[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 25, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H6058-H6075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1615
                       ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 
1299, I call up the bill (H.R. 3195) to restore the intent and 
protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3195

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``ADA Restoration Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) in enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (ADA), Congress intended that the Act ``establish a clear and 
     comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of 
     disability,'' and provide broad coverage and vigorous and 
     effective remedies without unnecessary and obstructive 
     defenses;
       (2) decisions and opinions of the Supreme Court have unduly 
     narrowed the broad scope of protection afforded in the ADA, 
     eliminating protection for a broad range of individuals who 
     Congress intended to protect;
       (3) in enacting the ADA, Congress recognized that physical 
     and mental impairments are natural parts of the human 
     experience that in no way diminish a person's right to fully 
     participate in all aspects of society, but Congress also 
     recognized that people with physical or mental impairments 
     having the talent, skills, abilities, and desire to 
     participate in society are frequently precluded from doing so 
     because of prejudice, antiquated attitudes, or the failure to 
     remove societal and institutional barriers;
       (4) Congress modeled the ADA definition of disability on 
     that of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which, 
     through the time of the ADA's enactment, had been construed 
     broadly to encompass both actual and perceived limitations, 
     and limitations imposed by society;
       (5) the broad conception of the definition had been 
     underscored by the Supreme Court's statement in its decision 
     in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 284 
     (1987), that the section 504 definition ``acknowledged that 
     society's accumulated myths and fears about disability and 
     disease are as handicapping as are the physical limitations 
     that flow from actual impairment'';
       (6) in adopting the section 504 concept of disability in 
     the ADA, Congress understood that adverse action based on a 
     person's physical or mental impairment is often unrelated to 
     the limitations caused by the impairment itself;
       (7) instead of following congressional expectations that 
     disability would be interpreted broadly in the ADA, the 
     Supreme Court has ruled, in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, 
     Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 197 (2002), that 
     the elements of the definition ``need to be interpreted 
     strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as 
     disabled,'' and, consistent with that view, has narrowed the 
     application of the definition in various ways; and
       (8) contrary to explicit congressional intent expressed in 
     the ADA committee reports, the Supreme Court has eliminated 
     from the Act's coverage individuals who have mitigated the 
     effects of their impairments through the use of such measures 
     as medication and assistive devices.
       (b) Purpose.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to effect the ADA's objectives of providing ``a clear 
     and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of 
     discrimination'' and ``clear, strong, consistent, enforceable 
     standards addressing discrimination'' by restoring the broad 
     scope of protection available under the ADA;
       (2) to respond to certain decisions of the Supreme Court, 
     including Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 
     (1999), Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527 U.S. 516 
     (1999), Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 
     (1999), and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. 
     Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), that have narrowed the class 
     of people who can invoke the protection from discrimination 
     the ADA provides; and
       (3) to reinstate original congressional intent regarding 
     the definition of disability by clarifying that ADA 
     protection is available for all individuals who are subjected 
     to adverse treatment based on actual or perceived impairment, 
     or record of impairment, or are adversely affected by 
     prejudiced attitudes, such as myths, fears, ignorance, or 
     stereotypes concerning disability or particular disabilities, 
     or by the failure to remove societal and institutional 
     barriers, including communication, transportation, and 
     architectural barriers, and the failure to provide reasonable 
     modifications to policies, practices, and procedures, 
     reasonable accommodations, and auxiliary aids and services.

     SEC. 3. CODIFIED FINDINGS.

       Section 2(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12101) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) physical or mental disabilities are natural parts of 
     the human experience that in no way diminish a person's right 
     to fully participate in all aspects of society, yet people 
     with physical or mental disabilities having the talent, 
     skills, abilities, and desires to participate in society 
     frequently are precluded from doing so because of 
     discrimination; others who have a record of a disability or 
     are regarded as having a disability also have been subjected 
     to discrimination;''.
       (2) by amending paragraph (7) to read as follows:
       ``(7) individuals with disabilities have been subject to a 
     history of purposeful unequal treatment, have had 
     restrictions and limitations imposed upon them because of 
     their disabilities, and have been relegated to positions of 
     political powerlessness in society; classifications and 
     selection criteria that exclude persons with disabilities 
     should be strongly disfavored, subjected to skeptical and 
     meticulous examination, and permitted only for highly 
     compelling reasons, and never on the basis of prejudice, 
     ignorance, myths, irrational fears, or stereotypes about 
     disability;''.

     SEC. 4. DISABILITY DEFINED.

       Section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12102) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Disability.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `disability' means, with 
     respect to an individual--
       ``(i) a physical or mental impairment;
       ``(ii) a record of a physical or mental impairment; or
       ``(iii) being regarded as having a physical or mental 
     impairment.
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--
       ``(i) The determination of whether an individual has a 
     physical or mental impairment shall be made without 
     considering the impact of any mitigating measures the 
     individual may or may not be using or whether or not any 
     manifestations of an impairment are episodic, in remission, 
     or latent.
       ``(ii) The term `mitigating measures' means any treatment, 
     medication, device, or other measure used to eliminate, 
     mitigate, or compensate for the effect of an impairment, and 
     includes prescription and other medications, personal aids 
     and devices (including assistive technology devices and 
     services), reasonable accommodations, or auxiliary aids and 
     services.

[[Page H6059]]

       ``(iii) Actions taken by a covered entity with respect to 
     an individual because of that individual's use of a 
     mitigating measure or because of a side effect or other 
     consequence of the use of such a measure shall be considered 
     actions taken on the basis of a disability under this Act.''.
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (7) and 
     inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Physical impairment.--The term `physical impairment' 
     means any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic 
     disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of 
     the following body systems: neurological; musculoskeletal; 
     special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; 
     cardiovascular; reproductive; digestive; genito-urinary; 
     hemic and lymphatic; skin; and endocrine.
       ``(4) Mental impairment.--The term `mental impairment' 
     means any mental or psychological disorder such as mental 
     retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental 
     illness, or specific learning disabilities.
       ``(5) Record of physical or mental impairment.--The term 
     `record of physical or mental impairment' means having a 
     history of, or having been misclassified as having, a 
     physical or mental impairment.
       ``(6) Regarded as having a physical or mental impairment.--
     The term `regarded as having a physical or mental impairment' 
     means being perceived or treated as having a physical or 
     mental impairment whether or not the individual has an 
     impairment.''.

     SEC. 5. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY.

       Section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12112) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``against a qualified 
     individual with a disability because of the disability of 
     such individual'' and inserting ``against an individual on 
     the basis of disability''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``discriminate'' and inserting 
     ``discriminate against an individual on the basis of 
     disability''.

     SEC. 6. QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL.

       Section 103(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 12113(a)) is amended by striking ``that an 
     alleged application'' and inserting ``that--
       ``(1) the individual alleging discrimination under this 
     title is not a qualified individual with a disability; or
       ``(2) an alleged application''.

     SEC. 7. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Section 501 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12201) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Broad Construction.--In order to ensure that this Act 
     achieves its purpose of providing a comprehensive prohibition 
     of discrimination on the basis of disability, the provisions 
     of this Act shall be broadly construed to advance their 
     remedial purpose.
       ``(f) Regulations.--In order to provide for consistent and 
     effective standards among the agencies responsible for 
     enforcing this Act, the Attorney General shall promulgate 
     regulations and guidance in alternate accessible formats 
     implementing the provisions herein. The Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission and Secretary of Transportation shall 
     then issue appropriate implementing directives, whether in 
     the nature of regulations or policy guidance, consistent with 
     the requirements prescribed by the Attorney General.
       ``(g) Deference to Regulations and Guidance.--Duly issued 
     Federal regulations and guidance for the implementation of 
     this Act, including provisions implementing and interpreting 
     the definition of disability, shall be entitled to deference 
     by administrative bodies or officers and courts hearing any 
     action brought under this Act.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1299, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Education and Labor, printed in the bill is adopted and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3195

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``ADA Amendments Act of 
     2008''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) in enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (ADA), Congress intended that the Act ``provide a clear and 
     comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of 
     discrimination against individuals with disabilities'' and 
     provide broad coverage;
       (2) in enacting the ADA, Congress recognized that physical 
     and mental disabilities in no way diminish a person's right 
     to fully participate in all aspects of society, but that 
     people with physical or mental disabilities are frequently 
     precluded from doing so because of prejudice, antiquated 
     attitudes, or the failure to remove societal and 
     institutional barriers;
       (3) while Congress expected that the definition of 
     disability under the ADA would be interpreted consistently 
     with how courts had applied the definition of handicap under 
     the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that expectation has not been 
     fulfilled;
       (4) the holdings of the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United 
     Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases, 
     and in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. 
     Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) have narrowed the broad scope 
     of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA, thus 
     eliminating protection for many individuals whom Congress 
     intended to protect; and
       (5) as a result of these Supreme Court cases, lower courts 
     have incorrectly found in individual cases that people with a 
     range of substantially limiting impairments are not people 
     with disabilities.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to carry out the ADA's objectives of providing ``a 
     clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination 
     of discrimination'' and ``clear, strong, consistent, 
     enforceable standards addressing discrimination'' by 
     reinstating a broad scope of protection to be available under 
     the ADA;
       (2) to reject the requirement enunciated by the Supreme 
     Court in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) 
     and its companion cases that whether an impairment 
     substantially limits a major life activity is to be 
     determined with reference to the ameliorative effects of 
     mitigating measures;
       (3) to reject the Supreme Court's reasoning in Sutton v. 
     United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) with regard to 
     coverage under the third prong of the definition of 
     disability and to reinstate the reasoning of the Supreme 
     Court in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 
     273 (1987) which set forth a broad view of the third prong of 
     the definition of handicap under the Rehabilitation Act of 
     1973;
       (4) to reject the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court 
     in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 
     534 U.S. 184 (2002), that the terms ``substantially'' and 
     ``major'' in the definition of disability under the ADA 
     ``need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding 
     standard for qualifying as disabled,'' and that to be 
     substantially limited in performing a major life activity 
     under the ADA ``an individual must have an impairment that 
     prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing 
     activities that are of central importance to most people's 
     daily lives''; and
       (5) to provide a new definition of ``substantially limits'' 
     to indicate that Congress intends to depart from the strict 
     and demanding standard applied by the Supreme Court in Toyota 
     Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams and by 
     numerous lower courts.

     SEC. 3. CODIFIED FINDINGS.

       Section 2(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12101) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish a 
     person's right to fully participate in all aspects of 
     society, yet many people with physical or mental disabilities 
     have been precluded from doing so because of discrimination; 
     others who have a record of a disability or are regarded as 
     having a disability also have been subjected to 
     discrimination;''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (7).

     SEC. 4. DISABILITY DEFINED AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Definition of Disability.--Section 3 of the Americans 
     with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF DISABILITY.

       ``As used in this Act:
       ``(1) Disability.--The term `disability' means, with 
     respect to an individual--
       ``(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially 
     limits one or more major life activities of such individual;
       ``(B) a record of such an impairment; or
       ``(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as 
     described in paragraph (4)).
       ``(2) Substantially limits.--The term `substantially 
     limits' means materially restricts.
       ``(3) Major life activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), major 
     life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for 
     oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, 
     sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, 
     breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, 
     communicating and working.
       ``(B) Major bodily functions.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a 
     major bodily function, including but not limited to, 
     functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, 
     digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, 
     circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.
       ``(4) Regarded as having such an impairment.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (1)(C):
       ``(A) An individual meets the requirement of `being 
     regarded as having such an impairment' if the individual 
     establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action 
     prohibited under this Act because of an actual or perceived 
     physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment 
     limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.
       ``(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments that 
     are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an 
     impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or 
     less.
       ``(5) Rules of construction regarding the definition of 
     disability.--The definition of `disability' in paragraph (1) 
     shall be construed in accordance with the following:
       ``(A) To achieve the remedial purposes of this Act, the 
     definition of `disability' in paragraph (1) shall be 
     construed broadly.
       ``(B) An impairment that substantially limits one major 
     life activity need not limit other major life activities in 
     order to be considered a disability.
       ``(C) An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a 
     disability if it would substantially limit a major life 
     activity when active.

[[Page H6060]]

       ``(D)(i) The determination of whether an impairment 
     substantially limits a major life activity shall be made 
     without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating 
     measures such as--
       ``(I) medication, medical supplies, equipment, or 
     appliances, low-vision devices (which do not include ordinary 
     eyeglasses or contact lenses), prosthetics including limbs 
     and devices, hearing aids and cochlear implants or other 
     implantable hearing devices, mobility devices, or oxygen 
     therapy equipment and supplies;
       ``(II) use of assistive technology;
       ``(III) reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or 
     services; or
       ``(IV) learned behavioral or adaptive neurological 
     modifications.
       ``(ii) The ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures 
     of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered 
     in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a 
     major life activity.
       ``(iii) As used in this subparagraph--
       ``(I) the term `ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses' 
     means lenses that are intended to fully correct visual acuity 
     or eliminate refractive error; and
       ``(II) the term `low-vision devices' means devices that 
     magnify, enhance, or otherwise augment a visual image.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The Americans with Disabilities 
     Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) is further amended by 
     adding after section 3 the following:

     ``SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.

       ``As used in this Act:
       ``(1) Auxiliary aids and services.--The term `auxiliary 
     aids and services' includes--
       ``(A) qualified interpreters or other effective methods of 
     making aurally delivered materials available to individuals 
     with hearing impairments;
       ``(B) qualified readers, taped texts, or other effective 
     methods of making visually delivered materials available to 
     individuals with visual impairments;
       ``(C) acquisition or modification of equipment or devices; 
     and
       ``(D) other similar services and actions.
       ``(2) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Trust 
     Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands.''
       (c) Amendment to the Table of Contents.--The table of 
     contents contained in section 1(b) of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 3 and inserting the following items:

``Sec. 3. Definition of disability.
``Sec. 4. Additional definitions.''.

     SEC. 5. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY.

       (a) On the Basis of Disability.--Section 102 of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``with a disability 
     because of the disability of such individual'' and inserting 
     ``on the basis of disability''; and
       (2) in subsection (b) in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``discriminate'' and inserting 
     ``discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of 
     disability''.
       (b) Qualification Standards and Tests Related to 
     Uncorrected Vision.--Section 103 of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12113) is amended by 
     redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and 
     (e), respectively, and inserting after subsection (b) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Qualification Standards and Tests Related to 
     Uncorrected Vision.--Notwithstanding section 3(5)(D)(ii), a 
     covered entity shall not use qualification standards, 
     employment tests, or other selection criteria based on an 
     individual's uncorrected vision unless the standard, test, or 
     other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is 
     shown to be job-related for the position in question and 
     consistent with business necessity.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 101(8) of the Americans 
     with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111(8)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``with a 
     disability''; and
       (2) by striking ``with a disability'' after ``individual'' 
     both places it appears.

     SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12201) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of section 501 the following:
       ``(e) Benefits Under State Worker's Compensation Laws.--
     Nothing in this Act alters the standards for determining 
     eligibility for benefits under State worker's compensation 
     laws or under State and Federal disability benefit programs.
       ``(f) Claims of No Disability.--Nothing in this Act shall 
     provide the basis for a claim by a person without a 
     disability that he or she was subject to discrimination 
     because of his or her lack of disability.
       ``(g) Reasonable Accommodations and Modifications.--A 
     covered entity under title I, a public entity under title II, 
     and any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a 
     place of public accommodation under title III, need not 
     provide a reasonable accommodation or a reasonable 
     modification to policies, practices, or procedures to an 
     individual who meets the definition of disability in section 
     3(1) solely under subparagraph (C).'';
       (2) by redesignating section 506 through 514 as sections 
     507 through 515, respectively, and adding after section 505 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 506. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING REGULATORY 
                   AUTHORITY.

       ``The authority to issue regulations granted to the Equal 
     Employment Opportunity Commission, the Attorney General, and 
     the Secretary of Transportation under this Act includes the 
     authority to issue regulations implementing the definitions 
     contained in sections 3 and 4.''; and
       (3) in the table of contents contained in section 1(b), by 
     redesignating the items relating to sections 506 through 514 
     as sections 507 through 515, respectively, and by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 505 the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 506. Rule of construction regarding regulatory authority.''.

     SEC. 7. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Section 7 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (9)(B), by striking ``a physical'' and all 
     that follows through ``major life activities'', and inserting 
     ``the meaning given it in section 3 of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990''; and
       (2) in paragraph (20)(B), by striking ``any person who'' 
     and all that follows through the period at the end, and 
     inserting ``any person who has a disability as defined in 
     section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.''.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become 
     effective on January 1, 2009.

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``ADA Amendments Act of 
     2008''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) in enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (ADA), Congress intended that the Act ``provide a clear and 
     comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of 
     discrimination against individuals with disabilities'' and 
     provide broad coverage;
       (2) in enacting the ADA, Congress recognized that physical 
     and mental disabilities in no way diminish a person's right 
     to fully participate in all aspects of society, but that 
     people with physical or mental disabilities are frequently 
     precluded from doing so because of prejudice, antiquated 
     attitudes, or the failure to remove societal and 
     institutional barriers;
       (3) while Congress expected that the definition of 
     disability under the ADA would be interpreted consistently 
     with how courts had applied the definition of handicap under 
     the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that expectation has not been 
     fulfilled;
       (4) the holdings of the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United 
     Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases, 
     and in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. 
     Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) have narrowed the broad scope 
     of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA, thus 
     eliminating protection for many individuals whom Congress 
     intended to protect; and
       (5) as a result of these Supreme Court cases, lower courts 
     have incorrectly found in individual cases that people with a 
     range of substantially limiting impairments are not people 
     with disabilities.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to carry out the ADA's objectives of providing ``a 
     clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination 
     of discrimination'' and ``clear, strong, consistent, 
     enforceable standards addressing discrimination'' by 
     reinstating a broad scope of protection to be available under 
     the ADA;
       (2) to reject the requirement enunciated by the Supreme 
     Court in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) 
     and its companion cases that whether an impairment 
     substantially limits a major life activity is to be 
     determined with reference to the ameliorative effects of 
     mitigating measures;
       (3) to reject the Supreme Court's reasoning in Sutton v. 
     United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) with regard to 
     coverage under the third prong of the definition of 
     disability and to reinstate the reasoning of the Supreme 
     Court in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 
     273 (1987) which set forth a broad view of the third prong of 
     the definition of handicap under the Rehabilitation Act of 
     1973;
       (4) to reject the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court 
     in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 
     534 U.S. 184 (2002), that the terms ``substantially'' and 
     ``major'' in the definition of disability under the ADA 
     ``need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding 
     standard for qualifying as disabled,'' and that to be 
     substantially limited in performing a major life activity 
     under the ADA ``an individual must have an impairment that 
     prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing 
     activities that are of central importance to most people's 
     daily lives''; and
       (5) to provide a new definition of ``substantially limits'' 
     to indicate that Congress intends to depart from the strict 
     and demanding standard applied by the Supreme Court in Toyota 
     Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams and by 
     numerous lower courts.

     SEC. 3. CODIFIED FINDINGS.

       Section 2(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12101) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish a 
     person's right to fully participate in all aspects of 
     society, yet many people with physical or mental disabilities 
     have been precluded from doing so because of discrimination; 
     others who have a record of a disability or are regarded as 
     having a disability also have been subjected to 
     discrimination;''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (7).

[[Page H6061]]

     SEC. 4. DISABILITY DEFINED AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Definition of Disability.--Section 3 of the Americans 
     with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF DISABILITY.

       ``As used in this Act:
       ``(1) Disability.--The term `disability' means, with 
     respect to an individual--
       ``(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially 
     limits one or more major life activities of such individual;
       ``(B) a record of such an impairment; or
       ``(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as 
     described in paragraph (4)).
       ``(2) Substantially limits.--The term `substantially 
     limits' means materially restricts.
       ``(3) Major life activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), major 
     life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for 
     oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, 
     sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, 
     breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, 
     communicating and working.
       ``(B) Major bodily functions.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a 
     major bodily function, including but not limited to, 
     functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, 
     digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, 
     circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.
       ``(4) Regarded as having such an impairment.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (1)(C):
       ``(A) An individual meets the requirement of `being 
     regarded as having such an impairment' if the individual 
     establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action 
     prohibited under this Act because of an actual or perceived 
     physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment 
     limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.
       ``(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments that 
     are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an 
     impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or 
     less.
       ``(5) Rules of construction regarding the definition of 
     disability.--The definition of `disability' in paragraph (1) 
     shall be construed in accordance with the following:
       ``(A) To achieve the remedial purposes of this Act, the 
     definition of `disability' in paragraph (1) shall be 
     construed broadly.
       ``(B) An impairment that substantially limits one major 
     life activity need not limit other major life activities in 
     order to be considered a disability.
       ``(C) An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a 
     disability if it would substantially limit a major life 
     activity when active.
       ``(D)(i) The determination of whether an impairment 
     substantially limits a major life activity shall be made 
     without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating 
     measures such as--
       ``(I) medication, medical supplies, equipment, or 
     appliances, low-vision devices (which do not include ordinary 
     eyeglasses or contact lenses), prosthetics including limbs 
     and devices, hearing aids and cochlear implants or other 
     implantable hearing devices, mobility devices, or oxygen 
     therapy equipment and supplies;
       ``(II) use of assistive technology;
       ``(III) reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or 
     services; or
       ``(IV) learned behavioral or adaptive neurological 
     modifications.
       ``(ii) The ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures 
     of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered 
     in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a 
     major life activity.
       ``(iii) As used in this subparagraph--
       ``(I) the term `ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses' 
     means lenses that are intended to fully correct visual acuity 
     or eliminate refractive error; and
       ``(II) the term `low-vision devices' means devices that 
     magnify, enhance, or otherwise augment a visual image.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The Americans with Disabilities 
     Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) is further amended by 
     adding after section 3 the following:

     ``SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.

       ``As used in this Act:
       ``(1) Auxiliary aids and services.--The term `auxiliary 
     aids and services' includes--
       ``(A) qualified interpreters or other effective methods of 
     making aurally delivered materials available to individuals 
     with hearing impairments;
       ``(B) qualified readers, taped texts, or other effective 
     methods of making visually delivered materials available to 
     individuals with visual impairments;
       ``(C) acquisition or modification of equipment or devices; 
     and
       ``(D) other similar services and actions.
       ``(2) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Trust 
     Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands.''.
       (c) Amendment to the Table of Contents.--The table of 
     contents contained in section 1(b) of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 3 and inserting the following items:

``Sec. 3. Definition of disability.
``Sec. 4. Additional definitions.''.

     SEC. 5. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY.

       (a) On the Basis of Disability.--Section 102 of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``with a disability 
     because of the disability of such individual'' and inserting 
     ``on the basis of disability''; and
       (2) in subsection (b) in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``discriminate'' and inserting 
     ``discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of 
     disability''.
       (b) Qualification Standards and Tests Related to 
     Uncorrected Vision.--Section 103 of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12113) is amended by 
     redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and 
     (e), respectively, and inserting after subsection (b) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Qualification Standards and Tests Related to 
     Uncorrected Vision.--Notwithstanding section 3(5)(D)(ii), a 
     covered entity shall not use qualification standards, 
     employment tests, or other selection criteria based on an 
     individual's uncorrected vision unless the standard, test, or 
     other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is 
     shown to be job-related for the position in question and 
     consistent with business necessity.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 101(8) of the Americans 
     with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111(8)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``with a 
     disability''; and
       (2) by striking ``with a disability'' after ``individual'' 
     both places it appears.

     SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12201) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of section 501 the following:
       ``(e) Benefits Under State Worker's Compensation Laws.--
     Nothing in this Act alters the standards for determining 
     eligibility for benefits under State worker's compensation 
     laws or under State and Federal disability benefit programs.
       ``(f) Claims of No Disability..--Nothing in this Act shall 
     provide the basis for a claim by a person without a 
     disability that he or she was subject to discrimination 
     because of his or her lack of disability.
       ``(g) Reasonable Accommodations and Modifications.--A 
     covered entity under title I, a public entity under title II, 
     and any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a 
     place of public accommodation under title III, need not 
     provide a reasonable accommodation or a reasonable 
     modification to policies, practices, or procedures to an 
     individual who meets the definition of disability in section 
     3(1) solely under subparagraph (C).'';
       (2) by redesignating sections 506 through 514 as sections 
     507 through 515, respectively, and adding after section 505 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 506. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING REGULATORY 
                   AUTHORITY.

       ``The authority to issue regulations granted to the Equal 
     Employment Opportunity Commission, the Attorney General, and 
     the Secretary of Transportation under this Act includes the 
     authority to issue regulations implementing the definitions 
     contained in sections 3 and 4.''; and
       (3) in the table of contents contained in section 1(b), by 
     redesignating the items relating to sections 506 through 514 
     as sections 507 through 515, respectively, and by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 505 the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 506. Rule of construction regarding regulatory authority.''.

     SEC. 7. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Section 7 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (9)(B), by striking ``a physical'' and all 
     that follows through ``major life activities'', and inserting 
     ``the meaning given it in section 3 of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990''; and
       (2) in paragraph (20)(B), by striking ``any person who'' 
     and all that follows through the period at the end, and 
     inserting ``any person who has a disability as defined in 
     section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.''.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become 
     effective on January 1, 2009.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Debate shall not exceed 1 hour, 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.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon) each will control 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent for all Members to have 5 legislative days in which to revise 
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3195.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?

[[Page H6062]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3195, the Americans 
with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008.
  Since 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act has made it possible 
for millions of productive, hardworking Americans to participate in our 
Nation's economy. Among other rights, the law guaranteed that workers 
with disabilities would be judged on their merits, not on their 
employer's prejudices.
  But since the ADA's enactment, several Supreme Court rulings have 
dramatically reduced the number of workers with disabilities who are 
protected from discrimination under the law. Workers with diabetes, 
cancer, epilepsy, the very workers for whom the Americans with 
Disabilities Act was intended to protect, can be legally fired or 
passed over for promotion just because of their disability.
  In January, the Education and Labor Committee heard testimony from 
Carey McClure. Although he was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy at age 
15, Carey had been working as an electrician for more than 20 years. 
Like so many other Americans with disabilities, Carey was able to find 
his way to successfully perform his job and all of life's daily tasks 
despite his disability.
  Carey received an initial job offer from General Motors pending a 
physical. During the physical, the doctor asked Carey to hold his arms 
above his head. Carey could not. The doctor asked how he would perform 
his job if it required reaching over his head. Carey gave a commonsense 
answer: he would use a ladder. When General Motors learned that Carey 
had a disability, it rescinded the job offer. Carey challenged General 
Motors' decision because he thought the Americans with Disabilities Act 
would protect him. He was wrong. The court ruled that, since Carey had 
adapted to his condition by modifying the way he performed everyday 
tasks, like washing his hair, he was not disabled; and, therefore, was 
not protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  Because of Supreme Court rulings, Carey and many others are now 
caught in a legal Catch-22. The court has determined that, for 
individuals whose disabilities do not ``prevent or severely restrict'' 
major life activities and for those who mitigate their impairments 
through means such as hearings aids or with medications, they should 
not be considered disabled.
  In other words, an employer could fire or refuse to hire a fully 
qualified worker simply on the basis of his or her disability, while 
maintaining in court that the worker was not ``disabled enough'' to 
qualify for protection under the law.
  H.R. 3195, the legislation before us today, a bipartisan legislation, 
was introduced by Majority Leader Hoyer and Congressman Jim 
Sensenbrenner, and it remedies this problem. The bill reverses the 
flawed court decision and restores the original congressional intent of 
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  H.R. 3195 clarifies the definition of a ``disability,'' ensuring that 
anyone with a physical or with a mental impairment that materially 
restricts a major life activity is covered under ADA.
  In 2004, workers with disabilities lost 97 percent of the employment 
cases that went to trial. There has been no balance in the courts, 
putting workers at a distinct disadvantage. Too often, these cases have 
turned solely on the question of whether someone is an individual with 
a disability; too rarely have courts considered the merits of the 
discrimination claim itself.
  H.R. 3195 stops the erosion of civil rights protections for people 
with disabilities while maintaining a reasonable solution supported by 
the business community.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce states that H.R. 3195 ``represents a 
balanced approach to ensure appropriate coverage under ADA.''
  The Human Resource Policy Association, whose members employ 12 
percent of the U.S. private-sector workforce, also supports the bill. 
The organization says that the ADA amendment ``would maintain the 
functionality of the workplace while providing important protections to 
individuals with disabilities.''
  H.R. 3195 makes it clear that the Americans with Disabilities Act 
protects anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of disability and 
that Congress intended the law to be constructed broadly.
  Many of our Nation's injured veterans returning from the battlefield 
will also need the protections guaranteed by the ADA. When injured 
soldiers return to civilian life, whether they go back to a job or to 
school, they should not be subject to discrimination. This legislation 
will ensure that they will not have to fight another battle, this time 
for their economic livelihood.
  The Supreme Court rulings have also reduced protections for students 
with disabilities. The ADA Amendments Act ensures that students with 
physical and mental impairments will be free from discrimination and 
that they will have access to the accommodations and to the 
modifications they need to successfully pursue an education.
  This legislation has broad support: Democrats and Republicans, 
businesses and advocates for individuals with disabilities. I am 
pleased we were able to work together to get to this point.
  It is time to restore the original intent of the ADA and to ensure 
that the tens of millions of Americans with disabilities who want to 
work and to attend school and to participate in our communities will 
have the chance to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Again, I would like to give a special thanks to Majority Leader Hoyer 
of Maryland and to Representative Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin for 
their outstanding efforts on behalf of the Members of this House during 
these negotiations, to bring those negotiations between the civil 
rights community, the disabilities community, and the employer 
community to a successful conclusion, which is embodied in this 
legislation today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to associate myself with the remarks that Chairman Miller just 
made of thanking Leader Hoyer and Mr. Sensenbrenner for the work that 
they began in the last Congress and persevered to bring us to this 
point today.
  The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990 with broad 
bipartisan support. Among the bill's most important purposes was the 
protecting of individuals with disabilities from discrimination in the 
workplace.
  By many measures, the law has been a success. I firmly believe that 
the employer community has taken the ADA to heart with businesses 
adopting policies specifically aimed at providing meaningful 
opportunities to individuals with disabilities.
  However, despite the law's many success stories, it is clear today 
that, for some, the ADA is failing to live up to its promise. For 
example, the Education and Labor Committee heard testimony earlier this 
year from individuals who, I would stipulate, were intended to be 
covered under the original ADA. But in a perverse fashion, someone who 
was able to treat the effects of his or her disability through 
medication or technology was left without protection because they 
weren't ``disabled'' enough.
  I don't think that is what the authors of the original ADA intended. 
I don't believe it is what we intend today, and I am glad that the bill 
before us addresses and corrects this issue.
  Madam Speaker, we are here today because some individuals have been 
left outside the scope of the act's protections by court cases and by 
narrow interpretations of the law. Still, others have sought to 
massively expand the law's protections, an equally dangerous 
proposition.
  Our task with this legislation is to focus relief where it is needed, 
while still maintaining the delicate balance embodied in the original 
ADA.
  In the months since this bill was first introduced, I am pleased to 
say we were able to do so. Because the ADA extends its protections to 
so many facets of American life, there were four separate committees 
with the responsibility for moving the process forward. Equally 
important, this compromise was forged with representatives of many of 
the stakeholders who will be

