[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 25, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H6025-H6028]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3195, ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1299 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1299

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     3195) to restore the intent and protections of the Americans 
     with Disabilities Act of 1990. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and 
     Labor now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. 
     The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate, with 40 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor and 
     20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 3195 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 1299.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SUTTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1299 provides for consideration of H.R. 
3195, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The rule makes in order as base 
text the bill as reported by the Committee on Education and Labor that 
was identical to the bill as reported by the Committee on the 
Judiciary. The bill provides for 1 hour of debate, with 40 minutes 
controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor and 20 minutes by 
the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order 
against consideration of the bill, except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. 
Lastly, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 1299 
and the underlying bill, H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act. It was 
nearly 18 years ago that the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed 
into law. It sent a resounding message that discrimination against 
individuals with disabilities would not be tolerated, not in 
employment, not in transportation, not in housing, not in services, or 
in any other area of our daily lives. It was a law intended to tear 
down the barriers, preventing individuals with disabilities from 
reaching their full potential. It was a commitment from Congress that 
discrimination in any form would not be tolerated.
  The Americans with Disabilities Act was an historic civil rights law, 
the most sweeping since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yet, despite the 
broad application of other civil rights statutes, a series of court 
decisions has dramatically narrowed the scope of the ADA. 
Unfortunately, this has denied millions of disabled Americans the 
protections Congress had originally intended for them.
  Mr. Speaker, the intent of Congress was to allow individuals with 
disabilities to fully participate in society, free from the fear of 
discrimination. Yet Supreme Court interpretations have shifted the 
focus from whether an individual has experienced discrimination to 
whether an individual could even be considered ``disabled enough'' to 
qualify for the protections of the law.
  In making this determination, the Court has implemented a standard 
that excludes many individuals originally intended to be covered by the 
ADA. They have held that the definition of ``disability'' must be 
applied ``strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as 
disabled.'' In addition, the Court has found that mitigating measures 
that help address an impairment, such as medication, hearing aids or 
other treatments, must be considered in determining whether an 
impairment is disabling enough to qualify under the ADA.

                              {time}  1200

  And so millions of Americans with disabilities have found themselves 
in a Catch-22. They face employment discrimination because of their 
disabilities, yet they may be denied relief under the ADA because they 
are considered ``too functional'' to qualify for its protections. Mr. 
Speaker, this is completely at odds with the original intent of 
Congress and the original focus of the ADA.
  Due to these narrow interpretations, individuals with serious 
conditions such as epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, cerebral palsy, multiple 
sclerosis, and developmental disabilities have found themselves 
excluded from the protections afforded by the ADA.
  Basic equality under the law has been denied to millions of disabled 
Americans for too long. But today, after months of hard work on all 
sides of this issue, we seek to fulfill the

[[Page H6026]]

