National Council on Disability Document Archive

Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TXT

Posted by: Jamal Mazrui
Date Mailed: Friday, July 25th 1997 06:12 AM

In commemoration of the 7th anniversary of ADA, the National
Council on Disability is pleased to publish "Equality of
Opportunity:  The Making of the Americans with Disabilities Act." 
This history is rich in description and analysis of the social,
economic, and political events that led to the most comprehensive
civil rights law known today.  It contains many lessons we can 
carry into the future.

Free copies of the book may be obtained in print, disk, tape, or
braille format by contacting NCD in amy of the following ways:

National Council on Disability
1331 F Street, Northwest
Suite 1050
Washington, DC  20004

Phone: (202) 272-2004
Fax: (202) 272-2022
TTY: (202) 272-2074
Email: mquigley@ncd.gov

The ADA history will also soon be available on our web site,
http://www.ncd.gov

Since this electronic version is about 750K in size, I've put
"End of Document" at the bottom to indicate whether you received it
completely.  If not and you want it, send email to me or Mark
Quigley (NCD Public Affairs Specialist) at the above address.

Jamal Mazrui
National Council on Disability
Email: 74444.1076@compuserve.com

----------

Equality of Opportunity
The Making of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Copyright   1997 by the National Council on Disability
All rights reserved
Publication date: July 26, 1997

National Council on Disability
1331 F Street, N.W.
Suite 1050
Washington, D.C.  20004-1107

(202) 272-2004 Voice
(202) 272-2074 TTY
(202) 272-2022 Fax


This work was prepared under contract with the National
Rehabilitation Hospital Research Center, Medlantic Research
Institute, and was written by Jonathan M. Young.

The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent
those of the Administration, as this document has not been
subjected to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.



                           Dedication

For people with disabilities throughout the nation whose pursuit
of liberty and justice made the ADA a reality.  

    For those who have since passed away.

For those who join the cause of disability rights.

For John A. Gannon, whose service as a member of NCD from 1988 to
his death on May 31, 1997, helped achievepassage of the ADA and
the writing of this history.
















                       Members and Staff 
              of the National Council on Disability

                             Members
                    Marca Bristo, Chairperson
                Kate P. Wolters, Vice Chairperson
                     Yerker Andersson, Ph.D.
                          Dave N. Brown
                        Larry Brown, Jr.
                          John D. Kemp
                         Audrey McCrimon
                          Bonnie O Day
                      Lilliam Rangel Pollo
                        Debra L. Robinson
                         Shirley W. Ryan
                        Michael B. Unhjem
                          Rae Unzicker
                          Hughey Walker
                         Ela Yazzie-King

                              Staff
               Ethel D. Briggs, Executive Director
       Speed Davis, Executive Assistant to the Chairperson
              Billie Jean Keith, Program Specialist
                Jamal Mazrui, Program Specialist
      Mark S. Quigley, Public Affairs Specialist and Editor
               Brenda Bratton, Executive Secretary
                Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant
               Janice Mack, Administrative Officer




                         Acknowledgments

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is indebted to the
National Rehabilitation Hospital (NRH) Research Center for this
historical account.  Jonathan M. Young, a Ph.D. candidate in
American history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill and Project Director for the NRH Research Center, conducted
in-depth research, interviewed many key participants in the ADA s
passage, and authored the manuscript.  Gerben DeJong, Ph.D.,
Director of the NRH Research Center, provided overall guidance
and advice in addition to reviewing the document. With the
support of Dr. DeJong and Karen Behe, Ruth Brannon initiated this
project for the NRH Research Center, conducted oral interviews,
and collected many documents, which culminated in the development
of an annotated outline in 1995.  Between 1990 and 1992, prior
contractors, including Alexander Vachon, began work on a history
of the ADA, conducted selected interviews, and collected
materials for NCD, portions of which were made available for this
project.
     The Civil Rights Committee of the National Council on
Disability coordinated the development of this project: John
Kemp, Chairman; Hughey Walker, Vice-chairman; Lilliam Rangel
Pollo; Rae Unzicker; Marca Bristo, ex officio; and Kate Pew
Wolters, ex officio.  NCD Chairperson Marca Bristo reviewed
multiple iterations of the manuscript and contributed
significantly to its develop ment.  Billie Jean Keith was the NCD
staff person to the Civil Rights Committee and followed the
manuscript from beginning to end.  Mark Quigley, NCD Public
Affairs Specialist, coordinated publication of the manuscript.  
     Staff at the NRH Research Center assisted in the general
development of the project. Special recognition goes to Rachel
Halpern and Ben Wheatley, who helped edit the manuscript, as well
as to Phillip Beatty, Olga Elizabeth Hayes, Barbara
Maloney-Darbeau, Lee Ann McNnerey, Georgette LaFayette Smith, and
Sabrina Smith.  Kathy Butler and Antonio de Guzman, at the NRH
Research Center Library, were invaluable resources for research. 
In addition, George Koch provided important access to the law
library of his firm, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart.  Staff at the House
and Senate Libraries and Parliamentarian s offices were
indispensable sources of information. Frank Young, Leanne Young,
and Bob Atwood provided essential editorial assistance.  Personal
interviews were transcribed by Ann Rand of Medical Dictation
Services, Inc.  Mary Flannery designed the cover.
     Numerous individuals provided invaluable feedback on the
complete manuscript or parts of it: Yerker Andersson, Ruth
Brannon, Maria Cuprill, Lex Frieden, Paul Hearne, Mark Johnson,
Evan Kemp, Chris Lord, Marla Miller, Phyllis Rubenfeld, Liz
Savage, Melissa Schulman, Robert Silverstein, Roger Slagle,
Roland Sykes, and Pat Wright.  The manuscript is stronger and
more accurate because of their comments.
     Special thanks go to the 54 individuals who gave their time
and insight in personal and correspondence interviews as sources
for this historical account: they are listed in Appendix A. Many
of these interviewees also provided access to their personal
papers and made themselves available for follow-up fact-checking. 
Without them this history would have been impossible.







                            Contents
Foreword                                                       xi
Executive Summary                                            xvii

1    Laying the Foundation:
     Disability Policy & Activism, 1968-1988                      
 5
     2Putting the ADA on the Legislative Agenda:
     The National Council on Disability                           
47
     3Publicizing the ADA: Advocacy and the Government Response   
69
     4Creating a Workable ADA:
     The Senate and the White House                               
95
     5Fashioning a Durable ADA:
     The House of Representatives                                
123
     6Enshrining the ADA:
     House-Senate Conference and the Signing                     
165

     Epilogue                                                    
181

Glossary of Acronyms                                          191
Appendices                   193Appendix A: List of Interviews195
     Appendix B: The Legal Road to the ADA                       
199
     Appendix C: Chronology: The ADA s Path to Congress          
205
     Appendix D: Chronology: Legislative History of the ADA      
207
     Appendix E: Discrimination Diaries                          
211
     Appendix F: Key Concepts in the ADA                         
223
     Appendix G: President Bush s Remarks at the Signing         
231
     Appendix H: Text of the Americans with Disabilities Act     
235
     Appendix I: Mission of the National Council on Disability   
285
     Appendix J: ADA Technical Assistance Information            
289
Notes                                                         293





                            Foreword

Future generations will look back on the passage of the ADA as a
watershed public policy.  Future historians will come to view the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 as one of the most
formative pieces of American social policy legislation in the
20th century.  Its enactment codified into law important
principles that would henceforth govern the relationship between
society and its citizens with disabilities.  The ADA is
universal.  It champions human rights themes by declaring that
people with disabilities are an integral part of society and, as
such, should not be segregated, isolated, or subjected to the
effects of discrimination.  The ADA is also distinc tively
American.  It embraces several archetypal American themes such as
self-determination, self- reliance, and individual achievement. 
The ADA is about en abling people with disabilities to take
charge of their lives and join the American mainstream.  It seeks
to do so by fostering employment opportunities, facilitating
access to public transpor tation and public accommodations, and
ensuring the use of our nation s communication systems.
     The ADA is much more.  The ADA s founding principles,
explicit and implicit, also serve as a framework in which other
public policies can be tested, challenged, and, if necessary,
amended. It has altered our public discourse about disability and
about the role of people with disabilities in American society. 
Future generations will look back on the passage of the ADA as a
watershed public policy. 
     As Major R. Owens (D-NY) wrote regarding the ADA s final
passage, the ADA  articulates forcefully and eloquently the
purposes which must be embodied in our public policies and in our
commitments as individuals and as a nation in order for America
to thrive. . . .  It embodies a philosophy and constitutes a
declaration in support of human possibility and capability.   As
Owens noted, ours is a nation of interdependence: we do and must
rely on one another for success.  Because the ADA seeks to build
a society  which encourages and supports the efforts of each
individual to live a productive life,  it promotes the success of
our entire nation.  The ADA is important for what it says about
our national commitments to each citizen.  In a long tradition of
promoting civil rights, the ADA upholds the principle that each
individual has the potential, and deserves the right to
participate in, and contribute to, society.

Focus and Sponsorship
     Equality of Opportunity: The Making of the Americans with
Disabilities Act tells a story of how the ADA came about.  Other
works have explored in great detail what individual provisions of
the ADA mean, how they apply to individuals and businesses, and
what one must do to be in compliance.  This account examines
process rather than content.  Its defining focus is the
transition from a fragmented national disability policy, which
often worked to the detriment of people with disabilities, to an
affirmation of the basic civil rights of persons with
disabilities, as symbolized in the ADA s passage.  To help
readers familiarize themselves with the content of the ADA,
appendi ces include descriptions of key concepts in the ADA, a
reprint of the text of the ADA, and informa tion necessary for
obtaining technical assistance.
     Equality of Opportunity is the first detailed history of the
ADA.  It was written for a broad audience, including the
disability community, policy makers, academicians, and general
readers. Rather than seek to be the final word on the ADA s
history, Equality of Opportunity hopes to succeed by leading
others to explore the rich history of the ADA and the disability
rights movement and offer additional information and
interpretations.  This work can thus serve as an important source
document for future researchers. 
     Equality of Opportunity hopes to succeed by leading others
to explore the rich history of the ADA and the disability rights
movement and offer additional information and
interpretations.Writing the history of the ADA is not an easy
task.  There is not a single or even a handful of founding
fathers and mothers around whom a narrative can be organized. 
Nor is there one straight line from first thoughts about
implementing a national, comprehensive civil rights law for
people with disabilities to the ADA s enactment on July 26, 1990. 
Rather, thousands of people from all over the nation played roles
crucial to the ADA s success, and multiple thematic threads
characterize the ADA s development.  Unfortunately, each contribu
tion cannot be fully recognized in the limited space of this
work.  And maintaining narrative cohesion precludes full coverage
of simultaneous activities taking place in Washington and
throughout the country.  Nonetheless, the spirit of community and
cooperation among a large and diverse group of advocates and the
complexity and intensity of the ADA s passage are evident in the
narration.  
     Research and writing for this project was conducted under
contract with the National Council on Disability at the National
Rehabilitation Hospital (NRH) Research Center, a division of the
Medlantic Research Institute, in Washington, D.C.  Research was
based on a lengthy series of personal and correspondence
interviews with key participants in the ADA s passage, as listed
in the appendix, in addition to traditional documentary sources.  


Building on Foundations
     The heart of this story begins in 1986, when the National
Council on the Handicapped (renamed the National Council on
Disability in 1988) presented a breakthrough report titled Toward
Independence, which included a proposal for a comprehensive,
equal opportunity law for people with disabilities the embryo of
the ADA.  Equality of Opportunity traces the development of the
ADA from this report (first as a draft bill, and then as a formal
item of Congress in 1988), through the Senate and House of
Representatives, and to the desk of President George Bush in
1990. 
     To understand the ADA one must first understand the decades
that preceded it.  Equality of Opportunity therefore pays
considerable attention to the tradition of civil rights
established in the 1960s and developments within the disability
community during the 1970s and 1980s.  Especially important for
the ADA s success was the emergence of a disability rights
movement molded in the image of the movements that preceded
it the civil rights, women s, self-help, and the deinstitut
ionalization and normalization movements.  The disability rights
movement deserves its own book; the following pages seek only to
relate its relevance to the ADA s development. 
     The extraordinary efforts of people with disabilities
throughout the nation helped build a grass roots movement that
resulted in legislative and judicial successes and the
development of crucial coalitions and networks within the civil
rights community, Congress, and the White House. The ADA could
not have succeeded without this foundation.  Equally important
was the ADA s legislative foundation in the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and regulatory foundation resulting from the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973.  By building on tested legal principles, the ADA was
able to avert much of the debate that would have accompanied an
act developed de novo.  This is not to say there was no conflict
over the ADA.  On the contrary, the ADA went through
comprehensive review by various interested parties and underwent
painstaking revisions.  The original draft, for example, was
transformed to enlist broad, bipartisan support.  But the Civil
Rights Act and the Rehabilitation Act enabled the ADA to
withstand Congressional scrutiny.

Some Lessons
     The passage of the ADA was a consciousness-changing
experience for the 101st Congress and must remain an important
analytic point of departure for the development of disability
policy both now and in the future.  This account therefore has as
much to say about our public policy future as it does about our
past.  
     In our age of cynicism about the American political system,
the ADA offers a refreshing example of how the legislative
process can work when it works well.Students of public policy and
the American legislative process would do well to examine how the
ADA came about.  In our age of cynicism about the American
political system, where partisan clashes have led to government
shut-downs and rampant accusations, the ADA offers a refreshing
example of how the legislative process can work when it works
well.  Passage of the ADA is a story of political leaders on both
sides of the aisle who put aside personal and partisan
differences to do what they thought was the right thing to do. 
The ADA was certainly not without its detractors, and debate was
at times prolonged and intense.  Moreover, near unanimous support
in the final voting masks deep divisions that characterized the
deliberative process. But members of Congress and the Bush
administration demonstrated a remarkable cooperative spirit that
resulted in a solid, durable act that has been able to withstand
subsequent scrutiny.  Furthermore, they maintained a high level
of public debate that kept the ADA from falling victim to a
venomous public debate controlled by spin doctors and political
pundits as witnessed, for example, in the Civil Rights Act of
1991.  In short, the passage of the ADA provides important
lessons about restoring dignity to public debate about the
leading issues of our time.
     Also important for the enactment of the ADA was the ability
of the ADA coalition to close ranks.  Historically, the
disability community has been divided internally, in part because
of conflicts over limited public funding.  With the ADA, however,
scores of organizations representing thousands of people with
different disabilities joined forces to work for a common cause. 
People with blindness fought the battles of those who used
wheelchairs; persons with epilepsy fought the battles of those
with deafness.  The disability community s abiding commitment to
act as one unified voice helped keep the ADA a strong act and
prevented the exclusion of specific subgroups of disabilities. 

In Closing
     The disability community s abiding commitment to act as one
unified voice helped keep the ADA a strong act and prevented
exclusion of specific subgroups of disabilities.Now is the time
to preserve a record about the creation and passage of this
historic, landmark legisla tion.  We view the present and look to
the future based on our cumulative experiences.  As we look
toward the continued development of disability policy, we must
have a firm grasp on how we have reached this point. This is
especially important for those who were not direct participants
in the ADA s passage and for the next generation that is growing
up in an America transformed by the ADA.  Because disability is
usually not passed on from generation to generation, there is not
a natural cultural transference about disability.  NCD recognizes
the crucial role of the past and the need to build our own
history as we march into the future.  Therefore, we made a
commitment to providing a thorough analysis of the ADA s history. 
Other histories will and must be written, but this one sets the
stage.
     The National Council on Disability and the National
Rehabilitation Hospital Research Center are pleased to make
Equality of Opportunity, by Jonathan M. Young, available to the
public. We believe it is a work in which the disability community
and the public policy-making community can take great pride.

     Marca Bristo   Gerben DeJong
     Chairperson,   Director,
     National Council on DisabilityNRH Research Center




                        Executive Summary

Laying the Foundation:
Disability Policy & Activism, 1968-1988
     In retrospect, it seems as if the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) passed Congress easily.  But most people
aware of the proposal in 1987 thought success, at that time, was
doubtful. The fact that the ADA did reach President Bush s desk
and was signed into law is a tribute to the groundwork that had
been laid in the previous two decades.  A string of legal
precedents expanded upon the foundation of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  A nationwide
disability rights movement emerged from within the disability
community.  Attorneys in the disability community attained a high
degree of legal sophistication.  Disability organizations
successfully united with the civil rights community to promote
disability policy as a civil rights issue.  The disability
community established extensive networks among its
constituencies, Congress, and the White House.  Numerous
effective and talented leaders emerged from within the disability
community to help guide the ADA through Congress.  Without these
developments, the ADA likely would have failed.

Putting the ADA on the Legislative Agenda:
The National Council on Disability
     Successful passage of a law depends first on getting a
proposal to Congress as a viable policy option.  For the ADA,
this role as facilitator was performed by the National Council on
the Handicapped (now National Council on Disability, [NCD]).  In
1984, Congress issued NCD a mandate to review all federal
programs relating to disability and offer recommendations on how
Congress could best promote the independence of persons with
disabilities and minimize depend ence on governmental programs. 
NCD s primary recommendation to Congress was a call for passage
of a comprehensive, equal opportunity law for persons with
disabilities.  Subsequently, NCD decided to take action by
drafting its own legislative proposal for congressional
consideration. NCD successfully solicited Senator Lowell P.
Weicker, Jr. (R-CT) and Congressman Tony Coelho (D-CA) to sponsor
the ADA and introduce the bill to Congress.  After incorporating
recommenda tions offered by representatives from the disability
community at large, Weicker and Coelho introduced the ADA to the
Senate and House on April 28 and April 29, 1988.

Publicizing the ADA:
Advocacy and the Government Response
     ADA advocates introduced their proposal in 1988 not with the
expectation of passing the bill that year, but as an opportunity
to create momentum by empowering people throughout the nation to
advocate for the bill.  They planned to use the politics of an
election year as a way to publicize the ADA and gain a foothold
as a top priority for the next session of Congress.  During this
year, representatives from the disability community began to form
an ADA coalition to promote passage of the ADA. This coalition
worked with members of Congress to solicit cosponsors and
encouraged the presidential candidates to endorse the bill.  It
also effectively used this time to begin mobilizing nationwide
grassroots advocacy for the ADA to demonstrate that people
throughout the country (not just a few persons from a think tank)
demanded its passage.   Powerful testimony from persons with
disabilities helped document the desperate need for legislation
such as the ADA.  As a consequence, ADA advocates successfully
positioned the ADA for serious introduction in 1989.

Creating a Workable ADA:
The Senate and the White House
     George Bush, who advocated for the rights of disabled
persons in his campaign, was elected president in 1988 and
subsequently promoted passage of the ADA.  At the same time,
however, Lowell Weicker lost his bid for reelection to the
Senate.  In Weicker s absence, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) became
the Senate ADA sponsor.  In conjunction with Senator Edward M.
Kennedy (D-MA) and with the participation of a variety of
constituencies, Harkin rewrote the ADA in a form that stood a
reasonable chance at passage.  On May 9, 1989, Harkin and
Congressman Coelho simultaneously introduced the ADA to both
houses of Congress.  Coelho, Kennedy and Harkin decided to begin
deliberations in the Senate.  After hearings held in May and
June, 1989, the Senate entered a series of negotiations sessions
with the Bush administration to craft a bipartisan, compro mise
bill.  On August 2, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human
Resources voted unanimously to report the ADA, as amended, to the
Senate floor.  The Senate passed the ADA by a vote of 76 to 8 on
September 7, 1989.

Fashioning a Durable ADA:
The House of Representatives
     Under the leadership of Congressman Coelho and, later,
Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD), the House began its
deliberations by using the bill approved by the Senate.  The
House process was more complicated than the Senate s, in part
because the bill went to four committees and six subcommittees. 
In contrast to the rapid action in the Senate, the House took
nearly nine additional months to analyze and refine the bill. 
The dynamic was also much different because business
organizations, who had deep concerns about the cost burden and
the litigation potential of the ADA, lobbied vigorously by
applying constituent pressure on members.  The disability
community now worked to hold the ground it had achieved in the
Senate.  The main issue in the House was the effect of the ADA on
businesses and governments covered by the ADA s provisions; many
changes were made to make the ADA more acceptable to entities
covered by the ADA.  A series of  weakening  amendments were
proposed and defeated at the committee level and on the House
floor, where the House passed the ADA by a vote of 403 to 20, on
May 22, 1990.  One controversial amendment, however, did succeed. 
The Chapman amendment said that employers could legally remove
persons with contagious diseases, such as AIDS, from food
handling positions, even where there was no evidence that the
disease could be transmitted.

Enshrining the ADA:
House-Senate Conference and the Signing
     The overwhelming votes in favor of the ADA in both the House
and the Senate seemingly destined the ADA for success.  But the
Chapman amendment passed in the House threatened to kill the
bill: the disability community and its congressional sponsors
decided not to support an ADA with the amendment.  The conflict
over food handling and contagious diseases had to be settled by a
conference between the House and Senate, where conferees rejected
the Chapman amendment, only to have members in both the House and
Senate try to put it back into the ADA.  After nearly two months
of wrangling over the provision, the Senate developed a
compromise through the leadership of Senator Orrin G. Hatch
(R-UT).  The House and Senate then passed the ADA in final form
on July 12 and 13, 1990.  On July 26, before about 3,000 persons,
President Bush signed the ADA into law as Public Law 101-336.

Epilogue
     The ADA is unique in the context of civil rights legislation
because it requires that businesses and governments do more than
just cease discriminatory actions.  They must also take proactive
steps to offer equal opportunity to persons with disabilities,
commensurate with their economic resources.  The ADA is
distinctive in the context of disability legislation not for its
individual provisions, most of which were already established in
some form by various state and local governments, but in its
comprehensive nature and application to much of the private
sector. No single factor can explain the ADA s success.  A whole
host of circumstances worked in its favor: effective leadership;
advocates in key government positions; the rightness of the
cause; the mobilization of the grassroots disability community; a
string of legislative successes offering momentum; legal and
lobbying expertise in the disability community; the willingness
of persons with disabilities to unite for a common cause; the
cautious support of the business community; and ideological
justifications from both the right and the left.  The time was
right and the cause was just.



               Equality of Opportunity













                              The Nation s proper goals regarding
individuals with disabilitiesare to assure equality of
opportunity, full participation, 
                              independent living, and economic
self-sufficiency. 


                              The Americans with Disabilities Act


                                   Views From Congress and the
White House

                  Disability Discrimination
Authorities on disability have often said, and I have quoted them
on this floor before, that the history of society s formal
methods of dealing with people with disabilities can be summed up
in two words: segregation and inequality.
               Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.

                      Disability Rights
We know that there is going to have to be accommodations to give
us our basic civil rights. We know that.  We understand that. 
There is a cost involved.  But isn t there also a cost involved
with us not being able to exercise our rights?
                  Congressman Tony Coelho

                  The Disability Community
Within a few weeks the ADA will become the law of the land
because of the vision of the disability community.  You knew in
your hearts what we now write into law that discrimi nation based
on fear, ignorance, prejudice, and indifference is wrong.  It is
true that I am the sponsor of the ADA, and my colleagues are
cosponsors.  However, the ADA is first and foremost the outcome
of the extraordinary efforts of the disability community.  This
is your bill, and you earned it.
                     Senator Tom Harkin

                     Changing the World
We are sent here by our constituents to change the world for the
better.  And today we have the opportunity to do that. . . . Many
have asked:  Why are we doing this for the disabled?  My answer
is twofold.  As Americans, our inherent belief is that there is a
place for everyone in our society, and that place is as a full
participant, not a bystander.  The second answer is less lofty. 
It is steeped in the reality of the world as we know it today. 
If, as we all suspect, the next great world competition will be
in the marketplace rather than the battlefield, we need the help
of every American. . . . We cannot afford to ignore millions of
Americans who want to contribute.
                 Congressman Steny H. Hoyer

                  Americans with Abilities
The road to enactment of this legislation was not easy.  But in
the process of reaching this goal, we have all learned something
about the evils of discrimination in any form, and the importance
of judging individuals by their abilities not patronizing
misconceptions, demeaning stereotypes, and irrational fears about
their disabilities.
                 Senator Edward M. Kennedy

             The Americans with Disabilities Act
No piece of legislation this Congress will pass articulates more
forcefully and eloquently the purposes which must be embodied in
our public policies and in our commitments as individ uals and as
a nation in order for America to thrive in the 1990s.  It
embodies a philosophy and constitutes a declaration in support of
human possibility and capability. . . . With a powerful
commitment to building a society which encourages and supports
the efforts of each individ ual to live a productive life, there
is no challenge which our Nation cannot meet.
                  Congressman Major Owens

                     The American Dream
The time has come for the Senate to send a loud, clear message
across this country: Individuals with disabilities, no less than
all other Americans, are entitled to an equal opportunity to
participate in the American dream.  It is time for that dream to
become a reality.
                   Senator Orrin G. Hatch

                        Independence
ADA will empower people to control their own lives.  It will
result in a cost savings to the Federal Government.  As we
empower people to be independent, to control their own lives, to
gain their own employment, their own income, their own housing,
their own transporta tion, taxpayers will save substantial sums
from the alternatives.
                 Congressman Steve Bartlett

                      The Time Has Come
I have supported the ADA because I believe it is a just and fair
bill, which will bring equality to the lives of all Americans
with disabilities.  Our message to America is that inequality and
prejudice will no longer be tolerated.  Our message to people
with disabilities is that your time has come.
                    Senator Robert Dole

                       Finding Balance
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.
            Attorney General Richard Thornburgh

                      The Shameful Wall
And now I sign legislation which takes a sledgehammer to another
wall, one which has, for too many generations, separated
Americans with disabilities from the freedom they could glimpse,
but not grasp.  Once again, we rejoice as this barrier falls,
proclaiming together we will not accept, we will not excuse, we
will not tolerate discrimination in America. . . . Let the
shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.
                  President George Bush




  1 

                                   Laying the Foundation:
                                   Disability Policy & Activism,
1968-1988

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 raced through
Congress.  So much momentum drove the bill forward that many
members of Congress, caught by surprise, reacted by claiming the
bill had come from nowhere, that there was little precedent for
such sweeping legislation, and that the deliberative process
should be extended to provide time to grasp the novelty of the
bill s provisions.  Such claims, however, overlooked one crucial
fact: the ADA had been long in gestation.  Indeed, part of the
reason the bill became law with such alacrity is precisely the
degree to which the legislation was built on a solid foundation:
of policy, legal principle, personal networks, coalition-forming,
and an increasingly active disability community. Without this
foundation, which was put in place largely over the 1970s and
1980s, the ADA s passage would have been impossible.  To
comprehend the ADA one must first understand the context in which
it developed.

                Contours of Disability in America
     Disability has a history.  In colonial America, persons with
disabilities were often viewed as part of the  deserving poor.  
They were consequently accepted by local communities, where they
contributed however possible and shared in the community s
offerings.  But with the nine teenth-century industrial and
market revolutions and the growth of a liberal individualistic
culture, the cohesion of physical and geographic communities
began to break down.  One consequence was that persons with
disabilities, increasingly deemed unable to compete in America s
industrial economy, were spurned by society.  Growing
side-by-side with social structures catering to individual
achievement were custodial institutions for those who did not
 fit  with the American creed: persons with sensory impairments,
reduced cognitive capacities, physical impairments, mental
illnesses, or other conditions.  Institutions supposedly
 protected  these persons from public harm.  Institutions also
allegedly protected society from those who were feared by many as
dangerous and a threat to the gene pool.  Some persons with
physical disabilities were displayed as  freaks  of nature, to be
marveled at like exotic animals.  Such literary works as Herman
Melville s Moby Dick reinforced stereotypes of persons with
disabilities as sinister, or even crazy, through such characters
as the peg-legged Captain Ahab.  
     Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled that it was  better for
all the world, if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate
offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility,
society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from
continuing their kind. Racism, ethnic imperialism, and xenophobia
plagued early twentieth-century America. Darwin s theories about
the origin of species gave rise to universal theories about
natural selection within humankind and the evolution of soci ety. 
Many believed it was in the best interest of humanity to
eliminate or at least cur tail populations considered inferior,
as wit nessed in the treatment of African Ameri cans and Jews. 
These ideas also adversely affected persons with disabilities,
displayed most starkly in the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v.
Bell. 
     Carrie Buck argued before the Court that state-imposed
sterilization, based on disability, was unconstitutional.  The
Court disagreed.  Instead, the Court sided with  experts  who
alleged that persons with disabilities, namely those collectively
classified as  the feeble-minded,  were  a menace  to society,
threatened society s  best citizens,  and tended to  sap the
strength of the state.   Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes thought it
best for society to seek to avoid  being swamped with
incompetence.   He thus ruled that it was  better for all the
world, if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for
crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can
prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their
kind.   Although sterilization and segregation practices targeted
those classified as  feeble-minded  persons or people with mental
retardation, mental illness, and epilepsy it reflected a general
intolerance for those who allegedly did not fit the model for the
rugged, individualistic, capitalistic American.
     Increasing numbers of persons with disabilities made
disability a societal challenge rather than a scattered, personal
predicament.Significant developments over the course of the
twentieth century, however, transformed the na ture of disability
in American life.  These included demographic changes among
persons and parents of persons with disabilities, the creation of
disability organizations, and the growth of rehabilitation as a
profession.  In the early twentieth century, the demographics of
disability changed as thousands of Americans acquired
disabilities through industrial, work-place injuries.  Moreover,
World War I introduced thousands of veterans with disabilities,
as did World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War.  In
addition to the in creased numbers of disabilities caused by
injuries, Americans also began to live longer.  Whereas in 1900
the average life span was 47 years, by 1980 life expectancy had
increased to the age of 74. Since disability tends to increase
with age, an older population meant an America with greater
prevalence of disability.  By 1980 at least thirty million
Americans experienced disability first-hand.  As all Americans,
these persons wanted the best life possible and worked to get it. 
Increasing numbers of persons with disabilities made disability a
societal challenge rather than a scattered, personal predicament.
     As demographics changed, persons with disabilities began
forming organizations to act as advocates for their interests. 
Early examples include the Disabled Veterans of America (DVA) and
the National Mental Health Association (NMHA), both founded in
1920, and the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), founded in
1940.  After World War II, this growth accelerated.  The
Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) opened its doors in 1946, the
United Cerebral Palsy Associa tions (UCPA) began in 1949, the
National Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC) was founded in
1950, the first Home Office of the National Association of the
Deaf (NAD, originally founded in 1880) opened in 1953, and the
American Council of the Blind (ACB) started its operations in
1961. These organizations dedicated their existence to improving
the lives of their constituencies and gave persons with
disabilities a stronger voice.  They raised money, identified
areas of need, and lobbied to pass legislation that would help
solve problems.  They looked for ways to achieve employment and
to gain better education.  By working with Congress and the
judiciary to achieve their goals, they also gained valuable legal
experience.  As a result of these activities, they further
imprinted disability on the American landscape.
     Most Americans still understood disability primarily as a
problem that resided in the individual.  People were to be
 rehabilitated  to become  normal. Throughout the twentieth
century a variety of professions developed to attend to the
challenges posed by disability.  By giving increased attention to
persons with disabilities, physi cians, researchers, nurses,
physical and occupational therapists, and vocational
rehabilitation counselors, and other professionals enabled many
persons with disabilities to live healthier lives.  New
technologies, drugs, and devices enabled persons to live longer
with lower inci dence of secondary disabilities, and with greater
control over their daily activities. It also helped transform
disability rehabilitation into a full-fledged industry, which had
the concomi tant affect of making rehabilitation a commodity to
be bought and sold in the marketplace.  Moreover, professionals
tended to focus their attention on specific disabilities,
fostering the compartmentalization and fragmentation of people
with disabilities.
     As the numbers of persons with disabilities grew, and as
they, their parents, organizations, and professionals worked to
improve their lives, the attitudes manifest in Buck v. Bell came
under attack: persons with disabilities, too, deserved to be part
of society.  National policy developments assisted in this
transition.  Over the course of the twentieth century, the scope
and power of the Federal Government expanded to meet the growing
demands of an industrializing nation.  New legislative endeavors
accordingly addressed disability issues.  Reforms directed at
corporate America provided benefits to persons injured on the
job.  By 1941, forty-five states ensured compensation for
work-place injuries.  The United States Public Health Service
(USPHS), estab lished in 1902, gave new attention to the
importance of health care for society.  The Veterans 
Rehabilitation Act of 1918 established a program for training
veterans with disabilities.  In 1920, the combined problems posed
by industrial impairments and war veterans led to the Smith-Fess
Act, which established the vocational rehabilitation program.  By
1935, every state had a vocational program in operation,
providing vocational training, job placement assistance, and
counseling to those with physical disabilities.  During World War
II, Congress expanded the vocational rehabilita tion program to
offer  medical, surgical, and other physical restorative
services  and to include services for the mentally ill and
mentally retarded.  Legislatures passed other laws directed
toward greater access for persons with disabilities: for example,
laws permitting the public use of guide dogs and white canes for
blind persons.
     Advocates of the ADA regularly declared that it was the most
sweeping civil rights legislation in a quarter century: that is,
since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 one of the most important
twentieth-century domestic initiatives.The Social Security system
also had a profound effect on persons with disabilities.  In the
1950s, Congress amended the Social Security Act to provide income
benefits to working-age people with disabilities who could not
engage in any  substantial gainful activity.   In 1965, Congress
established the Medicare and Medicaid programs that provided
health care coverage to select groups of people with
disabilities, as well as to elderly and lower income persons. 
Persons with disabilities could also be eligible for food stamps,
school lunches, and housing subsidies if they met income tests. 
Although these programs dem onstrated a recognition of disability
as a mat ter of national concern, they would later prove to be a
mixed blessing.  While they provided much-needed income security,
they could make paid employment less appealing. 
     Despite many improvements, problems for persons with
disabilities were widespread: unemployment, lack of education,
low income, and isolation.  Moreover, most Americans still
understood disability primarily as a problem that resided in the
individual.  They viewed disability as a  medical  problem that
required medical supervision.  People were to be  rehabilitated 
to become  normal.   The public policy approach to disability,
however, would be revolutionized in the wake of the 1960s.

                        The Twin Pillars
     Advocates of the ADA regularly declared that it was the most
sweeping civil rights legislation in a quarter century: that is,
since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 one of the most important
twentieth-century domestic initiatives.  The aims of the Civil
Rights Act were not achieved over night.  But the legislation
heralded a revolutionary proposition: it is against the law to
discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or
religion.  The Civil Rights Act was born of a protest movement. 
In the decade following the historic 1954 Supreme Court ruling,
Brown v. Board of Education, African Americans, students, and
white supporters participated in nationwide sit-ins to protest
segregated eating establishments; bus boycotts to protest
segregated bus seating; freedom rides to protest segregation in
bus stations; voting registration drives; and numerous
demonstration marches supporting, among other things, the
enrollment of African Americans in white educational
institutions.  This movement faced vehement and violent
opposition from whites viscerally commit ted to centuries of
white supremacy first in slavery and then in segregation and
disfranchisement. But television coverage of dogs and fire hoses
unleashed on peaceful marchers thrust the injustice of rampant
racism and racial subordination into the living rooms of
Americans throughout the country.  Confronted by the flagrant
violation of American principles of liberty and equality,
American public opinion shifted to support the aspirations of
America s blacks.
     President John F. Kennedy and, after Kennedy s 1963
assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson, sought to quell the
social unrest by submitting to Congress comprehensive civil
rights legislation that would protect the rights that millions
earnestly pursued.  But it was a battle.  A protracted and
vigorous debate ensued; compromises were made.  When the
legislation finally reached the House floor, one Representative
introduced an amendment that would include women in the coverage
of the act by adding sex as a prohibitive category for employment
discrimination. His intent, however, was to kill the bill by
suggesting what to many was a laughable proposition: equality for
women.  The amendment was approved, but it did not kill the bill. 
The resulting Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by
Johnson on July 2, 1964, provided numerous protections to racial
and ethnic minorities and persons of varied religious faiths. 
The heart of the law was the principle that all persons,
regardless of  race, color, religion, or national origin,  are
entitled to the  full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public
accommodation.   This was in accordance with one of the central
demands of the civil rights movement equal access.  Political
realities, however, restricted that access to places of lodging,
eating, and entertainment, and exempted private clubs and
religious organizations. Additional provisions of the Civil
Rights Act included the desegregation of public facilities and
public education.  Other provisions stipulated nondiscrimination
in federally-assisted programs and employment practices.  More
legislation followed close behind.  The Voting Rights Act of 1965
granted the Federal Government the power to ensure that racial
minorities could register to vote.  In 1968 the Fair Housing Act
expanded the scope of the Civil Rights Act by adding Title VIII,
which prohibited discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.
     All of these measures had varying degrees of success. 
Nondiscrimination in public accom modations resulted in the most
change.  Retail businesses welcomed this provision because it
translated into more customers and more money.  In addition, it
eliminated the cost of dual facilities. Gains in education and
employment nondiscrimination would come more slowly.  The civil
rights movement, however, left a crucial legacy to African
Americans and other disadvantaged groups, including persons with
disabilities.  They would seek the same protections and model the
protest movement.  First, the Civil rights movement legitimated
and proved the success of civil protest to demand civil rights. 
Persons with disabilities, as other groups, would use the same
sit-in and marching tactics.  Second, the civil rights movement
established a vital principle: discrimination according to
characteristics irrelevant to job performance and the denial of
access to public accom modations and public services was, simply,
against the law.  Once codified, logical implications extended
well beyond race.  Finally, the civil rights movement left a body
of statutes and case law  models for future legislation.  There
would be no ADA were it not for the successful protests of
African Americans, for their crowning achievement in the Civil
Rights Act was also the philosophi cal foundation of the ADA.
     The civil rights movement did not, however, have an
immediate, direct impact on the disability community.  The Civil
Rights Act made no reference to persons with disabilities.  The
only significant statute increasing access for persons with
disabilities, and passed near that time, was the Architectural
Barriers Act of 1968.  This act was largely the result of the
efforts of Hugh Gregory Gallagher.  As a legislative assistant,
Gallagher had been instrumental in making the Library of Congress
and other buildings in Washington accessible.  These efforts
culminated with his drafting of the Architectural Barriers Act,
which required that all buildings constructed, altered, or
financed by the Federal Government had to be physically
accessible.
     The first attempts to merge disability with the civil rights
movement were unsuccessful.  In 1972, for example, Senator Hubert
H. Humphrey, Jr. (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the Civil Rights
Act that would incorporate disability as a protected class.  But
the proposal made little headway.  There was no constituent base
to support such an endeavor.  Moreover, advocates of the Civil
Rights Act feared that the addition of  disability  as a
 protected class,  similar to ethnic minorities, might dilute the
Civil Rights Act.  And, once the act was on the table for
discussion, members might introduce damaging amendments.
     The legal foundation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alone
could not adequately buttress as comprehensive a measure as the
ADA.The political climate of the late 1960s and early 1970s
worked against the advancement of civil rights for persons with
disabilities.  In 1968, Richard M. Nixon campaigned for the
presidency with pledges to stem the tide of civil rights
advances.  He won the election in part due to a cultural backlash
against the civil rights movement and President Johnson s War on
Poverty.  Nixon s election reflected a breakdown of the New Deal
consensus, the splintering of the Democratic party, and the dawn
of a conservative shift in American public opinion.  In the early
1970s, the nation also faced new economic pressures and financial
restraint.  Many thought welfare measures now exceeded the
American budget.  It was simply not a friendly time for new civil
rights protections.
     Ironically, however, a crucial component of the
infrastructure of disability law came precisely at this time. 
The legal foundation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alone could
not adequately buttress as comprehensive a measure as the ADA. 
Although ethnic minorities and women had been afforded civil
rights protections identical to those for African Americans for
identical civil rights protections, disabled people as a class
were different and required such unique legal provi sions as
 reasonable accommodation  (see Appendix F).  This part of the
ADA s foundation came from Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, a stealth measure in the midst of a backlash against
civil rights. 
     This occurred in spite of President Nixon because Congress
continued to promote social legislation.  When the Vocational
Rehabilitation Act came up for re-authorization, Congress crafted
an even broader piece of legislation called the Rehabilitation
Act of 1972.  Congress sought to expand the program beyond its
traditional employment focus by identifying ways to improve the
overall lives of persons with disabilities:  the final goal of
all rehabilitation services was to improve in every possible
respect the lives as well as livelihood of individuals served.  
The new law would extend rehabilitation services to all persons
with disabilities, give priority to those with severe
disabilities, provide for extensive research and training for
rehabilitation services, and coordinate federal disability
programs.  The act would be carried out by a Rehabilitation
Services Administration (RSA) housed in the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare (HEW).  Passage of this legislation,
however, resulted in a vigorous battle.  Nixon vetoed the bill on
two occasions. He claimed that the bill was  fiscally
irresponsible  and represented a  Congressional spending spree. 
He urged:  We should not dilute the resources of [the Vocational
Rehabilitation] program by turning it toward welfare or medical
goals.   After failing to override the president s veto by six
votes, the Senate was forced to negotiate with the Nixon
administration. 
     The compromise legislation signed into public law on
September 26, 1973, made for a weaker RSA tightly controlled by
the Secretary of HEW.  It reduced appropriations levels, abol
ished programs designed to help address certain categories of
disability, substituted  emphasis  for  priority  in dealing with
persons with severe disabilities, and eliminated a proposed
Division of Research, Training and Evaluation.  Nevertheless, the
Rehabilitation Act fell short of original congressional intent,
it was the first legislation designed to improve the overall
lives of persons with disabilities.  Especially significant was
Title V of the act.  Section 501 directed federal agencies to
develop affirmative action programs for the hiring, placement,
and advancement of persons with disabilities.  Section 502
established the Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board (ATBCB), which would ensure compliance with the
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, pursue ways to eliminate
transportation barriers, and seek ways to make housing
accessible.  Under Section 503, parties contracting with the
United States were required to use affirmative action to employ
qualified persons with disabilities.  Finally, and most
importantly, Section 504 stated:  No otherwise qualified
handicapped individual in the United States . . . shall, solely
by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in,
be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance. 
     This phrase was modeled after Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972,
which prohibited discrimination in federally-assisted pro grams
on account of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. 
Unlike the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 did not emerge
in response to protest.  Rather, it was created silently by a
group of congressional staff members.  No suggestion for such a
provision was made at the hearings, and the provision was not in
the original draft of the bill.  Staff added the section late in
the deliberative process without any statement of congressional
intent or appropriations to finance it.  Not a single member of
Congress mentioned the section during floor debate, and President
Nixon made no reference to it as grounds for his veto.  The
section apparently developed out of a fear that persons receiving
vocational rehabilitation would later be blocked from employment,
thus negating the rehabilitative benefits.  It was a way to add
an element of civil rights language without the danger of
amending the Civil Rights Act.
     Although Section 504 was not introduced at the behest of
disability advocates, the Rehabili tation Act helped energize the
disability community.  Persons with disabilities protested each
of President Nixon s vetoes.  And, though it appears that many in
the disability community were only vaguely familiar with Section
504 as late as 1975, conflict over the regulations for Section
504 culminated with unprecedented demonstrations by the
disability community in the spring of 1977.
     Three consecutive administrations delayed action in issuing
regulations for Section 504.  Part of the problem was that
Section 504 did not expressly mandate regulations.  Accordingly,
for the year culminating with President Nixon s resignation on
August 9, 1974, the Nixon administra tion failed to take any
action toward developing Section 504 regulations.  President
Gerald Ford, however, supported the promulgation of Section 504
regulations and assigned HEW with the responsibility to issue
them.  HEW s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) was appointed to write
the regulations.  This was significant because such regulatory
agencies as RSA, a potential alternative for writing the Section
504 regulations, focused mostly on community education and
voluntary compliance among recipients of federal assistance. 
OCR, however, based its regulations on its history in dealing
with civil rights and segregation, where firm legal foundations
rather than mere voluntary compliance was necessary.
     Under the leadership of John Wodatch, OCR prepared
regulations that offered a new definition of disability, issued
mandates for educating persons with disabilities in public
schools, and demanded accessible buildings and transportation. 
But shortly after presenting the regulations to HEW Secretary
Casper Weinberger on July 23, 1975, Weinberger was replaced by
David Mathews, who was reputed to be  a cautious and indecisive
man who tended to be more philosophi cal than pragmatic in
running the department.   Mathews did not oppose the regulations
outright. But by demanding further analysis of the regulations,
rather than taking the usual step of publishing the regulations
as a proposal, Mathews delayed action.  He even sent the
regulations outside of HEW for review by a private firm.  On
March 11, 1976, OCR resubmitted the regulations with revisions,
but two months passed before Mathews presented the regulations to
the public. 
     The failure of HEW to issue regulations for Section 504
began to attract attention.  By the fall of 1974, for example,
Jim Cherry, a young attorney and disability lobbyist who had a
rare, degenerative muscular disease, began writing letters to HEW
requesting that the department issue regulations.  But nothing
came of these efforts.  Ultimately, Cherry turned to the legal
system and found a firm, Georgetown s Institute for Public
Interest Representation (INSPIRE), to support his cause pro bono. 
After a year of presenting formal petitions demanding that HEW
issue regulations, INSPIRE finally filed a case against HEW on
February 13, 1976 Cherry v. Mathews.  Later that spring, a group
of people with disabilities demonstrated in Secretary Mathews s
office.  The delay also began to catch the attention of Congress,
which held oversight hearings on May 5 to determine why no action
had been taken.
     Mathews finally presented the regulations to the public on
May 17, 1976, but he issued them only as an intent to propose
regulations, not an actual proposal.  Mathews did not issue a
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the standard procedure for
soliciting public feedback on proposed regula tions, until July
16.  Three days later, on July 19, the district court of
Washington, D.C., ruled on the Cherry v. Mathews case and ordered
Mathews to promulgate regulations.  In the next six months, HEW
solicited public comment.  OCR made minor changes to the
regulations and presented the revised regulations to Mathews on
January 10, 1977.  Over three years had now passed since the
Rehabilitation Act became public law.  But Mathews still stalled. 
On January 18, instead of signing the regulations, he sent them
to the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare for review an
unprecedented action in regulation writing.  That same day, the
district court ordered Secretary Mathews to cease the delay. 
But, two days later, Jimmy Carter was inaugurated as president
and Mathews left office.
     During his campaign, Carter had promised to make people with
disabilities  active partners in our attempts to achieve . . .
full civil rights  and made a commitment to signing the
regulations. As president, he nominated Joseph Califano to be
Secretary of HEW.  Califano allegedly supported the concept of
Section 504, but he too postponed action on the regulations; he
wanted to review them before attaching his name.  Califano
worried especially about the costs associated with the statute
and resisted the inclusion of drug and alcohol abusers as a
protected class.  When he proposed implementing a more limited
concept of making individual programs accessible rather than
demanding broad, structural changes, however, his actions drew
the ire of persons with disabilities.