[[Page H6063]]

affected by this bill. It was truly a process of give-and-take.
  For instance, even as we work to ensure the law's protections are 
extended to some who are currently excluded, such as those I mentioned 
earlier who were wrongly considered to be not ``disabled enough,'' we 
define that expansion cautiously. Through the carefully crafted 
language of the bill, we will ensure, for example, that someone is not 
``disabled'' under the ADA simply because he or she wears eyeglasses or 
contact lenses. That's an important limitation, and it is necessary to 
maintaining the intent and integrity of the ADA.
  Also importantly, this version of the legislation maintains a 
requirement of the ADA, which is that, to be considered a disability, a 
physical or a mental impairment must ``substantially limit'' an 
individual.
  As introduced, H.R. 3195 threatened to gut any meaningful limitation 
on the ADA by simply calling any impairment, no matter how trivial or 
minor, a disability. That was not the intent of Congress in 1990, nor 
should it be today.
  Madam Speaker, I support this bill, not because I think it is perfect 
but because I think it represents our best efforts to ensure that 
meaningful relief will be extended to those most in need, while the 
ADA's careful balance is maintained as fully as possible.
  In recognition of that achievement, let me simply thank my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle for honoring our shared commitment to work 
together on this issue that has the potential to touch the lives of 
millions of Americans. And I also want to thank all of the people who 
worked so hard--the members of the community most affected by this--and 
thank them for their efforts and patience in working with us.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the ADA 
Amendments Act, and I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to 
recognize the fact that this act is championed by my good friend and 
colleague from Maryland, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

                              {time}  1630

  This crucial legislation would not have been possible without his 
leadership and that of Mr. Sensenbrenner and so many of my other 
colleagues, and I thank all of them for their tireless efforts to 
ensure the continued inclusion and protection of people with 
disabilities in our society.
  I would also like to extend my gratitude to all of the advocates of 
disability and business communities who have united behind this 
important cause and worked diligently with Members of Congress to 
ensure a fair and strong compromise.
  The American Disabilities Act, or ADA, was truly one of the most 
significant pieces of civil rights legislation of the 20th century. As 
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 transformation this law has created in our society.
  I remember well what it was like before the passage of the ADA and 
where accommodations were seen as personal courtesies or privileges as 
opposed to a civil right. I can remember what it was like coming down 
to Washington as a young intern for Senator Pell from Rhode Island and 
how challenging it was to find good, reasonable public accommodations. 
And I remember what it was like in Rhode Island before the ADA was 
passed in terms of voting, and I was not able to vote independently on 
my own. I had to have help in the voting machine. And it wasn't until 
after the ADA was passed and I became Secretary of State and changed 
our election system that it was truly possible to vote independently on 
my own.
  The ADA has broken down countless barriers and helped millions of 
Americans to flourish in their personal and professional lives. It has 
also served as a vital tool against discrimination in the workplace and 
in public life. Unfortunately, a number of court decisions over the 
years have diluted the definition of what constitutes a disability, 
effectively limiting the ADA's coverage and excluding from its 
protections people with diabetes, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, and 
various developmental disabilities.
  The bill before us today reaffirms the protections of the ADA and 
renews our promise of equality for every American. The ADA has as its 
fundamental goal the inclusion of people in all aspects of society, and 
I am very pleased to say that the ADA Amendments Act brings us one step 
closer to that goal.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send a strong message 
that discrimination in any form will never be tolerated in this great 
Nation.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I would like to thank the chairman for the time and for 
this legislation that is bipartisan.
  When Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act nearly two 
decades ago, we did so to ensure that persons with disabilities can 
learn, work, and live their lives just like everyone else. People with 
disabilities just want the same opportunities as everyone else. And if 
their disabilities can be reasonably accommodated, we must make it 
possible and make sure that they are given the chance to do so.
  By saying that people with disabilities who use medication or 
prosthetics to manage their disabilities are no longer considered 
disabled under the ADA Act, the courts have prevented many with 
disabilities from receiving the protections Congress intended for them.
  H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act, would ensure that the ADA protects 
all people with disabilities from workplace discrimination by 
clarifying the definition of discrimination. This bill further 
clarifies that individuals who are able to manage their disabilities 
enough to participate in major life activities, like holding a job, 
should still be entitled to protections from discrimination.
  The ADA was passed to ensure that all people with disabilities have 
equal access and opportunities, and it's time that we bring back its 
original intent. Today we can do that. It's a matter of doing what is 
right.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act of 
2008.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my chairman for yielding.
  I would like to thank and congratulate him and Mr. McKeon and Mr. 
Sensenbrenner and others for their hard work on this. Mr. Hoyer in 
particular.
  Words have meaning. And when the original Americans with Disabilities 
Act was enacted, the word ``disability'' had a commonsense meaning. It 
meant if someone had a substantial impairment, mentally or physically, 
that would interfere with their ability to do something important, that 
was a disability. I think a hundred of Americans, if you stopped them 
on the street and asked them if they agreed with that, they would say 
``yes.'' Unfortunately, not enough of those Americans served on the 
United States Supreme Court, and we wound up with a tortured rendition 
of the definition of ``disability'' where people that we clearly would 
think were disabled were excluded from the protections of this law.
  The authors of this bill worked long and hard to clear up that 
confusion and strike the right balance between the opportunities of 
Americans with disabilities and a fair set of ground rules for 
employers and other institutions in our society. I believe this 
legislation clearly strikes the right balance.
  Something else is very important, too. It liberates the talents of 
people who have been heretofore kept out of the workplace and out of 
other institutions: the person in a wheelchair who might be the best 
computer programmer, the blind person who might be the best financial 
analyst, the person with tuberculosis who might be the best financial 
planner or health care technician. The talents of these individuals 
have too often been kept out of the fray.

[[Page H6064]]

  This bill will put them back in the fray, put them back on the 
playing field and help not only Americans with a disability but all of 
us who will benefit from the liberation of their talent.
  I congratulate the authors and urge a ``yes'' vote on this necessary 
and important piece of legislation.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield at this time to the 
Republican whip, who was so important in getting this bill here to the 
floor, such time as he may consume, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I am grateful to the gentleman for yielding 
me the time and the hard work he and Mr. Sensenbrenner have done to 
bring this bill to this point.
  Certainly, this bill does a lot to restore the original intention of 
the Congress as to what the Congress had hoped at the time that the 
Americans with Disabilities Act would be. I am pleased to be a 
cosponsor of the bill that's on the floor today. I think it strikes the 
right balance between protection for individuals with disabilities and 
the obligations of the requirements of employers themselves.
  Ultimately, that partnership is the partnership that makes the most 
of people in the workplace and the skills they bring to the workplace. 
This ensures that people with disabilities, whom the Congress intended 
to cover by the original Americans with Disabilities Act long before I 
came to Congress, are now covered, as I understand it, by these 
changes, and that's important. It is better when there is a conflict 
between the courts and the Congress for the Congress to come back and 
say, ``No, that's not what we meant. This is what we meant, and this is 
what we hope to happen in the country.''
  This prohibits consideration of mitigating circumstances in the 
determination of whether an individual has a disability. Of course, it 
continues to allow the normal eyeglasses and contacts and things like 
that as an exception in those circumstances.
  Most of all, Madam Speaker, this bill puts people to work. This bill 
creates opportunity. This bill creates a workplace where the skills 
people can bring to the workplace are maximized, not minimized, where 
what they add to the total product of America makes America a more 
productive country and for them establishes a totally different set of 
goals, a set of aspirations, a set of ways that they look at the world 
every day and brings their skills in new ways to the workplace.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same and think that the approach we've taken here 
of the Congress itself going back and trying to clarify what the 
Congress meant is certainly better than letting the court determine 
perpetually what the Congress intended to do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, does the gentleman 
from California have any further speakers?
  Mr. McKEON. We have one more. They're not here yet. I reserve my 
time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If we can reserve our time and let 
Judiciary go ahead and start using their time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) 
continues to reserve, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) continues to reserve.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  It is a pleasure to join the Education and Labor Committee. I would 
like to begin by recognizing the chairman of the Constitution Committee 
on Judiciary which held the hearings on the bill in the Judiciary 
Committee. I yield, therefore, to the gentleman from New York, Jerry 
Nadler, for 3 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished majority leader 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as well as the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Education 
and Labor Committee for their leadership on this important legislation.
  This bill would help to restore the Americans with Disabilities Act 
to its rightful place among this Nation's great civil rights laws.
  This legislation is long overdue. Countless Americans with 
disabilities have already been deprived of the opportunity to prove 
that they have been victims of discrimination, that they are qualified 
for a job, or that a reasonable accommodation would afford them an 
opportunity to participate fully at work and in community life.
  This bill fixes the absurd Catch-22 created by the Supreme Court in 
which an individual can face discrimination on the basis of an actual 
past or perceived disability and yet not be considered sufficiently 
disabled to be protected against that discrimination by the ADA. That 
was never Congress' intent, and this bill cures this problem.
  Some of my colleagues from across the aisle have raised concerns that 
this bill might cover minor or trivial conditions. They worry about 
covering stomachaches, the common cold, mild seasonal allergies, or 
even a hangnail. I have yet to see a case where the ADA covered an 
individual with a hangnail. But I have seen scores of cases where the 
ADA was construed not to cover individuals with cancer, epilepsy, 
diabetes, severe intellectual impairment, HIV, muscular dystrophy, and 
multiple sclerosis.
  These people have too often been excluded because their impairment, 
however serious or debilitating, was mischaracterized by the courts as 
temporary or its impact considered too short-lived and not permanent 
enough.
  That's what happened to Mary Ann Pimental, a nurse with breast cancer 
who challenged her employer's failure to rehire her into her position 
when she returned from treatment. Ms. Pimental was told by the court 
that her cancer was not a disability and that she was not covered by 
the ADA. The court recognized that ``there is no question that her 
cancer has dramatically affected her life, and that the associated 
impairment has been real and extraordinarily difficult for her and her 
family.'' Yet the court still denied her coverage because it 
characterized the impact of her cancer ``short-lived''--meaning that it 
``did not have a substantial lasting effect'' on her.
  Mary Ann Pimental died as a result of her breast cancer 4 months 
after the court issued its decision. I am sure that her husband and two 
children disagreed with the court that her cancer was short-lived and 
not sufficiently permanent.
  This bill ensures that individuals like Mary Ann Pimental are covered 
by the law when they need it. The bill requires the courts--and the 
Federal agencies providing expert guidance--to lower the burden for 
obtaining coverage under this landmark civil rights law. This new 
standard is not onerous and is meant to reduce needless litigation over 
the threshold question of coverage.
  It is our sincere hope that, with the passage of this bill, we will 
finally be able to focus on the important questions: Is an individual 
qualified? Might a reasonable accommodation afford that person the same 
opportunities that his or her neighbors enjoy?
  I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of 
H.R. 3195 as reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. I thank 
everyone associated with its passage.
  Madam Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished majority leader 
and gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for their leadership 
on this important legislation.
  H.R. 3195 would help to restore the Americans with Disabilities Act 
to its rightful place among this Nation's great civil rights laws.
  This legislation is necessary to correct Supreme Court decisions that 
have created an absurd Catch-22 in which an individual can face 
discrimination on the basis of an actual, past, or perceived disability 
and yet not be considered sufficiently disabled to be protected against 
that discrimination by the ADA. That was never Congress's intent, and 
H.R. 3195 cures this problem.
  H.R. 3195 lowers the burden of proving that one is disabled enough to 
qualify for coverage. It does this by directing courts to read the 
definition broadly, as is appropriate for remedial civil rights 
legislation. It also redefines the term ``substantially limits,'' which 
was restrictively interpreted by the courts to set a demanding standard 
for qualifying as disabled. An individual now must show that his or her 
impairment ``materially restricts'' performance of major life 
activities. While the impact of the impairment must still be important, 
it need not severely or significantly restrict one's ability to engage 
in those activities central to most people's daily lives, including 
working.

