat'' to other workers.
  Whether intended or not, this decision stands for the proposition 
that disabled Americans really cannot exercise independent judgment on 
what is best for them. Thus, Eehazabal perpetuates the paternalistic 
attitudes that the ADA sought to combat.
  In another devastating blow, the Court held in Toyota Motor 
Manufacturing v. Williams that a worker needed to show that her 
condition not only affected her on the job, but also prevented or 
restricted her from performing ``tasks that are of central importance 
to most people's daily lives.'' Because the claimant in Williams had 
not sufficiently demonstrated how her disability limited her in 
performed tasks such as brushing her teeth, the Court said, she was not 
``disabled'' under the ADA.
  Is this really what Congress intended when it passed the ADA? That a 
determination of ``disability'' would require courts to examine whether 
claimants can brush their teeth? The answer is obviously no.
  This decision has put disabled Americans who avail themselves of the 
law's protection in a Catch-22: They must demonstrate that their 
impairment is substantial enough so that it constitutes a disability 
under the ADA, but not so substantial that the claimant cannot do the 
job without a reasonable accommodation.
  In other recent ADA decisions, the Supreme Court has stripped state 
workers of their right to sue for monetary damages for ADA violations, 
and held that corrective or mitigating measures such as eyeglasses or 
medication should be considered in determining whether an individual is 
``disabled'' under the law.
  The latter decisions have produced absurd results in lower courts, 
People with diabetes, heart conditions, mental illness and even cancer 
have been ruled ``too functional''--with corrective or mitigating 
measures--to be considered ``disabled.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is clearly not what Congress intended when it 
passed the ADA and President Bush signed it into law. We intended the 
law to have broad application. In fact, any person who is disadvantaged 
by an employer due to a real or perceived impairment by others may 
bring a claim under the ADA. That's because, simply put, the point of 
the law is not disability; the point is discrimination.
  Justin Dart Jr., the gentle giant who worked tirelessly on behalf of 
the ADA and the disabled throughout the world, would no doubt agree.
  Perhaps best known as the father of the ADA, Justin passed away on 
June 22nd. For nearly five decades, he was one of the world's most 
courageous, passionate and effective advocates for civil and human 
rights.
  Many called him the Martin Luther King of the disability civil rights 
movement. But he though of himself in more humble terms--simply as a 
soldier of justice. I was fortunate to call him a dear friend.
  As we commemorate this 12th anniversary of the ADA today and pay 
tribute to a wonderful man who devoted his life to promoting justice 
and equality for others, let's recognize that our work is far from 
finished. The series of Supreme Court decisions on the ADA remind us of 
that, and command us to begin discussing possible legislative 
responses.
  We have come so far in the last dozen years. And we have poured a 
strong foundation for our house of equality, where Americans are judged 
by their ability and not their disability.
  Yet, the promise of the ADA remains unfulfilled today but still is 
within reach. It falls to us now to carry on the fight and to realize 
Justin Dart's vision of a revolution of empowerment. Let's not rest 
until the work is done.

                          ____________________