                       Disability Protest
     Opposition to the delay in signing regulations developed
from growing collaboration among people with disabilities.  In
the early 1970s, the primary gathering place for people with
disabilities was the annual spring conference of the President s
Committee on Employment of the Handicapped (PCEH).  President
Harry S. Truman had founded PCEH in 1947 to assist physically
disabled veterans in finding employment.  In the 1960s, PCEH
expanded its mission to include persons with mental retardation
and mental illness. In addition to drawing attention to
employment for people with disabilities, which naturally led to a
broader interest in other disability issues,  PCEH became the
first central meeting ground where disability advocates,
disability professionals, and public officials could share ideas
and set agendas for the future. 
     At the 1973 PCEH meeting, following Nixon s second veto of
the Rehabilitation Act and the accompanying disability protest, a
group of disability activists discussed the need for an
organized, collective disability voice that would unite the
disparate disability-specific organizations.  Only then, they
thought, could they exert effective influence on the Federal
Government.  The coalition would not disband other disability
organizations: they would become its members.  In 1974, Fred Fay,
Roger Peterson, Dianne Latin, Al Pimentel, Judy Heumann, Fred
Schreiber, and others set up a committee to write the
constitution and bylaws for such an organization.  They named it
the American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities (ACCD): it
was the first major cross-disability organization.  The purpose
of ACCD was to enhance communication among people with disabili
ties, promote the rights of disabled persons, educate people
about their rights, and foster collective political action.
     In April, 1975, again at the annual PCEH meeting,
representatives from a spectrum of disability organizations
approved the ACCD constitution and bylaws and established a
governing board.  They elected Eunice Fiorito, a blind woman who
had become the first director of the New York City Mayor s Office
for the Handicapped (the first of its kind) in 1972, to be
president. Fiorito was an aggressive and effective disability
rights advocate and crucial to ACCD s early development.   If it
wasn t for Eunice,  said Rubenfeld, who was one of the successors
as ACCD President,  I don t think there d be an ACCD.  
Schreiber, Heumann, and Fay joined Fiorito as vice president,
secretary, and treasurer.  In 1976, Frank Bowe, a recent Ph.D.
graduate, became the first Executive Director.  Scores of
disability organizations scurried to join ACCD.  Some, such as
the Houston Coalition for Barrier Free Living, were established
in order to be a part of ACCD.
     The fast-growing power and reputation of ACCD positioned it
take the lead in coordinating advocacy regarding the Section 504
regulations.The fast-growing power and reputation of ACCD
positioned it take the lead in coord inating advocacy regarding
the Section 504 regulations.  ACCD threatened to demonstrate at
the 1976 Republican convention with black coffins, symbols of the
plight of people with disabilities, if the Ford administration
did not act. Representatives of ACCD worked with Democrats to
have Carter issue statements that he would ensure the signing of
the regulations if elected.   On the first day of the Carter
administration in January, 1977, ACCD sent a telegram to HEW
reminding the agency of the 504 regulations and, the next day,
showed up at the HEW office to demand signing within 30 days.  In
addition, ACCD Executive Director Frank Bowe, who worked full
time in ACCD s Washington office, organized the production of
 Sign 504  buttons to heighten public awareness about the
regulatory stalemate. 
     After it became evident that a signature from Secretary
Califano was not forthcoming, ACCD began considering ways to
exert additional pressure.  Members decided to be dramatic and
attract press coverage.   When you put the pressure on, you
embarrass politicians,  said Rubenfeld.  Accordingly, in
February, ACCD decided to stage sit-ins at Regional Offices of
HEW. On March 18, ACCD wrote a letter to President Carter
asserting that disability advocates would resort to political
action if the regulations were not signed by April 4.   The
disabled are furious over what they see as a retreat by President
Carter on his promises  to help people with disabilities,
reported The Washington Post in an editorial publicizing the
planned sit-in.  Still, no action came. On Monday, April 4, at
1:30 p.m., Frank Bowe, Dan Yohalem, Deborah Kaplan, and others
met with Secretary Califano in his office.  Califano tried to
explain the delay and expressed support of public demonstrations
to urge signing of the regulations.  The disability activists,
however, stated their demand for immediate signing of the
unchanged regulations and then walked and rolled out of the
office.  Television cameras captured the events on film.  The
following morning, on April 5, hundreds of disability activists
gathered at the Capitol building, where they publicly declared
their demand for immediate signing of the regulations.  Later in
the afternoon, they marched several blocks from the Capitol to
the HEW building.  Simultaneously, activists staged
demonstrations at regional offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago,
Dallas, Denver, Philadelphia, New York, San Francisco, and
Seattle.
     In Washington, the HEW demonstration had two components. 
Most of the activists who marched from the Capitol remained
outside the HEW building to make sure the protest stayed in the
eye of the media.  A second group of about fifty activists,
however, stealthily entered the building in small groups and then
gathered in the waiting room outside Califano s office.  They
tried to storm Califano s personal office, but dozens of guards
blocked their way.  Consequently, they decided to stay in the
waiting room until they met the secretary personally.  The guards
permitted them to stay, but they imposed tight restrictions. 
When the protesters tried to order food around 5:00 p.m., the
guards ripped the phones from the wall.  Security also shadowed
activists to the restrooms to prevent use of public phones. 
Guards even prohibited Schreiber, who was the president of NAD,
from contacting his wife or leaving the floor to get his heart
medication.  Eventually, however, the guards recognized the
severity of the situation and enabled Schreiber to receive his
medication.  The protesters went without food and stayed over
night sleeping on couches, desks, and the floor.  On Wednesday,
April 6, Secretary Califano met with the protesters and asked
them to leave.  But he would not commit to signing the
regulations immediately.   The demonstrators discussed staying
and being forcibly arrested, but voted to end the protest that
afternoon instead.
     The longest demonstration was in San Francisco, where the
group refused to leave the HEW building until the regulations
were signed.  As in Washington, HEW officials initially tried to
squelch the protest by starving the demonstrators and cutting off
telephone communications.  Persons whose conditions required
personal attendants, medication, and medical devices such as
catheters were thus putting their health and lives at risk. The
clamp-down, however, served to motivate and unite the
demonstrators rather than discourage and disband them.  Moreover,
largely due to the intervention of Governor Jerry Brown,
protesters were ultimately allowed to stay in the building and
receive outside assistance.  Within days, the number of people
dwelling inside the building grew to well over 100. 
     The battle over Section 504 regulations gave voice to the
disability rights movement.The surrounding community, which
cherished its tradition of protest, aided the protesters. Area
grocers and restaurants donated food.  The local Black Panthers
prepared and delivered an Easter dinner.  And community religious
leaders assisted in celebrating Easter and Passover. Congressman
Phillip Burton helped win the installation of pay phones. This
helped demonstrators maintain their lines of communication with
the outside world, which they sustained as well through banners,
sign language, and a set of walkie-talkies smuggled in by a local
gay activist group, the Butterfly Brigade.  On the inside,
demonstrators were cultivating  a mini-Woodstock,  as one
journalist described it.  Rubenfeld called it  a love-fest.  
Living in open quarters stimulated close friendships.  People
with diverse disabilities came to know and understand each other
better, which helped cultivate a united vision for their common
betterment. The persistence of the demonstrators was a powerful
testi mony to their determination to achieve their civil rights.
And their actions left Secretary Califano little choice but to
sign the regulations without change, which he finally did, on
April 28.  Two days later, the disability activists ended their
occupation of the HEW building.
     The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504, and the 504
regulations were significant for a number of reasons.  First,
Section 504 eventually helped change the way people thought about
disability.  As one disability historian explained:  The words we
use to define problems, or to evaluate potential solutions to
those problems, structure thinking by linking concrete situations
to moral categories.  Section 504 transformed federal disability
policy by conceptualizing access for people with disabilities as
a civil right rather than as a welfare benefit.   This was a
decisive and important shift.  Disability had long been viewed as
a condition meriting government assistance, but this elevated
disability to the realm of civil rights and gave persons with
disabilities access to a new legal vehicle for asserting their
place in American society.  The regulations affirmed this point:
Section 504  represents the first federal civil rights law
protecting the rights of handicapped persons and reflects a
national commitment to end discrimination on the basis of
handicap.  
     Legislation develops in political, social, intellectual, and
cultural contexts.  Successful laws are as much about the people
that shape them as they are about legislative language.Second,
the battle over Section 504 regulations gave voice to the
disability rights movement. The disability community s minor role
in bringing about the original Section 504 legislation is less
important than the protests that the regulations spurred. 
Secretary Califano would have had to sign the regulations
eventually.  But the protests made it extremely difficult for the
secretary to incorporate any changes that might have weak ened
the regulations.  And they left a lasting image of persons with
wheelchairs taking over federal buildings a practice which became
a model for future demonstrations.
     Third, the Section 504 regulations established legal
standards for nondiscrimination tailored to the civil rights
needs of persons with disabilities, which would later be
replicated in the ADA. The regulations determined that ending
discrimination for persons with disabilities meant taking
proactive steps to remove barriers and make reasonable
accommodations.  Additionally, the reg ulations balanced this
need against a limit of  undue hardship  (see Appendix F) for the
federal agencies and contractors covered by the regulations. 
     The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 would be the principal legal foundation for the ADA: the
twin pillars.  There could be no ADA without them.  It was not
enough, however, only to have a legislative foundation.  Passing
legislation is a complicated process; it is not merely an
inevitable and logical development of legal principle. 
Legislation develops in political, social, intellectual, and
cultural contexts.  Successful laws are as much about the people
that shape them as they are about legislative language.  Thus,
even with the legal framework of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 well-established by 1980, the ADA
could not have succeeded at that time.  The social, political,
and cultural contexts necessary to support such legislation were
simply not yet in place.  While the 1977 protests were the
crowning achievement of ACCD and a major rite of passage for the
disability rights movement, the movement was still in its
infancy.  Yet, over the ensuing decade, the disability rights
movement bloomed.  The disability community attained a new
sophistication in legal expertise, developed a political presence
in the White House and on Capitol Hill, and established
credibility with the broader civil rights community. 

            Growth of the Disability Rights Movement
     The disability rights movement grew primarily out of
personal experiences and the recognition that current quality of
life was inadequate.As Congress and HEW in Washington were
writing civil rights language into federal laws and regulations,
important work within the disability community was taking place
throughout the nation.  A disability rights movement was being
born.  It was not the first time people had advo cated for the
rights of persons with disabilities, but the movement that formed
in the 1970s was unique ly consumer-driven.  Not all
constituencies of the disability community supported the effort
to view disability as a civil rights issue with the same vigor.
Indeed, great obstacles had to be overcome to estab lish a
meaningful disability rights movement.
     Although the disability rights movement developed in the
tradition of the 1960s social movements, a number of factors made
the rise of this movement much more difficult.   Disability  as a
class did not share the same cohesive forces manifest with race
and gender.  In the 1950s and 1960s, persons who were blind,
paralyzed, or mentally ill did not naturally share a common
identity. In fact, persons with different disabilities were often
in conflict over limited government resources. Moreover,
disability transcended and intersected such categories as race,
gender, and class that often provided a basis for affinity and
identity.  Persons with disabilities generally did not inhabit
the same physical communities that helped fuel the civil rights
movement.  And segregation for persons with disability meant not
only separation from mainstream society, but also isolation from
each other.   
     The disability rights movement began to take shape during
the 1970s in spite of these obstacles.  It is difficult, however,
to explain its origins neatly, for it derived from multiple
sources. While the movement drew on various cultural currents to
achieve its ends, it grew primarily out of personal experiences
with disabilities and the recognition that current quality of
life was inadequate. Even though most persons within the
disability community shared similar goals such as education,
jobs, dignity, access, and equal participation the wide variety
of disabilities meant that subgroups of the disability community
did not always seek the same objectives.  The activities of one
group were not only often unknown to others, at times they ran
counter to the efforts of others.
     One key source of the disability rights movement was the
independent living movement. Early threads of the movement can be
seen as early as the 1950s, when people such as Mary Switzer and
Gini Laurie began to realize that disability services could be
cheaper and more effective when provided through personal
attendant care at home rather than in institutions.  In the
1960s, the independent living movement gained momentum
predominantly through the influence of college students.  In
1962, for example, four students with disabilities at the
University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana helped start the
movement by leaving an isolated facility to reside near campus in
a home modified for accessibility.  They then began working with
the University to improve campus accessibility and gain increased
control over their own lives. 
     A similar and more visible effort took place the same year,
when Ed Roberts, who was paralyzed from polio, entered the
University of California at Berkeley.  The school housed him in
the third floor of Cowell Hospital, where he was aided by friends
and attendants with eating and dressing.  Roberts thrived.  He
earned not only his undergraduate degree, but also a masters
degree in political science.  News of his success spread, and by
1967 twelve students with major disabilities joined him in
Cowell.  These students, who called themselves the  Rolling
Quads,  began holding brainstorming sessions about ways they
could increase their self-sufficiency.  Rather than be directed
by, and dependent on, bureaucrats, they wanted to be able to
secure their own funding, find their own jobs, and make their own
decisions. 
     The potential of persons with disabilities could not be
realized simply by trying to  rehabilitate  the individual.
 Society  also had to be  rehabilitated. To promote this they
secured a grant from HEW, in 1970, to finance a Physically
Disabled Students  Program (PDSP).  The goal of the program was
independent living.  The ramped office provided access to
residential counselors, tips on where and how to obtain personal
attendants, and a wheelchair repair shop.  To meet the growing
requests for service from non-students, PDSP leaders joined to
incorporate the Berkeley Center for Independent Living in 1972. 
As one journalist observed:  It would be run by people with
disabilities; approach their problems as social issues; work with
a broad range of disabilities; and make integration into the
community its chief goal.  Independence was measured by an indi
vidual s ability to make his own decisions and the availability
of the assistance necessary  from attendants to accessible
housing to have such control.  
     Shortly after the Berkeley center began its operation, other
programs opened their doors: in Boston, Massachusetts; Houston,
Texas; Columbus, Ohio; and Lansing, Michigan.  The movement also
gained support in Congress.  The original Rehabilitation Act of
1972 included an Independent Living Program to help promote
independent living services around the country.  Although it was
eliminated as part of the compromise with President Nixon in
1973, the Carter administration afforded a new opportunity.  The
program was established as part of the 1978 Amendments to the
Rehabilitation Act and became known as the Title VII program. 
Despite its very limited funding, the Title VII program breathed
life into the incipient independent living movement.  It helped
establish standards for independent living programs that ensured
a high level of consumer control and the provision of core
services.  In the ensuing decade, the number of independent
living centers around the country grew exponentially.
     The independent living movement represented nothing less
than a radical transformation in thinking about disability
policy.  One might call it a paradigm shift.  Prior to the 1970s,
disability was viewed primarily as a medical issue.  Persons with
disabilities were considered  sick  or  impaired  and in need of
a cure.  They were patients who required experts  instructions
about how to  get better.   The problem of disability was seen to
reside in the individual, who must be  rehabilitated  and
returned to gainful employment. 
     The independent living movement represented nothing less
than a radical transformation in thinking about disability
policy.  Advocates wanted to shed the medical model that cast
them as passive recipients of professional care.Advocates of
independent living saw things differently.  Infused with a rights
mentality sparked by the civil rights, women s, and anti-war
movements, these individuals wanted to shed the medical model
that cast them as passive recipients of professional care. 
Instead they asserted their rightful place in society.  They
pursued mechanisms for self-help rather than relying
predominantly on authorities.  They advocated a consumer spirit
that established the role of the consumer as the decision-maker
and people with disabilities as the experts.  And they rejected
the idea that persons with disabilities, even persons with severe
disabili ties, should be isolated in custodial institutions.
Instead they promoted community-based living. Moreover, advocates
of independent living hoped to improve the lives of people with
disabilities by promoting cross-disability interaction.  People
with diverse disabilities could help each other through peer
counseling and present a stronger voice for policy change.
     According to the philosophy of independent living, the
problem of  disability  did not reside simply in the individual,
but also in society, in the rehabilitation process, the physical
environment, and the mechanisms of social policy.  The full
potential of persons with disabilities therefore could not be
realized simply through trying to  rehabilitate  the individual. 
 Society  also had to be  rehabilitated,  by making the physical
environment more accessible and destroying the attitudes that
rendered persons with disabilities as helpless victims in need of
charity.
     In this respect, the independent living movement was
strikingly analogous to previous movements for civil rights.  In
the early twentieth century, people widely talked of the  race
problem,  referring to the presence of blacks in America.  The
locus of the problem was supposedly the individual black person
and his or her supposed inferiority.  With the civil rights
movement came a new social critique.  The problem was not the
black person, but pervasive racism.  The American economy and
social structures tended to exclude blacks, rather than
incorporate them as valued citizens.  What was needed, therefore,
was a transformation of the nature of America s
institutions through legal measures and a gradual erosion of
prejudice.  Feminists experienced similar problems, as the social
and economic frameworks functioned to limit their opportunities.
To give women their rightful place in society, fundamental
structural change had to occur.  And so it was with the nascent
disability rights movement.  Advocates argued that people with
disabilities should not have to accommodate themselves to a
society designed to exclude them.  Instead they encouraged
disabled persons to assert their right to join society and
promoted reforms to facilitate participation. 
     This social critique, however, was not about subverting core
American values.  Rather, it was about partaking of the American
ideology of liberty and opportunity.  Persons with disabilities
had the same aspirations as other Americans.  This mentality also
challenged disability professionals.  Many disability rights
advocates viewed these professionals as accomplices in
discrimination because they treated disabled persons as  sick 
patients.  In addition, advocates thought some special interest
organizations contributed to infantile notions of persons with
disabilities by appeal ing to charity for  helpless  children.
     The rise of independent living centers was a crucial aspect
of the disability rights movement. But other contributions were
also significant: for example, those concerning developmental
disabilities and mental illness.  Organizations such as the ARC,
which endeavored to assist persons with developmental
disabilities in living better lives, focused especially on two
issues: institutional ization and education.  Advocates found
appalling conditions and subhuman standards in many institutions
for people with disabilities.  In addition to exploring ways to
develop community-based alternatives, they promoted institutional
reform.  In the early 1970s, the ARC collaborated with a group of
Washington-based organizations to pass a law to protect the
rights and treatment of persons with developmental disabilities
in institutions.  By 1975, under the leadership of Paul Marchand
of the ARC, the group of organizations formally identified
themselves as the Consortium for Citizens with Developmental
Disabilities (CCDD).  Their efforts culminated in the Developmen
tal Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1975, which
promoted respect for the basic human rights of institutionalized
persons.  Congress built on this Act in 1980 with the Civil
Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, which gave the Federal
Government authority to sue local opera tors of institutions that
consistently violated the constitutional rights of persons in
prisons, mental hospitals, and other institutions.
     CCDD was also interested in improving educational prospects
for persons with developmen tal disabilities.  In this regard
they shared the interests of a variety of disability
organizations, whose collective efforts assisted in passage of
the Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (more
commonly known as Public Law 94-142).  This act, supported by
persons with disabilities across the spectrum, was a milestone. 
It had the crucial effect of raising a generation of persons with
disabilities who expected to attain a rightful place in American
society, not isolation and segregation.  This generation would
compel its teachers and peers to develop the same understand ing. 
A decade later, it would help mold public opinion about the ADA.
     DIA was made up of young disabled dreamers who believed that
fighting for their rights was their obligation. 
          Judy Heumann   In addition to centers for independent
living and disability-specific organizations, other important
elements of the growing disability rights movement included legal
action centers and organizations devoted to political protest. 
For example, as an outgrowth of a legal activist project in law
school, Robert Burgdorf and several other students at the
University of Notre Dame estab lished the National Center for Law
and the Handicapped (NCLH).  With support from the univer sity,
the American Bar Association, the ARC, and HEW, NCLH pursued
cases around the country to help persons with disabilities. 
Their first work was based on due process and equal protection
law, but Section 504 provided a new and stron ger legal
foundation.  It  seemed like manna from heaven,  said Burgdorf. 
Other legal centers active in promoting the rights of per sons
with disabilities were the Public Interest Law Center of
Philadelphia (PILCOP) and IN SPIRE of Georgetown University.
     While these organizations concentrated their efforts on the
legal front, others focused exclusively on political activism. 
In 1970, Judy Heumann, who used a wheelchair because of polio,
founded Disabled in Action (DIA).  It developed out of publicity
generated by Heumann s lawsuit against the New York City Board of
Education, which had denied her a license to teach.  Heumann and
such friends as Denise McQuade, Frita Tankus, and Larry Weisman
decided to use the case as a vehicle to heighten attention to
disability issues in general.  As people with disabilities and
their families read and saw the coverage of Heumann s case, many
began calling her about their own experiences: a cry for broader,
collective action.  Heumann and others felt that existing
organiza tions were not sufficiently politically active: DIA
would thus be overtly and exclusively political. It  was made up
of young disabled dreamers who believed that fighting for their
rights was their obligation,  said Heumann.  Two more DIA
organizations soon formed in Philadelphia and Baltimore.  They
were all cross-disability in focus and engaged such issues as
transportation, architectural accessibility, television
telethons, sheltered workshops, and institutionalization.  In
1972, Heumann led DIA to protest President Nixon s veto of the
Rehabilitation Act, culminating with two separate occupations of
Nixon s headquarters just days before the election.  DIA was also
instrumental in protesting HEW s delay in issuing the Section 504
regulations.
     The experiences with political protest, and especially the
1977 demonstrations, led Robert Funk, Mary Lou Breslin, Pat
Wright, and Judy Heumann, who were in varying ways associated
with the independent living center in Berkeley, to focus on the
absence of a national legal defense fund for persons with
disabilities.  As a partial solution, Heumann helped found the
Disability Law Resource Center (DLRC) as part of the Berkeley
Center for Independent Living.  The purpose of DLRC was to
provide legal services to individuals with disabilities: studies
had shown that persons with disabilities were not adequately
served by state legal services.  Robert Funk and Paul Silver were
among its leading attorneys.  
     To help manage the legal affairs of the organization, Funk
and Silver hired a young attorney named Arlene Mayerson. 
Interestingly, Mayerson had no prior experience in disability
law; she was trained in civil rights law.  But Funk and Silver
selected her over scores of applicants, including persons who
recounted stories of working with disabled children in camps. 
 They wanted someone who didn t have a lot of preconceived
notions about what was best for people with disabilities, 
Mayerson explained.   They wanted someone who thought in terms of
civil rights and whom they could mold in the disability rights
movement s image.   At DLRC Mayerson addressed any issue people
brought to her being kicked out by a landlord, getting fired, or
being denied entrance to a restaurant with whatever legal means
were available at the time. 
     DLRC was only a two-year model program.  As funding
approached its end, Funk, Breslin, and Wright decided that a more
comprehensive and long-lasting program was needed: a national
legal defense fund in the tradition of those for minorities and
women.  Consequently, in 1980, they created and opened a new
organization called DREDF, the Disability Rights Education and
Defense Fund.  Wright referred to Funk as  the architect  of the
operation, the one who was responsible for its stable foundation. 
Breslin provided the  vision  and excelled at management.  Wright
described herself as the  political strategist  and the  brawn 
of the organization.  Mayerson joined these three and represented
 the brains  behind the legal operation.  This blend of talent,
said Wright, was the key to DREDF s success. 
     Through DREDF, Funk, Wright, Breslin, and Mayerson could
advocate a national legislative and law reform agenda to provide
more leverage for meeting the concerns of persons with disabili
ties.  DREDF had two main goals.  The first was  to make
disability a real true partner in the civil rights community
nationally.   Up until that time, although many persons were
increasingly demanding their own rights, neither the civil rights
community nor most disability interest groups viewed disability
rights primarily as civil rights.  Rather, most groups focused
narrowly on their own missions shaped by particular diagnoses and
impairments.  DREDF hoped to change that.  The second goal was to
pursue law reform that would provide persons with disabilities
legal protections equivalent to those available to other
minorities and women. 
     As a first step toward meeting these goals, DREDF leaders
sponsored a meeting in San Francisco in the fall of 1980.  They
invited prominent strategists, organizers, and attorneys from
other civil rights causes.  The purpose of the meeting was
twofold.  First, DREDF wanted to educate the civil rights
community about disability.  They prepared a briefing book that
laid out how the education, employment, and voting problems faced
by persons with disabilities were similar to those confronting
racial minorities and women.  The second objective was to provide
DREDF with an opportunity to learn from the successes of other
civil rights causes and make contacts so that DREDF and other
disability organizations could become full partners in the civil
rights community.
     Funk, Wright, Breslin, and Mayerson learned an important
lesson from the meeting.  If DREDF were to achieve its goal of
being a truly national legal defense fund, it had to have a
presence in Washington.  Thus, in 1981, they set up an office in
the nation s capital.  There they encountered Evan Kemp, Jr.,
who, since 1980, ran the Disability Rights Center (DRC) an
organization sponsored by Ralph Nader.  Although Kemp worked out
of just two small rooms, he donated one to DREDF.  Kemp had begun
making his own imprint on the disability rights land scape. 
Since 1976, first under the direction of Deborah Kaplan and then
under Kemp, DRC focused its efforts on eliminating employment
discrimination by disseminating information and lobbying to
retain programs.  It also educated the general public about the
disability rights movement by submitting articles to newspapers
and magazines, and appearing on television shows and radio spots.

     These prejudices create stereotypes that offend our
self-respect, harm our efforts to live independent lives and
segregate us from the mainstream of society. 
          Evan Kemp, Jr. One of Kemp s favorite campaigns was
assaulting the image of  pity  that dominated public portrayals
of persons with disabilities. He focused especially on the Jerry
Lewis Mus cular Dystrophy Association Telethon, which, Kemp
argued, contributed to prejudice against persons with
disabilities.   These prejudices create stereotypes that offend
our self-respect, harm our efforts to live independent lives and
segregate us from the mainstream of society,  Kemp wrote. 
Moreover, the telethon reinforced infantile notions of persons
with disabilities by showing them as dependent children.  It lent
credibility to public images of disabled persons as  helpless.  
It also underscored the notion of persons with disabilities as
 sick  and in need of cure.   If it is truly to help,  said Kemp,
 the telethon must show disabled people working, raising families
and generally sharing in community life,  and promote independent
living programs rather than servile dependence.  Kemp also
defended efforts to integrate persons with disabilities through
barrier removal by arguing how it would benefit all Americans:
for example, bicyclists and stroller-users taking advantage of
curb cuts and subway elevators.
     After joining Kemp in Washington, Wright and Mayerson began
introducing themselves to people and groups around Washington  to
say we re here to do one thing, and that s civil rights.  The
early 1980s, however, were not exactly an auspicious time to be
heading to Washington to promote civil rights.  President Ronald
Reagan entered office with the intention of minimizing federal
regulations and reducing government s role in society, not
establishing new rights and more regulations.  This placed most
persons in the disability movement in a defensive posture, trying
to hold the territory already secured rather than launching new
expeditions.  But DREDF had other things in mind.
     One of the most important contacts DREDF made at the 1980
San Francisco meeting was with Ralph Neas, Director of the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR).  LCCR was the
legislative arm of the civil rights movement and coordinated the
legislative side of all civil rights initiatives.  It worked by
the consensus of all conference constituencies: for example,
African Americans and women.  DREDF believed that any effective
campaign to advance the civil rights of persons with disabilities
would need the support of LCCR, which carried over thirty years
of experience in civil rights, had extensive relationships in
Congress, and had firmly established its credibility.  Neas
described Wright and Mayerson as  thinking five or six years down
the line  in their solicitation of LCCR at the conference.  And
it was at the 1980 meeting, he said, that the strategy for
achieving comprehensive civil rights for persons with
disabilities was first articulated.
     DREDF was not the first disability organization to join with
LCCR.  PVA and ACB, for example, had been long-time members of
LCCR.  DREDF was unique, however, in seeking a tight alliance
with the civil rights community as its central mission.  Although
Wright and Mayerson established a link with Neas and the LCCR as
a result of the San Francisco conference, and Wright eventually
represented DREDF on the LCCR Executive Board, they did not think
they could count on LCCR s support immediately.  First they had
to establish their own credibility and get involved in LCCR
campaigns as much as any other group.  Over the next several
years they did precisely that.

                          First Victory
     Sometimes, as in basketball, the best way to launch an
offensive assault is to get a good defensive stop a steal, a
forced turnover.  President Reagan s Task Force on Regulatory
Relief provided just such an opportunity.  No single president
since Franklin Roosevelt, wrote one historian,  altered the
political landscape so radically and in such a short period  as
did Reagan. He entered office on January 21, 1981, with the
support of a business coalition dedicated to rescuing a
languishing, inflation-ridden economy.  To Reagan, government was
primarily an  obstacle to personal achievement and opportunity.  
Alternatively, he promoted the idea of the  self-reliant,
self-made individual.   For domestic policy, Reagan proposed and
obtained the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.  This act
provided deep personal and corporate tax cuts that primarily
benefitted the wealthiest Americans, on the assumption that
wealth would trickle down to assist lower-income persons. 
     By insisting on a combination of tax cuts and vast increases
in military spending, President Reagan was able to force a
reduction in federal, domestic expenditures.  Thus, in addition
to freeing up business through tax cuts, Reagan wanted to roll
back the development of the welfare state by advocating
reductions in social spending.  He achieved this aim through the
Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA), which cut
$140 billion from the federal budget through Fiscal Year 1985. 
Reagan also hoped to aid businesses, school boards, and
government units through a deregulation campaign: the Task Force
on Regulatory Relief.  He appointed Vice President Bush to lead
these endeavors, who in turn designated his chief counsel, C.
Boyden Gray, to take charge. Over 150 different pieces of enacted
legislation were targeted for analysis.
     Section 504 was now known by many as  the Civil Rights Law
for the Handicapped. As Kemp observed, President Reagan s
emphasis on self-reliance and rugged individualism resonated with
some aspects of the disability rights movement.  But Reagan s
initiatives did not generally offer hope to the disability commu
nity.  Reagan s civil rights record, for example, was cause for
concern: he had won his way to the California governorship in
part by standing against student and civil rights protests in the
1960s.  And his Task Force on Regulatory Relief posed a direct
threat to the civil rights gains of the disability community. 
Three of the early targets of the task force were the Section 504
regulations, the Education for all Handi capped Children Act
(P.L. 94-142), and the regulations for the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB).  Although the
ATBCB regulations were relatively technical and
non-controversial, changes to Section 504 and P.L. 94-142
regulations had potentially stagger ing implications.  
     Section 504 was now known by many as  the Civil Rights Law
for the Handicapped.  Any changes to it would be a major defeat
and could have dire consequences for other civil rights
regulations.  As one civil rights attorney explained, persons in
the disability community thought the Reagan administration
started with disability regulations because  they thought the
disability community was the least well organized and they could
slip these regulations through and use them as precedents for
other regulations.   Deregulation of P.L. 94-142 posed an
additional threat to the educational prospects of persons with
disabilities, which in turn might jeopardize employment
opportunities.  The administration also considered introducing
legislation limiting the level of service for, and individual
attention to, persons with disabilities in the educational
process.
     Prior to becoming chief counsel to Vice President Bush, Gray
had no experience with disability policy.  But these regulations
immersed him in it, and he gained a new education.  The Task
Force started with Section 504.  By January, 1982, Gray had
received a draft of proposed changes from the Department of
Justice (DOJ).  This draft was leaked, however, and came into the
hands of disability organizations, including DREDF.  Wright and
Funk convened a meeting of nine disability organizations to
discuss the proposals, which decided to have DREDF lead the
fight.
     Persons in the disability community organized a nation-wide,
grassroots letter-writing campaign and flooded the White House
with letters over 40,000 by 1983.In March, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) supplied DREDF with extra ammunition:
a leak of OMB s proposed changes.  OMB s proposals included a
provision that would allow federal grant recipients, in certain
cases, to weigh the cost of an accommodation against the  social
value  of the person involved.   This was a cost-benefit analysis
of how human you are,  said Funk.  DREDF worked with such
organizations as NCIL and ARC to help mobi lize disability groups
all over the country to protest by writing letters.  For NCIL,
which was founded that year, this was one of the first
opportunities to join other organizations in national advocacy
efforts.  In Washington, Wright and Funk met extensively with
Gray to discuss the details and ramifications of changing the
regulations.  They were joined by Kemp, who brought a trump card
to the table: himself.  For over a decade, Gray and Kemp had been
bridge partners and had become close friends.  Kemp built on this
relationship to persuade Gray against permitting damaging
alterations to Section 504 and P.L. 94-142.  Gray consequently
became a mediating force between those rewriting the regulations
and the disability lobbyists. 
     The controversy intensified later in the fall when the Task
Force began consideration of the education provisions.  Parents
of persons with disabilities were outraged and united with other
disability advocates to resist President Reagan s actions. 
Persons in the disability community organized a nationwide,
grassroots letter-writing campaign and flooded the White House
with letters  over 40,000 by 1983.  As part of the review
process, Gray held hearings throughout the country. Thousands of
persons and parents of persons with disabilities attended to
demonstrate their opposi tion.  They presented testimony
explaining the harm that would be caused by changing the regula
tions.  One two-inch-tall Los Angeles headline declared:  Parents
of Disabled Children Boo Reagan Proposals.   Congress joined
these efforts by sending a letter signed by majorities in both
chambers urging the president to support the full funding of P.L.
94-142.  House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel helped arrange a
meeting between Sally Hoerr, president of the Illinois Alliance
for Exceptional Children and Adults, and Chief of Staff James A.
Baker, III, to enable Hoerr to articulate her opposition. 
     By January, 1983, Gray had a final draft of the proposed
revisions in his hands, but Kemp and Wright pleaded with Gray not
to make the changes.  Two months later, in part because of Gray s
influence, Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General for
Civil Rights, finally agreed to abandon the regulatory efforts. 
And on March 21, Vice President Bush wrote a letter to Kemp
informing him that Section 504 and P.L. 94-142 would be left
untouched.  Bush explained that conversations with members of
Congress and with the disability community made him understand
the negative impact such changes would have.  Especially helpful,
Bush said, were the comments of persons with disabilities and
their families.  Your commitment to equal opportunity for
disabled citizens to achieve their full potential as independent,
productive citizens is fully shared by this Administration,  he
told Kemp.
     This was a huge victory, a big defensive stop.  And it was
important not simply for the content of the regulations.  What
had started out as a threat to roll back years of gains served to
unite the disability community.  For the first time persons and
parents of persons with disabilities and scores of different
organizations joined together for a common cause, to defend
disability rights.  It showed the disability community that there
was a reason to write in all those responses to alerts,  Mayerson
said,  and it showed the Administration that there was a
political element here as well as a legal righteousness in the
cause.   Gray concurred:  One of the things I found is [that] the
disability community . . . wanted to be treated as a potent
political force just like any other force. [It] was part of the
empowerment.   
     This two-year process was also crucial for the relationships
it fostered.  Wright, Funk, and Kemp were now close allies. 
During the ADA deliberations, Funk and Kemp would be working The
activities of the disability community in the 1980s may largely
be viewed as a defensive effort to sustain the gains of the
1970s.  within the administration instead of lobbying it from the
outside respectively as a White House negotiator and Chairman of
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  They would
be important links for the disability community.  Moreover,
through the efforts of Wright, Funk, Kemp, Mayerson, and
thousands of Americans, Gray and Vice President Bush had earned a
valuable education that would prove indispensable dur ing the
deliberations over the ADA.  Gray marveled at how Bush
 intuitively grasped  disability issues.  Gray and Bush also
became genuinely interested in disability issues.  Bush, for
example, began asking Kemp to write his speeches when he spoke
before disability groups, which enabled him to develop
relationships with others in the disability community. 

                    Building a Winning Record
     Washington likes winners.  Throughout the 1980s, the
disability community recorded an impressive string of judicial
and legislative victories that helped build the disability
movement s credibility in Washington.  (See Appendix B for a
chronology and descriptions of legislative, judicial, and
political events preceding the ADA.)  In the process, crucial
networks continued to develop.  The DREDF-arranged San Francisco
conference of 1980 laid the foundation for forming an alliance
with the civil rights community.  Neas reports meeting with
Wright and Mayerson at the conference and notes one occasion in
which Wright emphasized that it was extremely important to be
victorious in the first civil rights battle for people with
disabilities.  They therefore decided to tackle something
comparatively small: the issue of voting accessibility.  The goal
was to ensure that the principle of the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
equal access to voting, encompassed persons with physical
impairments.  Wright and Neas and others achieved this goal with
the passage of the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and
Handicapped Act of 1984.  Neas explains that this victory was
absolutely crucial:  If we had not won on the Voting Rights
extension, . . . I don t think we would have won any civil rights
bills after.   Indeed, many more difficult challenges lay ahead,
and that victory was an important foundation for facing them. 
     The activities of the disability community in the 1980s may
largely be viewed as a defensive effort to sustain the gains of
the 1970s.  In addition to the deregulation efforts of the Reagan
administration, the disability community also faced a Supreme
Court that did not enforce the disability rights that had been
attained and threatened to overturn established provisions.  In
fact, the preponderance of legal activity within the disability
community during the 1980s related to the Supreme Court and its
rulings.  Things did not start out well.  In a 1979 Supreme Court
ruling in Southeastern Community College v. Davis, the Court
questioned the viability of the regulations developed to
implement Section 504.  The case addressed a nursing school s
responsibility to accommodate the needs of a hearing-impaired
applicant.  The Court s conclusion that such accom modations were
not required by the school was a significant defeat for the
disability community. 
     Discrimination cannot be justified by ignorance.The Supreme
Court did not take on another Section 504 case for five years,
but in 1984 the results were much more encouraging.  In
Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone, the Court affirmed that
the Section 504 regulations did indeed apply to employment
discrimination.  DREDF had taken the lead in arguing the case for
the disability community and was pleased to see its efforts pay
off: the Court established that courts must give considerable
deference to the 504 regulations.  This decision reflected the
results of a Pennsylvania District Court case, Nelson v.
Thornburgh, which ruled that the state s Department of Public
Welfare was obligated to absorb the costs of readers or
electronic devices for visually- impaired employees, because the
cost did not constitute an  undue hardship. 
     The Supreme Court s decisions, however, were not all
positive for the disability community in the 1980s.  From 1984 to
1986, the Supreme Court handed down six cases with, at best,
mixed results.  In the 1985 decision Alexander v. Choate, the
Court ruled against a group of Medicaid claimants, alleging the
state violated Section 504 by reducing the number of days
Medicaid covered for inpatient hospitalization.  They argued the
policy had a disparate impact on persons with disabilities and
that the policy should therefore be prohibited.  Although the
Court decided against the plaintiffs by affirming the policy, it
made an important ruling on the nature of disability.  The Court
stressed that disability discrimination came most often not in
the form of direct, conscious discrimination, but rather by
unconscious neglect: curbs without ramps for wheelchairs, for
example.  Laws directed against disability discrimination
therefore had to target discriminatory practices deeply embedded
in society. 
     Also in 1985, in City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living
Center, the Court considered whether a state zoning agency could
exclude a group home for persons with developmental disabilities. 
The Court rejected an argument that persons with disabilities
should be treated as a  quasi-suspect  class, which would warrant
heightened judicial scrutiny for policies treating a group as a
class.  But it did establish an important principle by ruling
that the exclusion was unconstitu tional.  The Court decided that
the group home did not pose any  special threat  to the city s
 legitimate interests.   Rather, the exclusion was based on
 irrational prejudice.   Discrimination against persons with
disabilities, in other words, could not be justified by
ignorance.
     The four remaining cases prompted the disability community
to solicit Congress to pass legislation devoted to overturning
the Supreme Court s rulings.  In 1986 alone, Congress passed
three acts to reverse Supreme Court decisions.  The Handicapped
Children s Protection Act reversed the 1984 ruling Smith v.
Robinson by ensuring that parents had the right to reasonable
attorneys  fees when successful in litigation.  The Civil Rights
and Remedies Equalization Act overturned Atascadero State
Hospital v. Scanlon by establishing that states may not be immune
from alleged Section 504 violations filed in federal court.  And
the Air Carriers Access Act overturned U.S. Department of
Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America by requiring that
commercial airlines be subject to the accessibility standards of
Section 504, regardless of whether they received federal
assistance.  Through these cases, the disability community
attained a new level of legal sophistication.  It also developed
important connections.  For the Handicapped Children s Protec
tion Act, for example, Wright and Mayerson worked extensively
with Robert Silverstein, who later helped orchestrate the ADA
deliberations in the Senate.
     The most significant Supreme Court decision was the 1984
ruling in Grove City College v. Bell.  This case concerned Title
IX of the Education Amendments Act, which prohibited
discrimination on the basis of sex in all programs receiving
federal assistance.  Although the Court sustained the principle
of nondiscrimination, it ruled that the Title IX sanction of
cutting off federal funds would be applied only to the particular
program in question and not the entire institution.  This
decision had a profound impact on the entire civil rights
community.  Since the language prohibiting discrimination on the
basis of sex in federally assisted programs or activities was
identical to that for discrimination on the basis of race, age,
and disability, it affected all groups equally.  Consequently,
overturning this decision and returning the civil rights statutes
to their previous interpreta tion became the top priority for
LCCR and the civil rights community. 
     This gave the disability community a perfect opportunity to
work side-by-side with other civil rights groups as equal members
and partners.  It took three years for them to see their
objective met in the Civil Rights Restoration Act, which had to
be passed over President Reagan s veto. Mayerson, the chief
attorney for the disability community, explained the significance
of this act:  Not only could [the civil rights community] see
that we could again do the work as well as they could and do the
legal analysis as well as they could, but we were also actually
able to open a few doors that weren t traditionally open in the
civil rights community.   Wright and Mayerson could build on the
contacts they had made in their own disability-specific work and
bring them to bear on the civil rights community s endeavors. 
Moreover, as Neas explained,  those four years enabled about
thirty or forty people to get to know one another really well,
and we went to hell and back [on] a legislative roller coaster
ride.   Those experiences, while trying, made for meaningful
relationships and developed the trust necessary for effective
collaboration.
     Two further victories are important to understanding the
ADA s future success.  The first is another Supreme Court case,
the 1987 decision in School Board of Nassau County, Florida v.
Arline.  In this case a school board fired a teacher exclusively
because she was found to be susceptible to tuberculosis.  Her
attorneys tried to gain her protection under Section 504 as a
handicapped person.  The Court obliged them, ruling that a person
with a contagious disease may be deemed a  handicapped person.  
Such a decision, however, had to be based on an individual basis
to determine whether an individual could do a job with or without
a reasonable accommoda tion and if there were scientific evidence
that the person posed a substantial health risk to others. This
was a significant victory for the disability community because it
made a powerful statement against  fearful, reflexive reactions 
to people and confirmed that the discrimination faced by persons
with disabilities is often based on fear and misapprehension, not
on reality.
     The history of the ADA began  in cities and towns throughout
the United States when persons with disabilities began to
challenge societal barriers. 
          Arlene Mayerson     A final major victory for the
disability community in the 1980s came with the Fair Housing
Amendments Act of 1988, which expanded the protections afforded
by the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and prohibited discrimination in
the sale or rental of housing on the basis of disability.  The
Fair Housing Amendments Act was significant for several reasons. 
First, it added to the momentum the disability had been building
throughout the 1980s.  Its passage in September, following
introduc tion of the ADA in April, gave a big boost to the ADA. 
Second, it afforded people with disabilities another opportunity
to work with the civil rights community on one of its top
priorities.  But now, for the first time, disability was an
important component in a major civil rights legislative
initiative.  Moreover, the disability community formed a close
alliance with organizations advocating the rights of persons with
the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired
Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), who were protected under this
act as persons with disabilities.  Third, the Fair Housing
Amendments Act broke new ground with respect to civil rights for
persons with disabilities by incorporating provisions that
applied to the private business sector as well as to recipients
of federal funding.  And Fourth, the act provided an important
foundation for the ADA by building on the Arline decision: it
provided that unless an individual with a contagious disease
posed a  direct threat  to the health and safety of others,
discriminatory practices against such persons was unlawful. 
     Enactment of the Fair Housing Amendments Act on September
13, 1988, marked the end of a string of national, legislative
victories during the 1980s.  These accomplishments were crucial
for the ADA s success.  As Mayerson explained:  The respect for
the legal, organizational, and negotiation skills gained during
these legislative efforts formed the basis of working
relationships with members of Congress and officials of the
administration that proved indispensable in passing the ADA.     

                      Grass Roots Activism
     Although the legal battles won in Washington were of
critical importance, equally important activities were taking
place around the nation.  As Mayerson writes, the history of the
ADA began  in cities and towns throughout the United States when
persons with disabilities began to challenge societal barriers
that excluded them from their communities, and when parents of
persons with disabilities began to fight against the exclusion
and segregation of their children.  It began with the
establishment of local groups to advocate for the rights of
persons with disabilities.   While the 1970s witnessed the
creation of the disability rights movement, the 1980s experienced
its blossom ing, which came with a flurry of grass roots
activism.
     Thousands of people around the country contributed to the
disability rights movement.  For many people with disabilities,
college was a life-changing experience that marked the beginning
of political action and underscored the importance of community. 
Roland Sykes, a student at Wright State University in Dayton,
Ohio, was one example.  He selected Wright State after his spinal
cord injury because the university made concerted attempts to
achieve campus accessibility.  There Sykes joined with over 20
other students with disabilities who, as Ed Roberts had done at
Berkeley, promoted a more accessible campus.  This affirmed an
important lesson Sykes had learned as a member of United Mine
Workers of America: the power of collective bargaining.  Joining
with others not only provided emotional support, it added
leverage in dealing with campus administra tors.  For example,
students at Wright State helped create an adapted athletic
program for persons with disabilities.   If it had been one
person against [the] system, that never would have happened, 
Sykes said.  Students also succeeded in starting a pilot program
for persons with disabilities.  After all, the school was named
after the famous Wright brothers who made history by taking to
the air. People with disabilities had the same desire to fly. 
     Another example was the  disability community growing at
Brooklyn College in New York, where Denise Figueroa gained a
better understanding of living with polio by interacting with
other students.  At Brooklyn College she participated in her
first demonstration: a protest against President Nixon s veto of
the Rehabilitation Act.  She and her peers were also able to use
student government funds to send students to the annual meeting
of the President s Committee on the Employment of the
Handicapped.  This provided an opportunity to make contacts with
students from other college campuses who were also developing
their own disability communities and fostering local activism. 
Even if students did not network directly with disabled students
at other campuses, simply knowing that others shared the same
goals was empowering.
     While Figueroa relished the opportunities college provided,
she realized that she could not always rely on its architectural
accessibility.   If I ever wanted to leave the campus and be able
to participate in the community, we had to change the community
too,  she observed.  This understanding led many people to take
their community-based activism beyond the college campus. In
1976, for example, students at Wright State University sued the
city of Dayton under the Urban Mass Transit Act, which said that
public transportation should service all citizens, including
people with disabilities and the elderly.  Disabled activists won
the case and secured a mandate that all transportation vehicles
had to be accessible.  Had it not been for the mobilization of
the disability community, however, the transit authorities simply
would not have taken the initiative.
     Outside of college campuses, the growing network of
independent living centers served as crucial  community gathering
places,  as Mark Johnson called them.  Among other things, they
fostered emotional support through peer counseling and thereby
spread the  gospel  of disability rights and local action. 
Charlie Carr, for example, said that Fred Fay, who visited Carr
at a hospital that he resided in while attending Massachusetts
Bay Community College,  put a fire under me.  Fay demonstrated
that a person with quadriplegia could be mobile, have one s own
apartment, drive a car, get married, have children, and earn a
Ph.D.  all the things that I would lay in bed and look up at the
ceiling and think that I would never have,  Carr said.  As a
founding member of the Boston Center for Independent Living and
one of the first to use its services, Carr obtained his own
housing, attendant care, and became an ardent activist.
     Perhaps no single group epitomized grass roots activism more
than people who considered themselves members of ADAPT American
Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation.Independent living
centers drew on the learning experiences of other centers.  In
Den ver, Colorado, the center known as Atlantis set an example of
taking sledgehammers to side walks for fashioning curb cuts. 
Under the leadership of Wade Blank, Atlantis members also took
busses hostage overnight to demand accessible transportation. 
Such demonstrations could be an effective tactic, as they were in
Tulsa, Oklahoma, for example.  After becoming Executive Director
of the independent living center Ability Resources, in 1983,
Sykes joined with Woody Osburn and others to organize Tulsans for
Accessible Public Transportation (TAPT).  Since they were unable
to find an attorney willing to pursue litigation, they decided to
use public opinion as an alternative and pressured local mayoral
candidates and members of the transit board to promote accessible
transportation.  Between 1984 and 1988, by using such dramatic
tactics as chaining themselves to buses, members of TAPT helped
swing elections to mayoral candidates who supported their cause. 
TAPT also targeted transit board members, who were volunteers,
and had demonstrators follow them around town, compelling many to
resign.  Progress in achieving transportation accessibility,
though slow, was real.  And it illustrated the power of community
action.
     Public demonstrations were fruitful in other contexts as
well.  Johnson, for example, gained his first taste of activism
through the Metrolina Independent Living Center in Charlotte,
North Carolina.  It was 1980, and Metrolina activists learned
that a local mall was developing an inaccessible theater.  After
seeking to work with the architects to no avail, Johnson and
others staged a protest as a media event.  Mall administrators
responded in just a few weeks by installing a wheelchair lift. 
Public, media-oriented protests were not the only manifestation
of grass roots activism.  Subtler actions included placing
warning cards on the windshields of cars illegally parked in
spaces reserved for people with disabilities.
     Perhaps no single group epitomized grass roots activism more
than people who considered themselves members of ADAPT American
Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation.  The groundwork
for ADAPT was laid by the Atlantis community in Denver in the
early 1980s.  Atlantis activists decided they wanted to develop a
national effort to promote transportation accessibility through
public protests.  They approached NCIL to coordinate and sponsor
the activities.  Although NCIL publicly stated its support of
accessible transportation, it was unwilling to advocate nation
wide civil disobedience.  People at Atlantis and other
independent living centers, for example Bob Kafka and Stephanie
Thomas in Houston, Texas, thus decided to organize their own
grass roots organization.  They made it radically decentralized. 
 It s not incorporated,  Johnson explained:  no board, no
president, no budget.   Rather, people from around the country
identified themselves with ADAPT informally, based on their trust
of others associated with the group.  ADAPT s activities were the
product of volunteers and relied on networks of activists who
could join its efforts. 
     ADAPT s most significant undertakings were its
demonstrations at the annual meetings of the American Public
Transit Association (APTA), held each fall in a different city. 
ADAPT targeted APTA because it was singularly most responsible
for opposing accessible transportation. APTA had won a law suit
against the Department of Transportation and thereby overruled
the department s Section 504 regulations.  These regulations had
required the purchase of accessible vehicles.  But, according to
the court decision, each local transit authority could determine
the extent to which it made its services accessible.  Members of
ADAPT basically decided to shadow APTA until federal
transportation laws changed.  They began by disrupting APTA s
conference in Denver in 1983.  ADAPT rallied the following year
in Washington, D.C., in Los Angeles in 1985, in Detroit in 1986,
and in San Francisco in 1987, coincidentally on the tenth
anniversary of the Section 504 protests.  ADAPT also surprised
APTA by traveling all the way to Canada for one of its meetings. 
By the 1989 deliberations of the ADA, APTA had largely resigned
itself to equipping buses with lifts for public transportation. 
ADAPT had played a significant role in this change of heart.
     ADAPT s efforts at coordinated action on the national level
reflected a significant trend toward establishing vast networks
for collective action, which accelerated during the 1980s.  ACCD
had been the first organization to develop a broad,
cross-disability network.  Under the authorship of Frank Bowe,
ACCD published books to facilitate this growth.  Coalition
Building: A Report on a Feasibility Study to Develop a National
Model for Cross-Disability Communication and Cooperation appeared
in 1978.  The next year, Planning Effective Advocacy Programs
became available to fledgling organizations seeking integration
into the ACCD network.  In the 1980s, however, ACCD began to
unravel.  Fiscal restraint imposed by the Reagan administration
reduced the levels of available grant money, on which ACCD
depended.  In the absence of private funding, ACCD could not
sustain its operations.  Member organizations also felt the
budget crunch, which caused many to turn inward and focus more on
their own survival.  Furthermore, internal conflicts over the
focus of ACCD s mission, predominantly concerning the degree of
attention devoted to advocacy, reduced ACCD s effectiveness.  In
1985, ACCD officially closed its doors.
     Other organizations tried to fulfill some of ACCD s
functions.  Shortly after the establish ment of the Title VII
Independent Living Program in 1978, RSA convened a meeting of all
centers supported by the grant.  Marca Bristo, Director of Access
Living in Chicago, described it as a  magical  time in which
people from around the country were able to share their
experiences. There was a  sense of excitement,  she said, and a
 thirstiness  for greater levels of interaction. This laid the
groundwork for the founding of NCIL in 1982, by Bristo, Max
Starkloff, Bob Williams, Jim DeJong, and others.  Starkloff was
the first president and Bristo the first vice president.  In
1986, Bristo became president of NCIL.
     NCIL s main purpose was to facilitate the creation and
maintenance of independent living centers.  Throughout the 1980s,
NCIL, as ADAPT, had no centralized headquarters, but rather
coordinated its efforts through networking and the contributions
of volunteers from local centers and other organizations.  NCIL
presented itself as the only cross-disability, national
grassroots organization that was run by and for people with
disabilities.  For example, at least 51 percent of all
independent living center staff had to be people with
disabilities to qualify for membership.  NCIL offered a national
voice to the philosophy of independent living by promoting the
rights, empower ment, and self-direction of people with
disabilities.  Its first major challenged involved working with
the Federal Government to implement standards for the creation
and operation of independent living centers.  Consumer control
was the major issue, and it took years for NCIL to compel the
Federal Government to adopt its proposals.  As NCIL battled
Washington, it also established grass roots networks throughout
the country, through which NCIL could funnel information to
members and solicit advocacy for political initiatives.
     By friend and foe alike, the disability community was taken
seriously it had become a political force to be reckoned with in
Congress, in the voting booth, and in the media. 
          Arlene Mayerson     In 1985, Sykes augmented NCIL s
networking by creating a computer network.  The network was
started as the NCIL Computer Network and received funds from
NCIL.  Its purpose was to facilitate the information-intensive
mission of NCIL.  But as the network grew, the name was changed
to DIMENET Disabled Individuals Movement for Equality Network. 
DIMENET helped people with disabilities get online at the advent
of the information age, giving them easy and inexpensive access
to computer networking.  By dialing into a local computer, and
paying only for long-distance charges, callers could open
electronic mail accounts, join discussion groups, and post files. 
It gave independent living centers a cen tral clearing-house for
information about the experiences of other centers and enabled
them to download files.  DIMENET was also a means to linking
disability advocates in Wash ington to people with disabilities
around the country.
     NCIL and ADAPT were not alone in fostering grass roots
networking during the 1980s. Other disability-specific
organizations, including NFB, ARC, NAD, and PVA, continued to
expand their own membership.  Consequently, by the time the ADA
was introduced in Congress, dozens of mailing lists were
available to serve as links between developments in Washington
and the rest of the country.  Moreover, the face of the
disability community was changing.  The Education for Handicapped
Children Act was helping to raise a generation of persons with
disabilities who expected to attain a respected place in society. 
Technical assistance training contracts such as those with DREDF
helped arm individuals with legal knowledge.  And such
organizations as NCIL, ADAPT, ARC, UCPA, NAD, and NFB helped
people with disabilities unite as a collective voice.