[[Page H6065]]

  Under this new standard, for example, it should be considered a 
material restriction if an individual is disqualified from his or her 
job of choice because of an impairment. An individual should not need 
to prove that he or she is unable to perform a broad class or range of 
jobs. We fully expect that the courts, and the Federal agencies 
providing expert guidance, will revisit prior rulings and guidance and 
adjust the burden of proving the requisite ``material'' limitation to 
qualify for coverage.
  This legislation is long overdue. Countless Americans with 
disabilities have already been deprived of the opportunity to prove 
that they have been victims of discrimination, that they are qualified 
for a job, or that a reasonable accommodation would afford them an 
opportunity to participate fully at work and in community life.
  Some of my colleagues from across the aisle have raised concerns that 
this bill would cover ``minor'' or ``trivial'' conditions. They worry 
about covering ``stomach aches, the common cold, mild seasonal 
allergies, or even a hangnail.''
  I have yet to see a case where the ADA covered an individual with a 
hangnail. But I have seen scores of cases where the ADA was construed 
not to cover individuals with cancer, epilepsy, diabetes, severe 
intellectual impairment, HIV, muscular dystrophy, and multiple 
sclerosis.
  These people have too often been excluded because their impairment, 
however serious or debilitating, was mis-characterized by the courts as 
temporary, or its impact considered too short-lived and not permanent 
enough--although it was serious enough to cost them the job.
  That's what happened to Mary Ann Pimental, a nurse who was diagnosed 
with breast cancer after being promoted at her job. Mrs. Pimental had a 
mastectomy and underwent chemotherapy and radiation therapy. She 
suffered radiation burns and premature menopause. She had difficulty 
concentrating, and experienced extreme fatigue and shortness of breath. 
And when she felt well enough to return to work, she discovered that 
her job was gone and the only position available for her was part-time, 
with reduced benefits.
  When Ms. Pimental challenged her employer's failure to rehire her 
into a better position, the court told her that her breast cancer was 
not a disability and that she was not covered by the ADA. The court 
recognized the ``terrible effect the cancer had upon'' her and even 
said that ``there is no question that her cancer has dramatically 
affected her life, and that the associated impairment has been real and 
extraordinarily difficult for her and her family.''
  Yet the court still denied her coverage under the ADA because it 
characterized the impact of her cancer as ``short-lived''--meaning that 
it ``did not have a substantial and lasting effect'' on her.
  Mary Ann Pimental died as a result of her breast cancer 4 months 
after the court issued its decision. I am sure that her husband and two 
children disagree with the court's characterization of her cancer as 
``short-lived,'' and not sufficiently permanent.
  This House should also disagree--and does--as is shown by the broad 
bipartisan support for H.R. 3195.
  H.R. 3195 ensures that individuals like Mary Ann Pimental are covered 
by the law when they need it. It directs the courts to interpret the 
definition of disability broadly, as is appropriate for remedial civil 
rights legislation. H.R. 3195 requires the courts--and the Federal 
agencies providing expert guidance--to lower the burden for obtaining 
coverage under this landmark civil rights law. This new standard is not 
onerous, and is meant to reduce needless litigation over the threshold 
question of coverage.
  It is our sincere hope that, with less battling over who is or is not 
disabled, we will finally be able to focus on the important questions--
is an individual qualified? And might a reasonable accommodation afford 
that person the same opportunities that his or her neighbors enjoy.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of H.R. 3195, 
as reported unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, 18 years have passed since President George H.W. Bush 
signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law. While that bill 
struck down many barriers affecting disabled Americans, its potential 
has yet to be realized. This is due to a number of Supreme Court 
decisions that have restricted ADA coverage for people suffering from 
illnesses such as diabetes, epilepsy, and cancer, to name a few. Today, 
this House takes the first step to finally secure the full promise of 
the original bill.
  The bill that the House is voting on this afternoon has undergone a 
number of changes since I first introduced it in the 109th Congress. 
Today's ADA Amendments Act of 2008 is a compromise that has the support 
of a broad and balanced coalition. Business groups such as the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the HR Policy Association, and the National 
Association of Manufacturers all back this bill. In addition, advocates 
for the disability community, including the American Association of 
People with Disabilities, the Epilepsy Foundation, and the National 
Disability Rights Network, join in support.
  Majority Leader Hoyer and I introduced the ADA Restoration Act last 
summer. We did so to enable disabled Americans utilizing the ADA to 
focus on the discrimination that they have experienced rather than 
having to first prove that they fall within the scope of the ADA's 
protection. Today's bill makes it clear that Congress intended the 
ADA's coverage to be broad and to cover anyone who faces unfair 
discrimination because of a disability. To that end, we are submitting 
for the Record a statement outlining our legal intent and analysis of 
the new definition, as changed by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
  The ADA Amendments Act makes changes to the original ADA, the primary 
one being that it will be easier for people with disabilities to 
qualify for protection under the ADA. This is done by establishing that 
the definition of disability is to be interpreted broadly. Another 
important change clarifies that the ameliorative efforts of mitigating 
measures are not to be considered in determining whether a person has a 
disability. This provision eliminates the Catch-22 that currently 
exists, as described by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), where 
individuals subjected to discrimination on the basis of their 
disabilities are unable to invoke the ADA's protections because they 
are not considered people with disabilities when the effects of their 
medication or other interventions are considered.
  It is important to note that this bill is not one-sided. It is a fair 
product that is workable for employers and businesses. The bill 
contains the requirement that an impairment be defined as one that 
substantially limits a major life activity in order to be considered a 
disability. There is also an exception in the mitigating measures 
provision for ordinary eyeglasses and contact lenses. Further, the bill 
excludes from coverage impairments that are transitory and minor.
  The ADA has been one of the most effective civil rights laws passed 
by Congress. Its continued effectiveness is paramount to ensuring that 
the transformation that our Nation has undergone and continues in the 
future and that the guarantees and promises on which this country was 
established continue to be recognized on behalf of all of its citizens.
  I appreciate Majority Leader Hoyer's efforts to bring the ADA 
Amendments Act to the floor, and I encourage my colleagues to vote in 
favor of it.
  Finally, I'd like to pay tribute to my wife, Cheryl, who is the 
national chairman of the board of the American Association for People 
with Disabilities. Her tireless efforts have really spread the word 
amongst many Members of this House and a few of the other body that 
this legislation is necessary so that people like her do not have 
barriers in terms of seeking employment. And I appreciate, also, my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle listening to her, even when they 
didn't have a choice.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the 
distinguished majority leader, who was an original sponsor of the bill 
some 18 years ago, for 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee for yielding, and I thank him for his efforts.
  I want to thank his staff, as well, who have been extraordinary. 
Heather, in particular, has had her virtues regaled by Dr. Abouchar of 
my staff, and I thank her.
  I want to thank Jim Sensenbrenner. I want to thank Cheryl, as well, 
who has been an extraordinary help on the Americans with Disabilities 
Act and with this Restoration Act. She has been a giant in her 
leadership. And I

[[Page H6066]]

want to thank Jim Sensenbrenner, with whom I've worked now for many 
years on this issue, and he has been, of course, a giant, as chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee in years past and one of the senior Members 
of this House, extraordinarily helpful and a partner in this effort.
  I also want to thank Buck McKeon, the ranking member. At the time we 
testified, he said, you know, we want to see this pass but we want to 
work together and make sure we can all be for it. And I assured him 
that we would do that, and I was pleased today that he said, in fact, 
we had done that. And I think the result that we will see in the vote 
will show that clearly. And I thank him for his work and effort and 
good faith in working towards a bill that we could all support.
  I want to thank George Miller, the chairman of the Education and 
Labor Committee, whose committee had primary jurisdiction over this 
bill, for his efforts in assuring that this bill moves forward.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a list of 
people, particularly in the disabilities community and also in the 
business community, who spent countless hours, days, weeks and, yes, 
even months trying to come to an agreement on a bill that both the 
business community and the disability community would feel comfortable 
with. We have accomplished that, but it was the work of these people as 
well who did that, and I would submit this at this time in the Record 
to thank them for their efforts and their success which they are so 
responsible for today.

                          People to Recognize

       Chai Feldblum, Georgetown University; Former U.S. Rep. Tony 
     Coelho; Former U.S. Rep. Steve Bartlett; Sandy Finucane, 
     Epilepsy Foundation; Andy Imparato, American Association of 
     People with Disabilities; Randy Johnson, Mike Eastman, U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce; John Lancaster, National Council on 
     Independent Living; Mike Peterson, HR Policy Association; 
     Curt Decker, National Disability Rights Network;
       Jeri Gillespie, Ryan Modlin, National Association of 
     Manufacturers; Nancy Zirkin, Lisa Borenstein, Leadership 
     Conference on Civil Rights; Mike Aitken, Mike Layman, Society 
     for Human Resource Management; Abby Bownas, American Diabetes 
     Association; Jennifer Mathis, Bazelon Center for Mental 
     Health Law; Kevin Barry, Georgetown University; Jim Flug, 
     Georgetown University; Claudia Center, Employment Law Center; 
     Shereen Arent, American Diabetes Association; Brian East, 
     Advocacy Inc.
  Madam Speaker, 18 years ago next month, the first President Bush 
signed into law one of the most consequential pieces of civil rights 
legislation in recent memory, in over a quarter of a century in fact. 
In the ceremony on the south lawn of the White House President Bush 
said this:
  ``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, President Bush was right. Those doors have, in 
fact, 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, or offices; the right to 
prove themselves in the workplace, to succeed on their talent and drive 
alone.
  We all understand why there are cuts in the sidewalk at every street 
corner, kneeling buses on our city streets, elevators on the Metro, 
ramps at movie theaters, and accessible restrooms and handicapped 
parking almost everywhere. By now, they have become part of our lives' 
fabric. And we wouldn't have it, I think, any other way, because each 
one is the sign of a pledge, the promise of an America that excludes 
none of its people from our shared life and opportunities.
  That was the promise of the ADA. That was the promise of the ADA that 
President George Bush signed on July 26, 1990. But looking back 18 
years, the hard truth is that we were, in some ways, perhaps too 
optimistic.
  The door President Bush spoke of is still not entirely open, and 
every year, millions of us are caught on the wrong side. In 
interpreting the law over these 18 years, the courts have consistently 
chipped away at Congress' very clear intent, and I know what the intent 
was because I was there as so many of you were.
  I know that many of my colleagues were as well, and I know that they 
share my disappointment in a series of narrow rulings that have had the 
effect of excluding millions of Americans from the law's protection for 
no good reason. We said we wanted broad coverage for people with 
disabilities and people regarded as disabled, but the courts narrowed 
that coverage with a ``strict and demanding standard,'' a severely 
restrictive measure that virtually excluded entire classes of people, 
even though we had specifically mentioned their impairments as objects 
of the law's protections.
  Civil rights acts have historically been urged to be interpreted 
liberally to accomplish their objective of protecting the rights of 
individuals. Unfortunately, in this instance, the courts did not follow 
that premise.
  We never expected that people with disabilities who worked to 
mitigate their conditions would have their efforts held against them. 
Imagine, somebody with epilepsy who takes medication to preclude 
seizures would be told that we're not going to hire you because you 
have epilepsy, but then be told by the court that that was not 
discrimination because prescription drugs mitigated the ability or the 
disability that you had. No one on this floor would have thought in 
their wildest assertions that that would be an interpretation.
  The courts did exactly that, however, throwing their cases out on the 
grounds that they were no longer disabled enough to suffer 
discrimination. The discrimination, of course, was determining that 
somebody had epilepsy, and notwithstanding their ability to perform the 
job in question, that they would not be hired. That is the essence of 
discrimination.
  That is what we sought to preclude, and I want to again congratulate 
the business community and the disabilities community for coming 
together on legislation that will right that misinterpretation because 
none of what has been held was our intent.
  We are here today because a truly wide coalition--members of the 
disability community ready to claim their equal share, Members of both 
parties who were tired of seeing constituents shut out, and business 
groups eager to unlock new pools of talent--an alliance as broad as the 
one that joined forces to pass the original ADA, has come together to 
help the courts get this right. I know some of them are watching, and I 
want to thank them, through my colleagues and through the Speaker, for 
their efforts.
  With the ADA Amendments Act, we make it clear today that a cramped 
reading of disability rights will be replaced with a definition that is 
broad and fair--fair to the disability community and fair to the 
business community--that those who manage to mitigate their 
disabilities are still subject to discrimination and still entitled to 
redress, and that those regarded as having disability are equally at 
risk and deserve to be equally protected.
  I am proud, Madam Speaker, to have worked for so long with my 
colleague Jim Sensenbrenner, as I said earlier. He has been a leader in 
advancing this legislation, and we've joined together to submit for the 
Record a legal analysis of the bill that we've worked so hard to bring 
to fruition.
  And I want to thank my good friend, former Congressman Tony Coelho 
for originally enlisting me in this effort. Very frankly, Tony is one 
of my very close friends, and when he left the Congress, the ADA had 
not yet been accomplished. But it was his leadership that got it to the 
point where, in fact, we could proceed, and he gave me the 
responsibility of ensuring its passage. Working with George Miller and 
John Conyers and Jim Oberstar and so many others, we were able to 
accomplish that objective. But Tony Coelho was our leader on this 
effort, and very frankly, Madam Speaker, our former whip remains our 
leader today.
  Finally, it is my honor to dedicate this bill to the late Justin 
Dart, the pioneering disability advocate and inspiration behind the 
ADA, as well as to his wife, Yoshiko Dart.
  Madam Speaker, few kinds of discrimination, in all of our history, 
have been more widespread than the exclusion of those with 
disabilities. But it was America, America that passed a pioneering law 
to help end that exclusion. We were the first in the world to do so.

[[Page H6067]]

                              {time}  1700

  We were the world's model on this central challenge to human rights. 
Eighteen years later, we cannot afford to fall behind.
  Let us pass this bill and bring us one step closer to the days when 
the fruits of life in America are at last available to all.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I will yield to my friend.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
and certainly thank him for all his leadership on this bill. But I want 
to thank him on behalf of the Chairs and the ranking members of the two 
committees, you and Mr. Sensenbrenner, for the leadership that you both 
provided throughout these difficult and visionary negotiations to 
restore this act to the place that it should be. I just want to 
publicly, on behalf, I think, of everybody in the Congress, thank you 
and Mr. Sensenbrenner for your leadership on this.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman on behalf of Mr. Sensenbrenner and 
myself, and for all those who have been involved in this effort.

