[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 14132]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. LOIS CAPPS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3195, the ADA 
Amendments Act, I rise is strong support of the bill.
  One of the most fundamental principles of our great nation is that 
all people, regardless of color, gender, or ability have the right to 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  The ADA was passed to further this principle, and to ensure equal 
opportunity and access for individuals with disabilities.
  When Congress passed the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act in 
1990, it was intended to be interpreted broadly in order to protect the 
rights of all individuals, regardless of ability.
  Sadly, the Supreme Court ignored these intentions.
  Over the last ten years, the Supreme Court has ruled that those who 
use mitigating measures such as medication or eyeglasses to manage 
their disabilities are not ``disabled enough'' to qualify for relief 
under the ADA.
  Under the Court's ruling, people with conditions such as diabetes, 
epilepsy, heart disease, cancer, and mental illness are repeatedly 
denied employment based on their disability, only to be denied relief 
for not being disabled.
  This simply makes no sense.
  The ADA Amendments Act will restore the original intent behind the 
ADA, and clarify the definition of disability to prevent future 
mistakes by the courts.
  Americans with disabilities have been denied their civil rights for 
too long.
  The ADA Amendments Act will restore these rights, and help protect 
people with disabilities from future discrimination.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3195.

                          ____________________