                The Disability Community in 1988 
     Although the 1980s began by putting the disability community
and the broader civil rights community on the defensive, Wright,
Kemp, Neas, Funk, Mayerson, and many other leaders were able to
achieve significant victories.   Piece by piece we put together a
decade of legislative success,  Neas observed.  In fact, he said,
while the going was tough in dealing with the policies and
practices of the courts and the Reagan administration, in
Congress the  the 1980s, in all honesty, . . . were a bipartisan
reaffirmation of civil rights and a bipartisan rejection of
right-wing philosophy.   
     Many people in the disability community, as well as such
organizations as DREDF, aimed for the implementation of
comprehensive civil rights protections for persons with
disabilities.  But a record of legislative success,
coalition-forming, and grass roots organizing had to be
established first.  And in the decade between the Section 504
demonstrations and passage of the Fair Housing Amendments Act,
the disability community laid the necessary foundation.  It
earned the respect of the civil rights community.  Talented
leaders such as Wright proved their negotiation and legislative
skills.  People with disabilities formed an extensive and
indispensable network of contacts with Congress and the
administration.  Through such disability-rights attorneys as
Mayerson, Burgdorf, Feldblum, Weisman, Tim Cook (with the
National Disability Action Center), Bonnie Milstein (with the
Mental Health Law Project), and Karen Peltz-Strauss (with the
National Center for Law and the Deaf), the disability community
reached new levels of legal sophistication.  And throughout the
country, hundreds of communities organized to improve the lives
of disabled Americans by winning local battles: pockets of the
United States were crafting stronger protections and providing
greater access for persons with disabilities.  These developments
had a profound impact.   By friend and foe alike,  observed
Mayerson,  the disability community was taken seriously it had
become a political force to be reckoned with in Congress, in the
voting booth, and in the media.   
     No single activity or single event accounts for this
success.  Rather, it was due to the combined effect of the
disability community s efforts.   No one particular tactic is
more valuable than another,  Mark Johnson said of his campaigns
to achieve transportation accessibility.   If you re an activist
and an organizer, you have a fully developed strategy.   Indeed,
the genius of the disability community s political mobilization
was that it pushed for change in so many different ways, by so
many different people.  The diverse efforts were not necessarily
coordinated, but the cumulative effect was the creation of
fertile soil in which an ADA seed could flourish.  As Mayerson
aptly concludes:  The ADA owes its birthright not to any one
person or any few, but to the many thousands of people who make
up the disability rights movement people who have worked for
years organizing and attending protests, licking envelopes,
sending out alerts, drafting legislation, speaking, testifying,
negotiating, lobbying, filing lawsuits, and being arrested doing
whatever they could for a cause in which they believed. 




  2

           Putting the ADA on the Legislative Agenda:
               The National Council on Disability

When Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT) and Congressman Tony
Coelho (D-CA) first introduced the Americans with Disabilities
Act in April, 1988, many persons in and out of the disability
community did not give it a fighting chance.  During the 1980s
the disability community was primarily on the
defensive withstanding a number of assaults and hoping simply to
maintain its legislative and financial ground.  Taking the
offensive and introducing comprehen sive civil rights
legislation, when existing laws were not even adequately
enforced, seemed unrealistic.  In 1985, for example, when
disability activist Duane French encountered people who talked
about the need for comprehensive civil rights for people with
disabilities, his response was:  Not in my lifetime, pal!   Where
did the idea for the ADA come from?  How did it make its way to
Congress as a viable policy option?  And why at this particular
moment?
     Accounting for why some issues and not others make their way
to the legislative agenda is a favorite pastime of political
scientists.  Although no legislation follows a generic model
precisely, one compelling analysis is useful in understanding the
ADA s development.  John Kingdon describes the Federal Government
as an  organized anarchy.   According to Kingdon, public policies
are not created through a systematic, orderly process of
establishing goals, identifying problems, analyzing alternatives,
and making rational choices.  Nor is there an incremental,
inexorable development over time.  Rather, the process is messy. 
Kingdon contends that at any given moment three independent
 policy streams  are active: problems (conditions that demand
corrective attention), policies (proposals made by various
academics, government staff members, and lobbying groups), and
politics (swings in national mood, elections, a new
administration, and ideological distribution shifts).  Problems
emerge and recede; pet solutions are developed even where there
is no concrete problem; and the political landscape constantly
shifts.  However, at particular, limited moments in time  windows
of opportunity  each of these streams merge and offer the
potential for action:  A problem is recognized, a solution is
available, the political climate makes the time right for change,
and the constraints do not prohibit action. 
     Asked to explain why the ADA succeeded, numerous
participants in the deliberative process asserted that the
 timing  was right.  Indeed, the ADA appears to have occurred
during a window of opportunity.  We have seen how during the
1980s a disability rights movement blossomed, characterized by
grass roots political activism, important networking, and
tangible legislative success.  This developed fertile soil where
a civil rights seed might flourish.  But that was only part of
the equation.  There needed to be a clearly defined problem (for
society, not just isolated individuals), coupled with a concrete
solution, and a political climate to legitimate it.  This
complicated process also took shape during the 1980s.  Although
numerous sources helped give life to the ADA, the vehicle that
united these elements and brought the bill to Congress was a
little- known federal agency called the National Council on the
Handicapped (NCD).

               National Council on the Handicapped
     The history of NCD dates to 1972, when Congress proposed an
Office for the Handicapped as part of the Rehabilitation Act. 
Its purpose would be to review the programs of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration (RSA) and evaluate and coordinate all
federal programs affecting persons with disabilities.  But
Congress eliminated the Office in the compromise with President
Nixon.  The idea resurfaced in May, 1977, when delegates from
every state gathered at the White House Conference on Handicapped
Individuals.  The participants reviewed federal disability policy
and offered legislative recommendations.  Among their conclusions
was that the incoherence and intrinsic tensions of various
disability policies required an agency to bring it to order.  The
Carter administration afforded Congress to take action.  Congress
passed legislation creating the National Institute of Handicapped
Research (NIHR, now NIDRR), the Title VII independent living
program, and the  projects with industries  program to assist
disabled persons starting their own businesses. Congress also
used the shift in political climate to implement the White House
Conference s recommendation by passing legislation that created
NCD. 
     In addition to directing NCD to establish policies for NIHR
and advise the RSA Commissioner about RSA policies, Congress
charged NCD to  review and evaluate on a continuing basis all
[federal] policies, programs, and activities  concerning persons
with disabilities, and to report on its activities.  NCD would be
composed of fifteen presidential appointees, each serving
three-year terms and with five new members each year.  NCD could
hire up to seven technical and professional staff, conduct
hearings, and appoint advisory committees.  It was housed in the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).
     NCD s activities prior to 1984 are not well documented.  But
the skeletal framework for the ADA was laid in 1983.  After
President Ronald Reagan entered office in 1981, he decided to
disband the existing council and appoint all new members.  On
October 4, 1982, he selected Joe Dusenbury, previously the
Commissioner of the South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation
Services and President of the National Rehabilitation
Association, as NCD Chairperson.  NCD apparently had a mixed
record, and the Education Department urged Dusenbury to submit a
credible annual report, on time, to help improve NCD s
reputation.  To help direct NCD activities, Dusenbury appointed
two Vice-chairpersons: Justin Dart and Sandra Parrino.  Dart was
the only NCD member Dusenbury knew before joining NCD; they had
worked together on the President s Committee on the Employment of
the Handicapped.  NCD members turned immediately to the task of
the report, and decided that, in meeting NCD duties, they should
prepare an ambitious proposal for disability policy. 
     They also decided that if the report were to have any
legitimacy, it needed to be the product of a nationwide effort. 
Thus began Justin Dart s famous public forums.  Authorized by
Dusenbury and using his own funds, Dart traveled to every single
state to discuss disability policy and obtain feedback for NCD s
policy report.  Dart, who had contracted polio in his teens, went
in his wheelchair and with his trademark cowboy hat.  On this
campaign he met with over 2,000 people, including persons and
parents of persons with disabilities, government officials, and
disability professionals.  Among the most frequently-cited
problems were discrimination and the inadequacy of laws to
protect the rights of persons with disabilities.  This was by no
means Dart s introduction to civil rights issues.  On the
contrary, Dart had become an impassioned advocate for the civil
rights of African Americans as a student at the University of
Houston, where he argued that black students should be allowed to
attend the all-white university.  By the 1980s, Dart viewed
disability rights in a broader context of human rights and as a
logical and necessary extension of the civil rights guaranteed
for African Americans.
     In matters of fundamental human rights, there must be no
retreat. 
          National Council on DisabilityDart and Dusenbury took
the feedback obtained at public forums to heart in designing the
NCD report, in which the spirit and content of human rights,
civil rights, and disability rights are pervasive.  Persons
throughout the nation reviewed the various iterations of the
document, so the final product was truly national in origin.
Issued in August, 1983, the National Policy on Disability built
on the independent living philosophy: pursuit of  maximum
independence, self-reliance, productivity, quality of life
potential and equitable mainstream social participation.   While
individuals must assume primary responsibility for their lives,
the report said, the Federal Government had a critical role to
play. This included 22 different policy areas in need of
attention, ranging from accessibility issues, to employment,
education, and research.   Part of the government s obligation,
contended the report, was  to develop a comprehensive, internally
unified body of disability-related law which guarantees and
enforces equal rights and provides opportunities for individuals
with disabilities,  including integrating persons with
disabilities into all existing civil rights legislation.   In
matters of fundamental human rights,  the report declared in
vintage Dart form,  there must be no retreat. 
     This was not the first call for a comprehensive body of
civil rights law protecting persons with disabilities.  State and
local governments throughout the nation were passing a multitude
of laws and constitutional amendments some amending civil rights
legislation, others creating new disability-specific provisions. 
Others in the disability community had talked about it.  The NCD
report, however, was a powerful declaration that also had the
backing of a federal agency.
     Unfortunately for NCD, the Reagan administration did not
take well to the document.  In fact, Dusenbury had to fund the
printing and distribution of the document with private funds
because the administration would not support it.  NCD did not
circulate the document widely, distributing it primarily to state
and national legislators, and little action was taken by
legislatures. Dusenbury subsequently drew the ire of the Reagan
administration when he refused to support its introduction of
legislation to disband the vocational rehabilitation program. 
Later that year, the White House asked Dusenbury to step down
from the Chairmanship, under the pretext of instituting a
one-year term for the Chairperson.  In his place, Vice-chair
Parrino became the Chairperson. 
     Yet before Dusenbury stepped down (in spite of the
Department of Education s insistence that he have no direct
contact with Congress), he and NCD Executive Director Harvey
Hirshi lobbied Congress to make NCD an independent agency, so
that it would not have its hands tied by the administration,
particularly the Department of Education.  Congress granted NCD
its request in the 1984 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act,
claiming that  the Council has not been able to meet
congressional intent for an independent body to advise on all
matters in the Government affecting handicapped individuals.  
     NCD s independence, however, also reflected Congress s
dissatisfaction with the agency s operation.  Some members of
Congress had even advocated disbanding NCD.  But others saw the
potential for a centralized evaluation of a patchwork of
disability programs as requested by the White House Conference on
Handicapped Individuals.  As a result, in addition to making NCD
an independent agency, Congress issued a mandate that NCD produce
a comprehensive analysis of federal disability programs and
policy by February 1, 1986.  It was  kind of a test  of NCD s
mettle, an ultimatum, and the future of NCD s authorization hung
in the balance.  Congress demanded a  priority listing  of
federal disability programs according to the number of
individuals served and the costs of such programs. Congress also
requested that NCD evaluate the degree to which federal
disability programs  provide incentives or disincentives to the
establishment of community-based services for handicapped
individuals, promote the full integration of such individuals in
the community, in schools, and in the workplace, and contribute
to the independence and dignity of such individuals.   Members of
Congress wanted to know: was the Federal Government promoting
dependence?  
     Congressman Steve Bartlett (R-TX) appeared before NCD on
April 30, 1984, to explain the significance of the challenge that
lay ahead.   You are to advise Congress in a whole new approach,
a whole new concept,  he said,  on how to decrease dependence and
increase independence.  This, he suggested, represented what the
disability community knew and that Congress was only reluctantly
recognizing:  Sometimes Federal laws or provisions in Federal
laws are the worst enemy of independence.   According to NCD s
minutes, Bartlett emphasized that  Congress is not looking for
more programs, more maintenance grants, and larger
appropriations.  Instead, NCD should  look for ways to convert
existing maintenance dollars to help recipients achieve
independence.   Disability policy was therefore not only about
improving the lives of persons with disabilities; curtailing
dependence also helped minimize the federal cost of disability.
     By reviewing federal programs NCD might actually reduce
government expenditures.  Thus, while many were surprised by
NCD s subsequent actions, these goals for NCD substantially
coincided with President Reagan s philosophy.  Although
Republicans and the disability community might seem  strange
bedfellows,  wrote Evan Kemp in a compelling Washington Post
article,  their philosophical similarities are striking.  He
explained:  Both have accused big government of stifling
individual initiative.  Both have advocated that only the truly
needy should receive welfare and that others should be given the
opportunity to work and to become self-reliant and responsible
citizens.   As an example of excessive government, Kemp noted
that Social Security benefits for people with disabilities had
risen 400 percent in just seven years.  If physically and
mentally disabled persons became wholly or partially
self-sufficient, opined Kemp, there would be  more taxpayers and
fewer tax users the ultimate Reagan objective.   Patricia Owens,
Associate Commissioner for Disability in the Social Security
Administration, reinforced this link at an appearance before NCD. 
 The Administration wants a program that encourages people to
return to work,  reported NCD s minutes.  Motivations to improve
the lives of persons with disabilities intertwined with attempts
to reduce dependence on government and federal outlays.  The
subsequent work of NCD reflected this dual concern. 
     Although NCD now carried new independence, it remained
substantively beholden to both the administration, which held the
purse strings, and Congress, which controlled authorization and
appropriations.  Nevertheless, the establishment of NCD as an
independent agency heralded a decisive shift.  Congress now
prioritized recommendations concerning the entire sweep of
disability policy over such specific responsibilities as
overseeing NIHR.  And NCD s new identity as an independent  think
tank  gave increased stature to disability as a policy.   For the
first time, disability as an issue is institutionalized, by
statute, in the structure of the Federal Government,  said John
Doyle, who left his post on the Senate Subcommittee on the
Handicapped for six months to help NCD in its transition.  The
actions of the disability community were clearly gaining
attention, and the themes of independence and community
integration were working their way into national policy
directives. 
     Chairperson Parrino accepted the heightened responsibilities
for NCD eagerly and passionately.  She was a longtime advocate
for people with disabilities based on her experience in raising a
child with a major physical disability.  In Briarcliffe Manor,
New York, Parrino had become a leading spokesperson for parents
of persons with disabilities and helped obtain improved
transportation and voting accessibility for disabled persons. 
Under her leadership, NCD met its statutory requirements by
holding four quarterly meetings each year. These public meetings
rotated around the country, and often met in conjunction with
 consumer forums  designed to solicit the views of persons in the
disability community.  Although NCD attended to the requirements
to monitor NIHR, RSA, and explored the ideas of its various
members, it increasingly turned its attention to satisfying
Congress s mandate to prepare a report, which imposed heightened
work demands.  This required hiring new staff. 
     Parrino and Dart recruited Lex Frieden, who initially agreed
to serve for two years as Executive Director.  Frieden had
founded the Independent Living Research Utilization Program, an
independent living technical assistance program, in 1977, and had
earned great respect within the independent living community.  In
the early 1980s, he worked closely with Dart on the Texas
Governor s Committee for the Employment of the Handicapped.  And
in 1984, coincidentally, he testified before Congress to promote
a blue-ribbon panel to evaluate federal programs, which
culminated in NCD s mandate.  Meeting that requirement was
precisely the kind of task-directed job Frieden relished. 
     The Contribution of this Council and its continued existence
will rest almost entirely on the content of our February, 1986,
Report to the President. 
          Sandra Parrino Frieden assumed NCD s reins in December,
1984, and immediately turned to the task of finding high-quality
staff to support him.  He hired Ethel Briggs, who had extensive
experience in vocational rehabilitation, as Adult Services
Specialist.  Attorney Robert Burgdorf filled the Research
Specialist position.  Burgdorf had actually sought out the job
when he heard of NCD s new responsibilities.  He had devoted much
of his career to promoting disability rights, and saw this as an
opportunity to continue his campaigns.  Naomi Karp joined Frieden
as Children s Services Specialist (on detail from NIHR), and
Brenda Bratton became Secretary.  Having acquired independence,
additional staff, and a $500,000 budget, NCD was now able to face
its growing responsibilities with increased zeal.

  Toward Independence and The ICD Survey of Disabled Americans
     The Contribution of this Council and its continued
existence,  Chairperson Parrino asserted at the quarterly NCD
meeting on January 23, 1985,  will rest almost entirely on the
content of our February, 1986, Report to the President and how it
is judged by the president and the Congress.  She urged NCD
members to unite in common purpose and pledge their highest
commitment. In April, as preparation for NCD meetings and
consumer forums dominated the better part of NCD s time, Frieden
directed NCD to clear the table and focus almost exclusively on
the report.
     To make the report manageable, Frieden and Burgdorf
presented Council members with a list of 41 potential topics and
recommended that they focus on eight to ten of them.  Since most
of the 1983 council still served as members, the 1983 report was
fresh in their collective memory. Building on and narrowing its
earlier report, NCD settled on eleven topics.  One of them was
 Unified disability laws including civil rights.   Some members
doubted  whether the subject of civil rights is a topic that
should be addressed in the 1986 report, in view of the breadth
and complexity of the subject.   But others contended  there is
no question about its central importance  and noted that it was
consistently discussed at the consumer forums.  To make the
concept more palatable to reluctant NCD members and ultimately to
the Reagan administration, NCD presented the issue as an  equal
opportunity law  rather than  civil rights.   The former
coincided with independence and self-reliance; the latter smacked
of affirmative action. 
     In June, NCD members held working sessions to sketch out the
content of each proposed topic and finally settled on the
following ten topics: equal opportunity laws, employment,
disincen tives to work under Social Security laws, prevention of
disabilities, transportation, housing, community-based services
for independent living, educating children with disabilities,
personal assistant services, and coordination of disability
policy and programs.  NCD chose to take responsibility for the
report rather than simply contracting an outside organization to
do it.  Because of the logistical problems posed by meeting only
four times a year, primary responsibility for designing the
report fell to Frieden and Burgdorf.  They committed to
developing detailed and thorough topic papers to document their
findings.  The project was a model of teamwork in which staff
members and a few consultants wrote most of the essays and NCD
members worked with them closely in the review process.  
     One recurring theme in NCD s discussion of the papers was
the cost of disability policy to the Federal Government.  NCD
members generally agreed not to recommend any funding increases. 
Jeremiah Milbank, for example, suggested that any request for
federal dollars required anticipation of  massive Federal
cost-saving benefits with positive human results.   Indeed, NCD
took care not to embarrass the president by presenting
recommendations that would require large funding increases. 
Chairperson Parrino explained that NCD s recommendations were
 designed to improve the ability of persons with disabilities to
live with dignity and as independently as possible within their
communities.   By following them, she added,  current Federal
expenditures for disability can be significantly redirected from
dependency-related approaches to programs that enhance
independence and productivity of people with disabilities,
thereby engendering future efficiencies in federal spending.  
This fiscal conservatism was crucially important for securing the
later success of the ADA.  It demonstrated that efforts to
improve the lives of persons with disabilities could coincide
with fiscal restraint, and thus win the support of skeptical
members of Congress. 
     Moreover, NCD rooted the ADA in Republican soil, preventing
it from being discarded as a  liberal  bill.  In fact, NCD
members endeavored to depoliticize their job and focus simply on
what was most important for persons with disabilities.  Frieden,
Burgdorf, and others praised NCD for this approach.  Dart
captured the spirit in a statement to NCD about the direction of
disability policy:  Major emphasis should be given to the
absolute necessity for all who believe in the fulfillment of the
American dream . . . to rise above the traditional limits of
politics and personality and to unite in support of the
fundamental human rights of disabled people.   
     Also crucial to the ADA s eventual success was the approach
NCD took in developing the report.  As he did in 1982, Dart
personally financed another series of public forums, visiting
every state to learn what persons with disabilities throughout
the country thought were the most important issues.  In the same
vein, NCD devoted its 1985  consumer forums  to soliciting
feedback about the various topic papers.  Moreover, Frieden
consulted with disability organizations from around the country
constantly.  He also developed a list of approximately 50 people
from the grass roots that he spoke to on at least a monthly
basis.  It was, said Frieden,  ironic  that supposedly  elitist 
Republicans were so interested in cultivating grass roots
collaboration.  Nevertheless, this extensive, nationwide
involvement helped give the disability community a sense of
ownership over NCD s activities and helped form important links
that would pay dividends later.  By the end of 1986, NCD had
crafted over 400 pages of policy analyses; the disability
community had helped to refine them. 
     The philosophy of the disability rights movement manifested
itself in the report s title.  At a brainstorming session, staff
reflected on the independent living movement and on Dart s
findings. Facilitating independence through equal participation,
they thought, must be the ultimate goal of disability policy and
evident in the report s title.  But the goals were yet to be
reached, so they focused on policy direction.  They thus
conceived an appropriate title: Toward Independence.
     NCD prioritized the advancement of  equal opportunity laws 
for people with disabilities as its primary recommendation. 
Although Congress had enacted several anti-discrimination laws
for persons with disabilities, council members noted, coverage
for persons with disabilities paled in NCD prioritized the
advancement of  equal opportunity laws  for people with
disabilities as its primary recommendation in Toward
Independence.comparison to those afforded racial minorities and
women.  Reminiscent of the 1983 report, NCD therefore proposed
that Congress  enact a comprehensive law requiring equal
opportunity for individuals with disabilities, with broad
coverage and setting clear, consistent, and enforceable standards
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of handicap.   This time,
however, the proposal came with a thorough explanation for why
such an ap proach was necessary to facilitate the employment and
general life satisfaction of persons with disabili ties.  It also
delineated what such a law should en tail.
     With the support of Frieden and newly-hired staff member
Andrea Farbman in January, 1986, Burgdorf devoted a weekend to
synthesizing the topic papers into a short readable report, which
specified over forty different recommendations.  Pressed for
time, NCD contracted at the Federal Prison Industry to publish
the document rather than risk the potential for delay with the
Government Printing Office.  About a week before the scheduled
release, however, with 10,000 copies of Toward Independence
prepared for distribution, Frieden received a call from Bob Sweet
at the White House.  Sweet threatened to block the report because
the White House allegedly could not support it.   This report is
so liberal, Ted Kennedy wouldn t produce it,  he told Frieden in
reaction to the report s ambitious proposals.  But Sweet s
superior highly-respected physician and public health expert, Dr.
William L. Roper quelled the conflict after being persuaded by
Frieden that the basic principle of Toward Independence was that
all Americans should share in society.  He simply directed
Frieden not to attach the presidential seal to the report. 
     NCD officially presented Toward Independence, accompanied by
letters of transmittal, to President Reagan, President of the
Senate George Bush, and Speaker of the House James C. Wright
(D-TX), on February 1, 1986.  NCD also scheduled a press release
for January 28, 1986.  But media attention that day was riveted
to the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger, leaving few
reporters and little time for Toward Independence.
     The NASA catastrophe also canceled another Council
arrangement: a meeting with President Reagan to present the
report in person.  Consequently, Vice President Bush and Boyden
Gray met with Parrino, Dart, Milbank, and Frieden.  The White
House meeting was noteworthy because Bush exhibited tremendous
interest in NCD s report.  A ten-minute photo-op evolved into a
substantive discussion that lasted nearly an hour.  Bush
recounted his own personal experience with disability through
family members.  Evidently, as Frieden recalled, Bush had
familiarized himself with the report before the meeting: he
talked about some of the issues in detail, namely education and
equal opportunity laws.  Bush ended the meeting without a single
criticism of NCD s recommendations and with a promise that he
would pass the report along to Reagan.  He also said he wished he
could do more, but noted that there was only so much he could do
as vice president. 
     Although NCD s press conference and meeting with President
Reagan were canceled, the agency s third public relations event
went through as planned: a reception on Capitol Hill, where many
members of Congress gathered to accept the report.  Senator
Weicker, Senator Paul Simon (D-IL), and Congressman Steve
Bartlett (R-TX), among others, offered remarks.
     NCD ultimately distributed over 20,000 copies of Toward
Independence to legislators, government officials, disability
advocates, and disability organizations.  DIMENET, the computer
network started under the aegis of NCIL, received permission from
NCD to type the report and make it available on the Internet. 
The report  made a big splash,  as Bonnie O Day, at the time the
director of an independent living center in Norfolk, Virginia,
put it.  Thousands of people across the country read it and
talked about it.  The attraction was not the novelty of the
proposals it contained: virtually every issue and recommendation
presented by NCD had been initiated or proposed at the state and
local level.  Rather, the report was significant because it
represented a proposal for a national, comprehensive approach to
disability policy.  Moreover, it carried the clout of being the
product of a federal agency.  Regardless of the content of the
report, simply producing a comprehensive analysis of disability
programs was significant in the stature it gave to disability as
part of the national policy agenda. 
     With respect to Kingdon s analysis, Toward Independence can
be seen as a body of policy solutions.  Of special importance was
NCD s prioritization of a comprehensive equal opportunity law as
necessary to achieve functional independence and social
participation for persons with disabilities.  But at this stage
it represented only a potential solution.  Getting the issue on
the legislative agenda would require further documentation that
the lack of such a law was a desperate problem.  An influential
national poll helped this process along.
     As NCD deliberated the topic papers comprising Toward
Independence, one of its members, Milbank, voiced the concern
that NCD s conclusions might not adequately reflect what average
Americans with disabilities thought.  He feared that the forums
sponsored by Dart and NCD were too selective.  Unfortunately,
there was no substantive survey data on how having a disability
affected a person s ability to participate in the life of the
community.  This led Milbank to contact his friends at the
polling agency Louis Harris and Associates, namely its president,
Humphrey Taylor, who agreed to conduct a study.  NCD staff and
members contributed to the development of the questions and
structure of the survey.  The International Center for the
Disabled (ICD), where Milbank served as Chairman of the Board,
provided most of the funding.  Although NCD hoped the results
would be available in time for inclusion in Toward Independence,
it was finished soon after and published in March, 1986, with the
title: The ICD Survey of Disabled Americans: Bringing Disabled
Americans into the Mainstream.
     The purpose of the survey,  explained ICD Executive Director
John Wingate,  was to obtain data on disabled people s
experiences and attitudes that would provide a clear information
framework of NCD s recommendations on public policy for disabled
people.   The nationwide survey was based on 1,000 telephone
interviews with a national sample of non-institutionalized
disabled persons aged sixteen and above.  In some respects it
paralleled the significance of NCD s report Toward Independence. 
While other organizations had conducted surveys, this was the
first comprehensive survey of persons with disabilities that
solicited their perceptions of their own quality of life.  It
provided solid data that could document the extent of problems
faced by persons with disabilities and help guide fruitful
directions for policy development.  Significantly, it suggested
that federal disability programs had improved the lives of
persons with disabilities, which warranted continued policy
development and federal funding.
     67% aged 16-64 were not working; 66% of those not working
said they would like to be employed.The Harris poll found that
the prevalence of disability for non-institutionalized persons
aged 16 and over was 15.2% of the United States, or about 27 to
28 million people.  In an analysis of the Harris results, NCD
concluded that the addition of institu tionalized persons,
children, and households that could not be reached by telephone
would place the total number of per sons with disabilities
somewhere near the oft-quoted figure of 36 million.  The poll
also presented a series of significant, quantified findings about
this group of Americans:

     72% said their lives had been at least  somewhat better  in
the past decade.
     67% said the federal policies had helped at least
 somewhat. 
     40% did not finish high school, compared with 15% in the
non-disabled population.
     50% reported household incomes less than $15,000, compared
with 25% among the non-disabled population.
     56% reported that disability prevented desired levels of
social and community participation.
     49% identified lack of transportation as a barrier to social
and community participation.
     67% aged 16 to 64 were not working; 66% of those not working
said they would like to be employed.
     Employment correlated with levels of education, income, life
satisfaction, self-perception as disabled, and perception of life
potential.
     95% advocated increased public and private efforts to
educate, train, and employ persons with disabilities.
     74% supported implementation of anti-discrimination laws
affording disabled persons the same protections as other
minorities.

     For the most part, these findings were not surprising.  But
they served the crucial role of documenting what were previously
subjective assessments.  And the survey was a ringing endorse
ment of initiatives to help disabled Americans find work. 
Unemployment more than anything else seemed to define disability,
and the correlation between employment and life satisfaction
cried out for attention.  NCD had argued strongly in Toward
Independence that civil rights protections would help improve
accessibility and facilitate employment.  The poll affixed
numbers to a real and pressing problem and functioned as a
nationwide endorsement of NCD s report.  With respect to
Kingdon s policy analysis, this linked two policy streams:
problems and solutions.  Frieden asserted:  I doubt that the
recommendations in Toward Independence, and particularly [those
regarding] civil rights, would have been taken as seriously by
the policy makers had we not had the data.  

                        Drafting the ADA
     As Frieden s successor Paul Hearne observed in 1988, NCD s
preparation of Toward Independence and instigation of the ICD
Survey helped  put the Council on the map.   NCD member Michael
Marge said of the reports:  We were very well received by both
sides of the aisle as a valuable, worthwhile group.  Our entree
to the Congress was fantastic.   Despite the tremendous respect
NCD gained, however, Congress took little action a great
frustration to NCD members.  Although Congress pointed to Toward
Independence as  the Manifesto, the Declaration of Independence
for people with disabilities,  said Frieden,  nobody bothered to
do anything about it.   NCD members and staff especially
Burgdorf, Dart, Frieden, and Parrino were frustrated most by the
lack of attention to their number-one recommendation, an equal
opportunity law.  
     Congress pointed to Toward Independence as the Manifesto,
the Declaration of Independence for people with disabilities, 
but  nobody bothered to do anything about it. 
          Lex Frieden    After waiting for nearly a year, they
began discussing what NCD could do.  They concluded that the only
way to overcome legislative inertia was for NCD to take the lead. 
(See Appendix C for a chronology of the events leading up to the
ADA s introduction in Congress.)  Frieden remembers talking about
drafting a civil rights proposal as early as December, 1986. 
There was some early dispute over whether disability rights
legislation should come in the form of an amendment to the Civil
Rights Act or whether it should be an independent initiative.  At
a strategy meeting, Burgdorf and Frieden solicited the input from
such disability rights advocates as Marca Bristo, Evan Kemp, and
Robert Funk.  They discussed whether using the vehicle of a
separate law might ironically reinforce discrimination by
underscoring the separateness of people with disabilities.  But
they decided that an adequate foundation for disability rights
required unique provisions and that a separate law could serve as
an energizing force for the disability community.  
     The framework for such a law was already sketched out.  In
Toward Independence, Burgdorf specified that the law should
prohibit discrimination by the Federal Government, recipients of
financial assistance, federal contractors and subcontractors,
employers, housing providers, places of public accommodation,
persons and agencies of interstate commerce, transportation
providers, insurance providers, and state and local governments. 
He also proposed that the law secure private right to action to
remedy discrimination, give the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB) the authority to remove
barriers according to universal accessibility standards, and
establish Protection and Advocacy Systems in each state to
protect and advocate for the rights of persons with disabilities. 
To make nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap meaningful, he
stressed, the law would have to be founded on the concept of
providing reasonable accommodations and taking affirmative steps
to eliminate barriers.  Among the proposal s most ambitious
provisions was that all existing barriers to accessibility would
have to be removed in two to five years, except where a private
business or public entity received a special waiver.
     By August, 1987, Robert Burgdorf had a complete draft of
what was now called, at the suggestion of NCD member Kent
Waldrep, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1987.Yet it was
not an optimal time to introduce new civil rights legislation. 
The disability community, the civil rights community, and
Congress were just beginning their campaign for the Civil Rights
Restoration Act, which was introduced on February 19, 1987. 
Another civil rights measure might adversely affect its passage. 
Burgdorf nonetheless began putting the law on paper, expecting it
could be used eventually, and fin ished a preliminary draft in
February.  During the spring of 1987, he and others began holding
brainstorming sessions with  impor tant and knowledgeable persons
in the disabil ity community  to include them in the process and
facilitate the drafting.  At the May quarterly meeting, NCD
decided to move forward and give official sanction to crafting a
legislative proposal, deciding that a comprehensive law, rather
than a piecemeal approach, was the best way to protect disabled
persons  civil rights.  Staff members Burgdorf and Frieden worked
most intensively on the law.  And NCD members reviewed draft
after draft of the proposal prepared by Burgdorf, who advanced
his own vision for the law while helping to put NCD members 
thoughts in proper legal form.
     By August, 1987, Burgdorf had a complete draft of what was
now called, at the suggestion of NCD member Kent Waldrep, the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1987.  Principal strategic
planning for the legislative proposal was carried out by Parrino,
Frieden, and Burgdorf.  They concluded that success required a
body of individuals and organizations to support the endeavor and
good timing of its introduction so as not to obstruct the efforts
of the civil rights community.  At the August Council meeting,
members hoped that the bill would be passed in the 100th
Congress by the end of 1988.  Dart, who was in attendance at the
meeting though no longer a Council member, was more cautious.  He
suggested it would take years to obtain passage.  Nevertheless,
he fully supported moving forward to initiate the requisite
education process. 
     Senator Weicker officially agreed to be the bill s sponsor:
he was absolutely crucial in giving the ADA its life.For
congressional sponsorship, Parrino turned first to Senator
Weicker, with whom NCD had a long standing relationship.  Weicker
was one of the disabil ity community s greatest advocates in the
Senate. This was in part because Weicker had personal experi ence
with disability through his son, who had Down s Syndrome.  For
Weicker, however, interest in disability issues stemmed from a
broader philosophical and political commitment to assisting those
in need.   He was a man of very strong principles about the role
of government and the responsibility for caring for those who
were less fortunate,  said Terry Muilenburg who worked on his
staff.  This applied to elderly persons and people of
lower-income as well as to people with disabilities.  At times
Weicker acted as  the conscience of the Senate  to defend the
constitutionality of an active Federal Government, Muilenburg
added. Weicker was a fitting congressional contact because he had
played a pivotal role in ensuring that NCD stayed alive in 1983. 
Early in 1987, during a meeting with Parrino, he had indicated a
willingness to support disability rights legislation if NCD
drafted a proposal.  Now Weicker officially agreed to be the
bill s sponsor: he was absolutely crucial in giving the ADA its
life.
     For the ADA to succeed, Senator Weicker emphasized that the
bill would have to be introduced simultaneously in both houses of
Congress.  He recommended that NCD contact Congressman Coelho,
who was, coincidentally, a close friend of NCD member Roxanne
Vierra s husband, to sponsor the House bill.  Coelho also had
epilepsy, and was becoming a public advocate for people with
disabilities.  Although Congressman Coelho s staff cautioned him
against sponsor ing the bill for fear that it would not win the
support of the broader disability community, Coelho agreed to
sponsor it.  Senator Weicker later encouraged NCD to begin
working closely with Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA).  Harkin was
Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Handicapped, which would
likely have jurisdiction over the bill in the Senate. 
     While NCD s solid reputation with Congress helped in finding
congressional sponsors, enlisting the support of the disability
community proved more difficult.  Many persons in the disability
community had been working toward the goals, shared by NCD, of
equal opportunity and full participation; some strove for civil
rights legislation akin to NCD s proposal.  But many people in
the disability community viewed NCD with apprehension.  While NCD
collaborated with persons with disabilities throughout the
country, NCD generally did not work closely with leading
disability organizations, especially those that had been
championing recent legislative campaigns.  Moreover, given the
context of the Reagan administration s civil rights record, some
questioned NCD s motives.  Some NCD members, on the other hand,
suspected that others were envious of NCD for being the first to
draft civil rights legislation.  For these and other reasons, the
relationship between much of the disability community and NCD was
strained.  
     Prior to the November Council meeting, Burgdorf met with
representatives of the Consor tium for Citizens with
Developmental Disabilities (CCD) to discuss the bill. At a later
meeting convened by Terry Muilenburg of Senator Weicker s staff,
CCD members stated that they opposed the bill as written.  Their
greatest concern was that they did not want the ADA to undermine
the coverage of Sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 
Securing the Section 504 regulations had been a protracted
battle, and the regulations had been subsequently assaulted by
President Reagan s Task Force on Regulatory Relief just a few
years before.  CCD feared that if the provi sions of Section 503
and 504 were included in the ADA it would mean the regulations
were back on the bloc, and an administration unfriendly to
disability rights could substantially rewrite and weaken them. 
As an alternative, CCD proposed what became known as the
 donut-hole  approach: leave what was already established alone,
and write the ADA around it to cover everything left out.
     CCD also argued that the ADA should not enforce standards
inconsistent with those afforded to other minority groups.  The
disability community was in the midst of working with the civil
rights community on the Fair Housing Amendments Act.  Passage of
the ADA would require the full backing of the civil rights
community, so it was important to advocate the same protections.
For example, while many people in the disability community
believed health insurance should be a part of the ADA because
people with disabilities often could not find affordable health
care, health insurance was not a protection afforded to any other
group.  In a more general sense, CCD expressed concern about
incorporating new language and new terms, such as a revised
definition of disability.  They urged that NCD use language from
Section 504, which would help secure congressional support
because it was familiar.  At the November Council meeting,
members voted on the draft of the ADA and rejected changes
proposed by CCD.  Three days later, however, Senator Weicker met
with a variety of disability groups and decided, together with
Senator Harkin, that Sections 503 and 504 and health insurance
needed to be dropped from the ADA.  Although a variety of factors
warranted the exclusion of health insurance, Weicker s
representation of Connecti cut, where insurance was a major
industry, made the inclusion impractical. 
     Senator Weicker urged NCD to accede to the disability
community s changes, but NCD bristled because it was afraid to
weaken its legislative proposal.  Chairperson Parrino suggested
getting a broader range of opinion from persons outside
Washington at a meeting coinciding with the February Council
meeting, on February 9, 1988.  In the meantime, NCD was preparing
its 1988 report, On the Threshold of Independence.  The report
evaluated progress made since its 1986 report, Toward
Independence, on each of the ten topics.  At the suggestion of
Public Affairs Specialist Andrea Farbman, NCD decided to include
the current draft of the ADA in its discussion of the equal
opportunity law recommendation, hoping to draw further attention
to the ADA and enlist grass roots support.
     Discrimination on the basis of disability is  just as
intolerable as other types of discrimination that our civil
rights laws forbid. 
          Senator Lowell Weicker   On February 9, representatives
from around the country gathered at NCD s quarterly meeting. 
There they formed working groups and unanimously agreed to remove
Sections 503 and 504 and health insurance from the purview of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.  On the following day, NCD
decided to circulate the bill, with these changes, to Congress
and the Reagan administration.  Negotiations with the disabil ity
community continued after the February Council meeting, but
Weicker, faced with a string of proposals from the disability
commu nity, decided to honor NCD s work in drafting the
legislation and forge ahead with its version of the ADA.
     On April 28, 1988, Senator Weicker introduced the Americans
with Disabilities Act on the floor of the United States Senate. 
He called the legislation  historic,  and said that it  will
establish a broad-scoped prohibition of discrimination and will
describe specific methods by which such discrimination is to be
eliminated.   He compared the conditions faced by persons with
disabilities to those faced by minorities in the 1960s.  Civil
rights advocates then argued forcefully and demonstratively that
no person, because of race or national origin, should be
discriminated against in obtaining access to public
accommodations, use of transit, employment opportunities,
services of state and local governments, and housing.  Laws
prohibited this type of discrimination by business owners,
employers, and governments, Weicker said.   Yet, today,  he
noted,  it is not unlawful for these same establishments to
exclude, mistreat, or otherwise discriminate against people
because of their disabilities.   He contended that discrimination
on the basis of handicap was  just as intolerable as other types
of discrimination that our civil rights laws forbid.   The
following day, Congressman Coelho joined Weicker by introducing
an identical bill to the floor of the House of Representatives. 
Civil rights for persons with disabilities had entered the
national, legislative agenda.
     NCD s role did not end with Senator Weicker s final
acceptance and introduction of their proposal, but in a very real
sense the baton was being passed from NCD to congressional
sponsors and the disability community.  NCD was in an awkward
position.  Although NCD could present legislative proposals and
justify its recommendations by offering  technical information, 
federal law at the time prevented NCD members and staff, as all
employees of federal agencies, from personally lobbying members
of Congress.  In lieu of formal lobbying, NCD members made
presentations in their home towns and in their professional
circles.  Chairperson Parrino met extensively with officials in
the White House and helped pave the way for favorable action on
the ADA by the Bush administration.  She also gave important
congressional testimony on multiple occasions. 
     NCD performed the crucial function of documenting a problem,
crafting a solution, and securing a foothold in Congress.NCD s
presence was also carried forward as Frieden and Burgdorf
resigned to take positions where they could exert more direct
influence.  Frieden, for example, became Executive Director of
the congressional Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment of
Persons with Disabilities, which played an important role in
documenting the need for the ADA.  Some members felt slighted by
the transition in ADA leadership.  But it was actually a
testament to their success NCD had accomplished its mission. No
other single disability organization could have introduced a
proposal to Congress with the same authority NCD possessed as an
independent federal agency.  NCD had performed the crucial
function of documenting a problem, crafting a solution, and
securing a foothold in Congress.  It brought people to the table
to develop a workable solution with substantial consensus.  Now
NCD would join the ranks of other organizations and thousands of
individuals in educating America about the ADA. 





  3

                      Publicizing the ADA: 
              Advocacy and the Government Response

Gallaudet University erupted on March 1, 1988, as an estimated
1,500 alumni, students, faculty, and community supporters rallied
to demand the selection of the university s first deaf president. 
The board of trustees had narrowed its candidate pool to three:
Harvey J. Corson and I. King Jordan, both deaf; and Elizabeth A.
Zinser, who neither had a hearing impairment nor understood sign
language.  On the evening of March 6, under the leadership of
Chairperson Jane Bassett Spilman, the board selected Zinser as
president.  Hundreds of students, alumni, and others responded
the next morning by shutting down the school: they organized
before dawn and blocked every campus entrance.  They even
searched cars and planned to lie on the ground to prevent a
helicopter from landing in the event that Zinser tried to step
foot on campus (she never did).  They also marched to Capitol
Hill and demonstrated at the White House. 
     Later that day, a ten-person delegation representing
students, faculty, and alumni issued four demands to the board:
appoint a deaf president; demand Spilman s resignation; protect
protestors from punishment; and designate a majority of the
board s seats for deaf persons.  But the board rejected the
demands.  At a meeting in the field house that followed, where
Spilman appealed to a crowd of protesters to give Zinser a
chance, students shouted down Spilman, sounded a fire alarm to
obstruct her presentation, and taunted her:  If you could sign,
we could hear you.   The following day, on March 8, the group
hung Zinser and Spilman in effigy; later they cut them down and
burned them.
     The volatile activity on the campus of the world s only deaf
university was front-page news; people from around the world lent
their support.  Senator Robert Dole (R-KS), Congressmen David E.
Bonior (D-MI) and Tony Coelho (D-CA), and Vice President George
Bush backed selection of a deaf president.  Bonior threatened
that the university might lose government funding, which
accounted for 75 percent of its budget, unless it met
demonstrators  demands. 
     The Deaf President Now! protest  proved, convincingly, that
deaf people could band together effectively for a common cause
and succeed.  
          Jack Gannon    To students, alumni, and faculty, the
selection of a deaf president symbolized deaf persons  attempt to
attain full citizenship, equal participation, and self-direction. 
 The time has come for the plantation mentality, which has for so
long controlled this institution and others serving the deaf, to
end,  psychology professor Allen Sussman said.   We want to be
free from hearing oppression,  student leader Bridgette Bourne
declared.   We don t want to live off the hearing world, we want
to live as independent people,  she continued.  Freshman John
Limmidis opined:  We believe that we have to fight to prove to
the world that a deaf person is just as good as a hearing
person.   The presidency of Gallaudet was the highest position in
the deaf community; a decision to bypass a deaf person for that
office broadcasted the message that hearing persons were better
suited for power and leadership.  Consequently, it questioned the
potential of deaf persons in other employment and social
opportunities.  Like racial minori ties and women, the deaf
community wanted the empowerment and legitimacy that comes with
leadership from one s own ranks. 
     On March 10, under relentless pressure, Zinser submitted her
resignation.  The following day the board acceded to the
protestors  demands: it appointed Jordan president, accepted
Spilman s resignation, committed to reconstituting the board, and
dismissed repercussions for demonstrating. It was a huge victory
for the deaf community.  As one historian said, the protest
 proved, convinc ingly, that deaf people could band together
effectively for a common cause and succeed.  
     The protest also benefitted and strengthened the disability
community as a whole.  Students  demands for self-direction,
independence, and opportunity echoed the disability rights
movement. National coverage of the events confronted many
Americans with a foreign image of disability: repudiation of pity
and charity, insistence on civil rights.  The protest also came
at an opportune moment, just over a month before the Americans
with Disabilities Act was introduced in Congress. It powerfully
symbolized the potential of the disability community, a fitting
beginning to a nationwide education about disability and the ADA.