   Joint Statement of Representatives Hoyer and Sensenbrenner on the 
         Origins of the ADA Restoration Act of 2008, H.R. 3195

       On September 29, 2006, we introduced H.R. 6258, entitled 
     the Americans with Disabilities Act Restoration Act of 2006. 
     This bill was a response to decisions of the Supreme Court 
     and lower courts narrowing the group of people whom Congress 
     had intended to protect under the Americans with Disabilities 
     Act (ADA). The Supreme Court had interpreted the ADA to 
     impose a ``demanding'' standard for coverage. It had also 
     held that the ameliorative effects of ``mitigating measures'' 
     that people use to control the effects of their disabilities 
     must be considered in determining whether a person has an 
     impairment that substantially limits a major life activity 
     and is protected by the ADA. This holding was contrary to 
     Congress's stated intent in several committee reports.
       We introduced H.R. 6258, which was designed to reverse 
     these holdings, at the end of the 2006 legislative session. 
     We intended this bill to serve as a marker of our intent to 
     introduce future legislation to address this issue. On July 
     26, 2007, we introduced similar legislation, H.R. 3195, the 
     ADA Restoration Act of 2007, which ultimately garnered over 
     240 cosponsors. A nearly identical bill, S. 1881, was 
     introduced in the Senate on the same day by Senators Harkin 
     and Specter.
       H.R. 3195 as introduced would have amended the ADA to 
     provide protection for any individual who had a physical or 
     mental impairment or a record of such an impairment, or who 
     was treated as having such an impairment. The purpose of this 
     legislation was to restore the intent of Congress to cover a 
     broad group of individuals with disabilities under the ADA 
     and to eliminate the problem of courts focusing too heavily 
     on whether individuals were covered by the law rather than on 
     whether discrimination occurred. The bill as introduced, 
     however, was seen by many as extending the protections of the 
     ADA beyond those that Congress originally intended to 
     provide.
       In order to craft a more balanced bill with broad support, 
     we urged that representatives of the disability and business 
     communities enter into negotiations to try to reach an 
     acceptable compromise. We maintained contact with these 
     communities over the course of their negotiations and 
     supported them in their efforts to understand the needs and 
     concerns of each community. After several months of intensive 
     discussions, negotiators for the two communities reached 
     consensus on a set of protections for people with 
     disabilities that garnered broad support from both 
     communities. These protections would significantly expand the 
     group of individuals protected by the ADA beyond what the 
     courts have held, while at the same time ensuring that the 
     expansion does not extend beyond the original intent of the 
     ADA.
       This compromise formed the basis of the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute for H.R. 3195 that was voted out of 
     the House Education and Labor and Judiciary Committees with 
     overwhelming support on June 18, 2008. The substitute bill 
     was reported out of the Education and Labor Committee by a 
     vote of 43-1, and out of the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 
     27-0.


        The Provisions of the Committee Substitute to H.R. 3195

       The primary purpose of H.R. 3195, as amended by the 
     committee substitute, is to make it easier for people with 
     disabilities to qualify for protection under the ADA. The 
     bill does this in several ways. First, it establishes that 
     the definition of disability must be interpreted broadly to 
     achieve the remedial purposes of the ADA. The bill rejects 
     the Supreme Court's holdings that the ADA's definition of 
     disability must be read ``strictly to create a demanding 
     standard for qualifying as disabled,'' and that an individual 
     must have an impairment that ``prevents or severely restricts 
     the individual from doing activities that are of central 
     importance to most people's daily lives'' in order to qualify 
     for protection. The bill also provides a new definition of 
     ``substantially limits'' to make clear Congress's intent to 
     depart from the standard applied by the Supreme Court in 
     Toyota Motor Mfg. of Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 
     184, 197 (2002), and to apply a lower standard.
       Second, the bill provides that the ameliorative effects of 
     mitigating measures are not to be considered in determining 
     whether a person has a disability. This provision is intended 
     to eliminate the catch-22 that exists under current law, 
     where individuals who are subjected to discrimination on the 
     basis of their disabilities are frequently unable to invoke 
     the ADA's protections because they are not considered people 
     with disabilities when the effects of their medication, 
     medical supplies, behavioral adaptations, or other 
     interventions are considered. The one exception to the rule 
     about mitigating measures is that ordinary eyeglasses and 
     contact lenses are to be considered in determining whether a 
     person has a disability. The rationale behind this exclusion 
     is that the use of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses, 
     without more, is not significant enough to warrant protection 
     under the ADA.
       Third, the bill provides that an impairment that is 
     episodic or in remission is a disability if it would 
     substantially limit a major life activity when active. This 
     provision is intended to reject the reasoning of court 
     decisions concluding that certain individuals with certain 
     conditions--such as epilepsy or post traumatic stress 
     disorder--were not protected by the ADA because their 
     conditions were episodic or intermittent.
       Fourth, the bill provides for broad coverage under the 
     ``regarded as'' prong of the definition of disability. It 
     clarifies that an individual can establish coverage under the 
     ``regarded as'' prong by establishing that he or she was 
     subjected to an action prohibited by the ADA because of an 
     actual or perceived impairment, whether or not the impairment 
     limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity. This 
     provision does not apply to impairments that are both 
     transitory (lasting six months or less) and minor.
       The purpose of the broad ``regarded as'' provision is to 
     reject court decisions that had required an individual to 
     establish that a covered entity perceived him or her to have 
     an impairment that substantially limited a major life 
     activity. This provision is designed to restore Congress's 
     intent to allow individuals to establish coverage under the 
     ``regarded as'' prong by showing that they were treated 
     adversely because of an impairment, without having to 
     establish the covered entity's beliefs concerning the 
     severity of the impairment.
       Impairments that are transitory and minor are excluded from 
     coverage in order to provide some limit on the reach of the 
     ``regarded as'' prong. The intent of this exception is to 
     prevent litigation over minor illnesses and injuries, such as 
     the common cold, that were never meant to be covered by the 
     ADA.
       A similar exception is not necessary for the first two 
     prongs of the definition of disability as the functional 
     limitation requirement adequately prevents claims by 
     individuals with ailments that do not materially restrict a 
     major life activity. In other words, there is no need for the 
     transitory and minor exception under the first two prongs 
     because it is clear from the statute and the legislative 
     history that a person can only bring a claim if the 
     impairment substantially limits one or more major life 
     activities or the individual has a record of an impairment 
     that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
       The bill also provides that a covered entity has no 
     obligation to provide reasonable accommodations, or 
     reasonable modifications to policies, practices or 
     procedures, for an individual who qualifies as a person with 
     a disability solely under the ``regarded as'' prong. Under 
     current law, a number of courts have required employers to 
     provide reasonable accommodations for individuals who are 
     covered solely under the ``regarded as'' prong.
       Fifth, the bill modifies the ADA to conform to the 
     structure of Title VII and other civil rights laws by 
     requiring an individual to demonstrate discrimination ``on 
     the basis of disability'' rather than discrimination 
     ``against an individual with a disability'' because of the 
     individual's disability. We hope this will be an important 
     signal to both lawyers and courts to spend less time and 
     energy on the minutia of an individual's impairment, and more 
     time and energy on the merits of the case--including whether 
     discrimination occurred because of the disability, whether an 
     individual was qualified for a job or eligible for a service, 
     and whether a reasonable accommodation or modification was 
     called for under the law.

[[Page H6068]]

       In exchange for the enhanced coverage afforded by these 
     provisions, the bill contains important limitations that will 
     make the bill workable from the perspective of businesses 
     that are governed by the law. We have already noted some of 
     these limitations: there is an exception in the mitigating 
     measures provision for ordinary eyeglasses and contact 
     lenses, and the ``regarded as'' provision includes two 
     important limitations, as described above.
       Of key importance, the bill retains the requirement that a 
     person's impairment must substantially limit a major life 
     activity in order to be considered a disability. 
     ``Substantially limits'' has been defined as ``materially 
     restricts'' in order to communicate to the courts that we 
     believe that their interpretation of ``significantly limits'' 
     was stricter than we had intended. On the severity spectrum, 
     ``materially restricts'' is meant to be less than ``severely 
     restricts,'' and less than ``significantly restricts,'' but 
     more serious than a moderate impairment which would be in the 
     middle of the spectrum.
       The key point in establishing this standard is that we 
     expect this prong of the definition to be used only by people 
     who are affirmatively seeking reasonable accommodations or 
     modifications. Any individual who has been discriminated 
     against because of an impairment--short of being granted a 
     reasonable accommodation or modification--should be bringing 
     a claim under the third prong of the definition which will 
     require no showing with regard to the severity of his or her 
     impairment. However, for an individual who is asking an 
     employer or a business to make a reasonable accommodation or 
     modification, the bill appropriately requires that the 
     individual demonstrate a level of seriousness of the 
     impairment--that is, that it materially restricts a major 
     life activity.
       The bill also retains the requirement in Title I of the ADA 
     that an individual must be ``qualified'' for the position in 
     question. The original version of H.R. 3195 contained 
     language which could have been interpreted to alter the 
     burden-shifting analysis concerning whether an individual is 
     ``qualified'' under the ADA. The substitute bill makes clear 
     that there was no intent to place a greater burden on the 
     employer and that the burdens remain the same as under 
     current law.


                        Additional Legal Issues

       We would like to clarify the intent of the bill with 
     respect to particular legal issues. First, some higher 
     education trade associations have raised questions about 
     whether the bill will eviscerate academic standards. This 
     bill will have absolutely no effect on the ability of higher 
     education institutions to set academic standards. It 
     addresses only the standards for determining who qualifies as 
     an individual with disability, and not the standards for 
     determining whether an accommodation or modification is 
     required in a particular setting or context. It has always 
     been, and it remains the law today under this bill, that an 
     academic institution need not make modifications that would 
     fundamentally alter the essential requirements of a program 
     of study. The particular concerns of educational institutions 
     in ensuring that students meet appropriate academic standards 
     are, of course, relevant in determining whether a requested 
     modification is reasonable in an educational setting.
       There have been particular concerns with the way that 
     specific learning disabilities have been treated in the 
     academic context, and that individuals are not receiving 
     appropriate accommodations. The Education and Labor Committee 
     Report's discussion of specific learning disabilities is 
     specifically targeted toward the academic setting and not the 
     employment sector.
       Second, a concern has been raised about whether the bill 
     changes current law with respect to the duration that is 
     required for an impairment to substantially limit a major 
     life activity. The bill makes no change to current law with 
     respect to this issue. The duration of an impairment is one 
     factor that is relevant in determining whether the impairment 
     substantially limits a major life activity. Impairments that 
     last only for a short period of time are typically not 
     covered, although they may be covered if sufficiently severe.
       Third, some have raised questions about whether the bill's 
     provisions relating to mitigating measures would require 
     employers to provide certain mitigating measures as 
     accommodations. This bill's provisions are intended to 
     clarify the definition of disability, not to alter current 
     rules on provision of reasonable accommodations.
       Fourth, the bill's language requiring that qualification 
     standards, employment tests, or other selection criteria 
     based on uncorrected vision must be job related for the 
     position in question and consistent with business necessity 
     is not intended to change current interpretations of whether 
     a qualification standard based on a government requirement or 
     regulation is job related for the position in question and 
     consistent with business necessity.
       Passage of the ADA Amendments Act is a great moment in this 
     country's history. We would like to thank all the individuals 
     who worked so hard on these negotiations, and to thank the 
     thousands of individuals and businesses who care about making 
     this country a fair and equitable place for people with 
     disabilities.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, might I inquire of the time that we each 
have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) 
has 13 minutes. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has 7 
minutes. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 6 minutes. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  This measure raises some very interesting questions from the point of 
view of the Judiciary Committee. I begin by noting that the chairman 
emeritus of the Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, had always had 
a very abiding interest in this matter. But we have a curious problem. 
Somebody is going to ask, how could a United States Supreme Court--a 
bill passed overwhelmingly bipartisan in 1990--and then in 1999 
simultaneously give not one or two, but three decisions slamming some 
very fundamental interests that we had when the bill was passed? There 
wasn't anything complicated or ambiguous about the bill that was passed 
in this Congress in 1990. And we are now here fixing the three problems 
that these decisions brought forward.
  ``We prohibit the consideration of measures that might lessen the 
impact of an impairment--medication, insulin, a hearing aid.''
  What kind of persons are on the Supreme Court of the United States 
that have some difficulty understanding that if you have to use a 
hearing aid, that does not lessen the nature of the disability? That's 
earlier than first year law school. I mean, what was going on in the 
majority of the members' minds?
  Second, ``substantially limits'' they've transferred to mean 
``materially restricts'' and instructs the court that these words must 
be interpreted broadly and not restrictively.
  Now the history of civil rights and voter rights law in this Congress 
in the 20th and 21st century deals with the understood directive that 
the law in these cases is to be interpreted generally and liberally, 
and here they did just the opposite. This disability law is essentially 
a civil rights matter, and they chose to ignore that. And so we had to 
correct it. We had to say, Supreme Court, your attention, please. This 
is civil rights law, and so it's not to be interpreted as narrowly as 
you can, but as liberally as you can.
  And then the third thing we chose to correct was the entire notion 
that the disability law covers anyone who either experiences 
discrimination because someone believes them to be disabled, whether 
they are not or whether they actually are. It doesn't make any 
difference. In other words, it is to be liberally interpreted.
  And so we go into a very challenging period of American history with 
an election coming up, and we've got a Supreme Court that we have to 
constantly remind how to interpret civil rights laws. This is not a 
comforting circumstance for your chairman of Judiciary--I don't think 
for the ranking member of Judiciary either, if I might add.
  There are those writing about the Supreme Court these days, and one 
such commentator, Professor Rosen of Georgetown--``Today, however, 
there are no economic populists on the Court, even on the liberal wing. 
Ever since John Roberts was appointed Chief Justice in 2005, the Court 
has seemed only more receptive to business concerns. Forty percent of 
the cases the Court heard last term involved business interests, up 
from around 30 percent in recent years.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 
1 minute.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the chairman of Education and Labor.
  The closing example:
  ``While the Rehnquist Court heard less than one antitrust decision a 
year on average, the Roberts Court has heard seven antitrust cases in 
the first two terms, and all of them were decided in favor of the 
corporate defendants.''

