[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 129 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7956-S7959]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Enzi, Mr. 
Specter, Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Gregg, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
Alexander, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Coleman, Mr. 
Feingold, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Burr, Mr. Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. 
Durbin, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Warner, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
Brownback, Mr. Reed, Mr. Martinez, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Isakson, Mr. 
Casey, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Bennett, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Collins, 
Mr. Biden, Mr. Allard, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Cardin, 
Mr. Thune, Mr. Levin, Mr. Barrasso, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
Schumer, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Tester, Mr. 
Cochran, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Chambliss):
  S. 3406. A bill to restore the intent and protections of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; read the first time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Hatch, 
Obama, and McCain in introducing the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. This 
bipartisan legislation will allow us to advance and fulfill the 
original promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was 
signed into law 18 years ago this month.
  I am especially grateful to the distinguished senior Senator from 
Utah, Senator Hatch, for his partnership and leadership in helping to 
craft our bill here in the Senate and to Senator Kennedy for his 
career-long leadership in fighting for the rights of people with 
disabilities. Senator Kennedy has worked from the beginning to help 
craft this bill.
  This bill is similar to bipartisan legislation introduced in the 
other body by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Congressman Jim 
Sensenbrenner. That bill passed by a 402-17 margin last month.
  I am also grateful that, from the outset, these bills have been 
conceived and crafted in a spirit of genuine bipartisanship, with 
members of both parties coming together to do the right thing for all 
Americans with disabilities.
  Of course, passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act was also a 
bipartisan effort. As chief sponsor in the Senate, I worked very 
closely with Senator Bob Dole and others on both sides of the aisle. We 
received invaluable support from President George Herbert Walker Bush 
and key members of his administration, including White House Counsel 
Boyden Gray, Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, and Transportation 
Secretary Sam Skinner.
  The fact is that Americans of all walks of life take enormous pride 
in the progress we have made since the ADA was passed 18 years ago. 
Nobody wants to go backward.
  The Americans with Disabilities Act was one of the landmark civil 
rights laws of the 20th century--a long-overdue emancipation 
proclamation for Americans with disabilities. Thanks to that law, we 
have removed most physical barriers to movement and access for more 
than 50 million Americans with disabilities. We have required employers 
to provide reasonable accommodations so that people with disabilities 
can have equal opportunity in the workplace. And we have advanced the 
four goals of the ADA--equality of opportunity, full participation, 
independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.
  The reach--the triumph--of the ADA revolution struck home to me, some 
time back, when I attended a Washington convention of several hundred 
disability rights advocates, many with significant disabilities. They 
arrived in Washington on trains and airplanes built to accommodate 
people with mobility impairments. They came to the hotel on Metro and 
in regular busses, all seamlessly accessible by wheelchair. They 
navigated city streets equipped with curb cuts and ramps. The hotel 
where the convention took place was equipped in countless ways to 
accommodate people with disabilities. There was a sign language 
interpreter on the dais so that people with hearing disabilities could 
be full participants.
  For those of us who do not have disabilities, these many changes are 
all but invisible. But for individuals with disabilities, they are 
transforming and liberating. So are provisions in the ADA outlawing 
discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the 
workplace, and requiring employers to provide ``reasonable 
accommodations.''
  But despite this progress, we face a challenge. In recent years, the 
courts have narrowed the definition of who qualifies as an ``individual 
with a disability.'' As a consequence, people with conditions that 
common sense tells us are disabilities are being told by courts that 
they are not in fact disabled, and are not eligible for the protections 
of the law. In a ruling last year, the 11th Circuit Court even 
concluded that a person with an intellectual disability was not 
``disabled'' under the ADA.
  When I explain to people what the Supreme Court has done, they are 
shocked. Impairments that the Court says are not to be considered 
disabilities under the law include amputation, intellectual 
disabilities, epilepsy, diabetes, muscular dystrophy, and multiple 
sclerosis.
  In three rulings in 1999--Sutton v. United Airlines, Murphy v. United 
Parcel Service, and Albertson's v. Kirkingburg--the Court held that 
corrective and mitigating measures must be considered in determining 
whether an individual has a disability under the ADA.
  In Sutton, the Supreme Court held that if a person is taking 
corrective