               Mobilizing the Disability Community
     In 1988, the top priorities for the disability community
were the Civil Rights Restoration Act, which became public law on
March 22, 1988, and the Fair Housing Amendments Act, enacted on
September 13, 1988.  The ADA would not get the spotlight until
1989.  However, ADA sponsors and the disability community used
1988 as an opportunity to publicize the act, mobilize grass roots
support, solicit the endorsement of presidential candidates,
enlist congressional cosponsors, and establish the act as a top
priority for the next Congress. 
     The political sophistication attained by the disability
community during the 1980s enabled ADA advocates to pursue a
multi-pronged strategy to meet its objectives.  A
Washington-based ADA coalition coordinated these activities in
conjunction with the bill s congressional sponsors. Although this
coalition did not fully form until 1989, it began to take shape
even before the bill s introduction in April, 1988.  Describing
the emerging leadership is extremely difficult, however, because
it was not highly structured.  There was no body of voting
members that elected officials to formally-defined job positions. 
There were no department heads.  Rather, individuals and a
variety of organizations formed a loose (though united) ADA
coalition.  To facilitate communica tions, the ADA coalition
conducted many of its activities  under the auspices  of the
well-estab lished Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
(CCD). 
     Paul Marchand, Director of the Governmental Affairs Office
for the Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC), had founded
CCD s predecessor, CCDD, in the early 1970s to unite federal
advocacy efforts of the disability community.  By 1988, the
consortium represented dozens of Washington-based organizations. 
Additional groups enlisted their support to CCD s campaign to
pass the ADA.  CCD s operations were carried out through multiple
task forces, including the Civil Rights Task Force, which from
1988 to 1990 focused almost exclusively on the ADA.  Pat Wright
of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), Liz
Savage of the Epilepsy Foundation of America (EFA), and Curt
Decker of the National Association of Protection and Advocacy
Systems (NAPAS) were the Civil Rights Task Force Co-chairs.  The
ADA coalition used the task force as its headquarters and CCD
stationary for much of its correspondence.  Although most of the
ADA coalition leaders were from organizations who were members of
CCD, it would be misleading to refer to CCD and the ADA coalition
interchangeably, since key participants also came from outside
CCD.  This applied especially to people with disabilities
representing the grass roots: ADAPT and NCIL, for example.  And
Dart, who was a full-fledged supporter and close ally of CCD,
nonetheless did not officially represent a CCD member
organization: he served the ADA coalition as a voice of the
people.
     The ADA coalition organized its efforts according to four
major functions: overall strategy development; education and
lobbying; grass roots mobilization; and legal writing and
analysis.  And it creatively exploited all available resources to
accomplish the job, varying the approach to meet changing
circumstances.  For the most part, participants tended to focus
on one of these four areas, but there was overlap.  At the core
was a handful of leaders who were most responsible for guiding
the overall effort.
     The ADA coalition embraced four major functions: strategy
development; education and lobbying; grass roots mobilization;
and legal analysis.While many people contributed to developing
the overarching strategy for passing the ADA, two persons in
particular focused their efforts on this area: Pat Wright and
Ralph Neas.  Wright s leadership during the ADA s passage
eventually earned her the nickname  The General.   She had
attended medical school in the 1960s, but, after a progressive
eye disease left her legally blind, she was forced to leave the
profession.  Temporarily derailed, she found a new interest in
assisting persons with disabilities move from institutions to
community- based living and gained an intimate knowledge of how
legal technicalities affected the lives of persons with
disabilities.  Wright made her first major inroads to the
disability rights movement at the San Francisco sit-in of April,
1977, where she had served as a personal assistant to Judy
Heumann and demonstrated her negotiation skills in working with
the guards.  In her decade of work with DREDF, Wright had refined
her extraordinary and tough negotiating techniques. 
     She has [more] hutzpah than anyone I ve ever met,  said
Eastern Paralyzed Veterans of America (EPVA) attorney Jim
Weisman, who worked with her closely during the ADA s passage.
Wright certainly made her presence known.  Her rejection of
standard Washington attire stood out among beltway veterans; one
journalist said she appeared as if she had arrived directly from
the 1960s Berkeley campus.  But Wright was so widely respected in
Congress and the White House The ADA s success was due in no
small part to Pat Wright s efforts.  She has more hutzpah than
anyone I ve ever met. 
          Jim Weismanthat her apparel and colorful vocabulary
were beyond reproach.  She really is brassy,  said Weisman,  but
she got it done.   Indeed, the ADA s success was due in no small
part to Wright s efforts, though some perceived Wright as a
 loner  because she took advantage of her con tacts and her
capabilities to negotiate unilaterally in high-pressured
situations.
     Neas, an attorney and Director of the Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights (LCCR), brought to the ADA coalition unparalleled
expe rience in civil rights legislation.  LCCR carried more than
three decades of civil rights advocacy, and was  the broadest,
the largest, and oldest coalition in the country,  with over 185
organizations and their 60 million dues-paying members.  It had
either assisted or led the coordination of every civil rights
bill since 1957.  As Executive Director of the LCCR since 1981,
Neas led several civil rights campaigns, including the Voting
Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, the Civil
Rights Restoration Act, and the Fair Housing Amendments Act.  (In
1989, he would begin work on what became the Civil Rights Act of
1991.)  In the spring of 1988, Wright approached Neas and the
Executive Council to obtain an endorsement of the concept of the
ADA.  She stressed that the disability community would work with
Congress to develop a viable bill after the 1988 election; the
important consideration was to lend credibility to the general
principles.  DREDF s efforts during the 1980s paid off, and LCCR
joined the disability community as an indispensable ally. 
Although Neas did not join the strategy team full-time until he
finished with the Civil Rights Restoration Act and Fair Housing
Amendments Act, the ADA would become one of his top priorities in
January, 1989.
     While Wright and Neas were the principal strategists, most
strategy development did not take place behind closed doors.  For
example, Savage and Marchand (who focused on lobbying in
Washington), Justin Dart and Marilyn Golden (who focused on the
grass roots), and Mayerson and Feldblum (who directed legal
strategy) all were regular participants in shaping strategy. 
Moreover, important strategic contributions came from people such
as Mary Lou Breslin of DREDF; National Council on Disability
(NCD) Chairperson Sandra Parrino; Lex Frieden of The Institute
for Rehabilitation and Research (TIRR) and former NCD Executive
Director; Paul Hearne of the Dole Foundation; and Jay Rochlin,
Executive Director of the President s Committee on the Employment
of People with Disabilities. These individuals provided
additional contacts in Congress and the administration and also
contributed specific statutory recommendations.  Such
organizations as NCIL and ADAPT brought the concerns of
consumer-directed organizations to the table.  Further more, when
the CCD Civil Rights Task Force began holding weekly strategy
meetings in 1989, out- of-town visitors were active participants.
     Crucial for implementation of strategy was the
Washington-based education and lobbying effort.  In this respect,
Wright worked especially closely with Savage attorney, Assistant
Director for Government Affairs of EFA, and Co-chair of the CCD
Civil Rights Task Force.  Wright and Savage had met in 1985,
around the time Savage joined EFA.  Together they worked on such
landmark civil rights cases as the Handicapped Children s
Protection Act, Civil Rights Restoration Act, and Fair Housing
Amendments Act.  Wright and Savage s strengths complemented one
another.  Whereas Wright s expertise was in strategy and
negotiating, Savage s strength was lobbying.  This experience and
relationship with Wright naturally evolved into the role of
coordinat ing lobbying activities for the ADA coalition.  If
Wright was the  General,  Savage was one of the principal  Field
Commanders. 
     Marchand also played a key role in the education and
lobbying effort.  As Director of the Governmental Affairs Office
of the ARC, Marchand brought to the ADA coalition the resources
of one of the nation s largest disability organizations: 1,200
chapters nationwide, and an Action Alert Network that monitored
congressional activities and mustered thousands of letters and
phone calls. Advocates for persons with developmental
disabilities were a well-established and widely-respected
presence in Washington, which effectively positioned Marchand for
ADA leadership.  Moreover, as Chairman of CCD he had an effective
platform for working with members of Congress and the
administration.
     To aid in the crucial task of educating members of Congress
about disability and lobbying them to be ADA cosponsors, which
began even before the ADA was first introduced, the ADA coalition
relied on a number of lobbying  captains.   These included Becky
Ogle of the Spina Bifida Association, Bob Williams of the United
Cerebral Palsy Associations (UCPA), Denise Rozell of the National
Association of Developmental Disabilities Councils (NADDC), Tom
Sheridan of the AIDS Action Council, Kathy Megivern of the
Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and
Visually Handicapped, Fred Cowell of the Paralyzed Veterans of
America (PVA), David Capozzi of the National Easter Seal Society
(NESS), Caren Friedman of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, and
Curt Decker of the National Association of Protection and
Advocacy Systems (NAPAS).  These lobbyists in turn worked with
members of such organizations as CCD, LCCR, NCIL, the National
Organization Responding to AIDS (NORA), and ADAPT.  Together they
organized lobbying teams to visit senators  and congressmen s
offices, which supplemented the efforts of congressional
sponsors. 
     Victory would be won through the efforts of thousands of
advocates across the nation who could humanize and personalize
the issues.Although lobbying was important, successful passage of
the ADA could not be achieved by efforts only within the
Washington beltway.  Well before the ADA entered Congress, the
ADA coalition concluded that success was dependent on convincing
members of Congress, the executive branch, and the general public
that the difficulties faced by persons with dis abilities were a
genuine national problem.  The ADA could not be viewed as the
brain-child of a coterie of think-tank intellects; it had to be
correctly understood as an outgrowth of the pervasive experience
of discrimination.  Victory would be won through the efforts of
thousands of advocates across the nation who could humanize and
personalize the issues, not by privately wrestling with legal
technicalities.  NCD had begun this process through  consumer
forums,  Justin Dart s public forums, Toward Independence, and
The ICD Survey.  After the ADA was introduced, Marilyn Golden of
DREDF and Justin Dart led these efforts.  In 1988, the primary
goal of the ADA coalition was to get an army ready.  In 1989 and
1990, with a communication system in place, Dart and Golden would
issue a nationwide call to arms. 
     There were three main objectives for grass roots
mobilization.  The first was to educate persons with disabilities
about the ADA to prepare them for action.  An important part of
this process was uniting the fragmented disability community by
centering the focus on a common cause.  The second was to
accumulate evidence of discrimination.  This came not only
through the standard form of congressional testimony, but also
through the novel approach of soliciting  discrimination
diaries.   In addition to providing evidence for Congress,
preparing these docu ments would prompt people throughout the
country to organize diary parties and foster the empowerment that
comes from numbers.  Over time, many persons with disabilities
had internalized oppression, taken complete responsibility for
their situations, and thus turned their backs to discrimination. 
By writing down their experiences, however, people could face
discrimination, recognize society s role, get  mad as hell,  and
lose patience with the circumstances to which they had become
acclimated.  Third, grass roots mobilization would provide a
means to apply pressure on members of Congress and the president. 
Not only did persons with disabilities write letters, they also
joined the lobbying campaign by paying for trips to Washington
out of their own pockets.
     Golden drew on the extensive contacts she had made through
administering DREDF disability rights training projects.  In the
1980s, DREDF had brought thousands of persons with disabilities
to Berkeley to educate them in their rights and teach them how to
mobilize communities for action.  These persons in turn shared
their knowledge with their local communities.  Golden
supplemented this network by establishing ties to other
organizations, such as NCIL, and the ARC, and their grass roots
links.  The computer network DIMENET was another avenue for
mobilizing people around the country.
     As a result of his public forums, Dart had become famous
among people with disabilities around the country, indeed he had
become somewhat of a cultural icon for much of the disability
community.  As he toured the country, Dart kept lists of all the
people who attended, which produced a massive list of people he
could later contact for political action.  And by spending years
touring the country, people in the grass roots felt as if they
were part of the ADA s development rather than objects of it. 
They were thus more willing and eager to join Dart when the time
came for action.  Dart simply had  no equal  in getting people
mobilized, said Maria Cuprill, a staff member of the House
Subcommittee on Select Education. 
     Members of Congress also recognized the need to demonstrate
broad-based support for the ADA.  Congressman Major R. Owens
(D-NY), in particular, devoted considerable energy to empowering
the grass roots.  Although Owens was a relative newcomer to
disability policy, first encountering it after becoming a member
of the House Education and Labor Committee in 1983, he brought
additional assets.  He had experienced the 1960s civil rights
movement first-hand, including service as chairman of the
Brooklyn chapter of the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) an
organization central to the movement s success.  He had also
developed a passion for fostering citizen participation.  In
1987, Owens became Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Select
Education, which had jurisdiction over many disability issues. 
When he first learned about the ADA prior to its introduction, he
thought of it primarily as a civil rights issue: carrying forward
the banner for civil rights from African Americans to women to
people with disabilities.  Owens wanted to do whatever he could
to help energize people with disabilities.
     Accordingly, on May 2, 1988, less than a week after the
ADA s introduction, Congressman Owens created the Task Force on
the Rights and Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities. The
group s purpose was twofold: to present to Congress, the
executive branch, and the general public evidence of disability
discrimination, and to make recommendations.  Owens appointed
Dart to be the Chairperson.  Dart had testified before Owens s
subcommittee as Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA), which was part of the Department of
Education. Owens thereby discovered that Dart shared his
philosophy that disability rights were primarily civil rights. 
But, following his critical testimony regarding the Department of
Education and its paternalistic attitudes toward and policies for
people with disabilities, Dart resigned as RSA Commissioner. 
Owens saw his task force as an opportunity for Dart to continue
his mission of achieving civil rights for people with
disabilities.  Owens named Elizabeth Boggs, of the ARC, as
Co-chair with Dart.  And Lex Frieden assumed the reins as
Coordinator.  Thirty-five others from the disability community
were selected as task force members. 
     Justin Dart chaired 63 forums in all fifty states, with over
7,000 people in attendance, and collected more than 5,000
documents supporting the ADA.Dart immediately began organizing
another series of public forums.  As always, Dart s wife Yoshiko
was crucial for the management and execution of Dart s
activities, which they paid for primarily with their own funds. 
Justin met Yoshiko in Japan, where Justin worked as president of
Japan Tupperware.  Yoshiko was a remarkably successful sales
representative for the company.  In addition to managing his
company, which met with great success, Justin used his position
as president to assist people with disabilities in attaining
better livelihoods.  For example, he sponsored sales campaigns in
which the company and employees donated profits to buy
wheelchairs for persons with disabilities.  Justin also provided
employment opportunities to boys who used wheel chairs.  And
Yoshiko took an active role in training them for work and
assisting them in building greater self-confidence as productive
citizens. Yoshiko s success, capabilities, and interest in
disabil ity attracted Justin s attention, who ultimately hired
her as an executive assistant.  They married in 1968 and became
partners in championing the rights of persons with disabilities.
     Between 1988 and 1990 Justin Dart chaired a total of 63
forums in all fifty states, Guam, and Puerto Rico, with over
7,000 people in attendance overall.  Attending a public forum was
extraordi narily empowering, said Denise Figueroa of New York. 
When someone has a disability, she said, one tends to  tolerate
the discrimination, because it s how you survive.   Hearing
people talk about their experiences, however, could be a
consciousness-raising experience and charge one with a desire to
fight for human rights.  It was also empowering, said Figueroa,
because one realized  you weren t alone. 
     While traveling throughout the country, Dart collected
upwards of 5,000 documents and tape recordings detailing
discrimination, offering proposals, and urging passage of the ADA
(see Appendix E for a collection of examples).  In addition to
people with disabilities, comments came from parents, health care
providers, and others who worked with people with disabilities. 
Virtually every type of disability was represented.  Thousands of
people filled out petitions titled  A vote for justice,  which
declared support of the ADA and concluded with the invitation:  I
have personally experienced and/or observed the following
discrimination against people with disabilities:.   For example,
when Gary Janski, who had a psychiatric disability, tried to rent
a favorite, vacant apartment, the owner said:  we won t rent to
your kind.   When you re  crippled,  observed Sheila Sorenson,
 you get treated like you re a two year old and can t do
anything.    It makes us feel better to [do] things on our own
instead of having everything done for [us],  she said. Ree
Steidemann described how deaf persons she worked with repeatedly
tried to reach hospitals and other institutions through TTY s,
where no one answered or people answered and did not know how to
use their TTY devices.   Please, please help us,  wrote Frances
Murtagh, an exasperated mother of a child with cerebral palsy. 
 I m at my wits end trying to fight these people alone.   In a
profound poem, Carolyn Schwartz pleaded:  So before you condemn
what you don t understand. Let me reach out to you and come touch
my hand.   Debbie Wimmer described how she overheard a security
guard announce:  I have a girl in a wheelchair that needs
watching.    I was speechless. I was hurt.  I was mad,  wrote
Wimmer.  Phyllis Geldzalh captured the blunt sentiments of many
people with disabilities:  It would be a serious injustice if ADA
was not passed.  
     In addition to presenting boxes of materials to Congress,
the task force issued 11 interim reports to Congress, and
prepared 37 statements to leaders in the disability community. 
Dart also sponsored 14 meetings in Washington and made
presentations to various organizations around the country,
reaching an estimated 25,000 persons.  Moreover, task force
members contributed to lobbying efforts by consulting with
members of Congress and the executive branch.  As a testimony to
its dedication to, passion for, and personal investment in
disability policy, the task force carried out all its efforts
without government funding, through volunteered time and money. 
And it far exceeded Congressman Owens s expectations. 
     Although the disability community conducted very little
legal work on the ADA in 1988, this was the fourth main objective
in addition to strategy development, grass roots mobilization,
and lobbying.  By mid-1989, a legal team was fairly organized. 
The lead attorney for the disability community, and the one who
most often testified before Congress on behalf of the ADA, was
Arlene Mayerson of DREDF.  She had worked extensively on the
Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, Civil
Rights Restoration Act, and Fair Housing Amendments Act, and had
submitted countless briefs to various committees and courts. 
Especially significant was her role in passing the Handicapped
Children s Protection Act.  Although Mayerson lived in Berkeley,
California, during the congressional deliberations on the ADA,
Mayerson visited Washington frequently, for weeks at a time, in
order to guide legal strategy.  Chai Feldblum of the ACLU, who
had met Wright while working on the Civil Rights Restoration Act
(the first time HIV/AIDS entered a Senate bill for civil rights
protections), fulfilled much of the daily responsibilities of
legal writing while Mayerson was in California.  Although
Feldblum specialized in AIDS-related law, and championed the
efforts to include persons with HIV and AIDS within the housing
provisions, she began developing a firm grasp on general
disability law.
     Mayerson and Feldblum were hardly alone, however.  Robert
Burgdorf, the original author of the ADA and now a professor at
the District of Columbia School of Law, participated in all
modifications to the bill and helped ensure continuity from the
original version.  Tim Cook of the National Disability Action
Center offered general guidance as well as his expertise with
respect to public accommodations and transportation.  Weisman, of
EPVA, served as the resident specialist in Transportation. 
Bonnie Milstein of the Mental Health Law Project offered her
expertise concerning mental impairments.  Karen Peltz-Strauss,
from the National Center for Law and the Deaf, focused on
telecommunication provisions.  Depending on the issues pressing
at any given moment, these and other attorneys worked closely
with Congress, disability strategists, and lobbyists to translate
disability objectives into proper legal form.  Meanwhile,
attorneys Robert Funk and Evan Kemp worked on behalf of the
disability community within the Bush administration, respectively
as a White House negotiator and Chairman of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
     The massive effort of the disability community was not
without its tensions.  Many disability organizations had
previously been in conflict with one another over limited
government resources.  As with any coalition, there were tensions
between those who held Washington leadership roles and those who
worked in the trenches, between inside-the-beltway politicos and
persons throughout the rest of the country.  Some felt that their
views were not being adequately represented in the
decision-making process.  Others resented claims that persons
outside of Washington did not understand the legislative process. 
There was also tension between persons with disabilities and
those without them.  It is natural to assume that
African-American and women s advocacy groups would be led by
African Americans and women.  In the disability community,
however, one found large numbers of persons without disabilities
at the helm. Regardless of the actual impact on policy
development and implementation, some persons with disabilities
demanded that  their own  be in charge.  The important point,
however, is not the presence of these tensions, but the way in
which the disability community overcame them. 
     No subgroup of people with any type of physical or mental
disability, or perceived disability, . . . will be sacrificed. 
          Task Force on the Rights andEmpowerment of
Americanswith DisabilitiesThere was something in the ADA for
every one.  Virtually all disability sub-groups wanted to, and
subsequently did, champion the goals of the ADA.  With few
exceptions, they were united in the commitment that there would
be  no long term legitimation of unequal status for people with
dis abilities.   Full realization of the goals might take
decades, but they wanted to undercut any national policies that
would promote discrimination indefinitely.  The disability
community made a second important commitment.  There would be no
splintering with respect to the ADA:  No subgroup of people with
any type of physical or mental disability, or perceived
disability, no matter how politically impotent or how
stigmatized, will be sacrificed.   And they would fight each
other s battles.  Advocates for persons with mental retardation
pushed for ending discrimination against AIDS; people with
epilepsy argued for the need for accessible transportation; and
individuals using wheelchairs urged that persons with mental
disabilities equally deserved freedom from employment
discrimination.  Even at the most intense moments in
congressional deliberations, the community would stick together.

                     The Government Response
     While persons with disabilities throughout the country were
mobilizing to learn about and support the ADA, the general public
remained largely unaware of the legislation.  Prior to the ADA s
introduction, The Washington Post pointed to the ADA as a
potential rallying point for the disability community.  But there
was virtually no mainstream press coverage, either of the bill s
introduction, or during the rest of 1988.  This was due in part
to the lateness of the bill s entree to Congress.  Since the
ADA s advocates were not pushing for immediate passage, the bill
drew neither the press coverage nor the opposition it would when
the bill became a serious proposal in 1989.  Individuals
throughout the country, however, helped raise consciousness about
the ADA by talking with their circles of friends and family.  And
scores of disability and non-disability organizations endorsed
the ADA and funneled information to their members.
     Disability and congressional advocates focused much more on
the executive branch and Congress than on the general public. 
The ADA was first introduced, as Congressman Coelho said,  to
just get reaction, to get people to respond.   A prominent
executive branch voice was Evan Kemp, who approached the issue
both as a Commissioner of EEOC and as a disability rights
advocate.  He made his first public declaration on the ADA before
hundreds of people at the Employers Banquet of the President s
Committee on Employment of the Handicapped.  The event took place
in the International Ballroom of the Washington Hilton Hotel,
just a week after the bill s introduction on May 5.  Kemp wanted
a bill that President Bush could support and therefore alerted
people to problematic provisions.  Kemp spoke primarily about
employment issues, of how it made good business sense to tap the
market of disabled persons by promoting accessibility, and good
government sense to reduce federal spending through employment. 
For these reasons he applauded the ADA, but he also questioned
its current form.  Kemp thought the bill needed to be more
detailed to avoid control by bureaucratic regulators.  He was
especially concerned about the definition of  reasonable
accommodation  (see Appendix F), and advocated federal economic
assistance to employers to ease the economic burden the ADA might
cause.  He also thought the proposed limit on reasonable
accommodations was  unrealistic  because an employer would have
to demonstrate either that the business would be  fundamentally
changed  or that it would be forced to file bankruptcy.  The
definition of  handicap  (see Appendix F) was also problematic
for Kemp.  He proposed a restricted definition that focused on
what he termed the  truly disabled : the  severely handicapped 
and persons  excluded because of myths, fears and stereotypes.  
Kemp s emphasis on the vagueness of language, limits for
accommodation, and definition of disability, foreshadowed several
issues that would dominate congressional deliberations.
     A vigorous response came from Thomas M. Boyd, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, who presented the position of the
Reagan administration.  While the administration  is deeply
committed to the goal of bringing individuals with handicaps into
the mainstream of American life,  wrote Boyd,  we have very
serious reservations  about the extent and standards of the ADA. 
Highlighting the potential costs associated with disability
rights, and rejecting the link to provisions for minori ties and
women, Boyd emphasized the need to keep the pursuit of equal
opportunity  within manageable bounds.   Especially problematic
were the ways in which the ADA departed from Section 504 in two
ways: first, by requiring barrier removal uniformly for both
existing and new facilities; second, by incorporating the
 utterly unrealistic and extreme  provision that a business could
defend itself against charges of discrimination only if its basic
existence was threatened by the cost of accommodations.  The
administration objected to the ADA s novel definitions of
 handicap  and  reasonable accommodation,  and questioned the
application of reasonable accommodation beyond employment
settings.  Boyd also repudiated the proposal for requiring all
new transportation vehicles to be accessible, and demurred to
ordering implementation of universal design in new housing. 
Finally, the administration proposed a more limited standard of
accessibility to public accommodations, and demanded that the
effective date for the bill be delayed at least a year.
     The ADA was introduced in 1988 to solicit the endorsement of
presidential candidates and induce them to outbid one
another.Although the Reagan administration, as illus trated in
Boyd s letter, was at best cautious in its sup port of the ADA,
the disability community s sights were set on the next president. 
In fact, one of the principal reasons for introducing the ADA in
1988 was to use the politics of a presidential election year to
solicit candidate endorsement and induce the candi dates to
outbid one another.  People in the disability community correctly
believed that presidential support was crucial for the ADA s
success.  They worked for both campaigns to encourage disabled
persons to vote and make disability a campaign issue.  They had
some leverage.  On June 30, 1988, the Louis Harris polling
company determined that the disability community comprised 10
percent of the electorate, was  a force to be reckoned with in
the politics of the future,  and could be the deciding factor in
a close election.
     Vice President Bush s personal experience with disability
shaped his relationship with the disability community.  He had a
daughter who died from leukemia, a son with a learning
disability, an uncle with quadriplegia, and a son whose cancer
required a plastic ostomy bag.  In conjunction with his
leadership of President Reagan s Task Force on Regulatory Relief,
his support of the disability community had grown steadily since
1983.  This was due in no small part to Kemp, who worked with
Bush by writing many of his public statements. 
     I am going to do whatever it takes to make sure the disabled
are included in the mainstream.  For too long, they have been
left out, but they are not going to be left out anymore. 
          Vice President George Bush    In the September issue of
the disability magazine Mainstream, Kemp faced off with Timothy
Cook of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia (PILCOP)
to argue the respective attributes of the two presidential
candidates.  Kemp noted how, on March 1, 1988, Vice President
Bush wrote to the Gallaudet Board of Trustees and urged the Board
 to set an example and . . . appoint a president who is not only
highly qualified, but who is also deaf.   A month before the ADA
was introduced, on March 31, Bush also pledged to support
legislation pro viding persons with disabilities  the same pro
tection in private employment that is now en joyed by women and
minorities.   Kemp noted how Bush made an even stronger
commitment when he participated in the swearing in ceremony of
Paul Hearne as Executive Director of the National Council on
Disability, on August 12, 1988.  Bush s presence alone, before
nearly 100 persons with disabilities and the organization that
authored the original ADA, symbolized his support of the
disability community.  But Bush went further and, while he did
not endorse the ADA introduced to Congress, said that he would
promote a civil rights act for people with disabilities.  Kemp s
efforts in courting Bush also bore fruit at the Republican
convention in August, where Bush incorporated the rights of
disabled persons into his acceptance speech.  He did not say
much, but it was the first time disability was included on such
an occasion:  I am going to do whatever it takes to make sure the
disabled are included in the mainstream.  For too long, they have
been left out, but they are not going to be left out anymore.  
     Cook, a leading disability advocate for Dukakis, focused on
Michael Dukakis s strong record on disability as Governor of
Massachusetts.  Similar to other states, Massachusetts provided
full access for persons with disabilities in all state-assisted
programs and activities.  It was also one of few states to have
an executive-level independent agency to enforce disability civil
rights.  Cook noted that Governor Dukakis strengthened
enforcement mechanisms for accessibility standards, including
barrier-free sidewalks and roadways.  He also made concerted
efforts to recruit persons with disabilities for government
offices, including high-level leadership positions such as the
Massachusetts s Rehabilitation Commission.  Moreover, Governor
Dukakis had augmented Massachusetts  health insurance, attendant
care, and education programs for persons with disabili ties. 
     Yet, while Dukakis promoted accessibility in campaign
functions and gave a mild endorse ment to the principles of the
ADA, he did not court the disability community as vigorously as
Vice President Bush.  In addition to his personal experiences
with disability, Bush s leadership of the Task Force on
Regulatory Relief and the disability community s defensive effort
helped convinced Bush of the power of the community as a voting
block: it commanded respect and could pay high dividends.  Bush
did not let the opportunity escape him.  For example, at the
suggestion of Kemp he made a point to incorporate disability
issues into his presidential debates. 
     Dukakis, on the other hand, was facing criticism that he and
the Democratic party were too beholden to interest groups, which
led him to downplay rather than accentuate direct appeals to
specific constituencies such as persons with disabilities.  He
thereby alienated much of the disability community.  Some of
Dukakis s tempered support of the disability community may in
fact be attributed to the disability community itself.  Some
disability advocates had advised Dukakis not to come out too
strong on behalf of the ADA.  Their goal was to have both
candidates endorse the principles of the ADA so that whoever was
elected would be on their side.  They thus wanted to encourage
Bush to support the ADA by giving him room to outbid Dukakis,
rather than make Bush feel as if he needed to contrast himself
with Dukakis by being more reserved in his support of the ADA.
     ADA advocates also sought the support of members of
Congress.  The disability community joined congressional staff
and members in a cosponsorship drive that began before the ADA
was first introduced and continued throughout the entire session
of Congress.  Cosponsorship is crucial to the success of any
bill.  It promises affirmative votes and enables advocates to
gauge the level of support.  Cosponsorship is also important
because, if one can achieve a cross-section of party and
ideology, it helps thwart reflexive, negative reaction and
partisan labeling.  Although ADA advocates anticipated a high
level of cosponsorship because they presented the ADA as a civil
rights bill, the process proved to be very difficult.  Members
did not take the issue of costs lightly and were reluctant to
attach their name simply because someone else had done so. 
Nevertheless, by the close of the 100th Congress on October 22,
1988, 26 senators and 117 representatives had endorsed the bill.

                     Congressional Hearings
     The message was clear: persons with disabilities struggled
with unequal opportunities; they confronted not only the
challenges of their impairments, but also the barriers society
erects; federal action was necessary to remedy the situation.The
highlights of the 1988 ADA campaign were the congressional
hearings held in September and October.   On September 27, 1988,
the Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped and the House
Subcommittee on Select Education held a joint hearing in the Hart
Senate Office Building.  On October 24, the House Subcommittee on
Select Education held a hearing in the Lafayette Hotel of Boston,
Massachusetts.  These hearings were not intended to be
substantive examinations of the ADA s provisions.  This bill is
not going anywhere this year,  Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) said
flatly at the joint hearing.  Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.
(R-CT) also conceded that the real battle would not begin until
Congress reconvened in 1989.  But Weicker emphasized the need to
get disability discrimina tion on the table for immediate
discussion:  If there is silence now, there will be silence
later.  If there is indifference to discrimination now, there
will be indifference later.   The purpose was therefore to
establish a record of discrimina tion to humanize the ICD Survey
data with the lives of real persons and make congressional
inaction on the ADA intolerable. 
     Of the 95 witnesses at the two hearings, there was not a
single technical expert speaking to the details of the bill. 
Only seven federal and state government officials testified.  The
remaining witnesses were all from the disability
community persons and parents of persons with disabilities, and
people who worked with disabled persons in such settings as
independent living centers who spoke of their own experiences. 
This was, therefore, the first instance in which a congressional
hearing regarding disability was dominated by the presence of
people with disabilities.  Some of the predicaments identified by
witnesses were not even issues that the ADA addressed.  But the
message was clear: persons with disabilities struggled with
unequal opportunities; they confronted not only the challenges of
their impairments, but also the barriers society erects; federal
action was necessary to remedy the situation.
     The joint hearing in the Hart Senate Office Building
overflowed with eager spectators, many of them disabled, and many
having traveled hundreds of miles to participate.  Around 200
people with disabilities came to Washington for the event from
New Jersey alone.  Senator Weicker actually had to stop the
proceedings to attend to space needs; he asked those present to
rotate so that others watching on television could have a chance
to be in the hearing room.  The stories of those who testified
were gripping and spoke volumes.
     Mary Linden, who had been unable to walk since early
childhood as a result of physicians  surgical errors, launched
the first panel.  She described her struggles with a public
school that considered her unworthy of education.  It was not
until after Linden graduated from a disability- segregated high
school in 1951 that she learned how to write, and then only
because she taught herself.  Subsequently she spent over two
decades accumulating 61 hours of college credit.  To her dismay,
she could not enroll in a four-year college because of
inaccessible public transportation. She therefore had to do all
of her work through correspondence.  Linden said she desperately
wanted to finish her degree because it was necessary for
attaining what she significantly termed  the most precious thing
in the world    a paying job!    I beg you to pass this bill, 
she pleaded, so that other children will not have to face the
same barriers. 
     Twelve-year-old Jade Calegory followed Linden s testimony
and, compared with Linden, presented the stark contrast of what
opportunity could do.  Jade praised the Federal Government for
passing the Education for all Handicapped Children Act because
the act enabled him, with his spina bifida and wheelchair, to
join the rest of his community s children in the public school. 
Jade starred in the movie  Mac and Me,  which he described as
 terrific because it shows a kid with a disability giving help
instead of just getting help, and nobody tries to cure me or take
away my disability by the end of the movie.  That gives people
the idea that it is okay to be disabled and just be accepted for
who you are.   Jade also described his passion for participating
in wheelchair races.  But he reported that he would get
frustrated when he tried to ride a bus home.   Most of the buses
do not have lifts on them.  Some of the drivers are very rude and
get mad if I want to take the bus.  Can you believe that?  I work
and part of my taxes pay for public buses, and then they get mad
just because I am using a wheelchair.  Accessible buses were
important, said Jade, because  it is hard for people to feel good
about themselves if they have to crawl up the stairs of a bus, or
if the driver passes by without stopping. 
     Dan Piper and his mother, Sylvia Piper, illustrated the
uncertainty they faced because of Dan s developmental disability. 
Although the Pipers were told that Dan s condition was  hopeless 
when he was a young child, and that Dan should be
institutionalized, they decided to keep him at home.  Ultimately
he joined the special education program of an integrated public
school, where he took courses with non-disabled peers, helped
manage the football team, and became the lead performer in a
traveling high school lip-sync group.  The Pipers were worried,
however, about what would happen to Dan when he finished school
and wanted to fulfill his dream of getting a job and living in
his own apartment.   Will the landlord decide, because Dan has
mental retardation, that he is incapable of independent living? 
Will he be denied access to transportation?  Will restaurants
refuse service?  Will hotels refuse accommodations?  The Pipers
viewed the ADA as a much- needed extension in disability policy:
 It is now time to expand handicapped antidiscrimination to the
private sector so that Dan s and our visions for his adult life
and the lives of many others can finally become a reality. 
     Judith Heumann s polio resulted in paralysis.  Despite her
remarkably successful  career, she was burdened by the
psychological impact of discrimination.  She described how she
could not enter public school as a child because she was
considered  a fire hazard.   When she graduated from high school,
the principal tried to prevent her from accepting her diploma on
stage because of her wheelchair.  In college, she was denied her
elementary school teaching credentials because of her paralysis:
administrators did not think she could teach from a wheelchair. 
On one occasion, officials at an auction house attempted to
remove Heumann and a friend because they were allegedly
 disgusting to look at.  People do not emerge unscathed from
these experiences, concluded Heumann:  this stigma scars for
life. 
     Belinda Mason knew stigma first-hand.  At the age of 30,
Mason had been diagnosed HIV- positive after a blood transfusion. 
Moreover, a stroke left her partially paralyzed.   I have learned
a terrible truth about America,  she said of her subsequent
experiences,  that it is not a good place to be different or to
be ill, in spite of what we teach in government class.   She
related that her 75- person town closed the community pool for a
week after she entered it, ostensibly because of a cigarette
butt.  One neighbor carried around a petition demanding that she
move out.  Mason described another woman who lost her job simply
because she decided to have her son, who had AIDS, live at home. 
She also told of one occasion where police locked a man with AIDS
in his car overnight, rather than take him into jail.  The next
day, people peered through the windows at him as if looking in an
aquarium.  Mason acknowledged that one cannot simply legislate
attitudes and behavior.  But she poignantly added:  The truth is
that sometimes legislation precedes and enhances humanity.  
Mason was the first person with HIV ever to testify before
Congress.  And her moving testimony earned her an appointment to
the President s Committee on the Human Immunodefi ciency Virus
Epidemic.
     Congressman Owens organized the field hearing in Boston at
the request of Dart and others from the New England disability
community.  The purpose was to solicit an even more extensive
demonstration of citizen participation.   It was an unforgettable
day,  said Owens, for the range of disabilities represented, the
racial and gender diversity, and the united spirit of those in
attendance. Everyone wanted the chance to address Congress.  To
accommodate as many people as possible, the subcommittee met
nonstop from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.: over 80 witnesses testified
in rapid-fire succession, each having but a few minutes to relate
his or her experiences.
     William Cavanaugh, a consumer of the Massachusetts mental
health system, spoke about the  abusive treatment practices and
human rights violations  of persons in mental institutions. He
described one man, Vincent Veletia, who suffocated and died after
being restrained with  a full sensory deprivation hood,  replete
with ear phones emitting constant static, and being forced into a
fetal position with his hands cuffed behind his knees.  Bonnie
O Day described how a prominent disability advocate from
Charlottesville, Franz Stielfried, died because of poor
accessibility. Impeded by an intersection without curb cuts,
Stielfried tried to cross a dangerous, grassy area next to a
50-foot drop.  While trying to lower himself over another curb,
however, he lost control of his wheelchair and fell over the
cliff to his death.  He had been traveling to a meeting to demand
for greater accessibility.
     You know, sometimes I almost wish a person would hate me for
being disabled. Then at least I would know they knew I was
alive. 
          Anonymous Nancy Husted-Jensen described how
fully-registered disabled persons were turned away from voting
booths because they supposedly did not look sufficiently
 competent  to vote.  Eileen Healy Horndt similarly recounted how
one man with mental retardation was barred from opening a savings
account at a local bank because he  did not fit the image the
bank wants to project.   She spoke of another gentlemen with
quadriplegia who joined her in visiting a presidential campaign
office to discuss accessibility, but there was no handicap
parking space wide enough for the van lift.  Horndt also
described her own frus tration of having to use a calling card at
pay telephones because she could not reach the coin slot.
     Only after the Disability Law Center of Boston threatened
legal action did Barbara Waters avoid leaving college when
administrators said her epileptic seizures represented a
 liability risk.  Eleanor Blake was not so fortunate.  After
being hospitalized for manic depression, college officials denied
her graduation from the human services program because, they
said, she was not  psycho logically fit.   Later, after switching
majors, she graduated summa cum laude.  
     Patricia Deegan further illustrated the excessive
discrimination persons with mental illness face, including  the
assumption that what we say about our own experiences is an
expression of a disordered mind and can therefore be ignored.  
Presumed to be crazy, one s basic civil rights were readily
violated.  Deegan related how one woman reported to mental health
workers that she was pregnant, but the professionals dismissed
her claim as delusional.  Later she visited an emergency room
only to be met with the same response. That evening, while
roaming the streets in desperation, the woman miscarried and
suffered from serious hemorrhaging.
     We are not asking for pity.  We are not even asking for your
sympathy. All we ask is that you make real the promises and
opportunities that America strives to offer everyone. 
          Denise Karuth  These examples capture only a small
fraction of the testimony presented about lost education and
employment opportunities, physical and transportation barriers,
social stigma, and violation of basic human rights.  But the
problem came not only from actions committed, it also came from
simple avoidance.  Michael Oestreicher related how one
frustrated, member of a group discuss ing beach accessibility
poignantly declared:  You know, sometimes I almost wish a person
would hate me for being disabled. Then at least I would know they
knew I was alive. 
     In a discrimination diary presented to the committee,
Cynthia Miller captured the exasperation evident in these
sentiments and those of many other persons with disabilities.   I
got home late this evening and did the things most Americans do
like cooking, cleaning, feeding the cat,  Miller wrote.  Then she
prepared a list of things she thought needed to be changed to
improve the lives of persons with disabilities.

I thought of doing all these things, but the list seems to grow
every day.  Instead, I got angry and depressed.  I got angry and
depressed because after I work all day, fight the barriers to get
to work, [and] fight the barriers to do the things all Americans
do like shop, I have meetings and phone calls and letters and
other things I have to do to fight for my equal rights as an
American with a disability.  I m tired of being tired,
frightened, angry and depressed every day, fighting for my
rights.  And now, I m writing a stupid diary until 2:00 in the
morning to prove that discrimination exists to my Congress.  Why
does Congress think so many Americans are fighting this battle if
discrimination doesn t exist?   Does Congress think we enjoy or
prefer to fight for equal rights before we eat or sleep
sometimes? . . . I would like to watch The Cosby Show, with
slippers on my feet, and time on my hands, like other Americans. 
I don t want to be Rosa Parks.  I just want to be Cyndy Miller.

     Denise Karuth, who used a wheelchair because of multiple
sclerosis and was legally blind, eloquently stated what people
like herself and Cyndy Miller were fighting for.   We are not
asking for your money,  she explained.   We are not asking for
pity.  We are not even asking for your sympathy.  All we ask is
that you make real the promises and opportunities that America
strives to offer everyone: the respect and dignity we deserve as
free and responsible citizens. 
     The hearings were captivating and televised on C-Span. 
Savage used a copy of the proceed ings to edit a 30-minute
version and make it available all around the country.  She became
known as the  Girl Scout Cookie-Lady  for her persistence in
pushing the video on people.  Dart also played a crucial role in
spreading the edited hearings by taking copies with him as he
traveled around the country for his public forums.  People could
use the video to explain what disability discrimination was all
about and draw on the testimony for examples of how to describe
their own experiences.

              The ADA on the Eve of the 1988 Election
     The ADA of 1988 fulfilled its mission.  The goal was to get
the ADA on the legislative agenda as a congressional
priority.Although no further action was taken on the ADA in 1988,
the ADA did not  die,  as some people claimed, when Congress
closed its 100th Session on October 22.  On the contrary, the ADA
of 1988 fulfilled its mission.  ADA sponsors never intended it to
come to a vote that year.  The goal, rather, was to complete the
process begun by the National Council on Disability in getting
the ADA on the legislative agenda, not only as a token measure,
but as a congressional priority.  The disability community
reached this objective with a pronounce ment from Senator Edward
M. Kennedy (D-MA) at the joint hearing.   I just want to give the
assurance,  he asserted,  that this will be the first order of
business  when Congress convenes for the 101st session in 1989.
     The disability community had begun its education process,
both internally and with members of Congress and presidential
candidates.  Members were learning more about what it meant to be
disabled.  They were being exposed to scores of people with
disabilities for the first time.  Many declared their support by
becoming cosponsors of the bill.  The disability community was
also becoming much more optimistic at the close of 1988.  The
1980s had been a decade of struggle against encroachments.  But
the Civil Rights Restoration Act symbolized the new alliance
formed with the civil rights community.  And the Fair Housing
Amendments Act broke new ground by extending disability policy to
encompass the private sector.  The Reagan administration was
winding to a close, and the tide was apparently turning.  Both
presidential candidates had vowed to support legislation akin to
the ADA.  By the end of 1988, the compelling problem of
discrimination had been fused with the solution crafted by the
National Council on Disability.  The political climate was also
changing in a way that would invite, rather than impede, future
action.




4

Creating a Workable ADA:
The Senate and the White House

On November 8, 1988, George Bush defeated Michael Dukakis in the
election for President of the United States.  Bush s strong
statements in support of the disability community, and
particularly civil rights legislation for people with
disabilities, had swayed many disabled voters, including many
Democrats.  In fact, a poll of voter intentions on the eve of the
election, conducted by Louis Harris and Associates, suggested
that the wide margin of persons with disabilities support ing
Bush was a deciding factor in the election.  Although many
persons with disabilities had campaigned for Dukakis and were
disappointed by the outcome, Bush s election clearly offered an
opportunity to the disability community.  His attentiveness to
disability issues signaled a change in the political climate and
made passage of the ADA seem more promising.   Moreover, two days
before his inauguration, Bush avowed his intent to follow through
on his pledges and push the ADA toward passage.   I said during
the campaign that disabled people have been excluded for far too
long from the mainstream of American life,  Bush noted.   One
step that I have discussed will be action on the Americans with
Disabilities Act in order, in simple fairness, to provide the
disabled with the same rights afforded others, afforded other
minorities. 
     In another respect, however, the election of 1988 was
damaging to the ADA cause.  Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.
(R-CT), a long-time supporter of persons with disabilities and
the Senate sponsor of the ADA in 1988, lost his bid for
reelection to Joseph Lieberman.  As one senate staff member said,
Weicker was  one of the 5ive-hundred-pound gorillas  in Congress. 
His leadership in the area of disability was consistent and
strong.  Now someone else had to fill the void he left. The chief
cosponsor of the 1988 ADA was Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), who had
worked closely with Weicker, the National Council on the
Handicapped (NCD), and the disability community in the
development of the ADA.  Weicker and Harkin had even discussed
whether Harkin s position as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the
Handicapped placed him in the best position to be the original
sponsor in 1988.  Harkin also had a personal understanding of the
need for the ADA because of his brother, who was deaf.  It was
therefore natural for Harkin to assume Senate leadership.  But it
was not a foregone conclusion. 
     I didn t get elected to get re-elected.  My brother is deaf. 
I understand discrimination. . . . We are doing this
legislation. 
          Senator Tom Harkin  Sponsorship of the ADA was a risky
endeavor for the first-term senator.  He was up for reelection in
1990, and no Democratic senator from Iowa had ever won a second
term.  As a relative newcomer to disability policy, Senator
Harkin would have to begin his relationship with the disabil ity
community by making compromises with respect to provisions in the
ADA potentially alienat ing the people he was trying to help. 
Moreover, failure to pass the bill rapidly might lead some people
to compare the leadership skills of Senators Harkin and Weicker. 
By sponsoring the ADA, Harkin would also become a target for the
opposition, which included employers, transit operators, owners
of public accommodations, railroads, telecommunications
providers, and state and local governments.  Finally, the
prospects for successfully expanding civil rights protec tions to
incorporate an additional  class  of people, while improved with
the change in administration, re mained uncertain at best.
     Sponsoring the ADA and risking failure could potentially
jeopardize Senator Harkin s political career.  Although Robert
Silverstein, Staff Director and Chief Counsel for the
Subcommittee on the Handicapped, cautioned him about the
pitfalls, Harkin accepted the challenge.   I didn t get elected
to get re-elected,  he told Silverstein.   My brother is deaf.  I
understand discrimination.  I understand what it means and what
this country can look like in thirty years.  We are doing this
legislation. 

