On June 18, 2008, following a morning markup session, the House Committee on Education and Labor passed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 3195) out of committee by a vote of 43-1, advancing the bill to the House floor. In January 2008, the Committee held a hearing on H.R. 3195 (previously the “ADA Restoration Act of 2007″), which clarifies the legislative intent of the ADA in the face of court decisions limiting its scope. A relatively broad base of Congressional support exists for the bill.

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 responds to three U.S. Supreme Court decisions requiring courts to consider “mitigating measures” when determining whether an individual is “disabled” under the ADA. The bill specifically rejects these decisions, prohibiting the consideration of mitigating measures such as medication, prosthetics, and assistive technology in determining whether an individual is disabled. Both Chairman Miller (D-CA) and Rep. McKeon (R-CA), the Committee’s ranking Republican, applauded this provision, which they claim restores the original intent of the ADA.

The ADA Amendments Act does not include a previously-considered provision removing the ADA’s requirement that a disability “substantially limit” an individual’s ability to perform “major life activities.” Many members of Congress and the public have criticized eliminating this language, arguing that doing so would allow for a wide range of relatively minor impairments to be included under the ADA’s umbrella. Rep. McKeon supported the removal of this provision as achieving a necessary balance, allowing the bill to restate the broad scope of the ADA without trivializing its protections. Chairman Miller described the ADA Amendments Act as a “compromise,” recognizing that many advocates for the disabled might find the bill does not go far enough, while emphasizing the importance of strengthening the ADA through its passage.

Rep. Price (R-GA) and Rep. Kuhl (R-NY) expressed concern over the bill’s extended definition of what it means to be “substantially limited” in a “major life activity.” Both stated that by containing a comprehensive list of what qualifies both as a “substantial limitation” and a “major life activity,” the bill might exclude certain groups of disabled individuals while also leading to further litigation and interpretation by the courts. Rep. Andrews (D-NJ) countered that such specificity intentionally limits the purview of the courts and suggested that the previously broad language of the ADA had allowed courts to limit its scope. Rep. Andrews also emphasized that the bill does not prevent other unnamed impairments from falling under the scope of the ADA.

Some members voiced concern with the Committee’s haste in pushing the legislation forward. Rep. Price stated that fast-tracking the bill had not provided an opportunity to “soberly” evaluate its language. Rep. Hinojosa (D-TX) disagreed, joined by Rep. Andrews, Rep. McCarthy (D-NY) and Rep. Davis (D-CA), all emphasizing the importance of moving this legislation after years of allowing courts to limit the ADA’s reach. Chairman Miller pointed to Congress’s opportunity to refine the bill’s language as it advances through the legislative process.