[[Page S7957]]

measures to mitigate a physical or mental impairment, the effects of 
those measures must be taken into account when judging whether a person 
is ``disabled.'' Corrective measures could include anything from visual 
aids to a prosthesis. The Court went on to say that the approach 
adopted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission--that persons 
are to be evaluated in their hypothetical uncorrected state--was an 
impermissible interpretation of the ADA.
  In Murphy, the Court applied the same analysis to medication used to 
treat hypertension, and concluded that an employee who was fired 
because he had hypertension was not protected under the ADA, because 
medication alleviated some of his symptoms.
  In Kirkingburg, the Supreme Court went further and declared that 
mitigating measures to be included in the determination of whether 
someone is disabled included not only artificial aids such as devices 
and medications, but also subconscious measures an individual may use 
to compensate for his or her impairment. Kirkingburg was an individual 
who was blind in one eye, and the court found that he was not 
``disabled'' under the ADA.
  Moreover, in another Supreme Court case, Toyota v. Williams 2002, the 
Court held that there must be a ``demanding standard for qualifying as 
disabled.'' This too, has resulted in a much more restrictive 
requirement than Congress intended. It has had the effect of excluding 
countless individuals with disabilities from the protections of the 
law.
  Together, these Supreme Court cases have created a supreme absurdity: 
The more successful a person is at coping with a disability, the more 
likely it is for a court to find that they are no longer sufficiently 
disabled to be protected by the ADA. And if these individuals are no 
longer protected under the ADA, then their requests for a reasonable 
accommodation at work can be denied. Or they can be fired--without 
recourse.
  Think about it this way: Imagine that you are an individual with a 
disability who has a job. Due to your disability, you take some 
medication or maybe you use an assistive device. The use of the 
medication or the assistive device allows you to be qualified to do 
your job. It's a job that you really love. At some point, you need to 
request a reasonable accommodation from your employer--maybe, if you 
have diabetes, it is 10 minutes a day to take your insulin and check 
your blood levels.
  Or perhaps you use a prosthesis. Your employer says no, they don't 
want to give you an accommodation. Eventually you get fired as a 
result. When you go to court, your employer argues that you aren't 
really a person with a disability so you aren't entitled to the 
protections of the ADA. Then, under these Supreme Court cases, the 
employer prevails by convincing the court that because of the 
mitigating measure--the prosthesis--you can't meet the test of being 
``disabled'' under the law.
  So what are you supposed to do in these cases? If you don't take the 
medication or use the assistive device, then you are not qualified to 
do the job. On the other hand, if you stop taking the medication, or 
stop using your prosthesis, you will be considered a person with a 
disability under the ADA, but you will be unable to do your job.
  What would you do? This is the Catch 22 situation that, today, 
confronts countless people with disabilities. This is clearly not what 
I intended, or what Congress intended, when we passed the ADA in 1990.
  It boggles the mind that any court would rule that, for instance, 
multiple sclerosis or muscular dystrophy, is not a disability covered 
by the ADA. But that is where we are today. And that is why we are 
introducing this bill today.
  This Senate bill builds on the success of the House bill. However, it 
seeks to broaden the definition of disability in a way that maximizes 
bipartisan consensus and minimizes unintended consequences.
  Our bill leaves the ADA's familiar disability definition language 
intact: A person with a disability is one who has a physical or mental 
impairment that ``substantially limits'' one or more of the major life 
activities of the individual. It does not substitute the term 
``materially restricts'' as in the House bill. Instead, the bill takes 
several specific and general steps that, individually and in 
combination, direct courts toward a more generous meaning and 
application of the definition.
  This bill will overturn the basis for the reasoning in the Supreme 
Court decisions--the Sutton trilogy and the Toyota case--that have been 
so problematic for so many people with very real disabilities.
  This bill fixes the ``mitigating measures'' problem by clearly 
stating that mitigating measures--like the medication or assistive 
devices I talked about earlier--are not to be considered in determining 
whether someone is entitled to the protections of the ADA.
  This bill will make it easier for people with disabilities to be 
covered by the ADA because it effectively expands the definition of 
disability to include many more major life activities, as well as a new 
category of major bodily functions. This latter point is important for 
those with immune disorders, or cancer, or kidney disease, or liver 
disease, because they no longer need to show what specific activity 
they are limited in, in order to meet the statutory definition of 
disability.
  This bill rejects the current EEOC regulation which says that 
``substantially limits'' means ``significantly restricted'' as too high 
a standard. We indicate Congress's expectation that the regulation be 
rewritten in a less stringent way, and we provide the authority to do 
so.
  This bill revives the ``regarded as'' prong of the definition of 
disability, and makes it easier for those with physical or mental 
impairments to be able to seek relief if they have been subjected to an 
adverse action because of their disability.
  This bill has a broad construction provision which instructs the 
courts and the agencies that the definition of disability is to be 
interpreted broadly, to the maximum extent permitted by the ADA.
  Mr. President, 18 years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act 
passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Likewise, today, with the 
introduction of this bill, we are building a strong bicameral, 
bipartisan majority to support the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
  Let me say, again, that I am grateful for the bipartisan spirit with 
which we are approaching this legislation. We have an opportunity to 
come together and make an important difference for millions of 
Americans with disabilities.
  This bill also enjoys strong support out in the country. It is 
supported by most national disability organizations, as well as the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, 
the Society for Human Resource Management, and the Human Resources 
Policy Association.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to pass this bill, and to advance and fulfill the original 
promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3406