           Master Strategy and the Retooling of the ADA
     Senator Harkin took the lead in preparing the ADA for
reintroduction.  Success depended on developing a solid strategy
for maneuvering the bill through the treacherous terrain of
Congress.  It also required attaining the complete backing of the
disability community.  Harkin s first step was to establish an
effective relationship with Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and
Carolyn Senator Kennedy brought the experience of decades of
civil rights leadership in addition to his stature as a  heavy
hitter  senator with seniority.Osolinik and Michael Iskowitz from
Kennedy s committee staff.  This was important because a bill
successfully voted out of Harkin s Subcommittee on the Hand
icapped would have to clear Kennedy s Committee on Labor and
Human Resources.  Coordination of all leg islative activities
with Kennedy could improve the possibility of a smooth and quick
transition to the Sen ate floor.  The disability community was
also courting the support of Kennedy.  They hoped his stature as
a  heavy hitter  senator with seniority could match the standing
of Senator Weicker and augment the efforts of Harkin.  Kennedy
brought the experience of decades of civil rights leadership. 
Osolinik, whom Pat Wright described as  one of few people who
really saw disability as a civil rights issue,  directed civil
rights issues in Kennedy s office.   Moreover, Kennedy had
personal experiences with disability through his son who lost a
leg to cancer and a sister with a developmental disability.
Kennedy s support, however, depended on making significant
changes to the ADA.
     Senators Harkin and Kennedy concluded that the bill
introduced in 1988 was too ambitious and stood little chance for
passage.  Therefore, they decided to rewrite the ADA.  In
accordance with the objectives of the disability community, the
senators  primary goal was to achieve the best possible civil
rights coverage for persons with disabilities.  Toward this end,
they and their staffs, in consultation with leaders from the
disability community, developed a four-pronged legislative
strategy. 
     First, Senators Kennedy and Harkin made a commitment to
achieving bipartisanship.  They believed that the ultimate goal
of legislation must not simply be to pass a bill, but rather to
make an enforceable law.  For the bill to be taken seriously, it
needed to be widely supported by the business community as well
as the disability community, Republicans and Democrats, the
Senate and the House, and the Bush administration.  Second,
Senators Harkin and Kennedy wanted to craft a bill that could
withstand the strict scrutiny of Congress.  Rather than introduce
a bill with aggressive provisions and rely on subsequent
negotiations, which ran the risk of permanently labeling the bill
 extreme,  they hoped to hold extensive discussions and reach
important compromises before they even introduced the bill. 
     While the ADA s complete effect would not be immediately
apparent, the American landscape would be transformed for
subsequent generations.The third and fourth strategic commitments
followed logically: modesty and parity.  The original ADA applied
rigorous and rigid standards of accessibility that would be
implemented immediately.  Senators Kennedy and Harkin instead
promoted accessibility at some point in time, and varied
provisions according to specific circum stances.  While the
bill s complete effect would not be apparent immediately
following its enactment, the American landscape would be
transformed for subsequent generations.  Finally, in crafting the
actual lan guage of the bill, Silverstein and Osolinik worked
with the disability community to build the ADA securely on the
foundation of earlier legislation especially on the Civil Rights
Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fair Housing
Amendments Act (See Appendix B).  Proponents could therefore
argue that the bill was an application of tested principles, not
a new creation.
     With this strategy in place, Osolinik and Silverstein began
1989 by reviewing the bill line by line.  Redrafting the ADA was
not, however, a solitary endeavor.  After developing their own
preliminary ideas about what provisions should constitute a new
bill, Silverstein and Osolinik turned to others to identify
interests in and reservations about the bill, including the
disability community, all  covered entities,  the Bush
administration, and members of Congress and their staffs.  The
principal House contacts were Congressman Tony Coelho (D-CA) and
Rochelle Dornatt from his staff.  Especially helpful from the
business community was Nancy Reed Fulco of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.  Osolinik and Silverstein worked most closely, however,
with a group of representa tives from the disability community. 
In addition to the general guidance provided by Pat Wright, Ralph
Neas, Liz Savage, and Paul Marchand, Silverstein and Osolinik
received technical expertise from attorneys Arlene Mayerson, Chai
Feldblum, Robert Burgdorf, Jim Weisman, and others according to
specialties.  By retooling the bill in close cooperation with
this group, Osolinik and Silverstein hoped to earn the backing of
the disability community.  Then they could present a united front
as the bill went through Congress.
     From January to March, 1989, Silverstein and Osolinik
produced scores of different drafts of the ADA.  By March 15 they
completed a draft (S. 933), which they circulated privately to
represen tatives of the disability community, the Bush
administration, and several members of Congress.  The bill
duplicated the findings and purpose of the original bill (S.
2345) crafted by NCD (see 2 in Appendix H).  It also covered
the same main areas, with the exception of housing (which had
been addressed by the Fair Housing Amendments Act).  S. 933 even
incorporated some language of S. 2345 verbatim.  But there were
marked distinctions. 
     The new bill, S. 933, demonstrated the commitment to modesty
and flexibility in standards by tailoring definitions,
provisions, and enforcement to four main titles Employment,
Public Services, Public Accommodations, and Telecommunications. 
The dedication to legal precedent was also clear.  S. 933, for
example, incorporated more than five times as many references to
earlier statutes.  There was also a difference in tone.  Whereas
the original bill, S. 2345, emphasized discriminatory practices
that should not be tolerated for example, providing unequal
services S. 933 spelled out positive, proactive steps that must
be taken to meet nondiscriminatory standards. Several major
revisions are worth noting.
     One of the most contested aspects of the ADA was the
definition of disability (see Appendix F).  People asked: Who
would be protected by the ADA?  It was a difficult question
because one cannot readily identify disability with the same
precision that one can identify, for example, race and gender. 
It would also be impractical to name, in a statute, each and
every type of disability.  This would be cumbersome, if not
impossible, and require constant adjustment for future, unknown
impairments.  The challenge, therefore, was to find a definition
that was at once inclusive enough to cover diverse disabilities,
but not so universal that anyone could claim protec tion by the
ADA.  Under the original bill, S. 2345, a disability was defined
as  a physical or mental impairment, perceived impairment, or a
record of impairment.   This definition was similar to the
three-pronged definition implemented under Section 504, except
that it did not limit the first prong to impairments that
 substantially limit  major life activities. This meant that
anyone with  any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic
disfigurement, or anatomical loss  or  any mental or
psychological disorder  was covered.  Osolinik and Silverstein
instead used the Section 504 standard and restricted the first
prong to  a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more of the major life activities  such as seeing,
walking, self-care, and learning.  This meant that a physical
impairment such as an infected finger would not constitute a
disability. 
     The most controversial issue in the redrafting stage was the
cost and burden imposed upon covered entities.  Legislative
endeavors of the 1980s successfully established that, in the area
of disability civil rights, equal treatment was not enough. The
goal had to be equal opportunity.  That required modifying
policies, providing services, and breaking down barriers:
 reasonable accommodations  (see Appendix F).  In other words, it
was not enough simply to leave the door open, the door also had
to be widened.  And this meant that civil rights for persons with
disabilities could cost money.  But at what point does providing
 equal opportunity  become an  unreasonable  burden?
     Under S. 2345, the only defensible limits to providing
accommodations were actions that  would fundamentally alter the
essential nature, or threaten the existence of, the program,
activity, business, or facility in question.   Although Burgdorf
wrote the provision to assure that compliance would not mean
shutting down a business, it came to be known pejoratively as the
 bankruptcy  provision: interpreted to mean that a business would
have to go to the brink of bankruptcy before it could defend
against charges of discrimination.  S. 933, on the other hand,
followed Section 504 in using  undue hardship  (see Appendix F)
as the standard for determining whether employment accommodations
were  reasonable.   Undue hardship meant  an action that is
unduly costly, extensive, substantial, disruptive, or that will
fundamentally alter the nature of the program.   It was not a
fixed concept, but rather varied on a case-by-case basis,
according to such factors as the size of the business, the type
of operation, and the nature and cost of the accommoda tion. 
     Concern for cost shaped the new approach to barrier removal. 
S. 2345 required the retrofit ting of all public transportation
vehicles and facilities to make them accessible.  S. 933, on the
other hand, varied its demands according to whether vehicles and
facilities were newly constructed or already in operation.  The
general principle was that all new vehicles and transportation
facilities would have to be  readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities  (see Appendix F).  For used
vehicles, transportation operators had to make  good faith
efforts  to find accessible vehicles.  If a company
remanufactured a vehicle to extend its life for at least five
years, it had to be made readily accessible to  the maximum
extent feasible.   With regard to existing facilities, S. 933
required only that certain  key stations  had to be retrofitted
for accessibility.
     The approach in S. 933 to barrier removal in public
accommodations paralleled the transpor tation provisions.  The
original bill, S. 2345, required that nearly every place of
public accommoda tion had to remove all barriers within five
years.  This provision earned S. 2345 the nickname of the  flat
earth  bill.  Drafters of S. 933, however, dispensed with the
idea of wholesale retrofitting. Instead they required that all
new construction be accessible.  Nevertheless, they did not want
to leave existing structures untouched.  Consequently, drafters
created a new legal term. S. 933 required that businesses make
changes to existing structures where accessibility was  readily
achievable  (see Appendix F), which was eventually defined to
mean  easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without
much difficulty or expense.   The goal was to create a mind-set
of accessibility, to encourage people to look for creative ways
to make the world more accessible.  Readily achievable 
modifications might include installing grab bars, ramping a few
steps, lowering telephones, adding raised letter and braille
markings on elevator controls, and adding flashing alarm lights.
     S. 933 also required that where structural changes were not
readily achievable, covered entities had to make their services
available through alternative methods: for example, coming to the
doorway of a Laundromat to pick up laundry when a person could
not get inside.  Moreover, the bill required the provision of
 auxiliary aids and services  (see Appendix F) to persons with
disabilities: for example, reading a menu to persons with visual
impairments so that they could fully enjoy the benefits of places
of public accommodation.
     The version of the ADA crafted by Senators Harkin and
Kennedy did not only limit initial provisions.  In one
significant area they significantly expanded the scope of the
original bill.  Under S. 2345, only those public accommodations
(see Appendix F) covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had
to be accessible.  This principally meant places of lodging,
eating, and entertainment. Service establishments such as
doctors  offices, retail stores, and private clubs, were not
included. S. 933, by contrast, defined within its scope virtually
every privately-operated establishment that was used by the
general public and affected commerce.  This included places of
lodging, office buildings, parks, recreation facilities,
theaters, retail stores, medical facilities, and restaurants.
Although this apparently broke the commitment to parity with the
Civil Rights Act, advocates argued that it was consistent in
spirit: just as the Civil Rights Act addressed the universe where
race discrimination was an issue, the ADA covered the broader
universe where disability discrimination was relevant.
     The new draft of the ADA also took steps to define the
original ADA s prohibition of discrimination in  broadcasts,
communications, or telecommunications.   S. 933 required that
communications providers implement telecommunication relay
services.  A relay service enabled an individual using a
Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD) a machine that
transmits typed data over telephone lines to communicate with
someone without such a device, through an operator who would
translate text to voice, and voice to text.
     Another significant change from S. 2345 concerned legal
actions available to remedy discrimination.  S. 2345 included
both administrative and civil remedies.  It granted
administrative agencies the authority to order  all appropriate
remedial relief  and gave individuals the right to sue in a
district court for both injunctive relief and monetary damages,
including punitive damages.  Drafters of S. 933, however, viewed
these remedial provisions as extreme and politically impossible. 
Therefore they introduced remedies tailored to each title.  Only
administrative remedies were available for the public
accommodations and telecommunications provisions.  Private right
to action was granted for employment and public services
provisions.  For employment discrimination, S. 933 also allowed
for punitive damages.

                   Building Support for S. 933
     Before publicly circulating the final draft of the bill,
Silverstein and Osolinik submitted it to a group of individuals
in the disability community for their approval.  On one occasion,
the two staff members were grilled for hours by persons with
disabilities who objected to the apparent weakening of the bill. 
Osolinik tried to explain that the bill could not be passed
without the proposed changes. Silverstein emphasized that the new
bill remained true to the original principles.   Some in the
disability community, however, were outraged.   Lots of people
felt let down,  said Bonnie O Day about the reactions at the
spring, 1989,  conference of the National Council on Independent
Living (NCIL).  Yet most agreed that it was dangerous to include
provisions that might endanger the entire bill.  Ultimately, the
disability community lent its support, persuaded that it was the
best that could be achieved politically.  This was crucial, for a
competing Republican bill might polarize the debate and kill the
ADA; unity behind S. 933 made it difficult for an alternative
proposal to gain a foothold.
     After the disability community backed S.933, the next task
for ADA supporters was to enlist the cosponsorship of members of
Congress and the endorsement of President Bush.  As in 1988, Liz
Savage coordinated a cosponsorship drive in conjunction with
House and Senate sponsors.  This time the drive was even more
aggressive, and it continued throughout the entire ADA
deliberations. At the same time, Justin Dart, Marilyn Golden, and
others throughout the disability community continued to mobilize
the national grass roots network.  Persons with disabilities
began writing letters urging their representatives to support the
ADA.
     On the Senate side, ADA advocates were especially interested
in enlisting the support of Senators Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) and
Robert Dole (R-KS).  Hatch s support was extremely impor tant
because he was the ranking Republican on the Labor and Human
Resources Committee, and the rest of the committee Republicans
generally followed his lead in disability policy.  In December,
1988, Senator Harkin began meeting with Hatch personally, in
addition to consultations between their staffs.  Harkin had hoped
that Hatch s long and solid record of supporting persons with
disabilities would lead to his endorsement of the bill as chief
cosponsor.  As with Senators Kennedy and Harkin, Hatch had
personal experience with disability through his brother, who lost
the use of his legs from polio.  Hatch, however, had serious
reservations about the bill.  For example, he proposed more
limited remedies and the exemption of religious groups from the
public accommoda tions provisions.  He also wanted to coordinate
his position with the White House.  As a result, he declined
Harkin s invitation to be the lead cosponsor.  
     Senator Dole s support was crucial because, as Minority
Leader, he could wield considerable influence over the progress
of the ADA through Senate committees and on the Senate
floor.Instead, Senator Hatch directed his chief counsel, Mark
Disler, to draft an alternative bill. Disler had worked for
Bradford Reynolds in the attorney general s office during the
Reagan administration.  During the battles over President
Reagan s Task Force on Regulatory Relief, Disler had formed good
working relationships with Kemp and Wright and become much more
knowl edgeable about disability, which helped smooth working with
Senator Hatch s staff.  The bill Disler crafted was similar to S.
2345 in that it was short and focused on general principles of
nondiscrimination.  Rather than propose strong, detailed
requirements as in S. 933, it gave execu tive agencies the
responsibility and authority to create nondiscrimination
standards.
     Senator Hatch s actions were, nonetheless, ultimately
designed to aid in the ADA s passage. A quick endorsement of the
Harkin bill might have alienated other Republicans, whose support
was necessary for effective implementation.  Senator Dave
Durenberger (R-MN), whose advocacy for people with disabilities
stretched back to his tenure as chief of staff for the Governor
of Minnesota in the 1960s, explained that Hatch  in effect had to
stay off of the original bill in order to leverage Republican
support for the final product.   By drafting his own bill, Hatch
paved the way for achieving a broader base of consensus and
helped prevent filibustering on the Senate floor.
     Senator Dole s support was also crucial because, as Minority
Leader, he had the power to wield considerable influence over the
progress of the ADA through Senate committees and on the Senate
floor.  For example, he could discourage his party from
requesting that the ADA be referred to multiple committees, which
could delay or even kill the bill.  He could also help prevent
damag ing amendments from being introduced on the floor.  Similar
to Senator Hatch, Dole had a solid record on disability issues. 
He knew disability first-hand from the paralysis he incurred in
World War II.  On each anniversary of his injury, April 14, he
gave a speech about disability on the Senate floor.  In fact, he
devoted his first official speech in the Senate, on April 14,
1969, to the needs of the disability community.   It is a
minority group whose existence affects every person in our
society and the very fiber of our Nation,  said Dole.  He noted
that people with disabilities faced significant problems with
employment, income, health care, education, rehabilitation,
transporta tion, and access to public accommodations. 
Accordingly, he urged Congress to promote collabora tion between
the public and private sectors to improve opportunities for
persons with disabilities. He asserted his commitment to make
wise use of financial resources, but he wanted to do what was
necessary to achieve for people with disabilities  the
independence, security, and dignity  to which they are
 entitled.   Subsequently, in 1984, Dole established the Dole
Foundation, which he dedicated to improving the employment
prospects of persons with disabilities.
     Nevertheless, Senator Dole had reservations about the ADA. 
In part, he was ambivalent because he had talked with Senator
Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), Senator Harkin s fellow senator from
Iowa about introducing his own bill.  Dole, however, received a
flood of phone calls from the disability community urging him to
cosponsor Harkin s bill and abstain from introducing a competing
bill.  Crucial in shaping Dole s position on the ADA and
encouraging him to support it was one of his staff members,
Maureen West.  Paul Hearne, Executive Director of NCD and a
long-time associate of Dole, assisted West in educating the
senator about the ADA.  Dole refrained from introducing his own
bill.  But he also continued to withhold his support of S. 933,
even though he was one of fourteen original cosponsors of S.
2345.
     In addition to Senators Hatch and Dole, ADA supporters were
interested in enlisting the support of President Bush and his
administration.  President Bush had already spoken strongly on
behalf of civil rights legislation for people with disabilities
on multiple occasions.  And Senators Harkin and Kennedy had
consulted with the administration throughout the winter and
spring of 1989 for input on the development of S. 933.  Sometimes
these conversations were held person-to- person; at other times
they were mediated by members of the disability community, such
as Pat Wright and Justin Dart, who had very strong White House
connections.  The main goal, however, was to encourage the Bush
administration take a further step and endorse the version of the
ADA developed by Senators Harkin and Kennedy.  Faced with the
demands of forming an administration and lacking adequate
technical disability expertise, however, the White House did not
develop a firm position on the bill.  Harkin was actually ready
to introduce S. 933 in March, but he delayed its introduction at
the request of the administration.  By April, ADA supporters
decided they simply had to move forward with the bill, with or
without President Bush.  Accordingly, Senator Harkin scheduled
the introduction of S. 933 for May 9, 1989, at which time
Congressman Coelho would also introduce the companion bill, H.R.
2273.  Although ADA supporters were unsuccessful in securing the
cosponsorship of Hatch and Dole and the endorsement of Bush, the
congressional cosponsorship drive was effective.  By May 9, the
bill had acquired 33 Senate cosponsors and 84 House cosponsors.
     In consultation with Congressman Coelho, Senators Kennedy
and Harkin developed a strategy for maneuvering the ADA through
Congress.  They decided to begin the ADA deliberations in the
Senate.  The Senate would be more manageable because of its rules
for legislative delibera tions.  Whereas in the House a bill went
to all committees with partial jurisdiction, in the Senate a bill
went only to one committee, whichever had the preponderance of
jurisdiction (subsequent referrals to additional committees could
be requested).  Moreover, Kennedy and Harkin were chairmen of the
committee and subcommittee with jurisdiction.  Kennedy s
Committee on Labor and Human Resources also had a comfortable
Democratic majority.  And the ranking Republicans of both the
committee and subcommittee Senators Orrin Hatch and Dave
Durenberger were strong supporters of disability policy.  
Furthermore, the Senate had a better working relationship with
the administration.  Given the importance of bringing the
administration on board, it was wise to tailor strategy to its
interests. 
     Senators Harkin and Kennedy hoped to push the ADA through
the Senate as rapidly as possible with minimal alterations.  They
feared that lengthy deliberations would increase the chance of
losing control of how the ADA was characterized in public debate. 
Kennedy thus proposed going to mark-up before the Fourth of July
recess and to the Senate floor before the August recess.  The
House would then proceed with the version passed by the Senate,
which would help limit the discrepancy between House and Senate
versions and smooth conference deliberations.
     Senate sponsors scheduled three hearings for May 9, 10, and
16; they devoted April to preparing for them.  (See Appendix D
for a chronology of legislative action on the ADA.)  They hoped
to prevent any surprises by getting the facts in order and
crafting responses to anticipated opposition.  Silverstein turned
to those who knew disability the best: members of the disability
community.  He developed a list of about 100 questions and asked
representatives of the disability community to explain, based on
their experiences at the local level, how various covered
entities would respond to ADA provisions.  Osolinik and
Silverstein then prepared thick briefing books based on the
responses.  They also worked with the disability community to
select witnesses to testify on each aspect of the bill.  Unlike
the hearings of 1988, the 1989 Senate hearings would include very
detailed, technical analyses of the ADA, with a balance of
testimony from those who supported the legislation outright and
those who promoted changes.  Accordingly, the business community
and other covered entities were gearing up for the hearings and
working with Senate leaders to identify effective witnesses.  On
May 5, for example, just before the bill s introduction, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce sponsored the first of several meetings for
all business organiza tions to discuss their strategy for the
ADA, which culminated in their testimony before Congress.
Subsequently, a group of business organizations formed a
coalition called the Disability Rights Working Group.

        Senate Hearings and the Quest for Bipartisanship
     Senate Hearings on S. 933 began in the Dirksen Senate Office
Building on Tuesday morning, May 9, 1989.  Ranking minority
member Senator Hatch set the stage for the hearings in his
opening statement.  I support a comprehensive civil rights bill
for persons with disabilities,  Hatch declared unambiguously. 
But he also stated he had  serious concerns.   Hatch challenged
the extension of public accommodations provisions beyond those
establishments covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  He
promoted an exemption for small businesses.  He also opposed
provisions for remedies that included monetary and punitive
damages.  Moreover, Hatch stated that his reservations concerning
S.933 might compel him to introduce his own bill, or support a
different bill, presumably one introduced by Senator Dole.
     We can be productive, if you will give us that right, give
us that opportunity.  That is all we ask for, nothing more, but
definitely nothing less. 
          Congressman Tony CoelhoTraditionally the administration
offers the lead testimony on major bills, but by May 9 the Bush
administration had still not developed a formal position.  In
fact, the White House had to cancel a May 1 Rose Garden press
conference with Senate leadership, which had been designed to
promote the ADA.   Consequently, Congressman Coelho was the lead
witness.  He was selected to open the deliberations not only
because he was the sponsor of the identical ADA bill introduced
in the House; he also poignantly symbolized the ADA.  In his
senior year of college, Coelho learned he had epilepsy reputed by
some to be demonic pos session.  As a result, he was barred from
the Catholic priesthood and his familial relationships were
severely strained.   I was suicidal and I was down,  Coelho said
of his experience with discrimination. But Bob Hope took him into
his own home and encouraged him to pursue his ministry through
pub lic service.  
     Congressman Coelho met with considerable success after
following Hope s advice and beginning a government career. 
Elected to Congress in 1978, he became Chairman of the Demo
cratic Congressional Campaign committee in 1981.  Five years
later, he was elected Majority Whip. He also became a national
leader in disability issues, which included service as Director
of the Epilepsy Foundation of America (EFA).  Coelho therefore
spoke not only with the authority be stowed upon him from the
Democratic leadership, but also as an example of the potential of
persons with disabilities.   Tony was sort of the epitome of what
a person with a disability can do,  said Dornatt of his staff,
 and what they can achieve given a fair shake and given a
chance.    Coelho echoed this theme in his remarks at the Senate
hearing:  We can be productive, if you will give us that right,
give us that opportunity.  That is all we ask for, nothing more,
but definitely nothing less.  
     In addition to speaking about his personal experiences,
Congressman Coelho addressed Senator Hatch s remarks and stressed
the need for bipartisanship:  We very much want you on board and
very much need your support,  he entreated.   We would prefer
that you not introduce your own bill,  he added, urging Hatch to
work toward a common bill instead.  Hatch replied by pledging his
best efforts to develop consensus.   I would love nothing better 
than to cosponsor this bill, Hatch said.   But in its present
form, I cannot.   Only minutes into the first hearing, it was
clear that considerable work lay ahead to achieve bipartisanship
and shepherd the ADA through Congress.  The prospect of a
competing bill made cooperation much more critical.  The hearings
were an opportunity to find a solution.
     As in 1988, persons with disabilities presented powerful
testimony about the need for the ADA by describing their personal
experiences.   There is not one disabled American alive today who
has not experienced some form of discrimination,  I. King Jordan
said.  The most vivid imagery came from Justin Dart.  In addition
to his carefully crafted and eloquent words, Dart brought visual
aids.  He presented the committee with a box of discrimination
diaries and letters that he and others had gathered from around
the country (see Appendix E).  Yet, Dart acknowledged, no
document could truly demonstrate the impact of discrimination. 
As a supplement, Dart thus brought an extra wheelchair.   I
submit to you this brand new empty wheelchair,  he said to the
committee chairman forcefully.   On January 24, 1988, last year,
my younger brother, Peter, was faced with the necessity to use,
[and] be identified with, this public invitation to
discrimination.   But his brother claimed:  I would rather be
dead.   Four days later, said Dart, he committed suicide.
     Others described specific examples of discrimination.  Mary
DeSapid described being fired by her employer because of her
cancer treatment.  Amy Dimsdale, a wheelchair-user trained in
journalism at the University of Texas at Arlington, described her
experiences of being overlooked by potential employers.   I have
submitted over 300 resumes and more than 100 applications.  I
have indicated my willingness to be flexible, work at home,
relocate, and use my own special equipment  all to no avail.  I
need virtually no special accommodations to work, as long as I
can get in the Discrimination  destroys healthy self-concepts,
and it slowly erodes the human spirit. 
          I. King Jordanbuilding.   Lisa Carl, whose cerebral
palsy impeded her speech and required use of a wheelchair, spoke
about a time when she went to see a movie at a theater around the
corner from her house.  But Lisa was told she could not enter. 
Later the theater explained to Lisa s mother:  I basically don t
have to let her in here, and I don t want her in here.   Betty
Corey, who took into her home a girl born with AIDS, described
having to contact twenty-six different funeral directors before
she could find one who would bury the six-year-old without adding
surcharges for handling a person with AIDS.  Yet, in none of
these situations had a law been broken: there was no protec tion
such as that provided for minorities and women.
     Disability advocates used numerous arguments to justify the
ADA.  Many emphasized the loss of human dignity experienced from
discrimination.  Dimsdale, for example, said she felt  useless,
powerless, and demeaned  by her inability to get a job. 
Discrimination  destroys healthy self-concepts, and it slowly
erodes the human spirit,  said Jordan.  Others argued that
discrimination against the disabled violated one of America s
central tenets: individualism.  Dart explained that he addressed
the committee as  a fiscal conservative, an active Republican,
and, above all, an advocate for the principles of individual
responsibility, individual productivity, and individual rights
which have made America great.  Social barriers to persons with
disabilities, he asserted, under mined an individual s
opportunity to participate in American society fully and equally. 
Others argued that it was more costly to keep persons with
disabilities dependent on government assistance than it was to
spend the small amount needed to break down barriers and enable
people to support themselves.  Senator Harkin, for example,
hypothesized that the cost to institutionalize one of his
constituents with a developmental disability would cost nearly
five million dollars over 65 years.
     Another argument on behalf of the ADA was simply that it was
nothing new, nothing radical.  These standards are not new, they
are not confusing, and they are workable,  Arlene Mayerson of the
Disability rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) declared in
reference to the ADA s foundation in Section 504.   We tried very
hard to avoid any kind of new language,  Senator Harkin
explained.  Although transportation was the most controversial
aspect of the ADA, many defended it as the linchpin to the entire
bill.   The freedom to go to college does not exist without the
means to get to the college,  testified Michael McIntyre,
Executive Director of Queens Independent Living Center.   The
freedom to work does not exist without the ability to get to
work.  The freedom to organize politically does not exist without
people being able to get together in one place.  The freedom to
date, to go to the movies, to go to the library, to go shopping,
to go to a ball game, [to go] anyplace that makes life
meaningful, is predicated on the ability to travel.   ADA
supporters also emphasized the need to develop solid enforcement
provisions to make the bill have a practical effect.  The whole
trick is to make it more expensive to break the law than it is to
keep the law,  testified Neil Hartigan, the Attorney General of
Illinois.   It won t work without damages.  
     Although testimony also came from those proposing changes to
the bill, virtually every witness pledged support of the overall
ADA concept. The Chamber of Commerce, for example, testified that
the chamber  shares the goal of the sponsors of this act,  and
pledged to cooperate  in trying to achieve a workable piece of
legislation that we can fully support.   Similarly, the National
Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) endorsed  the right of
every American to have the opportunity to realize his or her full
potential.   These sentiments were manifested in the name of the
business community s coalition: the Disability Rights Working
Group.
     The two dominant reservations about the ADA were cost and
litigation.  Cost was an issue because the ADA, unlike other
civil rights legislation, required businesses and employers to
spend money on accommodations and modifications.  The second main
concern was that, as Lawrence Lorber testified, the  litigation
potential of this bill is enormous.   This fear built on the
perception that phrases such as  reasonable accommodation, 
 undue hardship,   readily achievable,   essential function,  and
 less effective  were inadequately defined, compelling courts to
decide the meaning of the ADA.  It also stemmed from the belief
that the remedies available under the ADA would invite frivolous
law suits.  Specific concerns included objections to the public
accommodations provisions.  William Ball, representing the
Association of Christian Schools International, argued that
religious organizations and religious schools should be exempt
from the public accommodations provisions.  The ADA, he argued,
would be too costly, might force schools to hire drug/alcohol
abusers or homosexuals, and threatened the constitutional
separation of church and state.  The small business community
also argued for an exemption from public accommodations
provisions, because of the associated costs and because small
business owners were exempt from other civil rights laws.
     Careful preparations by Senators Harkin and Kennedy, their
staffs, and the disability commu nity paid off in the course of
the hearings.  Harkin, presiding over the deliberations, was
especially deft in handling one of the most controversial issues:
mandatory lifts for intercity buses (called  over-the-road  buses
because their passengers ride above luggage compartments).  In a
dialogue with Charles Webb of the American Bus Association (ABA),
Harkin creatively used Webb s testimony to defend the ADA.  Webb
testified that a bus lift cost $35,000, required annual mainte
nance of $2,000, and resulted in a 38 percent loss in luggage
space and a loss of 11 or 12 seats. Harkin, however, asked Webb
whether a technologically-advanced lift that cost less than
$8,000, required little or no maintenance, and resulted in no
loss of package space and only one seat, would be acceptable.  
 Absolutely,  Webb replied.   Well, now, I am glad to hear you
say that,  said Harkin with pride,  because I have a letter here
from the Regional Transportation District of Denver, Colorado, 
which has secured a contract for a lift with exactly those
specifications. To the applause of those assembled, Senator
Harkin went on to explain that competition and technology would
only drive the price further down when lifts were ordered by the
thousands.
     In addition to their compelling testimony, the Senate
hearings were significant for the dialogue concerning
bipartisanship and the Bush administration, which was carried out
between Senators Kennedy and Harkin, on the one hand, and
Senators Dole and Hatch, on the other.  On May 10, under
relentless pressure from the disability community, Dole made an
appearance before the Senate committee to make a statement.  On
the previous Friday, May 5, he had met with President Bush s
chief counsel C. Boyden Gray, Chief of Staff John Sununu, head of
the Domestic Policy Council Roger Porter, and others in the White
House, to discuss how they could cooperate in working out a
bipartisan bill.  Dole had also spoken with President Bush on May
9.  Before the committee, Dole now asserted that he and the
administration hoped to see, before year s end,  a bipartisan
piece of legislation passed by Congress, signed by the president,
and embraced by, hopefully, the business community and certainly
by the disability community.   He was  somewhat cautious, 
however, because he wanted a bill that all affected parties could
defend.  He feared the potential for litigation and promoted a
gradual phase-in to protect small businesses.  Nevertheless, he
wanted to be a  positive force  rather than  an obstructionist, 
and urged that the administration needed more time to formulate
its position on the bill.
     The disability community, however, was growing impatient. 
NCIL held its annual conference in Washington, D.C., from May 12
to May 14.  At the conference, Bonnie O Day, Chairperson of the
NCIL Civil Rights Subcommittee, met with Pat Wright and Liz
Savage, whereupon they talked about organizing NCIL conferees to
hold a rally at the White House to demand swift action on the
ADA. In short order, O Day and others from NCIL began planning a
march for Sunday, May 14 Mother s Day.  Committees formed to make
signs and work out such details as getting a police permit.  They
planned to march from NCIL s reception on Capitol Hill to the
White House.  Several hundred people, including local ADA
supporters, joined the march.  They left in the evening amidst
pouring rain, carrying candles.  People using wheelchairs covered
themselves with garbage bags, a symbol of their
second-class-citizen status. 
     Boyden Gray is the most powerful counsel to a president
we ve had in a long, long time. . . .  On the issues Boyden has
chosen, he is awfully damned influential. 
          A.B. Culvahouse     At the White House, Marca Bristo,
President of NCIL, approached the security desk to place a call
to President Bush.  Al though she intended only to mobilize and
rally the crowd, an operator actually answered the phone and
placed a call through to the Domes tic Policy Office. 
Subsequently, Bristo told a White House representative that she
and others were out in the rain, were concerned about the ADA,
and wanted to see the president.  In reply, the representative
offered Bristo a meeting with White House staff the following
morning.  The next day, Bristo, Dart, and several other
representatives from the disability community met with Dr.
William L. Roper, of the Domestic Policy Counsel, Chief Counsel
Boyden Gray, and EEOC Chairman Evan Kemp to complain about the
president s delays.  Although the discussion did not result in a
specific commitment, the disability representa tives came away
feeling as if they had gotten their message through to the
administration.
     Two days later, at the final scheduled hearing on May 16,
the NCIL march appeared to have had an effect.  Having consulted
with the White House, Senator Hatch said that it was  imperative
that this committee hear testimony from the administration on
this bill.   Accordingly, he requested that the committee give
the administration one more chance.  Hatch proposed that the
committee delay mark-up for five weeks, hold one additional
hearing during the week of June 19, and invite the administration
to come forward.  If it did not, Hatch pledged that he would not
stand in the way of the bill.  Although the administration had
already possessed a draft of the bill for nearly two months,
Senator Kennedy agreed to grant more time, stipulating that if it
did not come forward, the committee would move on without its
input.
                       White House Testimony
     President Bush wanted the ADA  done in a way that was good
for the American people . . . this was not going to be a shell
promise. 
          Dr. William Roper   During the next five weeks,
executive agencies reviewed the bill to make recommendations for
an administration position.  Unlike Congress, which follows a
fairly organized deliberative process to reconcile the views of
two parties, policy-making in the White House is an ongoing
internal dynamic.  It organizes its decision-making according to
a series of functions, which are administered by such advisory
boards as the National Security Council, the Domestic Policy
Council, the Office of Counsel, and the Office of Personnel. 
These groups, which are composed of cabinet members and staff,
theoretically report to the Chief of Staff, who coordinates
decisions with the president.  Although a presidential adminis
tration is generally comprised of officials from one political
party, conflicts over specific poli cies abound. 
     Technically, White House policy regarding the ADA fell under
the purview of the Domestic Policy Council, which was chaired by
Roger Porter and included the attorney general, the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Secretary of
Transportation.  The key to the ADA in the White House, however,
was Chief Counsel C. Boyden Gray.  There is no formal job
description for the White House Chief Counsel.  Rather,
responsibilities are tailored by each individual president.  Gray
had served as Bush s counsel for eight years during the Reagan
adminis tration.  They became close friends and shared similar
family backgrounds: their fathers were golf partners.  Their
relationship gave Gray considerable influence.   Boyden is the
most powerful counsel to a president we ve had in a long, long
time,  said Gray s immediate predecessor during the Reagan
administration, A.B. Culvahouse.  Gray was selective in the
issues which he engaged.  But  on the issues Boyden has chosen, 
said Culvahouse,  he is awfully damned influential.   And, based
on his friendship with Evan Kemp and following his experience
with President Reagan s Task Force on Regulatory Relief, Gray
took a keen interest in the ADA.
     White House action on the ADA was framed by President Bush s
declarations in support of disability rights legislation.  This
was a relatively unique interest for Bush, as he was best known
and respected for his expertise on, and passion for, foreign
policy.  The question, said Dr. William Roper, who worked for
Porter on the Domestic Policy Council, was precisely how Bush s
commitments would be translated into specific policy.  There were
discussions about the extent to which the administration would
abide by the campaign promise.  But Bush was steadfast in his
commitment to getting a solid act passed.   He wanted it done in
a way that was good for the American people,  said Roper:  this
was not going to be a shell promise.  
     Others inside the White House were much less enamored with
the ADA, and had substantive reservations.  Civil rights was a
charged issue in  the Bush administration.  Kemp explained that
the White House would not entertain any concept of  quotas  with
regard to the ADA.  Officials within the Bush administration
emphasized that people with disabilities needed to be qualified
for any given job, that the original ADA definition needed to be
limited, and that there needed to be a sensible limit to the
responsibility of providing reasonable accommodations.  If these
fundamental issues were settled, said Kemp, the White House could
move forward with shaping the details.  As White House consultant
Robert Funk explained, Funk, Gray, and others reminded skeptics
of Bush s promise.  In addition to Gray, Attorney General Richard
Thornburgh was a crucial advocate of the ADA and Bush s
aspirations.  So was Kemp, who functioned as a vital link between
the disability community and the White House.
     Thornburgh s testimony was crucial: it demonstrated that the
White House was willing to work toward consensus on a bill that
President Bush could endorse.The Department of Justice (DOJ)
organized the various recommendations made by executive agencies,
and Attorney General Thornburgh became the point person to
represent the administration. Thornburgh, as many others, had
personal experience with disability.  His son, Peter, had
acquired a learning disability from an automobile accident.  As
parents, Thornburgh and his wife Ginny had moved from caring for
the special needs of their own son to working for others with
similar conditions.  In Pennsylvania, Mrs. Thornburgh had served
as county chairperson of the ARC and was a member of Presi dent
Reagan s Committee on Mental Retardation. Her work influenced her
husband, who used his au thority as Governor of Pennsylvania to
assist persons with disabilities.
     At the Senate hearing on June 22, 1989, it was clear that
those in support of the ADA within the White House prevailed in
shaping the administration s position, which was presented by
Attorney General Thornburgh.   We at the Department of Justice, 
Thornburgh said,  wholeheartedly share [the ADA s] goals and
commit ourselves, along with the president and the rest of his
administration, to a bipartisan effort to enact comprehensive
legislation attacking discrimination in employment, public
services, transportation, public accommodations, and
telecommunications.   He explained that granting civil rights to
disabled persons would help the American economy by promoting
employ ment instead of dependence.  Moreover, Thornburgh declared
the administration s support of every basic principle, as well as
to the overall principle of linking the bill to the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  He also
identified areas of concern: drug-abusers should not be covered
by the definition of disability; measures should be taken to
ameliorate the burden on small businesses; the extension of
public accommodations beyond the Civil Rights Act should be
carefully analyzed; attempts should be made to minimize
litigation; the Secretary of Transportation should be able to
grant exemptions to transit systems; and  the most cost-effective
and efficient system  of telecommunications should be pursued. 
Most significantly, however, Thornburgh pledged to begin working,
both at the staff and principal levels, to work toward bipartisan
consensus on the ADA.
     Although there were pronounced differences between ADA
sponsors and the Bush adminis tration, Senator Harkin responded
to Attorney General Thornburgh by emphasizing all the areas of
agreement.  Accordingly, a Washington Post headline declared:
 Thornburgh Endorses Civil Rights Protection for the Disabled.  
This statement masked deep divisions, but it effectively
identified the ADA s advances and potential. 
     Attorney General Thornburgh s testimony was crucial because
it demonstrated that the Bush administration was willing to work
toward consensus on a bill that President Bush could endorse.
Senators Harkin and Kennedy eagerly accepted the invitation to
open negotiations with the Bush administration.  And, as a result
of Thornburgh s testimony, Senators Dole and Hatch laid to rest
the possibilities of introducing competing bills.  The ADA,
sweeping in its provisions, emerged from the hearings with
virtually every witness supporting the concept of the bill. 
Every argument against the ADA met with an effective rebuttal. 
The ADA was sound and it was on the move.
        Negotiations Between the Senate and the White House
     Although Senator Harkin was the Senate sponsor, Senator
Kennedy the full committee Chair and a senior Senator took the
lead in negotiating with the White House.  Kennedy s plan of
attack was to get all parties into the same room and essentially
stay there until all issues were resolved.  These discussions
would include the administration, the Senate, the House, and both
the business and disability communities.  House Republicans,
however, declined to participate, for they did not want to be
bound by any agreements.  Moreover, the White House insisted that
only representatives of Congress and the administration could
join the negotiations.  Kennedy and Harkin wanted disability
representatives to be at the table because they had so much
technical expertise, but they and all other outside
constituencies were not allowed into the negotiating room.  Thus,
only representatives from the Senate and the Bush administration
came to the table.
     The first meeting took place about a week after Attorney
General Thornburgh s testimony in the anteroom of the Senate
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.  Roper was the lead
negotiator for the administration.  He worked especially closely
with Robert Funk, a co-founder of DREDF and a disability advocate
from the Domestic Policy Council.  Osolinik and Silverstein were
the leaders for the Senate.  At the outset of the meeting, in
light of the absence of House Republi cans as participants,
Osolinik insisted on two main ground rules.  First, she
emphasized that they needed to come up with a complete
settlement: leaving any issue unresolved might undercut the
agreements that were made.  Second, she argued that the
administration had to stand by the negoti ated agreements, even
if House Republicans later opposed them and looked for
administration support.  Roper, however, said he could not commit
to these stipulations because he had not cleared them with his
superior, Chief of Staff Sununu.  Osolinik promptly called off
the meeting and said she was ready to continue whenever the
administration was willing to agree to the conditions.  Such
actions led Wright to claim that Osolinik was  one of the
toughest negotiators I have ever seen. 
     Over the Fourth of July weekend, Chief of Staff Sununu
telephoned Senator Kennedy to talk about the abruptly-ended
meeting.  Kennedy repeated the two ground rules submitted by
Osolinik, and Sununu agreed to abide by them.  Accordingly they
made plans to resume negotiations on July 6, 1989, and settled on
the times, participants, and location.  Over the next two weeks,
through July 18, Senate staff and administration staff held ten
negotiation sessions.  From the Senate, the principal
participants were the staffs of Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Hatch,
Durenberger, and Dole. Staff from the office of Senator John
McCain (R-AZ) joined the discussion regarding telecommuni cations
provisions and were pivotal in shaping that portion of the bill. 
For the administration, participants came primarily from the
White House, including Roper and Funk; the Justice Depart ment,
especially the author of the Section 504 regulations, John
Wodatch; the Department of Transportation; and OMB. 
     Although non-governmental constituencies were not allowed in
the Senate anteroom, they waited in a nearby conference room
where they could be consulted during breaks.  Those present in
the meetings devoted several hours to each session, went through
the bill line by line, and identified scores of disagreements for
discussion.  The staffs reached agreement on the vast majority of
issues, but a few unresolvable disputes were left for the
principals.  These more difficult issues included the scope of
remedies (namely the inclusion of compensatory and punitive
damages), the scope of public accommodations (namely whether the
ADA applied to more establishments than those covered by the
Civil Rights Act), exemption of religious groups from the public
accommodations provisions, the definition of disability, and
coverage of drug and alcohol users.
     On July 28, ten days after the conclusion of negotiation
sessions, Senator Dole sponsored a principals meeting in his
conference room.  They met there because of the ample space and
because the office of the Minority Leader was friendlier terrain
for the administration.  Those present included Senators Kennedy,
Harkin, Dole, Hatch, and Durenberger, Chief Counsel Gray, Chief
of Staff Sununu, Secretary of Transportation Samuel K. Skinner,
Attorney General Thornburgh, head of the Domestic Policy Counsel
Roger Porter, and others representing executive agencies covered
by the ADA.  The purpose of the meeting was to hammer out
agreements on remaining issues.  But at one point Sununu lost his
temper and began yelling at Silverstein.  Kennedy slammed his
hand on the table, yelled back that he would not stand for
shouting at Senate staff, and threatened to walk out.  The
discussion resumed, but no official agreements were made: the
meeting was cut short.
     Three days later, on July 31, Senators Kennedy and Harkin
and Attorney General Thorn burgh resolved the handful of
remaining issues and closed the negotiations.  The breakthrough
compromise, which facilitated agreement on other issues, was
essentially a swap concerning public accommodations and remedies. 
In the area of public accommodations, the administration had used
the parity principle against ADA sponsors by arguing that the ADA
should cover only those establishments covered under the Civil
Rights Act.  With respect to remedies, the administration wanted
to exclude compensatory and punitive damages.  As a compromise,
Kennedy and Harkin agreed to restrict remedies to the standards
of the Civil Rights Act in exchange for the adminis tration s
consent to apply the ADA to the broad spectrum of public
accommodations. 
     There were several other major agreements included in what
Senator Kennedy termed a The breakthrough compromise, which
facilitated agreement on other issues, was essentially a swap
concerning public accommodations and remedies. fragile
compromise.   First, with respect to employment, negotiators
incorporated a two-year delay of the effective date for
operations with 25 or more employees, and a four-year delay for
operations with 15 to 24 employees.  Establishments with fewer
than 15 employees were already exempted from the employment
title.  They also introduced stronger language to ensure that
current employees who abused drugs and alcohol would not be a
protected class.  Second, concerning public transportation, the
agreement included authority for the Secretary of Transportation
to waive the requirement of bus lifts for fixed-route systems
when lifts were unavailable.  For private intercity bus
transportation, the agreement delayed implementa tion of lift
requirements for at least five years and mandated a study to
explore how best to make intercity buses accessible.  Third,
regarding public accommodations, the negotiated agreement delayed
implementation for 18 months, exempted religious organizations
and private clubs, and specified that elevators were required
only in buildings with at least three stories or more than 3,000
square feet per floor.

                         Senate Approval
     After reaching a final agreement with Attorney General
Thornburgh on July 31, 1989, Senators Kennedy and Harkin
continued to push the ADA forward, scheduling the Labor and Human
Resources committee mark-up for August 2.  This gave Senate staff
only a couple of days to translate every agreement into
appropriate legislative language.  They did not finish writing
the substitute bill until about 3:00 in the morning on the day of
the mark-up.  The committee mark-up itself was rather
uneventful it lasted less than an hour.  This was mainly because
the intense and detailed negotiations had settled most issues. 
Moreover, committee Democrats and Republicans gave deference to
Senators Kennedy and Harkin, and Senators Hatch and Durenberger,
all of whom supported the rewrite of S. 933.  Accordingly, the
committee voted unanimously, 16 to 0, to report the ADA to the
Senate floor for final consideration.  The Senate, the Bush
administration, and the disability and business communities had
truly come a long way since January to achieve unanimous,
bipartisan support.  It was  one of the most extraordinary
legislative accomplishments I ve ever seen,  said Neas.  For the
disability community, it was a remarkable victory.  Moreover, the
compromise empowered President Bush, who had previously supported
the principles of the ADA, to endorse a specific version of the
bill.
     The Labor and Human Resources Committee voted unanimously,
16 to 0, to report the ADA to the Senate floor for final
consideration a remarkable victory for the disability
community.The Senate closed for recess just two days after the
mark-up, on August 4.  But while many members and their staffs
went on vacation, Senators Harkin and Kennedy continued to drive
the ADA forward to keep the momentum alive.  They wanted to make
the ADA one of the first items of business when the Senate
resumed on Sep tember 6.  This meant that the committee report
had to be filed by August 30 in order to give Senators and their
staffs ample time to review the issues.  For three weeks
Democratic and Republican Senate staff worked intensively with
the administration, the disability community, and the business
community to develop a report that established an accurate
historical record reflecting the various negotiated agreements. 
They completed a draft by August 22, and submitted the report to
accompany the substitute version of S. 933 on August 30.
     The speed with which the Labor and Human Resources Committee
moved the ADA shocked many senators and staff members.  When the
ADA came up for a vote on September 7, just a day after the
Senate reopened for the fall, some senators complained that
things had happened too quickly, that they did not have enough
time to review the legislation.  Others opposed the bill
outright.  Humphrey (R-NH) called it  one of the most radical
pieces of legislation I have encountered.   Senator Jesse Helms
(R-NC) cynically suggested the bill should be called the  Lawyers
Relief Act of 1989.   For the most part, however, senators
applauded the concepts of the ADA. In fact, by September 6 more
than 60 senators had signed on as cosponsors.
     Debate on the Senate floor lasted late into the night,
totaling over fourteen hours.  Although the fundamentals of the
bill were never threatened, several divisive issues emerged.  The
first was a proposed amendment by Senator Hatch, which would
provide a $5,000 tax credit to businesses for making
accommodations and modifications an alternative to a complete
exemption for small businesses from the public accommodations
provisions.  Hatch warned that the government was a potentially
 oppressive  institution and said that it was unfair to burden
small businesses with the costs of implementation without placing
any of the responsibility on the government.  Senator Lloyd
Bentsen (D-TX), however, argued that the amendment was a  killer
amendment  because all bills affecting revenue are
constitutionally required to come from the House.  Hatch
disagreed with Bentsen, as did a majority of the Senate.  But
since the Budget Act required a two-thirds majority for such
revenue amendments, the tax credit proposal failed.
     Near the end of the floor debate, shortly before 10:00 p.m.,
Senator Grassley introduced an amendment that brought Congress
under the purview of the ADA.  Senator Hatch had raised the issue
during the committee mark-up, but Senator Kennedy had cautioned
Hatch that the provision might kill the bill if introduced too
early.  On the Senate floor, Grassley argued that it was unfair
for the Senate to impose a burden on the American people without
sharing it.  Senator Wendell H. Ford (D-KY), however, argued that
such an amendment blurred the constitutional balance of powers by
giving the executive branch administrative control over Congress. 
Ford agreed with Senators Harkin and Kennedy that the ADA should
apply to Congress.  But he thought the issue should be considered
more carefully in conference, not passed hastily because people
were tired and wanted to go home.  Despite his objections, the
Senate approved the amendment (by counting the number of Senators
standing in favor of and against it) with the supposition that
the amendment only articulated intent: details would be worked
out in the House or in conference.
     A much more acrimonious debate centered on the definition of
disability.  Senator William L. Armstrong (R-CO) argued that the
definition of disability in the ADA was too broad.  He was
especially concerned about the inclusion of  mental disorders 
and disorders with a  moral con tent.   He questioned whether
senators thought homosexuality, bisexuality, exhibitionism, pedo
philia, voyeurism, and kleptomania should be protected by the
ADA.  Senator Jesse Helms shared Armstrong s concerns, especially
with respect to homosexuality, and feared that employers would no
longer be allowed to maintain  moral standards  in their
businesses.  Senator Kennedy, however, argued that prohibiting
discrimination against persons with HIV was crucial if the
epidemic was to be controlled, because people would otherwise be
less likely to reveal their illness.  And Senator Pete V.
Domenici (R-NM) cautioned against excluding persons with mental
illness, noting the recent recognition that such legendaries as
Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill struggled with bipolar
disorder.  Although Senators Kennedy and Harkin opposed unduly
restricting the definition, it appeared that the bill would not
go forward unless specific conditions or impair ments were
expressly excluded from the bill.  They thus worked with
Armstrong and Hatch for hours, in consultation with the
disability community, to prepare a list.  Senator Hatch typed the
amendment himself, and the Senate approved it by a voice vote.
     If it had become a Democratic bill, we would have lost. . .
. It had to be bipartisan. 
     Congressman Tony CoelhoWith these and several other smaller
amendments considered and resolved, the Senate finally voted on
the ADA.  In a remarkable demonstration of bipartisanship, the
Senate voted affirmatively by a count of 76 to 8.  This
bipartisanship was crucial for the ADA s success, because the
bill consequently entered the House deliberations as a coali tion
bill with the indispensable support of President Bush.  Without
the negotiations that had culminated in the support of Senators
Hatch and Dole and President Bush, the ADA might have been
labeled as a partisan initiative.   If it had become a Democratic
bill,  said Congressman Coelho,  we would have lost. . . . It had
to be bipartisan.   The ADA had indeed achieved a broad base of
support from both parties, but a difficult battle in the House of
Representa tives lay ahead.