promise we made to Americans with disabilities nearly two decades ago.
  And let me be clear. The ADA Amendments Act does not expand the 
original scope of the ADA. Rather, it restores the promise that 
Congress made to every single American, a promise that everyone will 
have an equal opportunity to succeed; that we will tear down the 
barriers that prevent individuals from reaching their full potential; 
and that we will be judged on our abilities rather than on our 
disabilities.
  The ADA Amendments Act clarifies that the ADA's protections are 
intended to be broad. It also restores the focus to wrongful 
discrimination. Our bill clarifies that anyone who is discriminated 
against because of an impairment, whether or not this impairment limits 
the performance of any major life activities, is entitled to the ADA 
protection.
  And, finally, it states that mitigating measures will not disqualify 
people with disabilities from the protections afforded by the ADA.
  I am proud to join with over half of the Members of this body as a 
cosponsor of this important bill. Today we are demonstrating our 
commitment to every American that discrimination will not be tolerated. 
This should be the case whether based on race, national origin, gender, 
age, religion, sexual orientation or disability. By upholding this most 
important of principles, our country will be richer for it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman, my friend 
from Ohio, for yielding me the time to discuss this proposed rule for 
consideration of the Americans with Disabilities Restoration Act of 
2007. And a hearty congratulations to the new Democrat majority for 
their openness as we celebrate the 58th closed rule, a new record for 
the United States Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying legislation, which 
would amend and improve the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA as 
it is called, that was enacted into law in 1990 by President George 
Herbert Walker Bush with the strong bipartisan support of Congress.
  The ADA--which was passed to, and I quote, provide a clear and 
comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination 
against individuals with disabilities--protects individuals from 
discrimination in hiring, firing, pay, and other terms and conditions 
of employment on the basis of a person's disability.
  Often referred to as the world's first comprehensive disability anti-
discrimination law, the ADA specifies what employers, government 
agencies, and the managers of public facilities must do to ensure that 
persons with disabilities have the opportunity to fully participate in 
our society.
  The ADA consists of three major titles protecting Americans with 
disabilities:
  Title I prohibits discrimination in public or private employment;
  Title II prohibits discrimination at public entities, like public 
universities or hospitals;
  And title III prohibits discrimination at places of public 
accommodations like hotels and restaurants.
  Mr. Speaker, this law has made a world of difference for millions of 
Americans with disabilities. But, for all of the great results that 
have come from this law, I believe it can still be improved. For far 
too long, our Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have 
wrestled with some of the contents of Congress' intent in defining the 
ADA key concepts.
  For example, the ADA requires employers to make reasonable 
accommodations to facilitate employees with disabilities but not if 
this causes undue hardship, leaving the courts to decide what is 
reasonable and what is undue. Most of all, Federal courts have spent 
years being puzzled over exactly who is considered disabled under the 
law. But, today, we have the opportunity to pass this legislation and 
to clarify Congress' intent, finally settling these outstanding 
questions of law once and for all, or so we hope.
  I want to be clear that these shortcomings do not in any way minimize 
the great things that this legislation has achieved for disabled people 
in America. Today, many public accommodations like hotels, restaurants, 
and recreation facilities have opted for voluntary compliance. We have 
cut curbs, the areas where sidewalks slope down, to be at a level of 
the street to allow easy passage for wheelchairs and for other 
mechanisms that aid the disabled, which were virtually unheard of 
before ADA was passed and that now are in compliance in most major 
cities.
  Unfortunately, since 1999, several U.S. Supreme Court decisions have 
narrowly provided the definition of disabilities so much so that 
persons with serious conditions, such as epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, 
cancer, diabetes, and cerebral palsy have been determined to not have 
impairments that meet the definition of ``disability'' under the ADA.
  H.R. 3195 builds upon the ADA's original intent by clarifying what 
disabilities qualify an individual for coverage, and they address a 
number of the statute's further limitations that have been raised by 
disability advocates.
  Because of this ambiguity, today, I join with more than 250 of my 
colleagues in supporting this legislation, which passed out of the 
Judiciary Committee by unanimous consent and out of the Education and 
Labor Committee by a vote of 43-1. Like my colleagues, I support 
expanding the definition of ``disabled,'' which was the main goal of 
this legislation, as well supporting to ensure that people with 
disabilities do not lose their coverage under the ADA because their 
condition is manageable and treatable with medication.
  These policies have been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
the National Association of Manufacturers, the Society for Human 
Resource Management, the Human Resources Policy Association, and many 
other pro-business organizations.
  From the disability community, this legislation was also supported by 
the National Epilepsy Foundation, the American Diabetes Association, 
the American Association of People with Disabilities, and other leading 
advocacy groups.
  Mr. Speaker, the ADA has transformed the American society since its 
enactment, helping millions of Americans with disabilities to succeed 
in the workplace and making transportation, housing, buildings, 
services, and other elements of daily life more accessible to 
individuals with disabilities.
  I applaud my colleagues for bringing this legislation, an important 
action, to the floor today, and I look forward to its passage.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on this side, so I 
will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side and 
yielded back his time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Since taking control of Congress in 2007, this Democrat Congress has 
totally neglected its responsibilities to do anything constructive to 
address the domestic supply issues that have created skyrocketing gas, 
diesel, and energy costs that American families are facing today, 
including costs that are unacceptable for many disabled Americans who 
are struggling to be able to get to work or to live their life.
  So, today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the 
previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to 
the energy crisis. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to 
amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 5656, yet another 
time this Republican party is on the floor to say we support consumers 
and that we support American independence and security. This bill, H.R. 
5656, would repeal the ban on acquiring advanced alternative fuels, and 
this bill was introduced by my dear friend Jeb Hensarling of Texas way 
back in March, 3 months ago.
  This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by allowing the 
Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from 
diverse sources like oil shale, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid 
technology, commonsense marketplace answers to make sure that the 
American consumer and America is competitive with the world, rather 
than sending billions of dollars overseas, funding American enemies and 
providing the world with jobs and opportunities outside of what the 
consumer intended in this country.

