[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.
____________________