  5

                   Fashioning a Durable ADA: 
                  The House of Representatives

Much more work had to be done to achieve the bipartisan support
that ADA advocates sought.  Hopes for quick passage were dashed;
debate in the House took nearly nine more months.The overwhelming
affirmative vote in the Senate contributed to the ADA s
remarkable momentum.  The intense negotiations with the White
House had resulted in a bill that earned President Bush s
endorsement, which essentially guaranteed passage of the bill in
some form.  The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources had
been unanimous in its support of the ADA. A grassroots disability
community had made its presence known on Capitol Hill by uniting
to advocate aggressively for the ADA.  Meanwhile, no considerable
opposition had organized.  By the time the Senate voted on
September 7, 1989, nearly half the House had cosponsored the
bill almost enough votes to pass it.  These factors led many
senators and the Bush administration to anticipate and hope for
swift passage in the House before year s end.  Other factors,
however, pointed to a more challenging process.
     Whereas 185 Democrats signed on as cosponsors (88 percent of
all House signatures), only 25 Republicans attached their names
to the bill.  Moreover, while House Democrats had worked with the
Senate in redrafting the ADA and were kept informed about the
negotiations with the administration, House Republicans had kept
their distance.  They did not contribute substantively to the
redrafting process; they also declined from participating in the
White House negotiations to avoid being bound by them, and
because they wanted to convey  that they were trying to look out
for [the] needs  of the business community.  Consequently, though
the Senate crafted a breakthrough compromise bill, House
deliberations would have to cover the same issues all over again. 
Much more work had to be done to achieve the bipartisan support
that ADA advocates sought.  Hopes for quick passage were dashed;
debate in the House took nearly nine more months.

                    Early Actions in the House
     Compared with the Senate, where there were powerful and
passionate advocates of disability in leadership positions on
both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democratic leadership in
the House, with the exception of Majority Whip Tony Coelho
(D-CA), were much more cautious. House Speaker James C. Wright,
Jr. (D-TX) and Majority Leader Thomas S. Foley (D-WA) were
skeptical of the ADA s wide-ranging impact and viewed the bill
more as a private agenda of Congressman Coelho than an issue of
national policy importance.   I had the leadership unwilling to
tell me no because it was me,  Coelho said.  But they were not
openly supportive and would have  killed  the ADA,  if it hadn t
been [for] my making it so personal.   Although in time the ADA
would come to be viewed as a leadership bill, largely because of
Coelho s status as Majority Whip, the initially weak support of
Democratic leadership placed Republicans in a position to shape
the ADA to their interests. 
     Congressman Coelho was the first member of the House to join
the campaign to pass the ADA.  He was the bill s sponsor both in
1988 and in 1989.  He also collaborated with Senators Tom Harkin
(D-IA) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) to rewrite the ADA and craft
a master strategy for passage.  House Republicans did not
demonstrate significant interest in the ADA until it entered
Congress for the second time in the spring of 1989.  The leader
among Republicans was Congress man Steve Bartlett (R-TX).  He had
played an integral role in recasting disability policy in terms
of independence and in issuing a mandate to the National Council
on the Handicapped (NCD) to review federal programs and make
recommendations.  Although he generally supported the proposals
in Toward Independence, Bartlett was cautious about the lead
recommendation pertaining to an equal opportunity law. 
Throughout 1988 he had watched the ADA from a distance.  But
after President- elect Bush promised support of an act similar to
the ADA at a pre-inaugural event on January 19, making passage
seem imminent, Bartlett decided to become involved to ensure that
it was a reason able bill. 
     In April, 1989, Congressman Bartlett joined with Minority
Leader Robert H. Michel (R-IL) and Congressman William F.
Goodling (R-PA) to propose a partnership with Congressman Coelho.
 We would like to work with you to develop a good bipartisan
bill,  they wrote to Coelho on April 25.   By working together,
we hope to develop language that we can agree upon, support, and
introduce together.   But the revised draft was already completed
and Bartlett, Michel, and Goodling did not cosponsor the ADA at
the time of its introduction.  Michel also wrote a letter to
President Bush, on April 26, urging him to join in the efforts of
working toward a bipartisan bill.  Such an effort, Michel said
 is appropriate, definitely warranted, and most importantly,
deserved by individu als with disabilities and others who will be
affected by it.   Bush fulfilled this request by working with the
Senate to develop a compromise bill. 
     Shortly into the House deliberations in the spring of 1989,
ADA supporters received a significant blow that paralleled the
1988 defeat of Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT).  While
House Speaker Wright was under scrutiny for alleged ethics
violations, some members accused Congressman Coelho of violating
House ethical standards by investing in certain bonds.  Unlike
Wright, however, who dragged out his own investigation before
leaving Congress, Coelho promptly submitted his resignation,
effective June 15.  His commitment to the ADA influenced this
decision. Coelho had become a national leader for disability
policy. And, though he flatly denied the charges against him, he
feared that an investigation might, by association, embarrass the
disability commu nity and consequently hurt its prospects for
success on the ADA.  
     Although Congressman Coelho s career as a U.S.
Representative drew to a close, his advocacy for the ADA did not. 
According to Ralph Neas,  he played a key role, if not a crucial
role, on many different occasions with Democrats in the House and
the Senate, with Republicans in the House and the Senate, and
with President Bush, pushing the calendar on a number of
occasions, really helping get us through some difficult times.  
For example, he took the lead in the House cosponsorship drive
and capitalized on his personal attachment to the bill and the
trust he had cultivated among colleagues.  Moreover, though he
was a partisan Democrat, Coelho was well known for his desire to
bring opponents to his side by working to empower them with
shared ownership and finding common ground, rather than pitch
battles.  
     There was always the possibility that having to go through
four committees . . . could endanger some of the best and
strongest provisions. 
          Ralph Neas     Accordingly, Congressman Coelho joined
with Democratic Congressman Major R. Owens (D-NY), and Republican
Congressmen Silvio O. Conte (R-MA) and Hamilton Fish, Jr. (R-NY),
to facilitate cosponsorship.  In a letter to the rest of their
colleagues on June 1, they emphasized the Republican origins of
the bill through NCD and the problem of paying persons with
disabilities not to work.   Persons with disabilities want to be
productive, self-supporting, and tax-paying participants in
society,  they wrote.   This bill will grant them that dignity
and that right.  Because the ADA was a civil rights bill, ADA
supporters anticipated that members would read ily support it. 
Yet, despite the bipartisan effort, the process of enlisting
House cosponsors was slow: the issue of costs caused people to
hesitate. Whereas members often cosponsor a bill when certain
colleagues do, in this case they wanted to scrutinize the bill
individually.  
     The House cosponsorship drive was less successful than that
in the Senate 33 percent of all senators and 19 percent of all
representatives were cosponsors on May 9.  But Congressman Coelho
secured a crucial commitment from Congressman Steny H. Hoyer
(D-MD).  The two members had become close friends since Coelho,
as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee,
had assisted Hoyer in his first campaign.  At Coelho s request,
Hoyer assumed the role of managing the ADA in the House.  This
meant organizing committee deliberations, serving as the
principal negotiator, and leading floor deliberations.  Out of
respect for Coelho s commitment to the ADA, Hoyer called himself
 chief cosponsor,  and continued to identify Coelho as the ADA s
sponsor.  Like so many other members of Congress, the ADA had
personal significance for Hoyer: his wife had epilepsy.  He
became a zealous advocate for the ADA.

           A Bird s Eye View of the House Deliberations
     By the time the ADA reached the House committees, the basic
goals of the bill had been widely affirmed.  Many members,
however, viewed the legislative process as an incremental one,
whereby major policies would be assembled step by step over many
years.  Passing the ADA was especially challenging because, as
Rochelle Dornatt of Coelho s staff observed,  we were creating a
whole new set of rights . . . a whole new set of civil rights.  
The principal focus in the House was not the needs of persons
with disabilities, which had already been well-established by the
Senate, but, rather, the bill s effect on  covered entities.   As
Melissa Schulman of Congressman Hoyer s office explained:  What
the House was doing . . . was making the bill more acceptable to
business.  Coelho often noted that  the trick  in the legislative
process was  to find that magic number, that 218, to get the bill
passed.   With the ADA, advocates were trying to get much more
than that, but it required extensive work at the committee level
to satisfy members concerned with covered entities in their
districts.
     House consideration of the ADA was different and more
complicated than the Senate s for several reasons.  First, the
committee structure was more complex.  In the Senate, the bill
went only to one committee and one subcommittee.  There it was
considered primarily as a civil rights bill and did not undergo
the technical scrutiny of the commerce and transportation
committees.  In the House it went to four committees (Education
and Labor, Public Works and Transportation, Energy and Commerce,
and Judiciary), and six subcommittees (Select Education;
Employment Opportunities; Surface Transportation;
Telecommunications and Finance; Transportation, Tourism, and
Hazardous Materials; and Civil and Constitutional Rights).  In
addition, the Committee on Small Business held a non-legislative
hearing to generate information that could be used by other
committees or during floor deliberations.  These multiple
committee referrals meant that the ADA would have to withstand
the scrutiny of various technical experts, especially with regard
to transportation.  Moreover, 164 representatives, compared with
16 senators, and many more House staff than Senate staff reviewed
the bill in committee.  This increased the chance of a committee
altering, delaying, or even killing the bill and posed a major
challenge to coordinating the deliberative process and keeping
the bill intact.  All indications suggested that a bill would
pass.  But, as Neas explained,  there was always the possibility
that having to go through four committees . . . could endanger
some of the best and strongest provisions.   According to Arlene
Mayerson, it was  an overwhelming strategic nightmare. 
     A second factor also complicated the House deliberations. 
In the Senate, the chief sponsors of the bill, Senators Kennedy
and Harkin, were chairmen of the full committee and subcommittee
with jurisdiction.  In the House, however, Congressman Hoyer was
not even a member of any of the committees reviewing the bill. 
He was  responsible for shepherding . . . the bill through the
process,  explained Schulman, even though he had to do it without
committee authority, relying on forming relationships with
chairmen who often guarded their committee jurisdiction
jealously. Keeping everything together was a challenging task
indeed.  But Hoyer rose to the challenge.  As Neas said, he  put
on one of the best legislative shows of all time.   One cannot
underestimate Hoyer s importance.   Unless you have somebody who
is going to take responsibility for seeing that it all gets done
and there is some cohesion in the process,  Schulman said,  it
never would have happened.   
     Unless you have somebody who is going to take responsibility
for seeing that it all gets done and there is some cohesion in
the process, it never would have happened. 
          Melissa Schulman    Congressman Hoyer and staff member
Schulman were central players, if not the leaders, in every
aspect of the bill s development in the House cosponsorship,
hearings, committee review, negotiations, committee and floor
amendments, interactions with the White House, floor delibera
tions, conference proceedings, and crisis management.  They
feared that the committees might signif icantly weaken the bill,
and that the disability community might walk out of the process
in frustra tion.  Hoyer thus committed to meeting with any member
who wanted to discuss the bill. He even walked through a Giant
Food store with concerned parties to explore the practical impact
of the ADA.  Schulman remained confident that the bill would
pass.  But at times, she said,  it just looked next to
impossible. 
     The legislative process in the House also differed in a
third respect: the roles assumed by the business and disability
communities and the Bush administration.  The ADA went through
the Sen ate like a  blitzkrieg.   This had compelled many
business lobbyists essentially to throw in the towel with respect
to the Senate and strategically focus their efforts on the House. 
The disability community, on the other hand, had been very much
on the offensive throughout the Senate delibera tions, seeking to
persuade senators and the Bush administration to support its
goals for an accessible America.  Although many compromises had
to be made to achieve presidential and Senate support, the
disability community had been generally satisfied with an ADA
that emerged from the Senate.  And with respect to the Bush
administration, it had been an active participant in hammering
out a compromise bill that could win the endorsement of President
Bush, which Bush granted on August 2, 1989.
     Persons with disabilities were now more on the defensive. 
Their chief goal was to hold as much ground as possible, amidst
an onslaught of proposed revisions.The circumstances were much
different in the House.  While business groups worked extensively
with the Senate and the Bush ad ministration in developing a
compromise bill, activity was primarily in Washington: there were
only limited efforts to apply pressure on members from their
constituents at home.  But, during House deliberations, the
business community vigorously lobbied the House by mobilizing
constituent pressure.  By the time the ADA reached the House,
Mayerson said, the National Federation of Independent Business
(NFIB) was distributing  millions of flyers to every business
across the country.   Moreover, because of President Bush s
endorsement of the ADA, outright opposition was futile and apathy
was dangerous.  Barring an unexpected calamity, the bill was
going to pass, at least in some form.  If businesses wanted their
voice to make a difference and meet some of their objectives,
they had to support the overall concept of the bill.  Persons
with disabilities, on the other hand, were now more on the
defensive.  Their chief goal was to hold as much ground as
possible amidst an onslaught of proposed revisions.
     The disability community continually reminded opponents that
a Republican president backed the ADA.  Indeed, President Bush
was a strong advocate of the ADA and had been in the forefront of
promoting civil rights legislation for people with disabilities. 
By endorsing the negoti ated version of the ADA on August 2,
1989, President Bush set the stage for the House deliberations,
where passage consequently seemed imminent.  Attorney General
Richard Thornburgh most actively articulated the Bush
administration s support.  For example, on September 19,
Thornburgh wrote a powerful letter to the editor of the New York
Times on behalf of the ADA.  He underscored his and the
president s support of the ADA.  In particular, he challenged the
errors of a Times article for example, its allegation that there
had been  surprisingly narrow public scrutiny  of the ADA. 
Thornburgh described how the Bush administration, the Senate, and
interested parties had entered  painstaking negotiations  that
resulted in  a carefully balanced measure.  
     On October 12, Attorney General Thornburgh testified on
behalf of the administration, before the House Subcommittee on
Civil and Constitutional Rights and gave a ringing endorsement of
the ADA.  He noted that many people with disabilities continue to
live  in an intolerable state of isolation and dependence  and
argued that the ADA could be  the vehicle that brings persons
with disabilities into the mainstream of American life.   It was
a  historic opportunity,  he said, to have the chance to help
move the ADA through Congress.  Thornburgh s testimony was
important because it demonstrated the Bush administration s
continued support of the ADA and reflected President Bush s
desire to see the ADA passed quickly.
     For the most part, however, compared with its intense and
consistent interaction with the Senate, the Bush administration
participated in the House deliberations only intermittently. 
Proponents of the ADA widely assumed that the administration
stayed in the background because the administration was willing
to let the House modify the bill and perhaps implement proposals
the administration had been unable to negotiate with the Senate. 
House Republicans, for their part, preferred that the White House
let them have the freedom to conduct their own analysis and
revisions of the bill.  House Democrats wanted the administration
to speak out more authoritatively on behalf of the negotiated
ADA, but they would settle for not having the administration
advocate any weakening amendments.  President Bush satisfied all
parties by remaining outside the fray.
     The House deliberations were also characterized by
ideological distinctions.  ADA supporters widely hailed the bill
as bipartisan legislation.  Indeed, in the final analysis the ADA
received overwhelming support from both parties 93 percent of the
vote in each chamber and at least 86 percent of the vote in each
party.  There were also key advocates on both sides of the aisle,
especially in the Senate, where Senators Harkin, Kennedy, Orrin
G. Hatch (R-UT), Dave Durenberger (R-MN), and Robert Dole (R-KS)
were deeply committed to the ADA.  Moreover, Republicans and
Democrats found common ground: they agreed  that it was a bad
idea to pay people not to work, to stay home.   Nevertheless, an
ideological fault line emerged between the interests of the
business and disability communities.  Republicans tended to vote
in favor of easing the demands imposed on business.  This became
evident during the Senate floor deliberations.  For example,
Senator Hatch s amendment to include a tax credit for businesses
(the only vote to be recorded) split along party lines.  Whereas
71 percent of Republicans supported the amendment, 64 percent of
Democrats opposed it.  In the House, the division was even more
clear.  For example, whereas 85 percent of Democratic committee
members were cosponsors of the ADA, only 10 percent of Republican
committee members were.  In the committees, members tended to
split along party lines regarding amendments that most viewed as
helping businesses.  
     It is important, however, not to lose sight of the enormous
area of agreement on the ADA, which was established in the course
of negotiations.  Although Republicans and Democrats had their
differences, it is a testament to their talents and commitment to
a laudable objective that they were largely able to put aside
partisanship to find common ground.

                 Lobbying & Grass Roots Activities
     For business organizations such as NFIB, the Senate
deliberations represented a failure.   The reason we failed in
the Senate,  said Wendy Lechner, the NFIB point person for the
ADA,  was we didn t have time to educate  the members.  The ADA
was  pushed through as motherhood and apple pie before we had a
chance to do anything.   In the House, therefore, the objective
was to  slow it down long enough for education.   NFIB was not
alone.  Largely under the direction of Nancy Reed Fulco of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, business groups formed the Disability
Rights Working Group to help mold the ADA.  Different
organizations focused on different provisions: NFIB and the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce devoted considerable attention to public
accommoda tions; the American Bus Association (ABA), the American
Public Transit Authority (APTA), and Greyhound examined
transportation issues; the National Restaurant Association (NRA),
the Cham ber of Commerce, and the National Association of
Manufacturers dealt with employment.  But they banded together to
lobby members of the House about their common concerns.  As
illustrated in the Senate testimony, business groups were not
completely opposed to the bill.   We really weren t trying to
deep-six it,  said Lechner.   We were really trying to get a
better bill, a more livable bill. 
     We really weren t trying to deep-six it.  We were really
trying to get a better bill, a more livable bill. 
          Wendy Lechner  To create a more  livable  bill,
representatives of covered entities developed a list of about 20
to 30 amendments.  Throughout the House deliberations they
continually updated this list, removing those changes that were
accomplished, and adding others as new issues arose.  And they
lobbied members of Congress to argue the need for those
amendments by issuing various position papers and visiting
members  offices.  In addition to lobbying inside Washing ton,
organizations such as NFIB sent out action alerts to their
members urging people to write their representatives, especially
those serving on committees.  Some opponents of the ADA took
their concerns about the ADA to the main stream media.
     Business groups had a number of overriding concerns.  One
was the  vagueness of language  contained in the ADA.  Business
lobbyists argued that such phrases as  undue hardship,   readily
achievable,  and  readily accessible,  were inadequately defined,
and would therefore invite frivolous law suits.  Businesses, they
argued, would not be able to know whether they were in
compliance.  A second concern was the potential cost of
accommodations.  One proposed solution was to have the government
share some of the burden through tax credits and other
mechanisms. Third, numerous covered entities lobbied to have a
more concrete definition of disability, ideally one that listed
every covered disability instead of relying on a flexible
definition.  Fourth, small busi nesses argued that they should be
exempt from the public accommodations requirements, or at least
be phased in more gradually, because small businesses were exempt
from other civil rights legisla tion.  Fifth, scores of
organizations protested the enforcement mechanisms available
under the ADA, especially private litigation and the availability
of punitive damages.  Sixth, many business groups proposed that
the ADA should preempt all other disability laws, so that there
would be no confusion between different statutes, and no
possibility for bringing multiple law suits for one violation.
     The business community, however, faced a significant problem
in educating and lobbying Congress: it had a much more difficult
time than the disability community in keeping its coalition
together.  By the end of the fall of 1990, the coalition had
begun to break down, as organizations focused on those provisions
that affected them most.  They were, therefore, unable to present
a united front to Congress.  Nevertheless, during the course of
the House deliberations, business groups succeeded in obtaining
many of the changes they sought.
     In response to a variety of objections posed by business
groups, some House members took the initiative in undertaking
vigorous publicity campaigns against the ADA.  Congressman Dan
Burton (R-IN), for example, sent out a flyer in which he
enumerated  some of the more onerous provisions  of the ADA. 
According to Burton, the ADA would  federalize American private
enterprise,   wreak havoc in the workplace,   crush small and
medium-sized businesses,  and  confer federal approval on
homosexual/ heterosexual  domestic partners.    He also attached
an editorial by Gene Antonio that characterized the ADA as  the
last ditch attempt of the remorseless sodomy lobby to achieve its
national agenda before the impending decimation of AIDS destroys
its political clout.  This bill simply must be stopped . . . and
will become law unless there is a massive public outcry
immediately. 
     The beauty of the ADA was it was an effort where people in
the grass roots were just as important, if not more important,
than people in Washington. 
          Liz Savage     Similarly, Congressman Ron Marlenee
(R-MN) issued a flyer to all the postal patrons in his district. 
The headline read:  Americans With Disabilities Act: Washington s
Latest Way to Crush Businesses, Schools, While Hurting The
Disabled.  A subheading announced:  ADA Bill To Give Federal
Endorsement For Homosexual  Partners  and  AIDS.    Congressman
Chuck Douglas (R-NH) distributed a letter that pictured a man
pointing a gun at the reader.   Berserkers: Time Bombs in the
Workplace,  the headline de clared.  Douglas favored the general
idea of the ADA, but said the bill  needs dramatic rewrit ing.  
He was especially with preventing per sons with mental illness
from endangering their coworkers and thus proposed excluding such
persons from protection under the ADA.
     The disability community was more unified than the business
community, but the heightened activity of the business community
during House deliberations demanded a strong response from the
disability community.   The beauty of the ADA,  said Liz Savage,
 was it was an effort where people in the grass roots were just
as important, if not more important, than people in Washington. 
To facilitate disability grass roots involvement, leaders such as
Marilyn Golden developed regional coordination networks: it was
too complicated for one or even a handful of people to manage the
calls for an entire nation.  While in some cases there was a
coordinator for an individual state, most states were organized
in groups under a regional coordinator.  The regional
coordinators were selected because they were well known in their
states.  They came from a variety of organizations, often from
independent living centers.
     During the House deliberations, the ADA coalition
coordinated its lobbying efforts with each of the scheduled
committee mark-ups.  As the bill went through each committee,
members of the legal team responded to virtually every business
position paper by issuing rebuttals.  They would proceed
point-by-point through amendment lists and either show how claims
were in error or why the disability community took a different
position.  ADA Lobbyists used this information in visiting
members of the House, presenting a  Disability Rights 101 
education course.  Lobbyists were not just Washingtonians.  Often
at their own expense, persons with disabilities flew and drove in
from around to be part of the Washington effort.  The National
Council on Independent Living (NCIL), for example, ensured that
at least one of its representatives resided in Washington
throughout the congressional deliberations.  On many occasions,
Liz Savage offered her apartment as a sort of boarding house for
out-of-town visitors.  Once they arrived in Washington, grass
roots advocates met with leaders in the ADA coalition to get
weekly briefings and plot strategy.  They also coordinated their
lobbying techniques to ensure that they were presenting a unified
message to members of Congress.
     Grass roots participation in lobbying helped humanize the
ADA.  Many members were seeing persons with disabilities for the
first time and viewing them as assertive citizens.  This helped
break down the stereotype of persons with disabilities as
dependent children.  It also illustrated that disabled people
could make a difference and offer valuable contributions to
society if only given the chance.  Only a minority of people with
disabilities, however, could make personal trips to Washington. 
Others did what they could in their local communities.  Kathleen
Kleinmann, for example, wanted to do whatever she could do from
her home in rural Pennsylvania.  She felt she simply had to be a
part of the action.   We had that urgency about us,  she said. 
 It was contagious. It spread through the whole country.   For
Kleinmann and many others, NCIL was the crucial link to
activities taking place in Washington.  Through it they could
learn when and to whom they should write letters.  Moreover,
people in various local committees applied pressure on the local
offices of their representatives.  They also contested erroneous
public statements about the ADA by calling into local radio shows
and making local television appearances.
     The President has endorsed it.  The Senate has
overwhelmingly passed it. Now it s up to you.  Don t weaken a law
that will strengthen America. 
          New Year s Postcard The largest single letter-writing
cam paign took place between the 100th and 101st Congresses,
during the winter of 1989-90.  The campaign was directed at
members of the House of Representatives, who were frustrating
many in the disability community by taking so much lon ger than
the Senate and proposing  weakening amendments.   Thousands of
 New Year s  postcards were mailed throughout the country with a
cover letter from James S.  Brady, soliciting individuals to mail
to them to their congressman.  The front of the card printed
 ADA  in giant letters for a background.  Set over it was the
statement:  Our New Year s Wish For Congress: Open the Doors to
America.  Pass the Americans with Disabilities Act.   On the back
it said:  The President has endorsed it.  The Senate has
overwhelmingly passed it.   And in larger letters:  Now it s up
to you.  Don t weaken a law that will strengthen America.  Space
was provided for people to add their own personal messages.  They
were encouraged to send cards to their own Congressperson,
committee members from their states, Speaker of the House Foley,
and Minority Leader Michel.
     In addition to lobbying, sending letters, and making phone
calls, persons in the disability community, both inside and
outside Washington, served the important function of presenting
testimony at congressional hearings.  As with the hearings of
1988 and the Senate hearings of 1989, the House s ADA hearings
included powerful testimony about the need for civil rights
protections for persons with disabilities.  Persons from the
disability community also offered their technical expertise on
specific issues and countered the claims of those who proposed
weakening amendments.
     A final way in which the disability community exerted
pressure on Congress and the Bush administration was through
demonstrations.  One of the most significant protests was
organized by ADAPT in September, 1989.  In a long ADAPT
tradition, the demonstration coincided with the annual meeting of
APTA in Atlanta, where Secretary of Transportation Samuel K.
Skinner was expected to present an address.  On Sunday, September
24, about 100 people throughout the U.S. and Canada, most of whom
were in wheelchairs, protested at the entrance of the Hilton
Hotel convention site.  Stephanie Thomas, a spokesperson for
ADAPT, said they were protesting APTA because of its opposition
to the ADA.
     We re here until the order gets signed.  They ll have to
carry everybody out or arrest them. 
          Mike Auberger  At about ten o clock the following
morning, on September 25, more than 100 disability activists
occupied the main floor of the Richard B. Russell Federal
Building and blockaded the main entrances.  Some attached chains
and bicycle locks to their necks and locked them to door handles
so that security could not simply lift them from their
wheelchairs.  ADAPT demanded that Secretary Skinner sign an
executive order requiring the purchase of accessible vehicles for
all new transit buses, which would take effect immediate.   We re
here until the order gets signed,  said Michael W. Auberger, one
of the co-founders and leading org anizers for ADAPT.   They ll
have to carry everybody out or arrest them.   Later that day, at
around six o clock, Atlanta police and security officers from the
General Services Administration (GSA) did just that. They used
bolt cutters to remove demonstrators from the building.
     About two hours later, only a few protesters still remained
in the building.  From inside the building, Marca Bristo
contacted Evan Kemp, who told her to call Boyden Gray directly. 
As she was on the phone with Gray, a police officer insisted that
she leave the building.  Bristo left, but only after she handed
the phone to the officer to prove she was talking to Gray from
the White House.  Gray subsequently contacted President Bush. 
Within minutes, police and other security officers began letting
the disability activists back into the building.  After speaking
with Gray, President Bush had personally intervened to inform
Gary C. Carson, Regional General Services Administration (GSA)
administrator, that the protesters should be allowed to stay. 
Carson attributed Bush s action to the president s  deep
commitment to the handicapped and their right to protest.  
Apparently, Bush was also concerned about the alternative of
having them stay overnight outside the building in a chilling
rain.  Auberger and others welcomed Bush s intervention, but
threatened to stay until Skinner signed the executive order they
demanded.
     The sit-in ended the following afternoon subsequent to an
agreement between the Urban Mass Transportation Administration
(UMTA) and leaders of ADAPT.  UMTA agreed to help facil itate a
process of identifying and interfering with transit operators
that were rushing to buy inaccessi ble buses before the ADA was
enacted.  UMTA also agreed to relay to Secretary Skinner ADAPT s
desire to see more effective implementation of the Air Carriers
Access Act of 1986, which required accessibility for air travel. 
The agreement fell short of ADAPT s demands.  Yet it appeared to
be the best possible action, since UMTA explained that Skinner
did not have the authority to issue such an executive order.
     ADAPT, however, was not finished with its demonstrations. 
The next day, Wednesday, September 27, protesters effectively
shut-down the Atlanta Greyhound terminal for several hours by
encircling the terminal and blocking buses.  They chanted:  We
Will ride!    Access is our civil right!   One protester even
climbed into the bus, sat in the driver s seat, and chained
himself to the steering column.  Only four buses carrying about
80 passengers left the terminal during the protest, compared with
a typical 20 buses carrying 600 passengers.  The purpose of the
demonstration was to urge Greyhound and other intercity bus
services to begin purchasing lift-equipped buses.  The protest
ended, however, with the arrest of over 20 activists, who
received $75 fines the following day.
     Five-and-a-half months later, amidst seemingly stalled House
deliberations, ADAPT organized another demonstration the  Wheels
of Justice  campaign.  Disability activists from around the
country gathered on Sunday night, March 11, to plan the week s
events.  Wade Blank and Michael Auberger, co-founders of ADAPT,
were there.  Other leading ADAPT organizers included Bob Kafka,
Mark Johnson, Stephanie Thomas, Dianne Coleman, Ben Freeman, and
Bernard Baker. At noon the following day, hundreds of activists
associated with ADAPT and other disability organizations
assembled at the White House.  From there they marched and rolled
to the Capitol, where they gathered at the west front to listen
to speeches from ADA supporters.  On the way, they chanted:  What
do we want?    ADA!    When do we want it?    Now! 
     At the Capitol, Justin Dart, now Chairman of the President s
Committee on the Employment of People with Disabilities,
addressed the crowd as  pioneer patriarchs of the twentieth
century.   He likened the ADA to the Declaration of Independence
and urged those assembled to  go forward, in  We are American
citizens and we will be part of the American dream. 
          Justin Dartthe spirit of Ghandi and Martin Luther King,
with love, with reasoned truth, with unyielding insistence on
respect for the sacred value of each human life.   Concluding
with a demand for immediate passage of the ADA, Dart declared:
 We are American citizens and we will be part of the American
dream.   Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder and Congressman Major
Owens also spoke in support of the ADA, likening the disability
rights movement to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. 
Additional speakers included I. King Jordan, President of
Gallaudet University, Evan Kemp, Chairman of the EEOC, and James
Brady, former press secretary for President Ronald Reagan.
     Auberger was the final speaker.  He, too, likened the
efforts of those gathered to earlier movements for equality.  He
described the plight of people with disabilities and urged that
disability activists must remain steadfast in demanding civil
rights.  Then, sitting in his wheelchair at the base of the
Capitol steps, Auberger observed that the steps  were a symbol of
discrimination against the disabled.   Yet, he said, he would not
let them continue to be an obstruction.  We will not let any
barrier prevent us from the equality that is rightfully ours.  
As he concluded his speech in front of television cameras, many
individuals left their wheelchairs behind to climb the Capitol
steps a symbol of their fortitude in surmounting barriers. 
     On Tuesday, March 13, ADAPT continued its campaign by
meeting with House Speaker Foley (who assumed the House
leadership position after Congressman Wright s resignation),
Republican Leader Michel, and Congressman Hoyer in the Capitol
Rotunda.  Leaders of the protest insisted on immediate passage of
the ADA.  When Foley informed the crowd that two months was a
likely time frame, more than 100 demonstrators began chanting:
 ADA Now!   Foley and Michel subsequently departed.  Hoyer stayed
a little longer and departed with a thumbs-up signal.  Then,
Capitol police told the demonstrators to leave, as demonstrating
in the Capitol is against federal law. Most demonstrators
refused, however, and formed a tight circle; many chained their
wheelchairs together.  They chanted:  Access is a civil right! 
and  The people united will never be defeated!  But police
officers, many protected with riot gear, began using
chain-cutters and torches to break through the links
demonstrators had fashioned.  For about two hours, police
reportedly arrested 104 people whom charged them with
demonstrating in the Capitol building.  The next day, Wednesday,
March 14, protesters assembled in Congressmen Shuster and Fish s
offices.  Others crowded the Energy and Commerce Committee
mark-up session.  Numbers dwindled over the rest of the week,
however, as many were appearing in court. 
     The  Wheels of Justice  campaign did not bring immediate
passage of the ADA.  And the ADAPT demonstration in Atlanta did
not result in an executive order that required the purchase only
of accessible transit buses.  Yet the protesters were more
concerned with demonstrating the lengths to which persons with
disabilities would go to secure their rights.  In that sense they
succeeded.  The events were also an indication that further
demonstrations could follow if the ADA got stuck in a quagmire. 
Combined with the other education and lobbying efforts of the ADA
coalition, these activities underscored the nationwide, grass
roots demand for passage of the ADA.
     Although such demonstrations reflected unity within the
disability community, there was not complete unanimity among all
people with disabilities.  The National Federation of the Blind
(NFB), for example, was outspoken in its reservations about the
ADA.  At its 1989 convention in Denver, Colorado, NFB passed a
resolution declaring that if the ADA  could not be amended to
cure its weaknesses, it should be opposed.   Early in 1990,
Kenneth Jernigan of NFB wrote a brief,  Reflec tions on the
Americans with Disabilities Act,  to explain NFB s position.  The
primary concern, he said, was that the ADA might create
additional problems for blind people as it attempted to eliminate
other problems.  In particular, NFB feared that the ADA might
force people with disabilities  to accept the special
accommodations mandated by the bill and . . . [prevent people]
from using the same facilities and services that are available to
others.   Such accommodations, Jernigan said, may themselves
become discriminatory, and make the ADA  a source of
unintentional discrimination against some persons with
disabilities. 
     For instance, NFB cautioned that the provision of
specially-equipped rooms in hotels might require blind persons to
use specific rooms and prevent them from staying near friends. 
To NFB, the alleged need for this accommodation (or for street
corners with audible sounds for crossing and specially-designated
seats on buses) was based on  the false assumption that sight is
essential for successful performance of most tasks.   Blindness,
said Jernigan,  is not generally disabling.  Consequently,
unwanted accommodations falsely portrayed blind people  as
limited in ways that they are not  and imposed unfair and unequal
restrictions.
     As a solution, NFB proposed an amendment stipulating that
people with disabilities had the right not to participate in
programs or activities specially designed for disabled persons. 
During the fall of 1989, NFB worked with John Wodatch of the
Justice Department to elicit the backing of the administration. 
Following a meeting with White House staff on January 19, 1990,
NFB representa tives were confident that they would obtain their
proposed amendment.  But, Jernigan said, if the amendment is
rejected,  we must oppose the bill as vigorously as we can . . .
we will do anything we can to slow it down and block [the ADA s]
passage.   He concluded his  Reflections  with the cautionary
statement:  Simply because a thing calls itself civil rights,
that does not mean that it is civil rights.   NFB eventually
attained its goal through an additional clause to the ADA:  an
individual with a disability shall not be denied the opportunity
to participate in . . . programs or activities that are not
separate or different.   Subsequently, NFB did not oppose the
ADA.

          The ADA and the House Committees: Three Phases
     Part of the master strategy for passing the ADA involved
organizing the committee deliberations in the House.  Leading ADA
supporters among Democrats, including Congressmen Coelho, Hoyer,
and Owens, wanted to start the bill in a committee that was
familiar with and favorable to civil rights.  In consultation
with each of the committee Chairs Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA), for
Education and Labor; John D. Dingell (D-MI), for Energy and
Commerce; Glenn M. Anderson (D-CA), for Public Works and
Transportation; and Jack Brooks (D-TX), for Judiciary they
decided to begin with Education and Labor.  Several factors made
this a logical choice.  First, most of its Democratic members
supported disability rights.  Second, Democratic leadership
included Congress man Owens, Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Select Education, who had created the Task Force on the Rights
and Empowerment of People with Disabilities and was a strong
advocate of civil rights and grass roots activism.  Third, the
ranking Republican for the Subcommittee on Select Education was
Congressman Bartlett, who had a strong record on disability
policy and was instrumental in shaping the mission of NCD. 
Bartlett, in fact, urged Republicans on other committees to
promote letting Education and Labor go first.  Fourth, Pat
Morrisey, a leading Republican staff member, had also worked
extensively with disability policy and, in addition, had a
disability.  Ideally, the Education and Labor Committee would
complete its review of the ADA as a starting point for the rest
of the committees.
     Although committees operate differently, they tend to follow
a similar process of delibera tion.  The committee chair and
committee members give overall guidance to their staff regarding
what they would desire to achieve.  Then, hearings are scheduled,
designed, and held. The purpose of hearings is to solicit
justification and document the need for the bill, as well as to
hear and discuss reservations about the bill.  As much as
possible, staff try to settle issues raised by the hearings on
their own, which is generally the vast majority of a given bill. 
For issues that remain unresolved, however, there is a ladder of
conflict resolution.  Usually, the first step the staff take is
to prepare memos for their congressmen about the issues in
dispute and then obtain the member s feedback, which can be used
in negotiations.  If this proves inadequate, members meet
directly with one another.  Finally, issues that members cannot
settle get carried to committee mark-up sessions where they can
be introduced as amendments for member voting.  Typically,
mark-up sessions begin with the consideration of one collective
amendment that incorporates all the agreed upon changes.  Then,
members proceed to discuss and vote upon individual amendments
concerning the disputed issues.
     Although the activities of all four committees often
overlapped (see Appendix C for a chronology), there were three
distinguishable phases in the committees  review process. 
Delibera tions by the Education and Labor Committee marked the
first phase.  A focus on transportation provisions by two
committees, the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Public
Works and Transportation Committee, constituted the second phase. 
Activities by the Judiciary committee represented the third and
final phase before moving the deliberations to the House floor. 

              phase I: education and labor committee
     The Education and Labor Committee conducted the most
thorough evaluation of the bill, at least with respect to the
volume of testimony received.  Two subcommittees had jurisdiction
over the bill: Select Education, chaired by Congressman Owens,
and Employment Opportunities, chaired by Matthew G. Martinez
(D-CA).  In the interest of facilitating rapid consideration of
the ADA, Owens negotiated with Martinez to have Employment
Opportunities yield to Owens s Select Education Subcommittee. 
Moreover, Congressman Hawkins, Chairman of the full committee,
essentially deferred to Owens for leading the committee s
consideration.  In addition to the two hearings held in 1988, the
Subcommittee on Select Education hosted four hearings between
July 18 and October 6, 1989, two of which were joint hearings
with the Employment Opportunities Subcommittee.
     Congressman Owens welcomed Hoyer as the leader in committee
negotiations, because it gave Owens an opportunity to be a  Watch
Dog  for the disability community.Perhaps the most significant of
the four hearings was the field hearing of the Subcommittee on
Select Education held on August 28, in Houston, Texas.  Lex
Frieden and Justin Dart had recommended such a hearing to
Congressman Owens due to concerns that Congressman Bartlett might
not be fully supportive of the ADA be cause of his close
associations with such busi ness groups as NFIB.  Owens approved
of the idea and enjoyed playing the role of bringing the U.S.
Congress to local communities.  The purpose of the field hearing
was to demonstrate to Bartlett that his own constituents strongly
supported the ADA.  Hundreds of persons with disabilities
attended the hearing and an open forum that followed.  At the
hearing, businessmen, government officials, and transit
authorities gave a ringing endorsement to the ADA.  And dozens of
people with disabilities spoke about their personal experiences
at the forum.  The proceedings appeared to have a significant
impact on Bartlett.  Later that evening, he told Frieden and
others that he had been  kind of a skeptic  of the ADA.  But the
day of discussions  made me a believer,  and he pledged to do
what he could to support the legisla tion.
     Contrary to the typical committee process, where staff
settle most disagreements following the hearings, negotiations
for the Committee on Education and Labor were led by Congressmen
Hoyer and Bartlett in a lengthy series of member-to-member
meetings.  This was also a unique circumstance because Hoyer was
not even on the committee.  Although Chairman Hawkins could have
exercised his authority over the full committee, he  graciously, 
as Ralph Neas described it, allowed Hoyer to take the lead.  This
gave Hoyer, the House manager of the ADA, an opportunity to set
the tone for the rest of the House deliberations.  Congressman
Owens welcomed Hoyer as the leader of committee negotiations,
because it gave Owens an opportunity to be a  Watch Dog  for the
disability community: he could help ensure that negotiations did
not result in a net loss for people with disabilities.
     Congressman Hoyer spoke mostly on behalf of Democrats and
the disability community, Congressman Bartlett mostly on behalf
of Republicans and the business community.  But they shared
enough in common to produce extraordinarily productive
negotiations.Congressmen Hoyer and Bartlett represented different
parties and different clien tele Hoyer spoke mostly on behalf of
Dem ocrats and the disability community, Bartlett mostly on
behalf of Republicans and the bus iness community.  But they
shared enough in common to produce extraordinarily produc tive
negotiations.  Bartlett wanted to foster business development. 
His position as Republican point man was to prepare a bill that
could gain the support of Republicans and the business community. 
Hoyer shared similar goals.  As Schulman explained:  we weren t
interested in creating a new right and doing it in such a way
that it would have been impossible for the private sector, for
employers and businesses, to meet their responsibili ties.  
Rather, in meeting the needs of persons with disabilities, Hoyer
wanted to ensure that businesses knew what was expected of them,
that language was clear and fair, and that the bill did not
impose an undue burden on business.  By working together, the two
congressmen were able to help craft legislation that would be
acceptable to both sides of the aisle and foster a level of
bipartisanship comparable to what had developed in the Senate. 
The meetings were  the most productive and satisfying legislative
negotiations that I had ever been involved with,  said Bartlett. 
     Throughout October, Congressmen Hoyer and Bartlett met
extensively and negotiated fourteen amendments that would later
be brought up for a vote in committee.  Although the committee
had jurisdiction mainly over portions of the Employment and
Public Accommodations titles, some of their proposed amendments
affected the entire bill.  The most significant amendment
concerned the application of  undue hardship  and  readily
achievable.   Business lobbyists wanted precise dollar figures to
determine exactly how much businesses had to spend on
accommodations and modifications.  Rather than offer a price cap,
the Senate bill specified that three factors should be evaluated
in determining whether an accommodation was  reasonable  or a
structural modifica tion was  readily achievable  the size of a
business, the type of operation, and the cost of the
accommodation.  Although this provision fell mainly under the
jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, and was ultimately
settled there, Hoyer and Bartlett began discussions about  site-
specific  factors.  They suggested that in determining whether an
accommodation was  reasonable  a court should consider the
financial resources of the local facility as well as those of the
entire covered entity.  Thus, a local K-Mart in financial
difficulty would not be evaluated only according to the resources
of the entire K-Mart corporation.  Hoyer and Bartlett also
clarified that an em ployer s obligation to provide a reasonable
accommodation was always limited by the standard of  undue
hardship  (see Appendix F): there would be no loopholes. 
     The meetings with Congressman Steny Hoyer were  the most
productive and satisfying legislative negotiations that I had
ever been involved with. 
          Congressman Steve BartlettCongressmen Hoyer and
Bartlett addressed another persistent concern of employers by
adding tougher language for drug and alcohol abuse.  They agreed
that past drug users who had completed, or were actively engaged
in, drug rehabilitation treatment were protected under the ADA. 
They also decided that covered enti ties should be free to
administer drug tests and exclude individuals who used drugs and
had not sought treatment. 
     Congressmen Hoyer and Bartlett also worked to help minimize
the potential for excessive litigation.  They added language
requiring that all complaints filed under the ADA or Sections 503
and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act must be coordinated so that
only one case could be brought against the covered entity; a
claimant could not file two claims under two different statutes. 
They also developed a procedure whereby the attorney general
could certify state or local building codes that met ADA
accessibility standards, which would be a defense against
discrimination charges.  In cases where the attorney general
exercised authority to pursue monetary damages for aggrieved
persons, the two congressmen proposed to exclude punitive
damages.  They also suggested that when courts considered
assessing civil penalties, they must consider the  good faith 
efforts of the covered entity. Finally, Congressmen Bartlett and
Hoyer incorporated into the bill requirements that executive
agencies prepare technical assistance manuals to be disseminated
to those with rights and responsi bilities under the ADA.
     These changes were brought before, and approved by, members
of the Committee on Education and Labor at the mark-up sessions
on November 9 and 16.  Eight additional amendments came up for
consideration.  Among other things, these amendments would have:
 linked the determination of reasonableness for accommodations
and modifications exclusively to the resources of a local
facility; 
 reduced the penalties the attorney general could assess; 
 substituted  significant risk  for  direct threat  as the
standard according to which persons with contagious diseases
could be discriminated against; 
 capped the amount a business had to spend on  readily
achievable  modifications to 5 percent of a company s profits; 
 delayed implementation until regulations were completed; and, 
 limited nondiscrimination protection for association with
someone who had AIDS to one s family members. 

