House Committee on Education and Labor
U.S. House of Representatives

Thank you Chairman Miller, and good morning.  I am pleased to be here this morning as we take up a very important piece of legislation that has the potential to touch the lives of millions of Americans. 

At the beginning of this year, this Committee held a hearing to examine H.R. 3195, the “ADA Restoration Act of 2007.”  At that time, I noted that the Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990 with broad bipartisan support, and that among the bill’s most important purposes was to protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination in the workplace.  As I also noted, 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. 

At the January hearing, we heard some pretty compelling testimony that, in some respects, the ADA was failing to live up to its promise, as some individuals were left outside the scope of the Act’s protections by court cases and narrow interpretations of the law.   

We also heard in no uncertain terms that H.R. 3195, as introduced, was a dramatic expansion of the ADA, and one which would result in a series of significant unintended consequences and expansive new mandates on employers and other stakeholders. 

As we closed our hearing in January, I expressed my hope that we could work together on this issue, to focus relief where it is needed, while still maintaining the delicate balance embodied in the original ADA. 

In the intervening months, I am pleased to say that we were able to do so.  Your staff and mine, with staff from other committees and, equally important, with representatives of many stakeholders who will be affected by this bill, were able to come together and refine a product that represents the best chance I think we have to see legislation enacted this year.  This compromise will be brought before us in the form of your Chairman’s Substitute this morning.  I will support that Substitute, 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 possibly. 

For example, at our January hearing, we heard testimony that some individuals who I think many of us would agree were intended to be covered under the original ADA, were being excluded.  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 any of us intended the ADA to mean, and I am glad that the Substitute today addresses this issue.  At the same time, we have – rightfully – limited this expansion to 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 necessary to maintaining the intent and integrity of the ADA.

I am also pleased that the Substitute maintains an important requirement of the ADA, namely, that to be considered a disability, a physical or 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.  Rather, in the Substitute, we offer definition and guidance to courts and others as to how to construe that term, recognizing that it was never the intent of Congress to extend the ADA to every physical or mental infirmity.  To do so would upset the balance of the legislation, but equally important, would threaten to do harm to the very individuals the law was meant to protect.  

These are but a few examples of how we were able to work together to forge meaningful compromise.  As I said before, the Chairman’s Substitute before us today is not perfect.  Some say that if, at the end of the day, no party is completely happy with what’s contained in a compromise, then we’ve done a good job.  I expect that this is the case today – I am sure there are those in the business community who will fear that we’ve expanded the reach of the ADA too far.  At the same time, I expect advocates in the disability community would have preferred us to go further.  And, I expect, there may be issues which are yet to be brought to our attention which may need to be addressed as we move forward.  

On that last point, I continue to have concern that despite our best efforts, we are rushing this bill through Committee this morning, rather than allow a fuller analysis to make sure we are truly getting it right.  I expect we will see this bill on the Floor of the House very shortly.  I hope that in the days that follow this markup, we continue to work together to address additional issues, and continue to refine and attempt to perfect this legislation. 

In closing, let me thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for honoring our shared commitment to work together on issues as important as these.  I will support the Chairman’s Substitute this morning in the spirit of that cooperation and compromise, with the trust and expectation that it will continue as this bill moves through the legislative process.  I yield back.