[[Page H6069]]

  Now, look. They must know that some people over here read and review 
their decisions. It means that we have to be even more alert on the 
questions that have brought this measure before the House today for its 
disposal.
  I'm very proud of the bipartisan aspect. I don't want to give too 
much praise to the chairman emeritus of the committee, but he did a 
very good job in this regard.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield now to the gentleman 
from Delaware, ranking member of the K-12 Education Subcommittee, such 
time as he may consume, Mr. Castle.
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for 
yielding. I do rise today in support of the ADA Amendments Act entitled 
H.R. 3195.
  Since 1990, the landmark civil rights legislation, the Americans With 
Disabilities Act--ADA as we know it--has provided numerous benefits. 
Over the last decade, however, people with serious health conditions, 
including diabetes, have faced serious difficulties meeting the 
definition of ``disability'' following the Supreme Court's decision 
that disability must be determined in light of the mitigating measures, 
like insulin, that a person uses.
  These decisions have created a situation where people with serious 
health conditions who use medications and other devices in order to 
work are not considered ``disabled enough'' to be protected by the ADA 
even when they are explicitly denied employment opportunities because 
of that health condition.
  Just briefly, I would like to mention Stephen Orr, a pharmacist from 
Rapid City, South Dakota, who was fired by his employer for taking 
lunch breaks to eat and manage his diabetes. After Stephen lost his 
job, he decided to file a claim under the ADA. The employer responded 
that Stephen did not have a disability because he was able to manage 
his diabetes with insulin and diet. The courts agreed. And this, I'm 
afraid, is only one example.
  H.R. 3195 will remedy this problem. Passage will secure the promise 
of the original ADA and make clear that Congress intended the ADA's 
coverage to be broad, to cover anyone who faces unfair discrimination 
because of a disability. At the same time, it strikes an appropriate 
balance between the needs of individuals with disabilities and those of 
employers.
  I am pleased that H.R. 3195 enjoys the backing of a broad coalition 
of supporters from both the employer and the disability communities. I 
am also proud it has bipartisan support here, and I thank and 
congratulate all those that had anything to do with putting this 
together.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the 
measure.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I recognize now the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Moran) for such time as he may consume.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) for yielding me time today, and I rise in 
support of H.R. 3195.
  In my world, in the way I look at life, all human beings, because 
we're created by the same God, are entitled to respect and dignity. In 
our framework in our country, our Constitution provides that we are 
entitled to certain rights. One of those, as I see it, is the right to 
an opportunity to succeed.
  So I'm pleased that our country, in 1990, this Congress and the 
Senate came together with the passage of the Americans With 
Disabilities Act. And I'm pleased today that we are here to restore 
certain of those rights that were believed to be there under the ADA 
passed in 1990. What this law will do is to require the courts to 
interpret this law in a fair manner.
  We know that all of us are entitled to an opportunity to succeed. And 
I think all of us, as we look at our lives, look just for the chance to 
be judged based upon our own performance. We don't want special rights. 
We all just want to be gauged by people who judge us by what we do and 
how we do it and how well we do it. And so the original law and the 
Restoration Act today, as I see it, establishes that premise that we're 
all entitled to be judged based upon how we perform our tasks.
  I support this legislation and am pleased by what I've heard on the 
floor this afternoon by the way it came about. And I appreciate being 
here to hear the gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished majority 
leader, speak about his sponsorship and authorship of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act.
  One of my predecessors, Bob Dole, served in that similar capacity. 
I'd like to quote my predecessor when he spoke about the ADA and 
indicate that I believe that what he said then should be the words of 
today as well:
  ``This historic civil rights legislation seeks to end the unjustified 
segregation and exclusion of persons with disabilities from the 
mainstream of American life. The ADA is fair and balanced legislation 
that carefully blends the rights of people with disabilities with the 
legitimate needs of the American business community.''
  Madam Speaker, I believe that's what the legislation before us does 
today, and again confirms the right that we all have to be judged based 
upon our ability to perform.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  There are so many individuals who deserve credit for bringing us to 
this point today. I want to recognize Chairman Miller, the leaders of 
the Judiciary, Transportation and Infrastructure, Energy and Commerce 
Committees, and all of our staffs on all of those committees on both 
sides of the aisle and the membership of the leadership on both sides 
of the aisle, and again especially Leader Hoyer and Mr. Sensenbrenner 
for this open, inclusive process.

                              {time}  1715

  The bill is better for it.
  I also want to recognize the stakeholders who came to the negotiating 
table and helped us to reach consensus. It's often said that true 
compromise leaves no one with exactly what they wanted. I expect that 
is the case today. There are those who fear we have expanded the reach 
of the ADA too far, and there are others who would have preferred us to 
go further. But on the whole, we have found common ground that will 
allow us to extend strong, meaningful protection to individuals with 
disabilities without dramatically expanding the law, increasing its 
burdens, or diluting its effectiveness.
  I urge passage of the ADA Amendments Act.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I want to certainly 
thank the staffs of our committees on both sides of the aisle for all 
of their work. They put in a tremendous amount of time and intellectual 
power behind the amendments to the ADA and to put it back in the place 
that it should have after the court decisions damaged the intent and 
the purposes of this act. I certainly want to thank Sharon Lewis of the 
Committee on Education and Labor and Brian Kennedy and Thomas Webb, who 
is with us as an intern, for all of their work.
  I am very proud to be a Member of Congress today and certainly of the 
House of Representatives as we pass this legislation. I was brought to 
the issues around the disability community when I first came to 
Congress, or perhaps a little before that when I was working in the 
State legislature in California by a hardy crew from California who 
were deeply involved in pursuing the civil rights of those with 
disabilities and the constitutional rights of those with disabilities 
and their place in the legislative process, and I want to thank them. 
And that is Judy Heuman from California and known to many; and Ed 
Roberts, a great champion of disability rights, a magnificent person; 
and Hale Zukor, who still resides in Berkeley and continues the battle; 
and Jim Donald, who is a wonderful attorney on behalf of many in the 
disability community; and so many others.
  In my time in Congress, I have watched the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 
and the battle over the 504 regulations; IDEA, at that time Education 
for All Handicapped Children, now IDEA; and the ADA; and today the 
restoration of the ADA to its proper position and power within the law. 
And I think it's a tribute to this Congress. While in many instances we 
have had very controversial fights and there have been eruptions over 
the implementation of these laws, we have continued to march forward 
and ensure the rights of the disabled, for their participation in 
American society. I think so many Members now and so many people in

[[Page H6070]]

our society recognize all that the members of the disability community 
have accomplished, all that they are accomplishing, and all that they 
will accomplish.
  So today when we look at a young child seeking to be enrolled in 
school and to have an opportunity at the content and the curriculum 
that others have and to have the chance to participate in that school 
in a meaningful way and not be put off and sidestepped or in segregated 
classes; when we look at individuals who want to pursue a career, an 
activity, in our society and not be discriminated against; and when we 
now see employers recognizing the talents and the abilities and the 
contributions to be made by individuals with disabilities, we as a 
Nation are far better off, far richer, and far more understanding than 
we were prior to the struggles over these laws. And I hope that all 
Members will share the pride that I do when later on we will be able to 
vote to restore the ADA after the damage done by the court decisions.
  And with that I thank all of my colleagues for their participation in 
this debate.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I think that we have seen in the last hour how the 
framers of the Constitution intended this Congress to work.
  There was a problem. There was a problem that was created by court 
decisions misinterpreting the original intent of Congress when it 
passed the ADA almost 18 years ago. And people who came from diverse 
viewpoints, whether they were in the private sector, citizens with 
disabilities and their advocacy groups, Members of Congress on both 
sides of the aisle have proven in this legislation that they can work 
together and come up with something that is acceptable and beneficial 
to all of the stakeholders. I wish we could do more of that here, and 
maybe this will set a good example to show that the system does work.
  I am going to ask for a rollcall on this legislation, and I hope that 
if this is not a unanimous vote in favor of the bill, it will be so 
overwhelming that people not only on the other side of this Capitol 
building but around the country and around the world will see that 
American democracy and the American legislative process worked for the 
benefit of people.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Majority Leader Hoyer and 
Representative Sensenbrenner for introducing the ADA Restoration Act 
last summer. ``I am a cosponsor of this bill and I am pleased that the 
House is considering this important legislation.
  This July will mark the 18th anniversary of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, ADA. Unfortunately, as testimony before the House 
Committee on Education and Labor made clear in recent years, the 
Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of this law and created a new set 
of barriers for Americans with disabilities. Under this narrow 
interpretation, individuals with diabetes, heart conditions, epilepsy, 
mental retardation, cancer, and many other conditions have been denied 
their rights under the ADA because they are labeled as ``too 
functional'' to be considered ``disabled.''
  This legislation would restore protections for disabled Americans 
under the ADA and I am pleased that the bill we are considering today 
is supported by the disability community as well as the business 
community. This bill will reaffirm the ADA's mandate for the 
elimination of discrimination on the basis of disability and allow the 
ADA to reclaim its place among our Nation most important civil rights 
laws.
  I am proud that my home State of New Jersey has enacted our own 
strong protections against employment discrimination or individuals 
with disabilities. My State's experience belies the claims made by some 
of the bill's opponents that this legislation is overprotective of 
individuals with disabilities.
  In March, I hosted a roundtable discussion in New Jersey with 
representatives of disability organizations and individuals with 
disabilities and with representatives from corporate human resources 
departments. From that discussion, I drew information indicating that 
the Federal legislation is needed and that it could be implemented 
effectively.
  At that discussion I heard from Jack, an employer in my district who 
was hesitant when approached by the ARC of New Jersey about hiring 
individuals with disabilities. Yet, today he now says they are some of 
his best employees.
  Our Nation has come a long way since the passage of the ADA, from 
when the halls of Congress were not even accessible to disabled 
members. But, we have much progress yet to make to ensure that the 
American dream is truly accessible and available to all Americans.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the passage of 
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and to express my support 
for the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
  As a member of the 110th Congress, I am proud to be a cosponsor of 
H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act and to continue the fight to ensure 
equal rights for all disabled citizens. This vital legislation amends 
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to restore the original 
intent of the ADA by clarifying that anyone with impairment, regardless 
of his or her successful use of treatments to manage the impairment, 
has the right to seek reasonable accommodation in their place of work.
  The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 amends the definition of disability so 
that those who were originally intended to be protected from 
discrimination are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
This prevents courts from considering the use of treatment, or other 
accommodations, when deciding whether an individual qualifies for 
protection under the ADA and focuses on whether individuals can 
demonstrate that they were treated less favorably on the basis of 
disability.
  I am proud of the continuing work that is being done for Americans 
with Disabilities and of the strong support that Chicagoans have shown 
for this issue. On July 26, the eighteenth anniversary of its passage, 
the Americans with Disabilities Act is being commemorated by Chicago's 
fifth annual Disability Pride Parade. This display of support 
demonstrates that Chicagoans recognize that passage of the ADA 
Amendments Act of 2008, will allow Americans with disabilities to enjoy 
the freedom and equality that they are guaranteed by the Constitution.
  Madam Speaker, I am honored to commemorate the passage of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3195, the 
Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act.
  In the early 1980's, 64 disability organizations formed a coalition 
known as INVEST, Insure Virginians Equal Status Today, to pass a State 
statute in Virginia to protect individuals with disabilities from 
discrimination. 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. 
It preceded the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, by 5 
years, and many of the key concepts in the Virginia statute formed the 
basis of the ADA.
  Signed in 1985 by former Governor Charles S. Robb, the Virginians 
with Disabilities Act today protects nearly one million State 
residents. 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 in 
employment, education, housing, voting, and places of public 
accommodation.
  Five years later, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was 
enacted to protect all Americans against discrimination on the basis of 
disability. When Congress passed the ADA, Congress adopted the 
definition of disability from section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
1973, a statute that was well litigated and understood.
  Congress expected that under the ADA--just as under the 
Rehabilitation Act--individuals with health conditions that were 
commonly understood to be disabilities would be entitled to protection 
from discrimination. But a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions 
interpreted the ADA in ways that Congress never intended, and over the 
years these decisions have eroded the protections of the statute.
  First, the Court held in 1999 that mitigating measures--including 
prosthetics, medication, and other assistive devices--must be taken 
into account when determining if a person is disabled. Then, in 2002, 
the Court held that a ``demanding standard'' should be applied to 
determining whether a person has a disability. As a result, millions of 
people Congress intended to protect under the ADA--such as those with 
diabetes, epilepsy, intellectual disabilities, multiple sclerosis, 
muscular dystrophy, amputation, cancer and many other impairments--are 
not protected as intended.
  The ADA Amendments Act will restore the ADA to Congress' original 
intent by clarifying that coverage under the ADA is broad and covers 
anyone who faces unfair discrimination because of a disability. The ADA 
Amendments Act:
  Retains the requirement that an individual's impairment substantially 
limits a major life activity in order to be considered a disability, 
and further that an individual must demonstrate that he or she is 
qualified for the job.

[[Page H6071]]

  Would overturn several court decisions to provide that people with 
disabilities not lose their coverage under the ADA simply because their 
condition is treatable with medication or can be addressed with the 
help of assistive technology.
  Includes a ``regarded as'' prong as part of the definition of 
disability which covers situations where an employee is discriminated 
against based on either an actual or perceived impairment. Moreover, 
the proposal makes it clear that accommodations do not need to be made 
to someone who is disabled solely because he or she is ``regarded as'' 
disabled.
  Madam Speaker, the bill before us today is the direct result of 
agreements between the business and disability communities to rectify 
the problem created by the courts, and I applaud the determination and 
hard work, that went into this compromise. The ADA Amendments Act will 
enable individuals with disabilities to secure and maintain employment 
without fear of being discriminated against because of their 
disability. Congress clearly intended to prohibit discrimination 
against all people with disabilities and we will do that by passing 
H.R. 3195.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3195, 
the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which would restore the original intent 
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA.
  The ADA has transformed this country since its enactment in 1990, 
helping millions of Americans with disabilities succeed in the 
workplace, and making essential services such as transportation, 
housing, buildings, and other daily needs more accessible to 
individuals with disabilities. It has been one of the most defining and 
effective civil rights laws passed by Congress.
  Unfortunately, the Federal courts in recent years have slowly chipped 
away at the broad protections of the ADA which has created a new set of 
barriers for many Americans with disabilities. The court rulings have 
narrowed the interpretation of disability by excluding people with 
serious conditions such as epilepsy, diabetes, muscular dystrophy, 
cancer, and cerebral palsy from the protections of the ADA. The ADA 
Amendments Act of 2008 will reestablish these protections and make it 
absolutely clear that the ADA is intended to provide broad coverage to 
protect anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of disability.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is an important step towards restoring the 
original intent of the ADA and helps ensure that all Americans with 
disabilities live as independent, self-sufficient members of our 
society. I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3195, ADA 
Amendments Act of 2008.
  The ADA Amendments Act is a needed step in addressing improper 
judicial interpretation of the original Americans with Disabilities 
Act. Courts interpreted the Act more narrowly than Congress had 
intended resulting in decreased protection under the Act. It is 
especially gratifying that in crafting the legislation before us today 
the disability community was able to come to an agreement with private 
industry on appropriate legislative language.
  More specifically than the legislation at hand, I bring attention to 
the lack of Americans with Disability Act, ADA, compliance in the 
historic Capitol complex, specifically the use of door handles within 
personal House offices.
  The purpose the ADA is to ensure nondiscrimination for persons with 
disabilities including but not limited to public accommodations. The 
ADA specifically states the use of lever operated mechanisms, push-type 
mechanisms, or U-shaped handles are acceptable designs for all to 
operate.
  Enacted in 1990, I believe it is the responsibility of Congress to 
every extent reasonable, to install appropriate usable hardware by all 
those that wish to access the halls of Congress.
  Beginning with my first term in office in 2000, I have made requests 
to have my personal House office located in the Cannon building 
outfitted with ADA appropriate door handles. It is unfortunate that 8 
years after my initial request and 18 years following the enactment of 
the ADA, Congress has chosen to remain out of compliance with the ADA.
  Congress must lead by example by making these buildings accessible to 
all Americans, regardless of disability. I urge you to read my attached 
most recent correspondence requesting this appropriate and necessary 
change.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 2008.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker: I wanted to make you aware of a request 
     that I submitted to the Committee on House Administration for 
     the installation of Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, 
     compliant lever-style door handles in my office, room 211 in 
     the Cannon House Office Building, and throughout the House 
     campus.
       I am concerned that nearly 18 years after the passage of 
     the Act, Congress remains significantly out of compliance. I 
     have attached a copy of my letter to Chairman Robert Brady 
     and Ranking Member Vern Ehlers for your review.
       Thank you for your attention to this important request.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Darrell Issa,
                                               Member of Congress.
       Enclosure.
                                 ______
                                 