     Except for the package of amendments introduced by
Congressmen Hoyer and Bartlett, all amendments introduced at the
committee mark-up were voted down, predominantly along party
lines.  The Democratic position was a  no  vote on all amendments
besides the Hoyer-Bartlett package.  In the final vote, the
committee voted unanimously, 35 to 0, to report H.R. 2273 to the
House, as amended by the committee.  Despite the contested
amendments, this was another strong endorsement of the ADA, and
gave the bill a boost similar to that given by the Senate vote. 
Tough battles lay ahead.  But the Hoyer-Bartlett compromises
positioned the ADA for future success, and Hoyer and Bartlett
would continue to play central roles in the negotiations of other
committees.

phase ii: energy and commerce & public works and transportation
committees
     Although the Committee on Education and Labor reached a
significant compromise that drew the support of many members, it
accomplished little with respect to transportation and
telecommuni cations provisions.  These responsibilities fell to
two committees: Energy and Commerce, and Public Works and
Transportation.  Their deliberations constituted the second phase
of the House process of committee review. 
     From the beginning of the ADA campaign, advocates worried
most about the transportation provisions.  Transit authorities
had historically posed vigorous challenges to accessibility for
persons with disabilities.  When the Department of Transportation
issued its original Section 504 regulations, APTA responded with
a lawsuit and won.  The court ruled that requiring lifts on every
bus went beyond the purview of Section 504 and left it up to
transit authorities to decide whether to have accessible buses,
provide paratransit service, or use a mixture.  As a result of
this so-called  local option,  transportation operators
throughout the country provided widely varying levels of
accessible transportation.  Cities such as New York and Seattle
had achieved nearly 100 percent accessible buses, while Chicago
had virtually none.  Railroad systems had other problems. 
Accessibility standards for Amtrak, for example, had been in
effect for nearly two decades; the regulations simply were not
being enforced.  By proposing fully accessible public
transportation vehicles, the ADA would thus face resistance from
such powerful lobbying groups as the ABA, Greyhound, Amtrak, and
APTA.
     Working the transportation provisions of the ADA through the
committee was also challenging because the scope was so broad. 
The ADA covered all public transportation by both public and
private entities, with the exception of air travel, which had
been addressed in the Air Carriers Access Act.  This included:
fixed route systems (including buses, light and rapid  rail ),
paratransit service  (which applied only to public entities),
demand responsive systems, intercity rail,  commuter rail, 
over-the-road buses (which applied only to private entities),
and transportation facilities.  To avoid presenting executive
agencies with any ambiguity, the transportation committees
prepared extraordi narily detailed provisions.  Given the memory
of the regulatory nightmare of Section 504, where lack of detail
in the statute resulted in intense conflict over the regulations,
many people in the disability community welcomed the specificity
promoted by the transportation committees.  Although the two
transportation committees upheld the basic principles of the
Senate bill, they made the most changes  nearly tripling the
amount of space dedicated to transportation provisions.
     The two committees operated simultaneously, but the Energy
and Commerce Committee was the first to complete its review.  It
held its hearings on September 27 and 28, 1989 and met for mark-
up six months later on March 13, 1990, at which time it reported
the ADA, as amended, to the House.  The ADA s fate in the
transportation committees was largely a function of
personalities. Working with the Energy and Commerce Committee was
difficult for the disability community. Chairman Dingell was
notorious for jealously guarding his committee s jurisdiction,
and he was one of Amtrak s greatest advocates.  Over the course
of the 1980s, funding for Amtrak had plummeted, and Dingell was
reluctant to impose any new demands on the struggling public
service.  This made for a much different dynamic than the other
three House committees, where Democrats generally sided with
disability advocates to prevent any  weakening  amendments.  In
this case, Democrats tended to side with the public rail company
and were thus more skeptical of the ADA s objectives. The
principal staff person for the Energy and Commerce Committee was
Alan Roth.  By the end of the process he became a hero of sorts
for the disability community, but in the beginning Roth posed a
great challenge.  He thought things had happened too quickly in
the Senate, where there was little expert review of
transportation provisions, and he wanted to conduct a thorough
review of the bill s provisions within his committee s
jurisdiction.  This had the effect of extending the deliberative
process. 
     Unlike the Education and Labor Committee, and its open
negotiations, the Energy and Commerce Committee began its
consideration privately, without consulting the disability commu
nity.  The relationship between disability advocates and the
committee was not improved when Pat Wright and Ralph Neas worked
with Michigan constituents to apply pressure on the Chairman. It
was not until the committee circulated a draft of its own version
of the bill, which invited a 30-page rebuttal from the outraged
disability community, that Congressman Hoyer could persuade the
committee to work with him in developing a bill that the
disability community could support.
     Although the Energy and Commerce Committee could introduce
amendments that affected the entire bill, its jurisdiction over
the ADA centered on two main components: telecommunications and
railroads.  Telecommunications provisions were the least
controversial of the ADA s four main titles.  Karen Peltz-Strauss
and Sy Dubow were the principal attorneys from the deaf community
who worked with congressional staff.  The National Association of
the Deaf (NAD), Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc., and
Self-Help for the Hard of Hearing (SHHH) were active in
demonstrating broad support for changes in the nation s
telecommunications system.  Peltz-Strauss described Congress man
Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and Finance, as the deaf community s  chief
advocate  in the House.  He was  very interested in expanding
telecommunications access for people with disabilities.   This
made for  smooth and harmonious  deliberations, as Congressman
Bob Whittaker (R-KS) later described them.   There was striking
cooperation among industry, commerce, and Congress,  said
Peltz-Strauss, which produced provisions  that met the needs of
people who were deaf and hard of hearing.   
     Historically, three of the main telecommunications issues
for the deaf and hard of hearing were hearing-aid compatibility,
teletype devices, and television decoding.  During the 1980s, the
deaf community succeeded in passing legislation that required
employers to provide hearing-aid compati ble telephones, which
were equipped to transmit electromagnetic signals to certain
hearing aids.  In 1988, the Hearing Aid Compatibility (HAC) Act
expanded this requirement such that nearly all telephones
manufactured or imported into the country had to be compatible. 
The issue the ADA addressed most directly were teletype (TTY)
devices, often called a Telecommunication Device for the Deaf
(TDD).  Under the original bill introduced to the House and
Senate, the ADA required states to establish telecommunications
relay services that would allow people to communicate, through an
operator, with people who did not have TTY devices.  During House
deliberations, the basic requirement was affirmed, though the
implementation date was extended from two to three years.  The
most significant change was the removal of the  undue burden 
limit on the mandate to provide relay service.  The committee
also addressed the issue of closed captioning for televisions.
Earlier legislation required public television to broadcast with
closed captioning.  During the House deliberations, Congressman
Markey s subcommittee stipulated that all public service
announcements partly- or fully-funded by the Federal Government
must be produced with closed captioned text.
     The perpetuation of prejudice and discrimination against
persons with mental disorders in a vehicle designed to end
discrimination is sadly ironic. 
    American Psychological AssociationThe Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and Finance was the first of all House
subcommittees to complete its action, on Octo ber 12, 1989. 
Subsequently, the Energy and Commerce Committee devoted several
months to deliberating transportation provisions.  The committee
held the preponderance of jurisdiction over railroads and had
absolute jurisdiction over Amtrak.  It began its deliberations
with the Senate bill, which required that all new rail cars had
to be accessible, and mandated that at least one car per train
had to be accessible within five years. Since Amtrak was
standardized throughout the nation, the committee could be
extraordinarily detailed about what accessibility meant for
Amtrak.  For example, the committee delineated distinc tions
between single- and bi-level cars.  It also designed separate
provisions for sleeping, dining, and passenger cars.  For Amtrak,
the Energy and Commerce Committee even developed a formula to
determine precisely how many spaces had to be available for
persons using wheelchairs, including space to store wheelchairs. 
Perhaps the most important decision coming out of this committee,
however, was that it sustained the Senate s one-car-per-train
rule and the stipulation that all new cars had to be accessible. 
This was significant because the Public Works and Transportation
Committee shared partial jurisdiction over railroads, and
wrestled with whether all cars had to be accessible.
     We in the House felt an obligation to . . . fine tune  the
ADA  in a way the transit authorities could embrace  the act  and
make it work. 
          Roger Slagle   Although negotiating over transportation
provisions was difficult, the most controversial and intense
negotiations in the Energy and Commerce Committee had nothing to
do with structural transportation accessibility.  Members of the
Energy and Commerce Committee were concerned that the ADA s
protection of persons who were mentally ill could result in
uncontrollable train distur bances, where train operators would
be unable to ask meddlesome riders to leave.  Consequently, their
initial draft of the ADA excluded persons who were mentally ill
from the definition of disabil ity.  This caused an uproar in the
disability commu nity.   Persons with mental disabilities, among
all the disabled, have suffered the greatest stigmatiza tion and
resulting discrimination,  said the Ameri can Psychological
Association.   The perpetuation of prejudice and discrimination
against persons with mental disorders in a vehicle designed to
end discrimination is sadly ironic.   
     The committee ultimately removed the exclusion, but the
issue came back up at mark-up. Congressman William E. Dannemeyer
(R-CA) proposed an amendment that would have supple mented the
established exclusion of compulsive gambling, kleptomania, and
pyromania by prohibit ing all  behavior disorders.   Based upon
his belief that the ADA was  a homosexual rights bill in
disguise,  his amendment also proposed the exclusion of anyone
with a contagious or sexually transmitted disease.  These
proposals posed a major threat to the ADA, for they applied not
just to transportation, but to the entire bill.  Although the
committee rejected the Dannemeyer amendment, these issues were
only temporarily put to rest.
     The Public Works and Transportation Committee held its
hearings on the ADA before Energy and Commerce, on September 20
and 26, 1989.  But it held its mark-up several weeks after the
Energy and Commerce Committee, on April 3, 1990.  For disability
advocates, the Public Works and Transportation Committee was much
easier to work with than the Energy and Commerce Committee, but
it ultimately posed a significant threat to their objectives. 
Chairman Anderson was a strong supporter of the ADA and charged
staff member Roger Slagle, whom he appointed to take the lead on
the ADA, with a clear mission:  Get the people on the bus.  
Slagle was not a detached mediator; he strove for optimal
accessibility.  From the disability community, he worked
especially with attorney Chai Feldblum, whom he described as  one
of the brightest people I ve ever worked with in my life.   But
Slagle had one major reservation: unwarranted litigation against
transit authorities.  Slagle said people on the House side
referred to the Senate bill as the  we re-going-to-sue-your-ass 
bill.  They feared that under the Senate bill a person with a
disability might be able to sue a transit authority simply
because a lift-equipped bus was late.   We in the House felt an
obligation to . . . fine tune  the ADA, said Slagle,  in a way
the transit authorities could embrace [the act] and make it
work. 
     The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation
was Congressman Norman Y. Mineta (D-CA).  Congressman Coelho, who
was a close friend of Mineta s, vigorously lobbied Mineta to be
more than a passive supporter of the ADA; Coelho wanted him to be
an active advo cate.  The fact that Mineta was indebted to Coelho
for crucial help on one of his own legislative endeavors helped
persuade him.  And Congressman Mineta came through: he was
 absolutely wonderful,  said Coelho.  
     Although there were strong advocates for the ADA on the
Public Works and Transportation Committee, there was also a
powerful counter-voice in Congressman Bud Shuster (R-PA). 
Shuster repeatedly referred to his mother, who was  a double
amputee in a wheelchair,  and how he  skinned my knuckles more
times than I can count trying to jiggle her wheelchair through a
door that should have been wider . . . or trying to lug a
wheelchair up a set of stairs where there should have been a
ramp.   There was no reason, he thought, that she would ever want
or need to get on a bus, and he outright opposed equipping all
buses with lifts.  Many persons in the disability community,
however, thought Shuster was out of touch with their sentiments. 
Persons in wheelchairs did not want to be pushed around and
transported; rather, they wanted to control their own mobility
and travel as independently as possible which required accessible
vehicles.
     The Public Works and Transportation Committee had
jurisdiction over transit: that is, transportation used primarily
for commuter purposes.  One of the biggest issues the committee
faced was whether to include a lift on every transit bus. 
Eastern Paralyzed Veterans of America (EPVA) attorney Jim
Weisman, who served as a transportation expert for the disability
community, was amazed that some members were opposed to putting
lifts on buses.  It seemed  ridiculous to me,  he said,  because
it was academic. . . . Transit authorities had just about given
this up.  [Everybody] who was anybody knew transit authorities
knew that the handwriting was on the wall.  
     The alternative to equipping buses with lifts was providing
paratransit service.  Congressman Shuster emphasized that persons
with disabilities in his district preferred paratransit over
fixed-route buses.  So might most people, given a chance to have
door-to-door transportation.  The problem with paratransit
service was that its expenses were unlimited, whereas for fixed
route systems the primary cost was a one-time lift installation. 
Fixed-route buses collected money with every ride; each ride on
paratransit cost the operator substantial money.  Consequently,
paratransit service was unable to meet the demand of its
clientele.  Transit authorities such as APTA, as Weisman
observed, were becoming convinced that it was more cost-effective
for them to purchase lift-equipped buses and were thus very
moderate in their reservations about the ADA.  Members of
Congress were the most vigorous opponents.  Ultimately, however,
the committee sided with its constituents who pushed for
lift-equipped, fixed-route bus systems and a supplemental
paratransit service for those unable to use standard service. 
     Debate about what to do with intercity bus services such as
Greyhound was much more contentious.  Senators had responded by
removing the original lift mandate and requiring that a
three-year study assess the most effective and cost-efficient
accessibility.  Greyhound and the ABA argued that people who
could not manage the steps into an intercity bus should simply be
carried onto the bus.  The difference with intercity
( over-the-road ) buses was that a lift potentially took away
seats and luggage space.  Companies such as Greyhound were in
many cases the only transpor tation serving rural areas.  They
argued that the loss of revenue from lift-installation would
necessi tate reduced service areas, and that many people would
thus be deprived of their only form of transportation.  The
disability community used the same evidence to make the opposite
point: since buses were in some cases the only available form of
transportation, it was imperative that persons with disabilities
be able to use them.  They also argued that it was unfair for
Greyhound, which was struggling financially, to point to
accessibility as the cause or potential cause of its problems.
Ultimately, the committee agreed with the Senate s provision
requiring a study and thereby delayed the final decision.
     The Public Works and Transportation Committee s primary
responsibility with respect to the ADA was bus transit, subways,
paratransit, and intercity buses, but it had jurisdiction over
rail systems operated by transit authorities.  Thus, certain
commuter rail routes for example, from Balt imore to
Washington fell under its jurisdiction.  This meant that two
different committees had the opportunity to craft rail
requirements.  The bill the Public Works and Transportation
Committee brought before the mark-up, like that of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, endorsed the Senate requirements for one car
per train, and accessibility for all new vehicles.  But an
amendment was introduced at the Public Works and Transportation
Committee mark-up that removed the accessibil ity requirement for
all new vehicles.  Proponents of the amendment contended that
trains should be approached like airplanes, where only designated
seats, not the entire plane, had to be accessible. The amendment
attracted a small number of Democrats whose districts had made
little headway in rail accessibility.  Combined with the votes of
Republicans, who almost unanimously supported the amendment,
these Democrats  votes helped give the amendment a majority.  It
was a significant defeat for the disability community, since the
provision violated one of the community s main principles:
accessibility for all new vehicles.
     The matter was not, however, settled.  The amendment created
a jurisdictional conflict that had to be settled by House
leadership, the House Parliamentarian, and the Rules Committee.
Chairman Dingell characteristically and vigorously argued that
his committee s jurisdiction should prevail.  Democratic
leadership on the Public Works and Transportation Committee, on
the other hand, especially Congressman Mineta, subtly revealed to
Congressman Hoyer and the House leadership that they supported
the Energy and Commerce version of the ADA.  To the relief of the
disability community, the House Parliamentarian and the Rules
Committee ruled in favor of Energy and Commerce.

                  Phase iii: judiciary committee
     After surviving review by the first three
committees Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Public
Works and Transportation the ADA s final committee hurdle was the
Judiciary Committee.  This final phase of the House committee
process was also a symbolic one: the last chance for opponents of
the bill to offer unrestricted amendments.  Once the bill went to
the House floor, the Rules Committee would allow only certain
amendments for consideration.  Similar to the Education and Labor
Committee, where Subcommittee Chairman Major Owens effectively
led the committee s deliberations, Don Edwards (D-CA), Chairman
of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights,
essentially took the lead in the Judiciary Committee s
consideration of the ADA.  Moreover, as with the Education and
Labor Committee, Congressman Hoyer played a central role in
shaping the Judiciary Committee s negotiations and Congressman
Bartlett continued to represent the Republican party.
     The Judiciary Committee held three hearings, on August 3,
October 11, and October 12, 1989.  The Subcommittee on Civil and
Constitutional Rights met for mark-up on April 25, 1990. The full
committee held mark-up sessions on May 1 and 2, at which time it
reported the ADA favorably to the House, as amended. 
     One of the hottest issues for the Judiciary Committee, which
had jurisdiction over portions of the employment and public
accommodations titles, was remedies.  Prior to the Judiciary
Commit tee s consideration of the ADA, the Senate and the White
House had reached a breakthrough comp romise on the issue of
remedies: the Senate agreed to restrict available employment and
public accommodations remedies to those in the Civil Rights Act,
which omitted punitive damages.  As a result of this agreement,
the Education and Labor Committee never even considered changing
the available remedies.  A crucial development during the
Judiciary Committee s deliberations, however, made them a live
issue once again.
     On February 7, 1990, Senator Kennedy and Congressman Hawkins
introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1990.  This bill amended the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 by allowing courts to award compensatory
and punitive damages at jury trials, to persons who successfully
proved they were victims of discrimination.  Because the ADA
merely incorporated the remedies of the Civil Rights Act by
reference, this proposed change to the Civil Rights Act would
also apply to the ADA. Representatives from the disability
community contended that this was consistent with earlier
agreements with the White House, that the principle all along had
been parity with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, regardless of
whether those provisions were strengthened or weakened over time.
     The Bush administration, however, felt betrayed and argued
that their negotiated agreement expressly excluded punitive
damages from the bill.  On March 12, The Washington Post reported
rumors that President Bush might withdraw his endorsement of the
bill if the ADA did not expressly limit its remedial provisions
to injunctive relief, reinstatement, and back pay.  That same
night, Attorney General Richard Thornburgh wrote a letter to
Congressman Steny Hoyer.  He said the administration opposed the
link to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and proposed that the
conflict be resolved by specifying the current standards of the
Act. 
     The most significant contribution of the Judiciary Committee
concerned  site- specific  factors for the determination of
 reasonable accommodation  and  readily achievable. When the
committee introduced an am- ended version of the ADA to the
Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights on April 25, it
sided with the disability community and re tained the
cross-reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Congressman F.
James Sensen brenner, Jr. (R-WI), however, introduced an
amendment to eliminate the reference.  Some people with
disabilities suggested giving up on the remedies issue in order
to save the rest of the bill, but the disability community
generally lobbied vigorously to oppose this and all other
 weakening amend ments.   To the relief of disability activists,
the Sensenbrenner amendment failed.  Sensenbrenner tried to pass
the amendment a second time when the full committee met on May 1
and 2, but it was voted down again.  In its report on the bill,
the Judiciary Committee argued that the Sensenbrenner amendment
was  antithetical  to the very nature of the ADA.  It also
referred directly to the Civil rights Act of 1990 and stated that
any changes there would be applied to the ADA.  Sensenbrenner
joined five colleagues in authoring  Additional Views  for the
report, where they continued to insist on the need for the
Sensenbrenner amendment.  They also cryptically threatened that a
failure to pass it might jeopardize the entire ADA.
     The most significant contribution of the Judiciary Committee
concerned  site-specific  factors for the determination of
 reasonable accommodation  and  readily achievable  (see Appen
dix F).  Discussions on the topic had begun in earnest between
Congressmen Hoyer and Bartlett during the Education and Labor
Committee s deliberations and continued throughout the House
deliberations.  For the most part, the Judiciary Committee
introduced the same changes proposed by the Education and Labor
Committee.  But the Judiciary Committee rearranged the factors
for clarity and for different emphasis.  It was primarily
concerned with avoiding a determination that sided either with
the local facility or the covered entity.  Rather, the committee
stressed that, on a case-by-case and flexible basis, both
entities should be evaluated.  Moreover, it emphasized that the
relationship between the parent company and the local facility
should be taken into consideration.
     The committee made many other changes, most of which were
technicalities compared with earlier, more sweeping compromises. 
In addition to clarifying the cross-referencing on remedies and
site-specific factors, the Judiciary Committee added a new
section to the bill that encouraged alternative dispute
resolution through reconciliation before moving to litigation. 
And it made technical changes to the interim standards of
accessibility.  The final amendment accepted by the Judiciary
Committee was a package of six amendments introduced by
Congressman Fish, based on negotiations that included the
disability community, the White House, and Congressmen Hoyer and
Bartlett.  Essentially, three of the amendments came from the
disability community, and three from the administration.  For the
administration, the committee added language clarifying: the
meaning of  direct threat,  the standards by which  anticipatory
discrimination  were valid, and that an employer s view of what
constituted  essential functions  would be considered by courts. 
For the disability community, the package included clarification
about which entities were covered in the public accommodations
title and what was meant by  commercial facilities.   It also
provided that places where exams were administered had to be
accessible.
     Additional amendments were introduced, but they failed.  Two
of these failed amendments  a proposal to cap an employer s
obligation to provide accommodations at 10 percent of an em
ployee s salary, and a proposal to enable employers to remove
persons with contagious diseases, such as AIDS, from food
handling positions would reemerge on the House floor.  On May 2,
the Judiciary Committee concluded its deliberations by favorably
reporting its version of the ADA to the full House.

                     Moving to the House Floor
     The ADA proceeded rapidly to the House floor after the
Judiciary Committee completed its work.  On May 14 and 15, 1990,
the four committees submitted their reports, which included four
different drafts of the ADA.  It was then the task of the Rules
Committee to produce a bill that synthesized the four versions. 
A bipartisan staff working group collaborated to sort out the
different texts.  The only conflict was between the
transportation committees over whether new rail vehicles had to
be accessible.  Otherwise, it was a matter, albeit a challenging
one, of piecing everything together.  The staff working group
crafted a new bill, H.R. 4807, which they substituted for the
text of H.R. 2273.  On May 16, the Rules Committee submitted its
own report that included the new version of H.R. 2273 and a
resolution, H. Res. 394.  This resolution provided that, at any
subsequent time, the Speaker of the House could take up H.R.
2273, the Americans with Disabilities Act, for consideration on
the House floor.
     Floor deliberations are somewhat of a free-for-all in the
Senate: a senator may introduce virtually any amendment, even one
that is not germane to the bill, and also filibuster dominating
the floor for unlimited time.  The House, by contrast, conducts
its floor proceedings according to rules established by the Rules
Committee.  In the case of the ADA, H. Res. 394 submitted a
modified closed rule, meaning that general debate would be
restricted and that only specific amendments would be allowed for
consideration.  The resolution provided that at any time after
adoption of the resolution the Speaker of the House could resolve
the House into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union for consideration of the ADA and the proposed
amendments.  There would be two hours of general debate: 30
minutes for each committee, split equally between majority and
minority members.  Eight amendments were approved for
consideration.
     On May 17, only one day after the Rules Committee presented
its resolution, the House met to consider passage of the ADA. 
The first order of business was to accept the closed rule. 
Minority congressmen protested.  Congressman Robert S. Walker
(R-PA) called it a  totalitarian rule  and said the committee
used  a process which is both undemocratic and . . . sad.  
Congressman Bill McCollum (R-FL) said the rule was  an
abomination  and  ridiculous  and suggested that the lack of
House activity that session provided plenty of time for free
debate.  Congressman Lynn Martin (R-IL) complained that only 8 of
the 45 amendments proposed to the Rules Committee were accepted,
and noted that a proposal to have an open rule was defeated on a
strict party line vote. Congressman Newt Gingrich (R-GA) said the
ADA was an  extraordinarily important bill  and that
consideration of every amendment submitted to the Rules Committee
was therefore appropriate. Congressmen in the majority, however,
generally supported the rule and argued that allowing open debate
would undermine all the agreements made in the committees and
defeat the basic purpose of committee deliberations.  As is
customary, the House passed the rule on virtually a straight,
party-line vote.
     We have worked closely with  businesses,  and adopted
numerous amendments, to ensure that American business can work
with the ADA. 
          Congressman Steny Hoyer  Immediately following the
vote, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole.
Congressman Hoyer took the lead for ADA supporters throughout the
deliberations and frequently entered debate to clarify various
aspects of the ADA.  The general debate provided members an
opportunity to make basic statements about the virtues and
problems of the bill, review the history of committee
deliberations, and note key accomplishments.  Hoyer drew special
attention to how the ADA was  truly the product of thousands and
thousands and thousands of people.   Similarly, Congressman Owens
thanked  all of the members of the community of people with
disabilities, who 43 million strong raised their voices across
the Nation, and it was their push, their sense of empower ment,
that has brought us to where we are.  Hoyer also emphasized how
much business inter ests were taken into consideration:  We have
worked closely with them, and adopted numerous amendments, to
ensure that American business can work with the ADA.   
     Others, however, thought more work needed to be done. 
Congressman Bartlett was Congressman Hoyer s counterpart in
coordinating the efforts to amend the ADA.  Congressman McCollum
said the issue was not whether to bestow civil rights, but how to
 minimize costs to the employers while still doing that.   Back
and forth across the aisle, Democrats emphasized the bill s
balance and the need to reject  weakening  amendments, and
Republicans stressed the potential pitfalls of the bill and the
need to fine tune it with further amendments.
     The House considered four of the seven amendments on May 17. 
Two were noncontrover sial.  Congressman John J. LaFalce (D-NY),
based on the Small Business Committee hearing he chaired,
proposed postponing the time at which civil actions could be
brought against a covered entity.  Republicans and Democrats
united in unanimous support.  The House also approved, by voice
vote, Congressman James V. Hansen s (R-UT) amendment to allow
wheelchair use in wilderness areas. 
     Congressman Jim Olin s (D-VA) amendment, to impose a 10
percent salary cap on the amount of accommodations an employer
had to provide an employee, was more contentious.  The NFIB
strongly endorsed the amendment, and Congressman McCollum called
it  the small business amendment in this legislation.   He
suggested that a vote against it would be a vote against small
business a position no member was eager to take.  The bill would
have put a finite dollar cap on accommodations.  But, according
to ADA supporters, there were two main problems.  First, as
Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) said:  It is great for
Donald Trump.  It is lousy for the person who is cleaning up
after Donald Trump.   The amendment would mean that persons with
similar disabilities would not be given individualized
treatment a central premise of the ADA. Rather, they would be
grouped according to income level.
     Second, as Congressman Bartlett stated forcefully, the
amendment  would in fact be harmful both to those who are
disabled and to the employers themselves.   By setting a dollar
cap, persons with disabilities might insist on 10 percent of
their income as a mandatory level of accommodation, when much
less might be needed.   The Olin amendment attempts to set a
ceiling,  said Bartlett,  but in fact it sets a floor.   Members
on both sides argued that they had the White House s support.
Congressman Fish, on one hand, said the Bush administration had
tried to negotiate a similar amendment at the committee level but
concluded that the principle was unacceptable.  Congressman Olin,
on the other hand, said he had called the White House during the
course of deliberations and was told the administration  very
much favors  the amendment.  Bartlett put an end to the
discussion by declaring that the White House had no position. 
The final vote was close.  The 32 members who did not vote could
have passed the amendment, which failed 187 to 213.  As with each
of the contested amendments, votes split along party lines. 
Whereas 71 percent of Democrats voted no, 74 percent of
Republicans voted yes.
     The most controversial amendment to reach the floor was the
Chapman amendment, which would enable employers to remove persons
with contagious diseases, such as AIDS, from food handling
positions.  The issue of AIDS was not new.  It had always been
covered by the ADA. From the beginning, many organizations
supported the bill precisely because it offered protection to
persons with HIV and AIDS.  Moreover, the provisions in the ADA
that protected persons with AIDS essentially replicated what had
already been settled in the Fair Housing Amendments Act.
Nevertheless, the Chapman amendment posed a significant challenge
to members, most of whom would have preferred the issue did not
exist.  By this time, in May, 1990, it appeared the ADA would
pass; few wanted to stand in its way.  But members also feared
that being forced to vote on an  AIDS  amendment during an
election year could be damaging: a perfect ten-second sound bite.
Moreover, the Chapman amendment was precisely the kind of issue
that could kill the ADA.  It seemed to represent more than just
concerns about contagious diseases: it looked like a way to stop
the ADA in its tracks.
     Congressman Jim Chapman (D-TX) led the debate in favor of
his amendment.  By having a Democrat such as Chapman lead the
charge, supporters of the amendment might counter the perception
that it was a Republican amendment and enlist the support of more
Democrats.  For similar reasons, the lead floor opponent of the
amendment was Republican Congressman Fish. Arguments in support
of the amendment rested on the claim that customers who knew that
food handlers at a given establishment had AIDS would discontinue
taking their business there.   The reality is that many Americans
would refuse to patronize any food establishment if an employee
were known to have a communicable disease,  said Chapman.  He
also argued that the  hospitality  industry was the best employer
of persons with disabilities and that it would be foolish to harm
that source of employment.  Congressman Douglas, who introduced
the same amendment in the Judiciary Committee, supported it
 because perception is reality.   Significantly, Chapman, Douglas
and others admitted that there was no known evidence that AIDS
could be transmitted through food handling.  The amendment was
needed not to stop the spread of AIDS, they said, but to protect
businesses from fears and prejudice.
     We should not make exceptions to the principle in ADA that
employment decisions should not be based on myth or stereotype. 
Mr Chairman, the Congress must not enshrine ignorance and
prejudice in the law. 
          Congressman Hamilton Fish     For ADA supporters, as
Congressman Ted Weiss (D-NY) said,  The Chapman amendment flies
in the face of the very purpose of the ADA  by institutionalizing
irrational discrimination. Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), who
was also a physician, said he would support the amendment if it
protected public health.   But the amendment is not about the
reality of contagious disease,  he explained.   It is about the
fear of contagious disease.   The amendment established public
policy in contradistinction to known facts  in deliberate
deference to the fears and prejudice of others.   This, he said,
was  bad medicine, bad science, bad public policy.   Congressmen
Don Edwards (D-CA) and Steny Hoyer likened the amendment to
arguments used a gainst the Civil Rights Act: that  white custom
ers would not eat in restaurants where black Americans were
served,  as Edwards put it. Hoyer simply called it  the Jim Crow
amend ment of 1990.  
     Largely due to the efforts of Congressman Hoyer, the Bush
administration entered the Chapman debate by issuing formal
statements on the medical facts of AIDS and food handling. Louis
W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and
Dr. William L. Roper, Director of the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC), wrote letters on the issue.  They flatly repudiated the
notion that persons diagnosed with HIV or AIDS posed a health
risk in the context of food handling. 
     Congressman Fish brought the floor debate to a close by
pleading:  We should not make exceptions to the principle in ADA
that employment decisions should not be based on myth or
stereotype.  Mr. Chairman, the Congress must not enshrine
ignorance and prejudice in the law.  Congressman Chapman,
however, prevailed.  In a strikingly close vote 199 to 187 the
House supported the exclusion of persons with contagious and
communicable diseases from food handling. The 46 members who
abstained from voting easily could have swayed the tally. 
Although it was not as pronounced as in some of the other
amendments, this issue also tended to split on party lines.
Whereas 80 percent of Republicans supported the measure, 67
percent Democrats opposed it. 
     The Chapman amendment was the last of the day.  The
disability community, which made a commitment to staying united
no matter what the cost, had encountered a significant defeat. 
Persons with HIV and AIDS, they believed, were equally entitled
to civil rights protections.  They also feared that allowing one
group to fall prey to prejudice might establish a trend.  Would
persons with mental illness, for whom exclusions had also been
proposed, be next?  Where would it stop?  More than anything
else, it seemed inconceivable to embrace a nondiscrimination law
that patently enshrined discrimination based on irrational fear.
     Although the Chapman amendment was the first major defeat
for the disability community in congressional floor
deliberations, three more threatening amendments were left for
consideration on May 22, 1990.  Two concerned transportation. 
The Lipinski amendment was a repeat of the amendment passed by
the Public Works and Transportation Committee and overruled by
the Rules Committee: it rejected the requirement that all new
rail vehicles had to be accessible.  William O. Lipinski (D-IL)
argued that his amendment provided better accessibility and did
not weaken the ADA: it would guarantee space according to demand. 
But most members and spectators viewed it as undermining one of
the basic premises of the ADA: that all new buildings and
vehicles will be accessible, that society will not consciously
build obstacles to persons with disabilities.  Moreover, they
pointed out that the Lipinski amendment would mean that spaces
accessible for wheelchairs would be confined to one car,
providing a sort of  cattle car  effect.  The White House chose
not to take a stand on the issue.  The amendment failed
decisively, with 75 percent of members voting against it.
     The second transportation amendment came from Congressman
Shuster.  With the Rules Committee having supported the principle
of all new transit buses being lift-equipped, Shuster proposed an
alternative.  He suggested that the Secretary of Transportation
should be allowed to waive the requirements of accessible
vehicles for urban areas of less than 200,000, or in non-urban
areas, provided that the community designed an alternative based
on input from persons with disabilities.  Shuster was concerned
that the lift mandate would be implemented at the expense of
paratransit.  But Congressman Mineta s argument, that  local
option simply does not work as a national policy,  prevailed. 
Democrats tended to side with Mineta, and Republicans with
Shuster. But, overall, the disability community won with a
favorable margin: 64 percent of the House opposed the amendment.
     The final amendment taken up by the House was a revisit of
the Sensenbrenner amendment: restricting remedies to those
currently stated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The basic
argument on behalf of the amendment was that the potential to add
punitive damages through the Civil Rights Act of 1990 represented
a violation of the negotiated agreement with the White House. 
Congressman Bartlett, speaking in favor of the amendment, said it
 simply codifies  what the Education and Labor Committee reported
in principle.  Although representatives of the disability
community felt all along that the principle was parity,
representatives of the administration and many Republicans felt
that the compromise was a fixed reference to the Civil Rights
Act, and that they therefore had been double-crossed. 
Congressman Sensenbrenner also expressed the widespread fear that
the ADA would lead to excessive litigation and that the
availability of punitive damages would do nothing but encourage
adversarial law suits.  The Bush administration expressly
supported this amendment.
     You have lesser rights if you have lesser remedies. 
          Congresswoman Pat SchroederOpponents, however, thought
that this amendment, like the Chapman amendment, struck at the
very essence of the ADA.  The philosoph ical basis of the ADA was
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that persons with disabilities
should share the same civil rights protections as those possessed
by other disadvantaged groups.  To provide persons with
disabilities with a different standard of remedies was
discriminatory, they said. Congressman Dan Glickman (D-KS)
conceded that there might be legitimate reasons for excluding
punitive damages from civil rights laws, but said it was  unfair
to lock the disabled into a lesser set of remedies.   As
Congresswoman Schroeder said:  you have lesser rights if you have
lesser remedies.   Congressman Bruce A. Morrison (D-CT) argued
that it was an  abomination  to  plant the seeds of . . .
discriminatory treatment before the courts, discriminatory
treatment before the law,  in a bill expressly designed to
prohibit discrimination. 
     The voting results for this amendment were the most strictly
partisan of all the amendments. Overall, the House rejected the
amendment by a narrow margin of 54 percent.  Democrats, however,
opposed the amendment with an 81 percent majority, while
Republicans supported the amendment with an 86 percent majority. 
After the vote on the Sensenbrenner amendment, the House
Committee on the Whole reported the bill back to the full House
for a final vote.  Although no member requested a second vote on
any of the amendments, Congressman Tom DeLay (R-TX) exercised his
right to offer a motion to recommit the bill back to the Rules
Committee for consideration.  He proposed the committee consider
two further amendments: one giving employers more latitude in
evaluating drug and alcohol history in employment decisions, and
another applying the entirety of the ADA to the executive and
judicial branches.  But the House rejected the motion with a 66
percent majority.  As with the other votes, this decision split
largely on party lines: 96 percent of Democrats opposed the
amendment; 78 percent of Republicans supported it.  After the
DeLay motion was defeated, the House turned immediately to a
recorded vote on the ADA.  Both parties passed the bill
overwhelmingly.  Of the 423 members voting, 403 (95 percent)
supported the ADA.  The ADA was now destined for passage, but
still more challenges lay ahead.




  6

                        Enshrining the ADA:
              House-Senate Conference and the Signing


The Chapman amendment posed a major negotiation challenge,
causing some advocates to feel, for the first time, that the ADA
might unravel altogether.On May 22, 1990, it seemed as if the
battle to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act was won.  Both
the Senate and the House approved the bill with upwards of 90
percent majorities.  Moreover, rumors that President George Bush
might veto the bill because of the remedies conflict proved
false.  Although Bush hoped to prevent the incorporation of
punitive damages by amending the Civil Rights Act of 1990, he
continued to endorse the ADA and pledged to sign it.  However,
the House and Senate had passed two different bills, and the
Chapman amendment posed a major negotiation chal lenge. 
Throughout the deliberations of the 1989 ADA, most disability
advocates had re mained at least somewhat optimistic that the
bill would pass, albeit only after surmounting significant
obstacles.  But the circumstances of the conference proceedings
caused some advocates to feel, for the first time, that the ADA
might unravel altogether.

             Conference Proceedings and Final Passage
     On May 24, 1990, just two days after the House passed the
ADA, the House requested a conference with the Senate to resolve
all points of disagreement.  The Speaker appointed 22 conferees
representing each of the committees and key participants in the
ADA s passage.  Two weeks later, on June 6, the Senate met to
consider the House s substitute amendment for the Senate bill, S.
933.  Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) asked for unanimous consent that
the Senate object to the House version of the ADA, rather than
approve it, and request a conference to settle differences.
     Persons with disabilities ought to be judged on the basis of
their abilities; they should not be judged nor discriminated
against based on unfounded fear, prejudice, ignorance, or
mythologies. 
          Senator Tom Harkin  Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC),
however, introduced a motion to instruct the Senate conferees to
support the Chapman amendment passed in the House.  Reminiscent
of the House floor debate, Senator Helms argued that the reason
the Chapman amendment was necessary was that it repre sented  a
matter of staying in business.   Although Helms acknowledged that
there was currently no known evidence that AIDS could be transmit
ted through food or drink or casual contact, he said the
livelihood of restaurants was dependent largely on  public
perception.  If, said Helms,  the public is led to perceive that
there will be a health risk to those coming into the restaurant
and eating the food, rightly or wrongly, that business could be
destroyed.   Helms cited examples of restaurants that closed
because people found out their employees had AIDS.  He also
listed many organizations that supported the amendment, chief
among them the National Restaurant Association (NRA).  The
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), in order to
apply pressure on representatives, staked the claim that the
amend ment was  a key small business vote.   Moreover, Helms
argued that the Chapman amendment struck  a sensitive balance  by
requiring that employers transfer persons with AIDS to comparable
jobs of equal pay.  
     Senator Harkin disagreed.  The amendment  strikes right to
the heart and soul of the Americans with Disabilities Act,  he
said.  It violated the act s central thesis:  that persons with
disabilities ought to be judged on the basis of their abilities;
they should not be judged nor discriminated against based on
unfounded fear, prejudice, ignorance, or mythologies.   The
Chapman amendment, said Harkin, was asking Congress  to codify
fear.   Harkin noted that Secretary of Health and Human Services
(HHS) Louis Sullivan wrote a letter to House Speaker Thomas S.
Foley (D-WA) saying that policy based on misconceptions about,
and fear of, HIV would  only complicate and confuse disease
control efforts without adding any protection to the public
health.   William Roper, who had left the White House to become
Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), wrote that
there was no reason for a person with HIV or AIDS to be
prohibited from handling food, unless he or she had another
infection for which any worker would be restricted from food
service.  Harkin requested that these and two dozen other letters
opposing the amendment be printed in the Congressional Record. 
Many senators joined Harkin in opposing the Chapman amendment as
well. 
     Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-ME) attempted to
counter Senator Helms by introducing a motion to table, and
thereby suspend, Helms s motion.  Mitchell s motion came to an
immediate vote, but only 40 senators supported it.  Democrats
counted for 33 of the affirmative votes, but more than a third of
the Democrats joined Republicans to oppose the motion.  Since the
vote on Mitchell s motion illustrated Senate opinion on the
Chapman amendment, the Senate then agreed to Helms s motion by a
voice vote and appointed conferees.
     House and Senate conferees and their staffs reviewed 81
points of dispute.  Throughout the House deliberations, Robert
Silverstein and others from the Senate side had worked closely
with House members and staff to ensure that the Senate agreed
with the changes the House made. Consequently, House and Senate
staff were able to develop prompt agreements on 79 of the 81
disputed issues.  In each case (and with amendments in a few
cases), the Senate conferees con ceded the House position. 
     Although staff swiftly resolved most differences, Robert
Silverstein described the time between House passage and final
approval of the ADA as  the month from hell. Although staff
swiftly resolved most differences, Silverstein described the time
be tween House passage and final approval of the ADA as  the
month from hell.    This was because staff and members were at a
complete impasse on two issues: the Chapman amend ment and
congressional coverage by the ADA. Although House and Senate
sponsors hoped to get the ADA to the president s desk before July
4, the conflicts could not be resolved that quickly.
     House and Senate conferees met on June 25, 1990, with
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) presiding.  Congressman Hoyer
was the leading conferee and key negotiator for the House;
Senator Harkin joined Senator Kennedy as the leading conferees
for the Senate.  Congres sional coverage was the easier of the
two disputed areas, for which there were two separate issues. The
first concerned who had the power to enforce the application of
the ADA to Congress.  The original Senate provision had been
introduced late in the floor debate on September 7, 1989, as a
single sentence of intent, rather than a detailed proposal. 
Largely at the insistence of Congressman Hoyer, the House had
endorsed the Senate s proposal.  The House had also clarified the
section by specifying that administrative authority would be
exercised by the House of Representatives.  At the Conference,
however, Senate conferees bristled at the thought of  the other 
chamber having executive power over the Senate.  Conferees thus
agreed to have the Senate be responsible for exercising
administrative authority over itself.  The second point of
discussion was whether individuals alleging discrimination by
either the House or Senate would have a private right to
action the ability to sue a senator or representative in district
court.  Conferees decided that persons with disabilities should
have the same remedial options available with respect to Congress
as they did with other entities covered by the ADA.  The
conference thus upheld private right to action.
     Debate over the Chapman amendment was much more contentious,
and conferees devoted hours to discussing it.  The arguments for
and against the amendment, by this time, were clear. The
difficulty for the conferees was that, on one hand, a majority of
members in the House voted for the amendment.  And in the Senate,
a majority of senators indirectly voiced their support for the
amendment.  Going against the majority opinion of both Houses
might endanger the bill.  On the other hand, inclusion of the
Chapman amendment threatened to kill the bill. The disability
community took a firm and united stand that they would withdraw
their support from the bill if the amendment stayed in.  There
simply could not be a viable ADA if the disability community,
which the law was designed to assist, opposed it.  Moreover, the
disability community s chief congressio nal supporters stood with
the disability community. 
     Senate and House conferees, independently, had to approve
decisions for each area of dispute.  As it became increasingly
clear that the Chapman amendment not only contradicted basic
premises of the ADA but also might mean the end of the ADA, some
conferees opted to save the bill by rejecting the Chapman
amendment, in spite of their sympathy to it.  For House
conferees, it was a close vote.  Among the 22 House conferees,
opponents of the amendment won by only two votes, 12 to 10. 
Senate conferees also voted to reject the Chapman amendment.
     On the following day, June 26, the conferees prepared and
presented a conference report that listed each point of
disagreement and how it had been resolved.  It might seem that
the ADA was finally secure now that delegations from the House
and the Senate agreed, in entirety, about a version of the ADA. 
But conferees had taken the bold action of ruling against their
colleagues and the conference report still had to be passed by
both chambers.
     As it became increasingly clear that the Chapman amendment
not only contradicted basic premises of the ADA but also might
mean the end of the ADA, some conferees opted to save the bill by
rejecting the amendment.Although the general public remained
largely unaware of the conflict that was brewing, since there was
virtually no press coverage in the six weeks between House
approval and final pas sage, the disability community and the
business community were lobbying aggressively.  Some members of
the disability community thought it was best to accept the
Chapman amendment in order to save the rest of the ADA.  The vast
majority of advocates, however, insisted that the disability
community stick together.  Consequently, they worked closely with
AIDS organizations to oppose the Chapman amendment.  On one
occasion, around the Fourth of July weekend, the Human Rights
Campaign Fund, a lobbying group for the gay and lesbian
community, organized a public relations coup.  As the disability
community had done throughout congressional deliberations, they
prepared position papers to present to members.  To distribute
their information this time, however, they used brown lunch-bags
marked:  The National Restaurant Association is Out to Lunch on
the Chapman Amendment.   And at a press conference announcing the
 Out-to-Lunch  campaign, Wright said the disability community
would pull out its support of the ADA if the Chapman amendment
was part of the bill.
     A powerful demonstration of the disability community s unity
occurred later that day in a meeting at the White House.  At
either end of a table in the Roosevelt Room sat Pat Wright and
Boyden Gray.  Around the table were other members of White House
staff and leaders of the disability community, including
representatives from NCIL and UCPA.  Gray emphasized that the
disability community had secured much if not most of its aims for
the ADA and that compromise was a normal part of the legislative
process.  Wright, however, knowing that President Bush badly
wanted to see the legislation passed, reaffirmed the message that
the ADA coalition would withdraw its support of the ADA if the
Chapman amendment was part of the bill.  Around the table, other
disability advocates weighed in, one-by-one, describing the
Chapman amendment as a horrendous violation of the principles of
the ADA.  Accordingly, they urged the White House to intervene on
their behalf and pass the ADA without the Chapman amendment.
     The Chapman amendment:
     I-t  a-i-n -t  c-i-v-i-l. 
     A-n-d  i-t  a-i-n -t  r-i-g-h-t. 
          Bob Williams   The session reached a climax when Bob
Williams, who sat next to Gray, offered his words. Williams was
sitting in a wheelchair that he used because of cerebral palsy. 
To speak more clearly he used a lap board covered with letters
and symbols, which enabled him to point and spell out sentences
one letter at a time.  Someone standing by spoke each letter or
word.  Williams echoed the sentiments of the others in the room. 
But he personalized the issue with his own experiences.  Williams
said the Chap man amendment struck a personal chord because it
concerned restaurants.  Among Williams s earliest childhood
memories were experiences of being turned away from restaurants
because of his cerebral palsy.  Restaurant operators always
insisted that they would be happy to serve him and his parents
and understood that he posed no threat.  But they said Williams s
presence bothered other people and thus interfered with business. 
Williams concluded his remarks with an eloquent and powerful
statement of the disability community s understanding of the
Chapman amendment:  I-t  a-i-n -t  c-i-v-i-l. A-n-d  i-t 
a-i-n -t  r-i-g-h-t.   About midway through this declaration, the
rest of the disability advocates anticipated the subsequent
letters and thus began saying each letter in unison.  
     The unity of the disability community on behalf of persons
HIV/AIDS moved Tim McFeely to tears.  It was  incredibly moving, 
he said.  McFeely was the Executive Director of the Human Rights
Campaign Fund and the only person in attendance representing the
AIDS community. ADA advocates had made a commitment more than a
year before that they would stand together: one for all and all
for one. And while they agreed that they could be flexible with
time lines, they committed to being steadfast on principles.  The
words spoken that day demonstrated to McFeely that the
commitments made by people with disabilities were deep and
abiding. 
     In addition, the disability community illustrated its
opposition to the Chapman amendment by developing technical
analyses of the food handling issue.  For example, Robert
Burgdorf, the original author of the ADA, wrote a House staff
member on the constitutionality of the Chapman amendment.  The
thrust of the amendment, Burgdorf explained, was directed
primarily at individuals who did not pose a threat to society. 
Excepting a group of persons as a class, however, according to
the Constitution, had to be based on  legitimate  government
interests. Burgdorf concluded:  It is blatantly irrational for
Congress to rely upon . . . prejudicial attitudes, ignorance,
myths, fears, misapprehensions, and reflex reactions about
contagiousness, . . . as the basis for an exception from the
ADA s nondiscrimination mandate.   Singling out persons who did
not pose a threat to society, he said,  has no rational relation
to any legitimate governmental objective  and violated   the
underlying principles, premises, and requirements of the very
piece of legislation it is attached to. 
     The business community was similarly active in demonstrating
its support of the Chapman amendment.  To counter the efforts of
disability organizations, dozens of business organizations sent
letters to members of Congress urging support of the Chapman
amendment.  Chief among them was the NRA.  Its Senior Director of
Government Affairs, Mark Gorman, had wrote repeated letters
urging members of Congress to hold the line on the Chapman
amendment and not allow it to get stripped in conference or on
the floor of either house.
     The Senate was the first to take up the conference report,
amidst lobbying from the disability and business communities, on
July 11, 1990.  Before the Senate floor deliberations began, two
conflicting amendments to the conference report were circulating. 
One was authored by Senator Helms.  He had originally planned to
introduce an amendment that would send the report back to
conference and insist that the conferees put the language of the
Chapman amendment into the report.  That very day, however,
Senator Hatch developed a rival amendment that caused Helms to
redraft his own amendment. 
     Senator Hatch s amendment represented an important shift in
his position on the food handling issue.  In the conference
meeting, Hatch had argued forcefully that the Chapman amendment
should be retained in the bill.  He disagreed with those who
thought the issue should be dropped, suggesting that they did not
realize  how electric  the issue was.  He also doubted whether
the House of Representatives or the White House would accept the
ADA without some attention to the issue Congressman Chapman had
raised.  However, after the conference meeting Silverstein
pursued Hatch to discuss the amendment.  Silverstein and Hatch
had worked together on disability policy for many years, and both
agreed that the disability policy should not, gener ally,
encourage business decisions to be made on unfounded fears. 
Silverstein, however, emphasized to Hatch that it was dangerous
to use a different standard for a single constituency of the
disability community persons with contagious or communicable
diseases.  Supporting the Chapman amendment, said Silverstein,
would potentially undo years of Hatch and Silverstein s work in
trying to unite the disability community and develop holistic
policy.  By allowing preju dice to prevail in one area, it would
create an internal chasm within the disability community.  This
meeting had a crucial impact on Hatch: he called it  the key to
my own evolution on the Chapman amendment. 
     This discussion also prepared the senator for an encounter
with disability advocates the morning of the July 11 floor
deliberations.  That morning Wright went looking for Senator
Hatch. She figured the best place to find him was in the hallway
between the Senate chamber and the Majority Leader s office.  But
that area was restricted to members of Congress, their staff, and
their guests.  Accordingly, Wright brought Michael Iskowitz, who
was Senator Kennedy s chief staff member regarding AIDS, to gain
access to the area.  Also with her was Chai Feldblum, who was
prepared to translate an agreement into proper legal form.  After
waiting for some time, the advocates found Senator Hatch.  They
urged the senator not to allow fear and prejudice to prevail.
Rather, they argued, let available medical evidence be the
deciding factor. They also made an impassioned plea that the bill
was on its way to dying unless Senator Hatch helped resolve the
conflict only he had the stature to shoulder a compromise.
     Senator Hatch s views had been changing since the conference
meeting; now he agreed with the disability advocates that the
Chapman amendment, as written, should not be part of the ADA. Yet
he still thought the issue needed to be taken seriously and
resolved in a way that could win broad support.  Accordingly, he
searched for, and found, a compromise.  Science would be the
linchpin.  On an annual basis, proposed Hatch, the Secretary of
HHS would prepare a list of those communicable and contagious
diseases that were knowingly able to be transmitted through food
handling.  Then, restaurant operators would be able to insist
that anyone with a disease on that list could be removed from
food handling positions.  The ADA, moreover, would not preempt
any local laws concerning food handling. 
     Senator Hatch called on Nancy Taylor from his staff, who was
nine-months pregnant, to craft the language.  Hatch, Taylor,
Wright, Feldblum, and Iskowitz then worked together to scrawl the
agreement on a piece of paper, and prepared to introduce it to
the Senate as an alternative to the Helms amendment.  It was a
major breakthrough.  That could have been the end of the ADA, 
said Wright.  Helms, predictably, was irate.  Feldblum recalled
passing Helms in the hall later that morning: he was walking
briskly with an unidentified sheet of paper, red with anger.
     I think if we would rely more on science and a little less
on fears and misperception we would be better off as a society,
as a nation, and there would be less prejudice.  
          Senator Orrin Hatch