[[Page H6027]]

  Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 
which this Democrat Congress passed, places artificial and unnecessary 
restraints on the Department of Defense. Perhaps it is no surprise that 
this Democrat Congress places artificial and unnecessary restraints on 
the Department of Defense in getting its own fuel from friendly 
sources, like the coal-to-liquid, oil shale, and tar sands resources 
that are abundant in the United States and in Canada, our friend to the 
north. Needlessly raising grave national and economic security concerns 
is what this Democrat Congress has done to our military.
  Mr. Speaker, Canada is currently the largest U.S. oil supplier. It 
sent 1.8 million barrels every day of crude oil and 500,000 barrels per 
day of refined products to the United States in 2006. That is according 
to the Canadian government. About half of the Canadian crude is derived 
from oil sands, with the sands production forecast to reach almost 3 
million barrels per day in 2015.
  Section 526 is choking this flow of fuel from one of our Nation's 
most reliable allies and economic partners, and is increasing the 
military's reliance on fuels from unfriendly and unstable countries. On 
top of that, it is causing the American consumer to pay more at the 
pump. We saw a 10-cent rise in the price of each gallon of gasoline 
just in the last week.
  Mr. Speaker, now is the time for action. Now is not the time to be 
suing OPEC and to be saying ``no'' to a balanced energy proposal.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and 
extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I urge my colleagues to vote for our military and for 
our economy, including many disabled people who are having a tough time 
paying for the high energy costs as a result of this Democrat Congress' 
insensitive position to not allow Americans to have their own energy 
independence. It is time that we produce more from America and from 
friendly places, like reliable sources like Canada.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Texas is trying to shift 
the discussion away from this fantastic, fantastic bill, the Americans 
With Disabilities Act Amendments, onto an issue of energy. But the 
American people know that for the past 7 years this country under this 
administration has been following an energy policy from the White House 
written by the Vice President with the oil executives.
  Truth be told, there are 68 million acres of leased land available 
for drilling. And we believe that, of course, that drilling should be 
taking place on that 68 million acres of leased land, but we also 
believe that we should be looking diligently for alternative forms of 
energy.
  The reality of it is that this is a deflective tactic. This House has 
passed under this new Congress landmark energy legislation that will 
provide relief in years to come.

                              {time}  1215

  We have also passed measure after measure after measure that would 
provide relief to American consumers but only to have them blocked by 
those on the other side of the aisle and by the administration.
  But, today, we don't rise to dwell on that. We rise to support and to 
celebrate this bill. The Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 
1999 with such a broad coalition of support that it was regarded as a 
mandate, Mr. Speaker, and we have made progress in a number of areas to 
ensure individuals with disabilities are fully able to participate in 
society. But, in many ways, the ADA is a promise that remains 
unfulfilled.
  Today, through the ADA Amendments Act, we are unequivocally 
demonstrating our commitment to the principle of equal opportunity for 
all Americans. We will be removing the hurdles individuals with 
disabilities have faced when trying to enjoy the freedoms that are the 
right of every American.
  The ADA Amendments Act has the full support of one of the most 
diverse coalitions of groups I have ever seen, from the disability 
community, the civil rights community, groups representing pro-business 
interests, and from Members on both sides of the aisle from this, the 
people's House.
  It represents a balance between the interests of employers and 
individuals with disabilities, and it demonstrates our resolve to 
ensure that all Americans can work to reach their full potential.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the 
rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       Amendment to H. Res. 1299 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, 
     consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5656) to repeal a 
     requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition 
     of alternative fuels. All points of order against the bill 
     are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     member of the Committee on House Oversight and Government 
     Reform; and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if 
     offered by Representative Waxman, which shall be considered 
     as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.


[[Page H6028]]


  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________