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 2008.
     Hon. Robert A. Brady,
     Chairman, Committee on House Administration, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers,
     Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Ehlers: I am writing 
     to request the installation of Americans with Disabilities 
     Act, ADA-compliant lever-style door handles throughout my 
     office, which is 211 Cannon House Office Building. 
     Furthermore, I respectfully request that the committee direct 
     that ADA compliant lever-style door handles be made available 
     to any Member or committee that requests their installation, 
     and that the committee develops a plan to complete the 
     installation of ADA compliant lever-style door handles 
     campus-wide as soon as practicable.
       Enacted by Congress in 1990, and signed into law by 
     President George H.W. Bush, the ADA is historic legislation 
     whose purpose is to ensure nondiscrimination for persons with 
     disabilities in access to employment, public services, public 
     accommodations and telecommunications. According to the 
     Department of Justice publication, ADA Standards for 
     Accessible Design, CFR 28, Part 36, Appendix A, Section 
     4.13.2, ``Handles, pulls, latches, locks and other operable 
     devices on doors shall have a shape that is easy to grasp 
     with one hand and does not require tight grasping, tight 
     pinching, or twisting of the wrist to operate. Lever-operated 
     mechanisms, push-type mechanisms, and U-shaped handles are 
     acceptable designs.''
       It is a travesty that nearly 18 years after its enactment, 
     the Congress remains significantly out of compliance with the 
     ADA. Door handles throughout the House campus remain 
     predominantly twisting; knob-style handles which clearly do 
     not meet the standards outlined by the Act. We set a terrible 
     example by exempting ourselves just because compliance is 
     inconvenient or expensive, when we have compelled the 
     American people by force of law to bear these same expenses 
     and comply with the Act.
       The Capitol is the nation's most prominent public space, 
     with tens of thousands of Americans visiting, and many more 
     thousands working here each day. Making it accessible to all 
     Americans, regardless of disability, should be a priority. I 
     urge the committee to grant my request for the installation 
     of ADA compliant lever-style door handles in my congressional 
     office, to make them available to all Members and committees 
     upon request, and to act with all practicable speed to 
     install lever-style compliant door handles campus-wide.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Darrell Issa,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. RAMSTAD. Madam Speaker, as co-chair of the Bipartisan 
Disabilities Caucus, I rise in strong support of the bill before us, 
the ADA Amendments Act.
  It is a matter of basic justice for every American to have access to 
public accommodations and businesses. And every American deserves the 
opportunity to hold a job, contribute their talents and live with 
dignity and independence.
  That's what the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, of 1990 was all 
about--creating access and equal opportunity for millions of Americans 
with disabilities.
  And that's why the recent court cases that have chipped away at the 
protections of the ADA have been so alarming. This important bill will 
stop the erosion and clarify that people who use adaptive technology to 
cope with their disability still deserve the protection of the ADA.
  People with disabilities have to overcome obstacles every day. It's 
time to remove the legal obstacles to their basic civil rights.
  It's time to tear down the barriers that keep people with 
disabilities from fully participating and sharing their gifts. It's 
time to restore basic justice.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 3195, the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007.'' I wholeheartedly 
support this bill and urge my colleagues to support it also. The 
changes embodied by this Act, that restore the with Disabilities Act of 
1990, ``ADA'', to its original purpose, are long overdue. This is a 
civil rights bill and the rights of the disabled must be restored.
  H.R. 3195, the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007,'' amends the definition 
of ``disability'' in

[[Page H6072]]

the ADA in response to the Supreme Court's narrow interpretation of the 
definition, which has made it extremely difficult for individuals with 
serious health conditions--epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, muscular 
dystrophy, multiple sclerosis and severe intellectual impairments--to 
prove that they qualify for protection under the ADA. The Supreme Court 
has narrowed the definition in two ways: (1) by ruling that mitigating 
measures that help control an impairment like medicine, hearing aids, 
or any other treatment must be considered in determining whether an 
impairment is disabling enough to qualify as a disability; and (2) by 
ruling that the elements of the definition must be interpreted 
``strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.'' 
The Court's treatment of the ADA is at odds with judicial treatment of 
other civil rights statutes, which usually are interpreted broadly to 
achieve their remedial purposes. It is also inconsistent with 
Congress's intent.
  The committee will consider a substitute that represents the 
consensus view of disability rights groups and the business community. 
That substitute restores congressional intent by, among other things: 
disallowing consideration of mitigating measures other than corrective 
lenses, ordinary eyeglasses or contacts, when determining whether an 
impairment is sufficiently limiting to qualify as a disability; 
maintaining the requirement that an individual qualifying as disabled 
under the first of the three-prong definition of ``disability'' show 
that an impairment ``substantially limits'' a major life activity but 
defining ``substantially limits'' as a less burdensome ``materially 
restricts; clarifying that anyone who is discriminated against because 
of an impairment, whether or not the impairment limits the performance 
of any major life activities, has been ``regarded as'' disabled and is 
entitled to the ADA's protection.


                       Background on Legislation

  Eighteen years ago, President George H.W. Bush, with overwhelming 
bipartisan support from the Congress, signed into law the ADA. The act 
was intended to provide a ``clear and comprehensive mandate,'' with 
``strong, consistent, enforceable standards,'' for eliminating 
disability-based discrimination. Through this broad mandate, Congress 
sought to protect anyone who is treated less favorably because of a 
current, past, or perceived disability. Congress did not intend for the 
courts to seize on the definition of disability as a means of excluding 
individuals with serious health conditions from protection; yet this is 
exactly what has happened. A legislative action is now needed to 
restore congressional intent, and ensure broad protection against 
disability-based discrimination.


Court Rulings Have Narrowed ADA Protection, Resulting in the Exclusion 
        of Individuals that Congress Clearly Intended to Protect

  Through a series of decisions interpreting the ADA's definition of 
``disability,'' however, the Supreme Court has narrowed the ADA in ways 
never intended by Congress. First, in three cases decided on the same 
day, the Supreme Court ruled that the determination of ``disability'' 
under the first prong of the definition--i.e., whether an individual 
has a substantially limiting impairment--should be made after 
considering whether mitigating measures had reduced the impact of the 
impairment. In all three cases, the undisputed reason for the adverse 
action was the employee's medical condition, yet all three employers 
argued--and the Supreme Court agreed--that the plaintiffs were not 
protected by the ADA because their impairments, when considered in a 
mitigated state, were not limiting enough to qualify as disabilities 
under the ADA.
  Three years later, the Supreme Court revisited the definition of 
``disability'' in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. 
v. Williams. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that her employer 
discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her disabilities, 
which included carpal tunnel syndrome, myotendonitis, and thoracic 
outlet compression. While her employer previously had adjusted her job 
duties, making it possible for her to perform well despite these 
conditions, Williams was not able to resume certain job duties when 
requested by Toyota and ultimately lost her job. She challenged the 
termination, also alleging that Toyota's refusal to continue 
accommodating her violated the ADA. Looking to the definition of 
``disability,'' the Court noted that an individual ``must initially 
prove that he or she has a physical or mental impairment,'' and then 
demonstrate that the impairment ``substantially limits'' a ``major life 
activity.'' Identifying the critical questions to be whether a 
limitation is ``substantial'' and whether a life activity is ``major,'' 
the court stated that ``these terms need to be interpreted strictly to 
create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.'' The Court 
then concluded that ``substantial'' requires a showing that an 
individual has an impairment ``that prevents or, `` severely restricts 
the individual; and ``major'' life activities, requires a showing that 
the individual is restricted from performing tasks that are ``of 
central importance to most people's daily lives.''

  In the wake of these rulings, disabilities that had been covered 
under the Rehabilitation Act and that Congress intended to include 
under the ADA--serious health conditions like epilepsy, diabetes, 
cancer, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis--have been excluded. Either, 
the courts say, the person is not impaired enough to substantially 
limit a major life activity, or the impairment substantially limits 
something--like liver function--that the courts do not consider a major 
life activity. Courts even deny protection when the employer admits 
that it took adverse action based on the individual's impairment, 
allowing employers to take the position that an employee is too 
disabled to do a job but not disabled enough to be protected by the 
law.
  On October 4, 2007, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 
Rights, and Civil Liberties held a legislative hearing on H.R. 3195, 
the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007.'' Witnesses at the hearing included 
Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer; Cheryl Sensenbrenner, chair, American 
Association of People with Disabilities; Stephen C. Orr, pharmacist and 
plaintiff in Orr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Michael C. Collins, 
executive director, National Council on Disability; Lawrence Z. Lorber, 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Chai R. Feldblum, professor, Georgetown 
University Law Center.
  The hearing provided an opportunity for the Constitution Subcommittee 
to examine how the Supreme Court's decisions regarding the definition 
of ``disability'' have affected ADA protection for individuals with 
disabilities and to consider the need for legislative action. 
Representative Hoyer, one of the lead sponsors of the original act and, 
along with Representative Sensenbrenner, lead House co-sponsor of the 
ADA Restoration Act, explained the need to respond to court decisions 
``that have sharply restricted the class of people who can invoke 
protection under the law and [reinstate] the original congressional 
intent when the ADA passed.'' Explaining Congress's choice to adopt the 
definition of ``disability'' from the Rehabilitation Act because it had 
been interpreted generously by the courts, Representative Hoyer 
testified that Congress had never anticipated or intended that the 
courts would interpret that definition so narrowly:

       [W]e could not have fathomed that people with diabetes, 
     epilepsy, heart conditions, cancer, mental illnesses and 
     other disabilities would have their ADA claims denied because 
     they would be considered too functional to meet the 
     definition of disabled. Nor could we have fathomed a 
     situation where the individual may be considered too disabled 
     by an employer to get a job, but not disabled enough by the 
     courts to be protected by the ADA from discrimination. What a 
     contradictory position that would have been for Congress to 
     take.

  Representative Hoyer, joined by all of the witnesses except Mr. 
Lorber, urged Congress to respond by passing H.R. 3195 to amend the 
definition of ``disability.'' Mr. Lorber, appearing on behalf of the 
Chamber of Commerce, opposed H.R. 3195 as an overly broad response to 
court decisions that accurately reflected statutory language and 
congressional intent.
  Since the subcommittee's hearing, several changes have been made to 
the bill, which are reflected in the substitute that will likely be 
considered by the committee. The substitute, described section-by-
section below, represents the consensus of the disability rights and 
business groups and is supported by, among others, the Chamber of 
Commerce.
  Importantly, section 4 of the bill, amends the definition of 
``disability'' and provides standards for applying the amended 
definition. While retaining the requirement that a disability 
``substantially limits'' a ``major'' life activity under prongs 1 and 2 
of the definition of disability, section 4 redefines ``substantially 
limits'' as ``materially restricts'' to indicate a less stringent 
standard. Thus, while the limitation imposed by an impairment must be 
important, it need not rise to the level of preventing or severely 
restricting the performance of major life activities in order to 
qualify as a disability. Section 4 provides an illustrative list of 
life activities that should be considered ``major,'' and clarifies that 
an individual has been ``regarded as'' disabled, and is entitled to 
protection under the ADA, if discriminated against because of an 
impairment, whether or not the impairment limits the performance of any 
major life activities. Section 4 requires broad construction of the 
definition and prohibits consideration of mitigating measures, with the 
exception of ordinary glasses or contact lenses, in determining whether 
an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.
  I support this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it also.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
3195, the ADA Restoration Act of 2007. I would like to thank the chief 
sponsor of the bill, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and the chairman of 
the Education and Labor Committee, George Miller, for their leadership 
and work on disability rights.

[[Page H6073]]

  Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, 18 years 
ago with overwhelming support from both parties and President George 
H.W. Bush. The intent of Congress was clear: to make this great 
Nation's promise of equality and freedom a reality for Americans with 
disabilities.
  Standing together, leaders from both parties described the law as 
``historic,'' ``landmark,'' an ``emancipation proclamation for people 
with disabilities.'' These were not timid or hollow words. The 
congressional mandate was ambitious: prohibit unfair discrimination and 
require changes in workplaces, public transportation systems, 
businesses, and other programs or services.
  Through this broad mandate, Congress intended to protect anyone who 
is treated less favorably because of a current, past, or perceived 
disability. As with other civil rights laws, Congress wanted to focus 
on whether an individual could prove that he or she had been treated 
less favorably because of a physical or mental impairment. Congress 
never intended for the courts to seize on the definition of 
``disability'' as a means of excluding individuals with serious health 
conditions like epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, HIV, muscular dystrophy, 
and multiple sclerosis from protection under the law.
  Yet this is exactly what has happened. Through a series of decisions 
interpreting the definition of ``disability'' narrowly, the U.S. 
Supreme Court has inappropriately shifted the focus away from an 
employer's alleged misconduct onto whether an individual can first meet 
a ``demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.''
  Millions of Americans who experience disability-based discrimination 
have been or will be denied protection under ADA and barred from 
challenging discriminatory conduct. By passing H.R. 3195, the Congress 
will be able to correct these decisions made by the courts.
  H.R. 3195 would do this by: amending the definition of ``disability'' 
so that individuals who Congress originally intended to protect from 
discrimination are covered under the ADA; preventing the courts from 
considering ``mitigating measures'' when deciding whether an individual 
qualifies for protection under the law; and keeping the focus in 
employment cases on the reason for the adverse action. The appropriate 
question is whether someone can show that he or she was treated less 
favorably ``on the basis of disability'' and not whether an individual 
has revealed enough private and highly personal facts about how he or 
she is limited by an impairment. The bill reminds the courts that--as 
with any other civil rights law--the ADA must be interpreted fairly, 
and as Congress intended.
  As an original cosponsor of H.R. 3195, I believe that it rightfully 
will restore protections for disabled Americans under the landmark ADA, 
one of our Nation's most important civil rights laws.
  I would like to share with you just a few examples of how ADA has 
made a positive impact for individuals with disabilities in my home 
State of Hawaii:
  An 85 year old Honolulu woman, who is both deaf and blind, is able to 
access the public transportation system to visit her husband who 
resides in a long-term care facility far from her home.
  The first ``chirping'' traffic light on the island of Kauai was 
installed at a busy intersection thanks to the work of an advocate for 
the blind.
  The annual Maui County Fair has a special day set aside for people 
with disabilities to participate in the rides and games.
  A Kauai bakery installed a blinking light system on their ovens so 
that a hearing-impaired employee would be notified when her baking was 
complete, thus allowing her to work independently.
  Each year, the Hawaii State Vocational Rehabilitation and Services 
for the Blind Division of the Department of Human Services recognizes 
outstanding clients from the districts they serve. I would like to 
recognize the following 2007 Rehabilitants of the Year: Deanna DeLeon 
of the Big Island, Rogie Yasay Pagatpatan of Maui, Serafin Palomares of 
Kauai, and Tauloa ``Mona'' Pouso`o of Oahu. I would like to include in 
the Congressional Record their stories of success, as each of these 
individuals leads a life of inspiration.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 3195 so we can 
continue to build on the successes of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act. Mahalo (thank you).