       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 a handicapped 
     individual under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that 
     expectation has not been fulfilled;
       (4) the holdings of the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United 
     Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases 
     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;

[[Page S7958]]

       (5) the holding of the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor 
     Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 
     (2002) further narrowed the broad scope of protection 
     intended to be afforded by the ADA;
       (6) 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;
       (7) in particular, the Supreme Court, in the case of Toyota 
     Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 
     (2002), interpreted the term ``substantially limits'' to 
     require a greater degree of limitation than was intended by 
     Congress; and
       (8) Congress finds that the current Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission ADA regulations defining the term 
     ``substantially limits'' as ``significantly restricted'' are 
     inconsistent with congressional intent, by expressing too 
     high a standard.
       (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 Air Lines, 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 Air Lines, 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'';
       (5) to convey congressional intent that the standard 
     created by the Supreme Court in the case of Toyota Motor 
     Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 
     (2002) for ``substantially limits'', and applied by lower 
     courts in numerous decisions, has created an inappropriately 
     high level of limitation necessary to obtain coverage under 
     the ADA, to convey that it is the intent of Congress that the 
     primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA 
     should be whether entities covered under the ADA have 
     complied with their obligations, and to convey that the 
     question of whether an individual's impairment is a 
     disability under the ADA should not demand extensive 
     analysis; and
       (6) to express Congress' expectation that the Equal 
     Employment Opportunity Commission will revise that portion of 
     its current regulations that defines the term ``substantially 
     limits'' as ``significantly restricted'' to be consistent 
     with this Act, including the amendments made by this Act.

     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;'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (7); and
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (8) and (9) as paragraphs 
     (7) and (8), respectively.

     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 (3)).
       ``(2) 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.
       ``(3) 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.
       ``(4) Rules of construction regarding the definition of 
     disability.--The definition of `disability' in paragraph (1) 
     shall be construed in accordance with the following:
       ``(A) The definition of disability in this Act shall be 
     construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under 
     this Act, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of 
     this Act.
       ``(B) The term `substantially limits' shall be interpreted 
     consistently with the findings and purposes of the ADA 
     Amendments Act of 2008.
       ``(C) An impairment that substantially limits one major 
     life activity need not limit other major life activities in 
     order to be considered a disability.
       ``(D) An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a 
     disability if it would substantially limit a major life 
     activity when active.
       ``(E)(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 of the United 
     States, 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:

[[Page S7959]]

       ``(c) Qualification Standards and Tests Related to 
     Uncorrected Vision.--Notwithstanding section 3(4)(E)(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 Amendments.--
       (1) Section 101(8) of the Americans with Disabilities Act 
     of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111(8)) is amended--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``with a 
     disability''; and
       (B) by striking ``with a disability'' after ``individual'' 
     both places it appears.
       (2) Section 104(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act 
     of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12114(a)) is amended by striking ``the 
     term `qualified individual with a disability' shall'' and 
     inserting ``a qualified individual with a disability shall''.

     SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12201 et seq.) 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) Fundamental Alteration.--Nothing in this Act alters 
     the provision of section 302(b)(2)(A)(ii), specifying that 
     reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or 
     procedures shall be required, unless an entity can 
     demonstrate that making such modifications in policies, 
     practices, or procedures, including academic requirements in 
     postsecondary education, would fundamentally alter the nature 
     of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, 
     or accommodations involved.
       ``(g) Claims of No Disability.--Nothing in this Act shall 
     provide the basis for a claim by an individual without a 
     disability that the individual was subject to discrimination 
     because of the individual's lack of disability.
       ``(h) 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) of such section.'';
       (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 
     of disability in section 3 (including rules of construction) 
     and the definitions in section 4, consistent with the ADA 
     Amendments Act of 2008.''; and
       (3) in section 511 (as redesignated by paragraph (2)) (42 
     U.S.C. 12211), in subsection (c), by striking ``511(b)(3)'' 
     and inserting ``512(b)(3)''.
       (b) The table of contents contained in section 1(b) of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is amended by 
     redesignating the items relating to sections 506 through 514 
     as the items relating to 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 (42 U.S.C. 12102)''; 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 (42 
     U.S.C. 12102).''.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am proud to rise today, as I did 18 years 
ago, and stand beside my good friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin, to 
introduce legislation advancing opportunities for our disabled fellow 
citizens. Our commitment to that cause never ends. We must always 
remain open to learn from experience, to observe and evaluate how laws 
we put on the books work in practice, and to be ready to do our part 
with appropriate legislation. We are doing our part today by 
introducing the ADA Amendments Act.
  The Americans with Disabilities Act is perhaps the most comprehensive 
piece of civil rights legislation we have ever enacted. It prohibits 
discrimination based on present, past, or perceived disabilities. It 
affirmatively requires accommodations in the workplace and 
modifications and assistance to ensure that persons with disabilities 
can access and enjoy places of public accommodation. That combination 
of the negative prohibition and the affirmative obligation makes the 
ADA truly unique and able to make such a positive contribution to the 
lives of so many across our great Nation.
  This legislation responds to Supreme Court decisions that have had 
the effect of narrowing the ADA's definition of disability and thereby 
restricting its coverage. Its goal is to once again broaden the 
definition of disability in a way that maximizes bipartisan consensus 
and minimizes unintended consequences. I am sure that my friend from 
Iowa, Senator Harkin, joins me in thanking so many people and 
organizations who have been part of this process, offering countless 
suggestions and ideas and input about how to achieve this goal.
  This effort has been neither simple nor easy. Because the ADA is such 
a comprehensive statute, virtually any change we make can have effects 
in areas beyond where a problem might have occurred. In addition, 
Members on both sides of the aisle, with liberal or conservative 
perspectives, equally want to help the disabled but have very different 
views about how to do it.
  And so the bill we introduce today is really the third phase in a 
process that began more than a year ago with introduction of the ADA 
Restoration Act and continued with passage last month of the House ADA 
Amendments Act. I am glad to say that it enjoys the support of the 
broad coalitions of disability and business groups that have provided 
valuable input and analysis along the way. It also takes steps to 
address concerns expressed by the education community. While the 
problems this legislation addresses arose in the employment arena, the 
solution this legislation represents will certainly impact the 
education arena.
  Finally, let me say that like the original ADA, this bill is the 
result of negotiation and compromise on all sides. That is the nature 
of the legislative process and the more important the goal, the greater 
the effort to continue the process until we reach a good result. We 
have done that here and I hope and trust that when this legislation 
passes here and in the other body that the margin of the votes will 
reflect the breadth of the consensus behind this new effort to advance 
opportunities for the disabled to participate in all that this great 
country has to offer.
                                 ______