    Hawaii Branch 2007 Rehabilitant of the Year, Nominated by Ellen 
             Okimoto, Vocational Rehabilitation Specialist

       Deanna DeLeon came to VR in March 2006 looking for a way to 
     change her life. Deanna faced many challenges in her life. 
     Her past history of abuse led her to the Big Island Drug 
     Court Program. Through this program and with the support of 
     the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Deanna set a goal 
     of becoming successfully employed.
       The combination of her past work experience in the hotel 
     industry and as an administrative assistant qualified her for 
     a position as a tour receptionist with Wyndham Vacation 
     Resorts in June 2006. Deanna's supervisor, Patsy Mecca, 
     stated that Deanna brings positive energy and a bright smile 
     to the team. Deanna has since been promoted to a Gifting 
     Supervisor and continues to work in a job that she so loves.
       Go Forward To Work. Congratulations, Deanna for a job well 
     done.
                                  ____


 Maui Branch 2007 Rehabilitant of the Year, Nominated by Lydia Sheets, 
                  Vocational Rehabilitation Specialist

       Having a disability never stopped Rogie Yasay Pagatpatan 
     from working for long periods of time. Rogie requires 
     assistance in completing applications and interviewing. Each 
     time he needs to look for a new job, he has enlisted the help 
     of his Vocational Rehabilitation Specialist, Lydia Sheets in 
     the Maui Branch Office. Rogie and Lydia have been a 
     successful team for many years. Lydia knows Rogie so well 
     that she has collaborated with employers to help Rogie find 
     and keep jobs.
       Most recently, Lydia helped Rogie obtain a position with 
     the Maui Disposal Company, Inc. He was hired as a sorter at 
     the company's material Recover Facility--a processing plant 
     for recyclable products including plastic, glass, aluminum, 
     and mixed paper. Rogie works with other processors and 
     several supervisors. He has a job that requires teamwork, 
     cooperation, conscientiousness, and tolerance of waste 
     products, outdoor work, environmental factors, and working 
     around moving machinery. Rogie has proven that he can handle 
     the job. With the help of supervisors West Paul and Wendell 
     Parker, Rogie has become a valued employee.
       Rogie's persistence is admirable, and his commitment has 
     impressed his supervisors. He was honored as the ``Employee 
     of the Month'' in June 2007. Rogie's success is due in part 
     to his supportive and patient supervisors, who look at his 
     abilities rather than his limitations.
                                  ____


    Kauai Branch 2007 Rehabilitant of the Year, Nominated by Debra 
                Matsumoto, Employment Service Specialist

       ``Everyone is telling me what I cannot do'', stated Serafin 
     Palomares when we first met in 2001. This made him even more 
     determined to prove ``everyone'' wrong, and together, we 
     proceeded to do just that. After recovering from a stroke, 
     Serafin's goal was to return to his previous employment in 
     the Food & Beverage field. We realized that due to his 
     limitations, he would not be able to perform some of the 
     duties required in a restaurant setting. He could be 
     successful however, if the work environment was modified.
       Serafin enrolled at Kauai Community College and worked 
     toward a degree in culinary arts. School became a lengthy 
     process, involving a lot of creative collaboration between 
     the Instructors, college counselor, and VR. The biggest 
     hurdle was finding an appropriate practicum site. It soon 
     became clear that Serafin would do best working independently 
     at his own pace, building a workstation, and creating a 
     system that would meet his specific needs. When the Piikoi 
     Building Vending Stand in the County Civic Center became 
     available as a practicum site, Serafin leapt at the chance to 
     give it a try . . . and Serafin has never left.
       Upon earning an AS degree in 2005, he decided to make the 
     leap to self-employment. Serafin has managed to create a 
     popular, thriving Vending Stand in the heart of Lihue town. 
     He is renowned for his specialty sandwiches and salads, and 
     the sky's the limit as far as how big he could build his 
     business. Yet, Serafin prefers to keep things small and 
     simple, because for him, it's not about the money as much as 
     it is having a joyful purpose for waking up each day. You can 
     see that he truly enjoys what he does by the bright smile he 
     wears when he greets his customers . . . and that's really 
     what keeps the regulars coming back day after day. 
     Congratulations to Serafin Palomares. Kauai's Outstanding 
     Rehabilitant of the Year.
                                  ____


   Oahu Branch Deaf Services Section 2007 Rehabilitant of the Year, 
  Nominated by Amanda Christian, Vocational Rehabilitation Specialist

       Deaf Services Section is proud to nominate known to his 
     friends and family as ``Mona'', as this year's Outstanding 
     Rehabilitant of the Year. Mona is a deaf person with 
     significant developmental delays and minimal language skills. 
     He is extremely shy; however, he has a heart of gold and a 
     terrific work ethic.
       After graduating from the Hawaii Center for the Deaf and 
     Blind, Mona received kitchen training from Lanakila 
     Rehabilitation Center (LRC) from 2002 until 2006 where he 
     learned food preparation and dishwashing skills. At that 
     time, it was a common belief that Mona would need extended 
     support services in order to maintain competitive employment. 
     With the assistance of LRC, Mona was placed at Red Lobster in 
     November 2006. He received on-the-job training from November 
     2006 until February 2007 with specialized job coaches.
       Mona eventually became comfortable with his work 
     environment and began to make friends with co-workers. He is 
     now confident with his tasks and will help others with their 
     work at any time he sees that they need help. Mona's job 
     duties initially were limited

[[Page H6074]]

     to cleaning the restrooms, bagging linguini and rice, and 
     washing dishes. Mona later proved he was capable of much more 
     and now helps staff with tasks such as mopping the bar area, 
     food prep work, and helping in the storage room. He often 
     arrives at work early and at times, has to be persuaded to 
     leave work at the end of his shift. Upon leaving work, he 
     makes sure to say ``goodbye'' to each one of his co-workers 
     at least once; sometimes twice. Mona's supervisors and co-
     workers report how cherished Mona is and how well he is 
     doing.
       Deaf Services Section is honored and humbled to be able to 
     recognize Mona Pouso'o's hard work and outstanding 
     achievements. He has been an inspiration to us all and will 
     continue to stand out in our minds as the definition of a 
     successfully rehabilitated individual.

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished 
majority leader and gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for 
their leadership on this important legislation.
  H.R. 3195 would help to restore the Americans with Disabilities Act 
to its rightful place among this Nation's great civil rights laws.
  This legislation is necessary to correct Supreme Court decisions that 
have created an absurd catch-22 in which an individual can face 
discrimination on the basis of an actual, past, or perceived disability 
and yet not be considered sufficiently disabled to be protected against 
that discrimination by the ADA. That was never Congress's intent, and 
H.R. 3195 cures this problem.
  H.R. 3195 lowers the burden of proving that one is disabled enough to 
qualify for coverage. It does this by directing courts to read the 
definition broadly, as is appropriate for remedial civil rights 
legislation. It also redefines the term ``substantially limits,'' which 
was restrictively interpreted by the courts to set a demanding standard 
for qualifying as disabled. An individual now must show that his or her 
impairment ``materially restricts'' performance of major life 
activities. While the impact of the impairment must still be important, 
it need not severely or significantly restrict one's ability to engage 
in those activities central to most people's daily lives, including 
working.
  Under this new standard, for example, it should be considered a 
material restriction if an individual is disqualified from his or her 
job of choice because of an impairment. An individual should not need 
to prove that he or she is unable to perform a broad class or range of 
jobs. We fully expect that the courts, and the federal agencies 
providing expert guidance, will revisit prior rulings and guidance and 
adjust the burden of proving the requisite ``material'' limitation to 
qualify for coverage.
  This legislation is long overdue. Countless Americans with 
disabilities have already been deprived of the opportunity to prove 
that they have been victims of discrimination, that they are qualified 
for a job, or that a reasonable accommodation would afford them an 
opportunity to participate fully at work and in community life.
  Some of my colleagues from across the aisle have raised concerns that 
this bill would cover ``minor'' or ``trivial'' conditions. They worry 
about covering ``stomach aches, the common cold, mild seasonal 
allergies, or even a hangnail.''
  I have yet to see a case where the ADA covered an individual with a 
hangnail. But I have seen scores of cases where the ADA was construed 
not to cover individuals with cancer, epilepsy, diabetes, severe 
intellectual impairment, HIV, muscular dystrophy, and multiple 
sclerosis.
  These people have too often been excluded because their impairment, 
however serious or debilitating, was mis-characterized by the courts as 
temporary, or its impact considered too short-lived and not permanent 
enough--although it was serious enough to cost them the job.
  That's what happened to Mary Ann Pimental, a nurse who was diagnosed 
with breast cancer after being promoted at her job. Mrs. Pimental had a 
mastectomy and underwent chemotherapy and radiation therapy. She 
suffered radiation burns and premature menopause. She had difficulty 
concentrating, and experienced extreme fatigue and shortness of breath. 
And when she felt well enough to return to work, she discovered that 
her job was gone and the only position available for her was part-time, 
with reduced benefits.
  When Ms. Pimental challenged her employer's failure to rehire her 
into a better position, the court told her that her breast cancer was 
not a disability and that she was not covered by the ADA. The court 
recognized the ``terrible effect the cancer had upon'' her and even 
said that ``there is no question that her cancer has dramatically 
affected her life, and that the associated impairment has been real and 
extraordinarily difficult for her and her family.''
  Yet the court still denied her coverage under the ADA because it 
characterized the impact of her cancer as ``short-lived''--meaning that 
it ``did not have a substantial and lasting effect'' on her.
  Mary Ann Pimental died as a result of her breast cancer 4 months 
after the court issued its decision. I am sure that her husband and two 
children disagree with the court's characterization of her cancer as 
``short-lived,'' and not sufficiently permanent.
  This House should also disagree--and does--as is shown by the broad 
bipartisan support for H.R. 3195.
  H.R. 3195 ensures that individuals like Mary Ann Pimental are covered 
by the law when they need it. It directs the courts to interpret the 
definition of disability broadly, as is appropriate for remedial civil 
rights to legislation. H.R. 3195 requires the courts--and the federal 
agencies providing expert guidance--to lower the burden for obtaining 
coverage under this landmark civil rights law. This new standard is not 
onerous, and is meant to reduce needless litigation over the threshold 
question of coverage.
  It is our sincere hope that, with less battling over who is or is not 
disabled, we will finally be able to focus on the important questions--
is an individual qualified? And might a reasonable accommodation afford 
that person the same opportunities that his or her neighbors enjoy.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of H.R. 3195, 
as reported unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the Americans with Disabilities 
Act, enacted almost 18 years ago, removed many physical barriers 
disabled people faced in their daily lives. It also helped remove the 
mental barriers that often prevented non-disabled Americans from 
looking beyond wheel chairs and walking canes and seeing disabled 
Americans as the friends and coworkers they are.
  When the ADA was originally enacted in 1990, it was the result of 
bipartisan efforts in Congress. So I am pleased that various interested 
parties have been able to reach agreement on statutory language 
amending the ADA.
  I support the compromise and believe it was reached in good faith. 
However, I do have some concerns regarding how the courts will 
interpret the legislative language we will consider today.
  So let me express what I believe to be the nature and import of this 
legislation.
  First, the common understanding in Congress is that this legislation 
would simply restore the original intent of the ADA by bringing the 
statutory text in line with the legislative history of the original 
ADA.
  That legislative history from both the House Education and Labor and 
the Senate committee reports provided that ``[p]ersons with minor, 
trivial impairments such as a simple infected finger are not impaired 
in a major life activity,'' and consequently those who had such minor 
and trivial impairments would not be covered by the ADA.
  I believe that understanding is entirely appropriate, and I would 
expect the courts to agree with and apply that interpretation. If that 
interpretation were not to hold but were to be broadened improperly the 
judiciary, an employer would be under a Federal obligation to 
accommodate people with stomach aches, a common cold, mild seasonal 
allergies, or even a hangnail.
  So, I want to make clear that I believe that the drafters and 
supporters of this legislation, including me, intend to exclude minor 
and trivial impairments from coverage under the ADA, as they have 
always been excluded.
  Second, the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams 
held that under the original ADA, ``[t]he impairment's impact must also 
be permanent or long term.''
  The findings in the language before us today state that the purpose 
of the legislation is ``to provide a new definition of `substantially 
limits' to indicate that Congress intends to depart from the strict and 
demanding standard applied by the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor 
Manufacturing.''
  I understand that this finding is not meant to express disagreement 
with or to overturn the Court's determination that the ADA apply only 
to individuals with impairments that are permanent or long term in 
impact.
  If these understandings of the language before us today do not 
prevail, the courts may be flooded with frivolous cases brought by 
those who were not intended to be protected under the original ADA.
  If that happens, those who would have been clearly covered under the 
original ADA, such as paralyzed veterans or the blind, will be forced 
to wait in line behind thousands of others filing cases regarding minor 
or trivial impairments. I don't believe anyone supporting this new 
language wants that to happen, and I want to make that clear for the 
record.
  With the understandings I have expressed, I support the Americans 
with Disabilities Act Restoration Act.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1299, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.

[[Page H6075]]

  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam 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.

                          ____________________