     Senator Hatch had come up with  another miracle. 
          Senator Dave Durenberger      Later that day in the
Senate chamber, after several senators tried unsuccessfully for
two hours to reach a consensus on food han dling and the
Hatch-Helms proposals, Majority Leader Mitchell concluded that
the conflict could only be settled in open floor debate. Senator
Hatch worked with Senator Harkin to manage the deliberations. 
They expected the Senate to approve the vast majority of the con
ference report.  Besides the Chapman amend ment, only the issue
of congressional coverage was contested, concerning which Senator
Wendell H. Ford (D-KY) intended to recommit the ADA to
conference.  According to Harkin and Hatch s strategy, Hatch
would introduce his  perfecting amendment  after Ford submitted
his motion regarding congressional coverage.  Following debate on
the Hatch amendment, the Senate would lay the amendment aside and
allow Senator Helms to introduce his own  perfecting amendment. 
After consideration of the Helms amendment, the Senate would
proceed to vote in order: first on the Helms amendment, then on
the Hatch amendment, and finally on the Ford motion.  No other
motions or amendments would be allowed.
     As an early application of the ADA, Majority Leader Mitchell
asked unanimous consent to have the Senate floor debate
translated into sign language, which had never been done before. 
As planned, the issue of congressional coverage came up first. 
The night before, on July 10, the Senate had passed legislation
concerning application of all civil rights laws to the Senate,
and rejected private right to action: only administrative
remedies, through internal review, were allowed.  Senators were
thus concerned about the ADA being inconsistent with other civil
rights laws.  Accordingly, Senator Ford introduced his motion to
send the ADA back to conference and instruct the conferees to
exclude private right to action for the Senate.  Although
Senators Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) and Tom Harkin objected that
people should have a private right to action to remedy Senate
violations of the ADA, they agreed to let the motion stand.
     Senator Hatch then introduced his amendment to Senator
Ford s motion, and senators rehashed the arguments for and
against the Chapman amendment yet another time.  Hatch emphasized
that his amendment  places a premium on science  as the basis for
decision-making.  I think if we would rely more on science and a
little less on fears and misperception we would be better off as
a society, as a nation,  explained Hatch,  and there would be
less prejudice.  Senator Dave Durenberger (R-MN) said Hatch had
come up with  another miracle ; he hailed the ability of Hatch to
fulfill the role of intermediary.  Senator Helms, however, said
the Hatch proposal would gut the Chapman amendment and  render it
totally nugatory.   Because public health experts such as HHS
Secretary Sullivan and CDC Director Roper affirmed that AIDS
could not be transmitted through food handling, restaurant
operators would not be allowed to discrimi nate against them.  
     To counter Senator Hatch s amendment, Senator Helms modified
his original amendment and introduced one with language virtually
identical to the Hatch amendment.  The main difference was that
instead of the HHS Secretary posting a list of diseases that are
transmitted through food handling, as the Hatch amendment
specified, the Secretary would post a list of diseases that may
be transmitted through food handling.  Thus, anyone who had a
disease that might possibly be transmitted through food handling,
even if there was no evidence to prove it, could be barred from
food handling positions.
     When the time came to vote, the Senate decisively rejected
the Helms amendment, 61 to 39, with 78 percent of Democrats
opposing the amendment and 60 percent of Republicans supporting
it.  The Senate then immediately voted on the Hatch amendment and
approved it 99 to 1: Senator Helms stood alone in opposition. 
Subsequently, after a clarifying colloquy between Senators Hatch
and Dole, the Senate approved the Ford motion, as amended, by a
voice vote. 
     The deliberative process  perfected  the ADA and made it  an
excellent piece of legislation. 
          Congressman Steny Hoyer  The following day, on July 12,
confer ees met to review the Senate proposals.  They accepted the
Senate instructions concerning both food handling and
congressional coverage and submitted their report that same day.
Later that afternoon, the House of Representatives met to
consider the second version of the conference report.  Once
again, they first had to accept a rule structuring debate.  But
this time there was little dispute: 86 percent of members voted
in favor of the closed rule.  Afterward, Congressman Hoyer
congratulated the House for its bipartisan collaboration.  The
deliberative process, he said, had  perfected  the ADA and made
it  an excellent piece of legislation.  All House members, he
said, should be  proud to say  that they had played a part in the
Congress that  extended to  Americans with disabilities  the
welcome sign . . . to come into our society, . . . to have the
ability to work and support themselves and their families, . . .
to ride on our transportation systems, . . . to come into our
stores, and our banks, and our doctors  offices, and fully avail
themselves of the opportunities of American society. 
     The only real issue left for House consideration was the
Chapman amendment. Many members argued that the Hatch amendment
did not adequately fulfill the purpose of the Chapman amendment:
persons with AIDS would still be able to hold food handling
positions.  Accordingly, Congressman William E. Dannemeyer (R-CA)
submitted a motion to recommit the conference report back to
conference yet again, with instructions that House conferees
insist that the Chapman amendment be accepted.  This time,
however, there were not enough votes in the House.  The vote
split along party lines, with 77 percent of Democrats opposing
the amendment and 75 percent of Republicans supporting it.  But,
overall, 55 percent of the House voted to reject adding the
language of the Chapman amendment.  The House immediately voted
on the entire bill that evening, and members passed the ADA, for
the final time, with near unanimity.  More than 90 percent of the
members voted in favor of the ADA. 
     Although many in the disability community hoped that the
Senate could take its final vote that night, the Senate waited
until the following day, July 13.  It was an emotional occasion. 
Similar to Congressman Hoyer, Senator Harkin praised his fellow
senators for the spirit of bipartisan collaboration that produced
a bill with a broad base of support.  And he was especially
complimen tary of the disability community.   It may be raining
outside,  he said,  but this is truly a day of sunshine for all
Americans with disabilities.   Harkin wanted to communicate
directly with his brother, who taught Harkin,  at a very early
age, that people with disabilities could do anything that they
set their minds to do and that people should be judged on the
basis of their abilities . . . not on the basis of their
disabilities.   Accordingly, Harkin signed to his brother that
this was the proudest day of his sixteen-year career in
Congress the ADA opened doors to all Americans with disabilities
and promoted an end to fear, ignorance, and prejudice. 
     The floor deliberations brought Senator Hatch to tears.  He
remarked how  senseless discrimination, intended or not,  had
 subjected persons with disabilities to isolation and robbed
America of the minds, the spirit, and the dedication we need to
remain a competitive force in a worldwide economy.   Hatch also
extended his appreciation to scores of people who contributed to
the ADA s passage.  Many more senators followed in proclaiming
the virtues of the ADA and crediting various contributors.
     When the Senate finally voted on the conference report, it
passed the ADA with margins almost identical to those in the
House: 93 percent of the senators voted in the affirmative.  The
ADA had made it through Congress.  The final step in making the
ADA public law was a signature from the President of the United
States, George Bush.

                The White House Signing Ceremony
     As early as May 1, 1990, President Bush told persons with
disabilities that there would be  a proud bill-signing ceremony 
for the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Many in the disability
community hoped this meant a grand celebration of thousands of
people uniting to celebrate the American dream.  Virginia
Thornburgh, for example, whose husband was the attorney general,
suggested that the White House sign the bill at the Lincoln
Memorial, where she proposed as many as 100,000 people could
attend.  She hoped the ADA would be viewed as an initiative that
was good for all Americans and thus wanted persons with and
without disabilities to be welcome.  She advised White House
staff that a celebratory platform should include members of
Congress from both parties, Cabinet members, and representatives
from major sectors of society.  Such an event could attract the
attention of international media and promote the improvement of
the lives of persons with disabilities around the world.
     Shortly after the Senate passed the ADA on July 13, however,
rumors spread that the Act would be signed in the White House s
East Room, which could seat no more than 220 people. Apparently,
White House staff feared that the summer heat might cause medical
problems for persons with disabilities if the ceremony was held
outdoors.  But people from the disability community protested
when they heard the news.  Congressional sponsors joined in
advocating a  people s signing ceremony  comparable to the
democratic principles of the ADA, where thousands could attend. 
Finally, due to the efforts of such people as Virginia
Thornburgh, Boyden Gray, Justin Dart, and Evan J. Kemp, Jr., the
White House announced, on July 16, that it would hold a ceremony
on the South Lawn of the White House.  The proposed time was
10:00 a.m. on July 26, 1990, rain or shine.
     That left Bonnie Kilberg, Deputy Assistant to the President
from the Office of Public Liaison, just ten days to plan the
event and prepare an invitation list.  To determine who should
attend the gala event, Kilberg worked predominantly with
colleague Shiree Sanchez; Phil Calkins, an executive with the
EEOC; Sharon Mistler; Evan Kemp; and disability advocates Justin
and Yoshiko Dart, who supplied thousands of names.  In addition
to Washington-area supporters of the ADA, Kilberg included
hundreds of people with disabilities from around the country on
the list.  By July 18, Kilberg had drafted an invitation. People
were to arrive at the White House gate at 9:00 a.m. for
admittance, with photo identification in hand.  Seven airlines
and seven area hotels agreed to give visitors significant
discounts.  
 From ancient times to today we celebrate the breaking of the
chains holding your people in bondage.  The ADA provides  new
access to the Promised Land of work, play and service. 
          Reverend Harold Wilke    Roughly 3,000 persons with and
without disabilities gathered on the White House South Lawn on
the morning of July 26.  It was the largest signing ceremony ever
held by the White House. After the U.S. Marine Band played the
 Battle Hymn of the Republic  and  The Stars and Stripes
Forever,  President and Mrs. George Bush and Vice President Dan
Quayle walked to the stage to the tune of  Hail to the Chief.  
There they joined EEOC Chairman Evan Kemp, National Council on
Disability Chairwoman Sandra Parrino, disability rights advocate
Justin Dart, Reverend Harold H. Wilke, and two sign language
interpreters. Conspicuously absent from the platform were any of
the ADA leaders from Congress: among them Senators Harkin,
Kennedy, Weicker, Hatch, Durenberger, and Robert Dole (R-KS); and
Congressmen Tony Coelho (D-CA), Steny Hoyer, Norman Y. Mineta
(D-CA), Major R. Owens (D-NY), Steve Bartlett (R-TX), and
Hamilton Fish, Jr. (R-NY).
     As suggested by Virginia Thornburgh, Reverend Wilke opened
with an invocation  reputedly the first ever offered at a bill
signing ceremony.   From ancient times to today we celebrate the
breaking of the chains holding your people in bondage,  Wilke
prayed.  The passage and signing of the Americans with
Disabilities Act was a new occasion for celebration, he said,
which provided  new access to the Promised Land of work, play and
service.  
     After Reverend Wilke s interfaith prayer, Kemp introduced
the president.  He praised the efforts of persons in Congress,
the Bush administration, and the disability community, who
 worked tirelessly to develop this civil rights bill.   Then he
pointed to President Bush, without whose  steadfast support . . .
this bill would not have become law.   He likened President Bush
to Abraham Lincoln for his foresight and introduced him as  the
foremost member of the disability community. 
 Welcome to every one of you, out there in this splendid scene of
hope,  began President Bush, as the crowd interrupted him with
applause for the first of 20 times.   This is, indeed, an
incredible day,  he said, especially for those who worked to pass
the ADA.  In consideration of the vast numbers of participants,
Bush identified those who had personally helped him.  He
mentioned Justin Dart, Boyden Gray, Evan Kemp, William Roper,
Sandra Parrino, and Robert Dole.  Bush also praised the
contributions of disability organizations and the collective
efforts of 43 million Americans with disabilities, who  have made
this happen.   (See Appendix G for the complete text of Bush s
remarks.)
     The ADA is the world s first  declaration of equality  for
persons with disabilities.   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. 
          President George Bush    President Bush likened the
signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act to Independence
Day, which had been celebrated just three weeks earlier.  The ADA
was the world s first  declara tion of equality  for persons with
disabilities, he said.  Because of it,  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.   It
offered persons with disabilities the basic guarantees of
 independ ence, freedom of choice, control of their lives, the
opportunity to blend fully and equally into the right mosaic of
the American mainstream.   This was important, said Bush, because
if America was to be  a truly prosperous nation,  everyone within
it had to prosper.  To those who expressed reservations about the
ADA, Bush emphasized that the Act was carefully crafted to
contain costs.  He added that the ADA could help an swer
businesses  request for additions to the working force.  As an
alternative to spending $200 billion a year to keep persons with
disabil ities dependent on the government, Bush urged that people
give them the opportunity to  move proudly into the economic
mainstream of Amer ican life.  
     President Bush concluded his remarks with an additional
analogy to an event not yet a year old: the fall of the Berlin
Wall.  Signing the ADA represented taking  a sledgehammer to
another wall,  said Bush,  one which has, for too many
generations, separated Americans from the freedom they could
glimpse, but not grasp.   He rejoiced in the fall of this
barrier, affirming that  we will not tolerate discrimination in
America.   Finally, as he lifted his pen to sign the ADA to the
applause of those surrounding him, at 10:26 a.m., Bush
proclaimed:  Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come
tumbling down.   With his signature, the long-fought battle to
make the ADA public law reached its climax.
     President Bush signed four copies of the ADA, each with a
different pen.  He gave three of the pens to Dart, Kemp, and
Parrino, saving the fourth for Attorney General Thornburgh.  He
then took a fifth pen from his pocket to present to Reverend
Wilke, who, because he had no arms, promptly and deftly accepted
the pen with his foot.
     As members of Congress, the Bush administration, the
disability community, and others in the audience shouted,
cheered, smiled, cried, and embraced, President Bush, the First
Lady, and Vice President Quayle worked through the crowd to
regain entrance to the White House.  About a half an hour later,
people moved across the street to Ellipse Park for a colossal
picnic of fried chicken and soda.  Music played in the
background.  For dessert, people found cakes adorned with the
faces of President Bush, Senator Harkin, and Congressman Hoyer. 
Dozens of advocates in and out of government presented remarks
from a makeshift platform.  Media swarmed the grounds for
interviews and photographs.  Later in the afternoon, as the
temperature reached 92 degrees, the crowd dispersed.  At 5:00
p.m., however, hundreds gathered for an additional celebration in
the Hart Senate Office Building sponsored by Justin and Yoshiko
Dart, where wine and a seafood buffet were served.  There were
more hugs, more kisses, and more speeches.  They had much to be
proud of.  The battle, finally, was won.




                             Epilogue


The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as so many people
have said, was truly landmark legislation.  It promoted an
America in which all persons have the right to participate as
valuable citizens.  In the areas of employment, public services,
public accommodations, and telecommunications, the ADA took steps
to break down barriers that stood in the way of persons with
disabilities and prevented them from reaping the benefits of our
society and offering their own contributions. 
     The ADA stands on the legal foundation of the  twin
pillars : the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973.It should be clear that the ADA is not the starting point
of United States disability policy. The ADA stands on the legal
foundation of the  twin pillars : the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  The former provided the
philosophical foundation, the general principle of
nondiscrimination.  The latter offered a framework for applying
nondiscrimination to persons with disabilities.  These two
legislative initiatives represent two streams of policy: civil
rights and disability rights.  With respect to each, elements of
the ADA represent a portion of a continuum as well as a unique
departure.
     The ADA is similar to other civil rights laws in that it
provides the same basic protections. Making employment decisions
according to circumstances that do not have a bearing on actual
performance is simply wrong.  All individuals must have an equal
opportunity to partake of such social services as public
transportation.  No one should be denied access to places of
public accommodation.  All must be able to share in our nation s
communication system. 
     Applying these principles to persons with disabilities,
however, required unique attention. By the end of the 1980s,
state and federal laws had established a central principle of the
ADA: that in granting civil rights to persons with disabilities,
equal treatment alone is inadequate.  Truly equal opportunity for
people with disabilities required that governments and businesses
take proactive steps to provide opportunity.  This might mean
adding a lift to a bus, providing an employee with an amplified
telephone headset, ramping a few steps, installing braille signs,
or allowing an individual to modify his or her work schedule. 
Unlike providing civil rights to minorities or to women, however,
bestowing civil rights upon persons with disabilities could
therefore require governments and businesses to spend money. 
Unique among civil rights laws, this meant that disability rights
had to be balanced against the fiscal responsibility of society.
     There could have been no successful and meaningful ADA
without a ground swell of people who demonstrated what happened
in the absence of significant legal protections and told positive
stories of how legislative initiatives helped improve their
lives.In the context of disability rights legislation, the
various provisions of the ADA are not unique.  In fact, virtually
every one had been implemented somewhere in the nation by a state
or local government in the form of new laws and constitutional
amendments.  The ADA built on these provisions as well as on
federal statutes and court cases.  The ADA was nonetheless unique
amidst this growing nationwide recognition of disability rights
in its comprehensive application to the entire nation and the
private sector.  Pat Wright likens disability policy before the
ADA to Swiss cheese covering a map of the United States: there
were many holes where there were little to no civil rights
protections for persons with dis abilities.  Disability policy
under the ADA, by contrast, is more like a piece of American
cheese: it covers the entire nation thoroughly and uniformly. 
Every new building must follow accessibility guidelines.  Every
new transit bus must be accessible.  No place of public
accommodation can willfully exclude persons with disabilities.
Every state must provide a telecommunication relay service.  No
employer can overlook an applicant because he or she required a
reasonable accommodation.
     These two unique aspects of the ADA civil rights that had
financial implications and comprehensive application to the
public and private sectors are what made the ADA s passage so
difficult.  The overwhelming margins in both the House and the
Senate with which the ADA was finally approved mask how
challenging it was to work the bill through Congress and acquire
a signature from the president.  By the fall of 1989, it was
evident that an ADA would pass in some form, but the provisions
it would contain were still very much contested.  Only through
intense efforts were disability rights advocates able to achieve
their goals. 
     No single factor alone can account for the ADA s success. 
Rather, a whole host of factors worked in its favor.  First and
foremost, the ADA is a tribute to the growth and organization of
the disability rights movement.  Through such pivotal
developments as the protests to issue the Section 504 regulations
and the nationwide outcry against President Ronald Reagan s Task
Force on Reg ulatory Relief, the disability community asserted
itself and became a political force to be reckoned with.  On the
state and local levels, persons and parents of persons with
disabilities fought aggres sively to obtain for themselves and
their children decent education and employment opportunities.
Students on college campuses organized to demand greater
accessibility.  Centers for independent living built systems of
community support and helped people with disabilities understand
and exercise their rights.  Disability-specific and
cross-disability organizations advocated for state and federal
laws that became building blocks for the ADA.  And people with
disabilities demonstrated a willingness to take to the streets
and risk arrest to bring public attention to the problems they
faced. There could have been no successful and meaningful ADA
without a ground swell of people who demonstrated what happened
in the absence of significant legal protections and told positive
stories of how legislative initiatives helped improve their
lives.
     A crucial factor that helps explain the ADA s positive
reception in Congress was the extent to which the ADA drew on
ideological justifications from both the left and the right.In
addition to providing sheer numbers to demand passage of the ADA,
the disability rights movement produced extraordinarily ef
fective leaders.  Disability rights advocates such as Pat Wright,
Ralph Neas, Justin and Yoshiko Dart, Liz Savage, Paul Marchand,
Marilyn Golden, and Lex Frieden were simply remarkable.  The
legal expertise of people such as Arlene Mayerson, Chai Feldblum,
Robert Burgdorf, Jim Weisman, David Capozzi, Timothy Cook, Karen
Peltz-Strauss, and Bonnie Milstein was indispensable.  Scores of
organizations and their members contributed countless hours to
the ADA campaign.  Over the course of the 1980s, the disability
community proved that it could stand its own ground in the court
room and in the halls of Congress.  Moreover, the disability
community effectively formed crucial relationships with members
of Congress and the White House.  By the time the ADA emerged on
the national scene, people were in place to move it.
     The ADA would have made little headway were it not for the
early and consistent support from the nation s highest office.The
success of the ADA is due in no small part to the American civil
rights heritage.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided not only
a legal principle that could be extended to other constituencies,
but also a model for civil protest to achieve political goals. 
Although  during the 1970s and 1980s there were attempts to roll
back some of the achievements of the civil rights movement, the
basic notion that no individual should be denied basic civil
rights endured.  Because the disability community successfully
presented the ADA as a civil rights initiative, few could afford
to take the position of opposing the ADA outright.  Indeed, a
crucial development in the ADA s success was that even those
organizations that worked to tighten and refine the ADA in
Congress called themselves the Disability Rights Working Group. 
The disability community forced opponents to fight the battle on
its own terms: opponents had to explain why disability advocates 
pro posals should not be implemented.  Forming a tight bond with
Neas and the Leadership Con ference on Civil Rights (LCCR) was
essential for that achievement.
     More than any other single player, the role of President
Bush cannot be overestimated.  The ADA would have made little
headway were it not for the early and consistent support from the
nation s highest office.  Of course, the president did not do the
detail work: there were plenty of others to assume that role. 
But, by speaking out on behalf of the ADA, Bush made passage more
certain.  In Congress, Democrats were primarily responsible for
pushing the ADA aggressively forward.  The president s support
brought people to the table to work out a bipartisan compromise
bill that could attain the support of the business community as
well as that of the disability commu nity.
     The ADA s progress in Congress and the administration was
dependent largely on the roles of key individuals who were
extraordinarily dedicated to the objectives of the ADA.  Part of
this was due to personal experience, either from having a
disability or through a relative s disability.  Senator Tom
Harkin s (D-IA) brother was deaf.  Senator Edward M. Kennedy
(D-MA) had a son who lost a leg to cancer and a sister with
mental retardation.  Senator Orrin G. Hatch s (R-UT)
brother-in-law was paralyzed from polio.  Senator Robert Dole
(R-KS) acquired partial paralysis from a war injury. Senator
Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT) had a son with Down s Syndrome. 
Congressman Tony Coelho (D-CA) had epilepsy.  Congressman Steny
H. Hoyer s (D-MD) wife had epilepsy.  These and other personal
encounters with disability made the ADA vitally real to many
members of Congress.
     The ADA s progress in Congress and the administration was
dependent largely on the roles of key individuals who were
extraordinarily dedicated to the objectives of the ADA.The same
was true for the Bush adminis tration.  President George Bush had
a daughter who died from leukemia, a son with a learning
disability, an uncle with quadriplegia, and a son whose cancer
required a plastic ostomy bag. Attorney General Richard
Thornburgh s son had a traumatic head injury.  EEOC Chairman Evan
J. Kemp used a wheelchair because of a form of muscular
dystrophy.  White House negotiator Robert Funk had part of one
leg amputated due to a disease similar to leprosy and
tuberculosis.  These and other members of Congress and White
House officials approached the ADA with a passionate desire to
see not only their own and their children s lives improved, but
those of the entire population of Americans with disabilities.
     One of the key factors of the ADA s success was, as
President Bush said, the desire of members of Congress and
representatives of the Bush administration,  on both sides of the
political aisle,  to  put politics aside  and  do something
decent, something right.   This is seen most clearly in the
negotiations between the Senate and the White House during the
summer of 1989 and the member-to-member negotiations of
Congressmen Steny Hoyer and Steve Bartlett (D-TX).  Although
working out the details was frequently intense, most Washington
political leaders supported the basic goals of the ADA and wanted
to see people with disabilities enter the mainstream of American
life. This cooperation was critical.  Voting on the ADA  would
have come out as deep partisan splits,  said Chai Feldblum,  if
people had not committed to engage in a negotiation process and
if the negotiation process did not have effective people in
them. 
     Another crucial factor that helps explain the ADA s positive
reception in Congress was the extent to which the ADA drew on
ideological justifications from both the left and the right.
Historically, the disability community has had a powerful
Democratic contingency because of its insistence on governmental
support and its identity as a disadvantaged class.  But the ADA
entered Congress at the behest of a Republican federal agency:
the National Council on the Handicapped (NCD).  NCD s work in
reviewing federal disability programs, identifying problems, and
making legislative proposals, among them passage of equal
opportunity laws, rooted the ADA in principles of independence,
personal choice, and fiscal responsibility.  By presenting the
ADA as a way to reduce dependence on government, the NCD helped
win over people who might otherwise be reluctant to extend civil
rights protections.
     Voting on the ADA  would have come out as deep partisan
splits if people had not committed to engage in a negotiation
process. 
          Chai Feldblum

     I m convinced that maybe more than anything else I ever
worked on, people were motivated primarily by what they perceived
as the right thing to do. 
          Ralph Neas     There was a certain inherent
righteousness to the ADA.  How could one argue with the desire of
people who wanted simply to become part of the American
mainstream and to share in the fruits of society that others took
for granted?   What s wrong with a person trying to work instead
of securing welfare?  asked Wright.  People involved in the ADA s
passage recognized that the cause was just.   I m convinced that
maybe more than anything else I ever worked on,  said Ralph Neas,
 people were motivated primarily by what they perceived as the
right thing to do.   There was comparatively little negative
fallout for advo cating the ADA:  you could do the right thing
without really getting anybody that upset.  Some people question
whether pity played a role in the ADA s passage.  Congressman
Coelho appropriately said the issue is irrele vant.  If what you
want to do is really right,  he said,  get the votes and worry
about those other things later.  
     One factor that helped secure the necessary votes was that
the deliberations over the ADA were, for the most part, kept out
of the  gutter.   Although ADA advocates wanted to educate the
public about the ADA, especially administration officials and
members of Congress, they worked to control the level of press
coverage.  People such as Congressman Coelho and Pat Wright
feared that the press might distort the ADA.  As Rochelle Dornatt
of Coelho s staff explained:  it would be too easy to lose
control over the spin of what this bill was supposed to be, which
was a bill to help people realize their potential and incorporate
them and assimilate them into . . . American society, as opposed
to  The final bill simply would not have looked the same if we
had carried the debate into the press. 
          Pat Wrightboiling it down to its dollar figures.  
Coelho repeatedly told those around him,  I don t want fanfare, I
don t want a lot of publicity.   Rather, the goal was to work
toward agreement with members of Congress and the Bush
administration quietly and efficiently.  Wright described it as
 a press blackout.   While this helped the ADA make it through
Congress, Denise Figueroa noted that it had the side effect of
limiting the gen eral public s knowledge of the ADA, which compli
cates the implementation process.  Nevertheless,  in retrospect,
I would do it again,  says Wright,  be cause the final bill
simply would not have looked the same if we had carried the
debate into the press. 

     Although this historical account closes with the signing of
the ADA into public law,  the history of the ADA does not end on
July 26, 1990.  It continues through the important process of
regulation-writing and implementation.  In stark contrast to the
regulatory delay regarding Section 504, the Department of Justice
and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission moved with
striking speed to issue their regulations within a year of the
ADA s signing.  On July 26, 1991, Attorney General Thornburgh
signed the regulations at a ceremony reminiscent of President
Bush s signing a year before. 
     In the years since the ADA s passage, the act has proved
remarkably durable.  This is a tribute to the deliberative
process that refined the ADA.  Many critics have claimed that the
ADA was passed as motherhood and apple pie and without serious
consideration.  But the Senate and House records indicate that
such assertions are false.  Members, staff, disability advocates,
officials from the Bush administration, and representatives of
covered entities scrutinized every title, section, paragraph,
line, and word of the ADA countless times.  The intense and
detailed deliberations, especially those in the House, served an
important function.  Although businesses and other covered
entities were not entirely satisfied with the outcome, the
ability of the business and disability constituencies to work
together toward scores of compromises helped make a bill that can
achieve broad support, promote voluntary compliance, and avoid
subsequent amendments. 
     The ADA  will proclaim to America and to the world that
people with disabilities are fully human; that paternalistic,
discriminatory, segregationist attitudes are no longer
acceptable. 
          Justin Dart    Truly, the process by which the ADA
became public law stands as a model for the legislative process
and for cooperation between Congress and the White House.  Neas
observed that it is an example others would do well to follow  in
terms of bipartisanship, in terms of broad coalitions, in terms
of strategies, and media efforts, and grassroots efforts, as well
as the legislation lobbying effort.   The ADA did not solve every
predicament facing people with disabil ities.  But it took giant
steps forward, shattering the barriers of today and tomorrow, so
that the future may be shared by all.   It is the world s first
declaration of equality for people with disabilities,  said
Justin Dart.   It will proclaim to America and to the world that
people with disabilities are fully human; that paternalistic,
discriminatory, segregationist attitudes are no longer
acceptable; and that henceforth people with disabilities must be
accorded the same personal respect and the same social and
economic opportuni ties as other people. 
     The dawn of a new day.





                    Beyond the ADA:
                 The Past is Prologue


      The Future for Americans with Disabilities
ADA represents a significant accomplishment in the evolution of
society s views and treatment of people with disabilities. . . .
Nonetheless, ADA is but one node in a continuum of progress, and
it pales in relation to the extant overwhelming service and
survival needs of people with disabilities.  Ultimately, the full
impact of ADA will be realized only after the majority of people
with disabilities gain access to certain basic services like
attendant care, readers, interpreters, transportation, housing
assistance, affordable health care, and medical and vocational
rehabilitation. Formless as liquid in a vacuum, the concept of
equality has little meaning for people who struggle to survive
without the resources necessary to meet fundamental human needs.
                   Lex Frieden


          Looking to the Twenty-First Century
The United States has long been a champion of civil rights.  It
is only natural that we are now in the forefront of efforts to
ensure equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, as
exemplified in the Americans with Disabilities Act.  We have
begun shifting disability policy in America from exclusion to
inclusion; from dependence to independence; from paternalism to
empowerment. 

But our work is far from finished.  As we work to build an
accessible bridge to the twenty-first century, we cannot be
satisfied until all citizens with disabilities receive equal
treatment under the law whether in the workplace, in schools, in
places of public accommodation, in government, or in the courts. 
Every American deserves a chance to participate in society.  And
our nation needs every individual s contribution.  For America
will succeed in the next century only by pooling all our
resources and capabilities.  By working together we can ensure
that every individual and our nation have the opportunity to
succeed.
          President William Jefferson Clinton




                      Glossary of Acronyms

ABAAmerican Bus AssociationACBAmerican Council of the BlindACCDAmerican
Coalition of Citizens with DisabilitiesACLUAmerican Civil Liberties
UnionADAAmericans with Disabilities ActADAPTAmerican Disabled for Accessible
Public Transit (prior to 1990)
American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today (since 1990)AIDSAcquired
Immunodeficiency SyndromeAPTAAmerican Public Transit AuthorityARCAssociation
for Retarded CitizensATBCBArchitectural Barriers and Compliance BoardCCD
(CCDD)Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (formerly the
Consortium for Citizens with Developmental Disabilities)CDCCenters for Disease
ControlCORECongress on Racial EqualityDIADisabled in ActionDIMENETDisabled
Individuals Movement for Equality NetworkDLRCDisability Law Resource
CenterDOJDepartment of JusticeDRCDisability Rights CenterDREDFDisability
Rights Education and Defense FundDVADisabled Veterans of AmericaEEOCEqual
Employment Opportunity CommissionEFAEpilepsy Foundation of
AmericaEPVAEastern Paralyzed Veterans of AmericaGSAGeneral Services
AdministrationHACHearing Aid Compatibility ActHEWDepartment of Health,
Education and WelfareHHSDepartment of Health and Human ServicesHIVHuman
Immunodeficiency VirusICDInternational Center for the
DisabledINSPIREInstitute for Public Interest RepresentationLCCRLeadership
Conference on Civil RightsNADNational Association of the DeafNADDCNational
Association of Developmental Disabilities CouncilsNAPASNational Association of
Protection and Advocacy SystemsNCD (NCH)National Council on Disability
(formerly National Council on the
Handicapped)NCILNational Council on Independent LivingNCLHNational Center
for Law and the HandicappedNESSNational Easter Seal SocietyNFBNational
Federation of the BlindNFIBNational Federation of Independent BusinessNIHR
(NIDRR)National Institute of Handicapped Research (now National
Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research)NMHANational Mental
Health AssociationNORANational Organization Responding to AIDSNPRMNotice of
Proposed Rule MakingNRA National Restaurant AssociationOBRAOmnibus Budget
and Reconciliation Act OCROffice of Civil RightsOMBOffice of Management and
BudgetPCEH (PCEPD)President s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped (now
President s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities)PDSPPhysically
Disabled Student s ProgramPILCOPPublic Interest Law Center of
PhiladelphiaPVAParalyzed Veterans of AmericaRSARehabilitation Services
AdministrationSHHHSelf-Help for Hard of HearingTAPTTulsans for Accessible
Public TransportationTDDTelecommunication Device for the DeafTIRRThe
Institute for Rehabilitation ResearchUCPAUnited Cerebral Palsy
AssociationUMTAUrban Mass Transportation AdministrationUSPHSUnited States
Public Health Service



Appendices



Appendix A
List of Interviews

Only those interviews for which proper authorization was obtained
have been listed here and used in writing this manuscript, though
many others were held.  Some individuals important in the history
of the ADA were unavailable to participate in interviews.

I.  Personal Interviews:
Bartlett, SteveMarch 10, 1997, by Jonathan Young.Batavia, AndrewNovember 7,
1996, by Jonathan Young.Bristo, MarcaJanuary 6, 1994, by Gerben DeJong and
Ruth Brannon; February 20,
1997, by Jonathan Young; May 29, 1997, by Jonathan Young.Burgdorf,
RobertFebruary 19, 1997, by Jonathan Young.Carr, CharlieMarch 14, 1997, by
Jonathan Young.Cherry, JimNovember 13, 1996, by Jonathan Young.Coelho,
TonyNovember 22, 1996 and December 2, 1996, by Jonathan Young.Cuprill,
MariaApril 28, 1997, by Jonathan Young.Dart, JustinAugust 18, 1993, by Gerben
DeJong; January 31, 1997, by Jona than
Young.Decker, CurtisOctober 12, 1993, by Gerben DeJong and Karin Behe.Disler,
MarkNovember 13, 1996, by Jonathan Young.Dornatt, RochelleAugust 6, 1993, by
Gerben DeJong; December 4, 1996, by Jona than
Young.Durenberger, DaveNovember 26, 1996, by Jonathan Young.Dusenbury,
JoeFebruary 25, 1997, by Jonathan Young.Feldblum, ChaiJanuary 13, 1997 and
March 14, 1997, by Jonathan Young.Figueroa, DeniseMarch 12, 1997, by Jonathan
Young.Fiorito, EuniceMay 30, 1997, by Jonathan Young.Frieden, LexDecember
27, 1996 and December 28, 1996, by Jonathan Young.Fulco, Nancy ReedAugust 3,
1993, by Ruth Brannon and Karin Behe.Funk, RobertFebruary 3, 1997, by Jonathan
Young.Golden, MarilynFebruary 24, 1997, by Jonathan Young.Gray, C.
BoydenOctober 23, 1996, by Jonathan Young and Gerben DeJong.Hearne, PaulJuly
23, 1993, by Ruth Brannon and Karin Behe.Johnson, MarkMarch 7, 1997, by
Jonathan Young.Kailes, JuneMarch 14, 1997, by Jonathan Young.Kemp,
EvanDecember 16, 1996 and February 3, 1997, by Jonathan Young.Lechner,
WendyNovember 4, 1993, by Gerben DeJong.Marchand, PaulOctober 26, 1993, by
Gerben DeJong, Ruth Brannon, and Karin Behe.Marge, MichaelDecember 27, 1996,
by Jonathan Young.Mayerson, Arlene      October 13, 1993, by Gerben DeJong and
Karin Behe; October 28,
1993, by Gerben DeJong, Ruth Brannon, and Karin Behe.Milbank, JeremiahNovember
1, 1993, by Ruth Brannon and Karin Behe.Muilenburg, TerryDecember 11, 1996, by
Jonathan Young.Neas, RalphDecember 10, 1993, by Gerben DeJong; January 21,
1994, by Ger ben
DeJong, Ruth Brannon, and Karin Behe.Osolinik, CarolynJune 1, 1994, by Gerben
DeJong, Ruth Brannon, and Karin Behe;
November 25, 1996, by Jonathan Young.O Day, BonnieFebruary 20, 1997, by
Jonathan Young.Owens, MajorApril 29, 1997, by Jonathan Young.Reich,
AlanFebruary 18, 1997, by Jonathan Young.Roper, WilliamDecember 2, 1996, by
Jonathan Young.Rubenfeld, PhyllisMay 23, 1997, by Jonathan Young.Savage,
LizJuly 30, 1993, by Ruth Brannon and Karin Behe; February 26, 1997,
by Jonathan Young.Schulman, MelissaJuly 9, 1993, by Gerben DeJong, Ruth
Brannon, and Karin Behe;
December 6, 1996, by Jonathan Young.Silverstein, RobertAugust 30, 1993, by
Gerben DeJong and Karin Behe; October 31,
1996, by Jonathan Young.Slagle, RogerDecember 2, 1996, by Jonathan
Young.Sykes, RolandMarch 5, 1997, by Jonathan Young.Thornburgh,
RichardOctober 22, 1996, by Jonathan Young.Thornburgh,
VirginiaFebruary 18, 1997, by Jonathan Young.Treanor, RichardNovember 27,
1996, by Jonathan Young.Vierra, Roxanne1993, by Ruth Brannon.Weisman,
JimNovember 16, 1993, by Gerben DeJong, Ruth Brannon, and Karin
Behe.West, MaureenNovember 11, 1996, by Jonathan Young.Wright, PatNovember
19, 1993, by Gerben DeJong, Ruth Brannon, and Karin
Behe; February 7, 1997, by Jonathan Young.Yale, KenSeptember 20, 1993, by
Gerben DeJong and Karin Behe.

II.  Correspondence Interviews:
Bush, GeorgeJonathan M. Young to President George Bush, February 3, 1997;
George Bush to Jonathan M. Young, February 26, 1997.Hatch, Orrin G.Jonathan M.
Young to The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, February 19,
1997; Orrin G. Hatch to Jonathan M. Young, February 24, 1997.




                           Appendix B
                    The Legal Road to the ADA

Civil Rights Act of 1964  
Prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, national origin,
and religion.  Important provisions: 1) access to places of
public accommodation; 2) nondiscrimination in employment
practices  3) desegregation of all public facilities; 4)
desegregation of public education; 5) nondiscrimination in all
federally-assisted programs.  Represents the philosophical
foundation of the ADA.

Voting Rights Act of 1965  
Provided for U.S. marshals to oversee state and local elections
to ensure voting access for blacks and other minorities. 
Required that any change in state voting laws had to be cleared
by the U.S. government, shifting the burden of proof to potential
perpetrators of discrimination.  Confirmed that Americans should
not be discriminated against in voting.

Fair Housing Act of 1968  
Added Title VIII to the Civil Rights Act of 1964; prohibited
housing discrimination according to race, ethnicity, or religion. 
Served as the basis for the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968  
Required that most buildings designed, constructed, or altered
with federal funds had to be accessible to persons with
disabilities.

Urban Mass Transit Amendments Act of 1970
Required certain local jurisdictions to provide mass transit
facilities and services so that they could be used by elderly
persons or people with disabilities.  Established a program of
grants and loans to assist state and local agencies in developing
accessible transportation.

Education Amendments of 1972
Added Title IX to the Education Act; provided that no person
shall be denied participation in, denied the benefits of, or
discriminated against in any education program or activity
receiving federal financial assistance.  Modeled after Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973  
Re-authorized and expanded the vocational rehabilitation program
to include all persons with disabilities; provided for research
and training to improve vocational prospects for disabled
persons. Title V instituted affirmative action hiring policies
for federal agencies and parties contracting with the Federal
Government; created the Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board (ATBCB).  Section 504 prohibited discrimination
on the basis of handicap among entities receiving federal
financial assistance. 


Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (now IDEA:
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) 
Required that states receiving federal financial assistance
provide all children with disabilities a free and appropriate
public education in the least restrictive setting possible. 
Amendments added grant programs for developing comprehensive
services for infants and toddlers, research and demonstra tion
projects, dissemination of instructional materials, and
recruitment of special education personnel.

Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of
1975  
Responded to abusive and inadequate treatment for persons with
mental retardation residing in institutions; provided for the
coordination and funding of services for persons with long-term
disabilities; created a bill of rights for persons with
disabilities (unenforceable guidelines); implemented protection
and advocacy systems in states to promote the rights of persons
with developmental disabilities and provide legal services.

Section 504 Regulations, 1977  
Implemented the single-sentence Section 504; defined handicap;
delineated actions prohibited as discriminatory; established
construction standards; and instituted educational policies. 
Important not only for the detailed provisions but also for the
symbolic victory of the disability community that united to
protest delay in promulgation.  Represents the content foundation
of the ADA.

Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 1979 
First Section 504 case decided by the Supreme Court, assessing
the viability of the recently-issued regulations.  Concerned a
hearing-impaired woman seeking admission to a nursing school. 
Ruled that Davis s impairment disqualified her from the ability
to participate and cast doubt on the entire principle of taking
affirmative steps to provide reasonable accommodation, as
specified in the 504 regulations.  

The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 
Granted Department of Justice the authority to sue state or local
authorities operating an institution (including prisons and
mental hospitals) where there is a  pattern or practice  of
subjecting institutionalized persons to flagrant violations of
Constitutional rights and privileges.

Telecommunications for the Disabled Act of 1982
Required that workplace telephones used by persons with hearing
aids and emergency telephones had to be hearing-aid-compatible,
meaning that such phones had to be equipped to transmit
electromagnetic signals that could be received by hearing aids.

Task Force on Regulatory Relief, 1983 
President Ronald Reagan s Task Force on Regulatory Relief,
chaired by Vice President George Bush, sought to deregulate the
burdens and costs imposed on businesses, schools, and
governments. Targeted Section 504, the Education for all
Handicapped Children Act, and the ATBCB.  Following remarkably
organized opposition from the disability community, Task Force
chose not to alter Section 504 and the Education Act; changes
made to the ATBCB regulations.
Nelson v. Thornburgh, 1983 
Concerned whether Section 504 required the Pennsylvania
Department of Public Welfare to provide and pay for readers or
electronic devices for employees with visual impairments.  Court
ruled the Department failed to show that the cost of such
accommodations would be an  undue hardship,  and therefore had to
absorb the expenses of the accommodations.  Important affirmation
of the principle of reasonable accommodation.

The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of
1984  
Required that polling sites for federal elections had to be
physically accessible to elderly persons and voters with physical
disabilities; required election officials to provide large-print
instructions and telecommunication devices for the deaf to
persons with sensory impairments.

Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone, 1984
Second Supreme Court ruling on Section 504; represented a
reversal of interpretation from the 1979 Davis decision. 
Concerned whether Section 504 provisions applied to employment
discrimination. Court ruled that employment discrimination was
prohibited by Section 504, and established that courts must give
considerable deference to the 504 regulations.

The Handicapped Children s Protection Act of 1986
Overturned 1984 Supreme Court decision Smith v. Robinson, which
curtailed parents  ability to obtain attorneys  fees when
prevailing in litigation.  Gave parents the right to receive
reasonable compensation for attorneys  fees that matched
community standards for similar cases. 

Alexander v. Choate, 1985
Concerned a group of Medicaid recipients who brought a class
action suit against the Governor of Tennessee, arguing that the
state s reduction in the number of days Medicaid covered for
inpatient hospital stays from 20 to 14 had a disparate impact on
persons with disabilities and therefore violated Section 504. 
Supreme Court ruled that this incident did not violate Section
504.  But it established a significant policy statement on the
Rehabilitation Act.  Court concurred with Congress that
discrimination against persons with disabilities was  most often
the product, not of invidious animus, but rather of
thoughtlessness and indifference of benign neglect.   As such,
Section 504 applied not only to situations where there was
deliberate and malicious intent to discriminate, but also to
policies and actions that had a disproportionately adverse effect
on persons with disabilities. Not every action with
disproportionate effect is a violation; there must, according to
the Court, be a balance of the needs of persons with disabilities
and the costs to society.

City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, 1985
Concerned a proposed operator of a group home for persons with
mental retardation who challenged the validity of zoning
restrictions that excluded such a group home.  Supreme Court
decided that mental retardation did not constitute a
 quasi-suspect  classification calling for the
 heightened-scrutiny  equal protection test by the judiciary. 
Instead upheld that persons with mental retardation had
distinguishing characteristics warranting policies that are
 rationally related to a legitimate state interest.   But ruled
there was no evidence the group home posed a  special threat  to
the city s  legitimate interests.   Decided that the exclusion
was based on  irrational prejudice  against persons with mental
retardation and therefore unconstitutional.

The Air Carriers Access Act, 1986
Overturned 1986 Supreme Court decision in U.S. Department of
Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America, which ruled that
commuter and commercial airlines not receiving federal funds did
not have to comply with nondiscrimination standards of Section
504.  Required that airlines should provide access to persons
with disabilities, regardless of whether federal funds are used.

Civil Rights and Remedies Equalization Act of 1986
Overturned 1985 Supreme Court decision Atascadero State Hospital
v. Scanlon, which granted the state immunity from Section 504
federal law suits; provided that states may not be immune from a
law suit in federal court for a violation of Section 504.

The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987
The 1984 Supreme Court ruling Grove City College v. Bell
established that while receipt of federal funds for a single
college program prohibited gender discrimination in the entire
institution (according to Title IX of the Education Amendments
Act of 1972), the Title IX sanction of cutting off federal funds
would only be applied to the specific program in question, not to
any other programs at the school.  By extension, the decision
applied to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 all carried provisions about programs or activities
receiving federal assistance.  Civil Rights Restora tion Act,
passed over President Reagan s veto, restored all four
non-discrimination statues (race, age, disability, gender) to
their status prior to the Grove City College ruling.  Meant that
an entire institution was liable for the discriminatory practices
of one program or activity.

School Board of Nassau County, Florida v. Arline, 1987
Concerned a school teacher fired solely because of her
susceptibility to tuberculosis.  Arline argued her dismissal
violated the Rehabilitation Act.  Supreme Court upheld that a
person with the contagious disease of tuberculosis may be a
 handicapped individual  as defined by the Rehabilita tion Act,
and therefore protected by the statutes nondiscriminatory
employment provisions.  Such an individual must be evaluated not
by  fearful, reflexive reactions  to a class of persons, but on
an individual basis to determine 1) whether one is able to do the
job with or without a  reasonable accommodation,  and 2) whether
medically sound judgments indicate substantial risk and likeli
hood of transmission.

Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988
Required that nearly all telephones manufactured or imported into
the United States had to be compatible for use with
telecoil-equipped hearing aids.  It did not require retrofitting
of existing telephones.

Telecommunications Accessibility Enhancement Act of 1988
Mandated a proactive approach within the Federal Government to
advancing accessibility to the federal telecommunications system
by individuals with hearing or speech limitations.

The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988
Extended protections of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 to persons
with disabilities; extended nondiscriminatory principles applied
to the Federal Government and those receiving federal assistance
to the entire economy.  Enabled persons with disabilities to make
modifications to premises; receive reasonable accommodations in
rules and policies; and expect accessible entryways and common
use areas.  Permitted the exclusion of persons posing a  direct
threat to the health or safety of another individual. 

ADAPT v. Skinner, 1989
ADAPT challenged two components of existing regulations issued by
the Department of Transportation: 1) that every bus need not be
lift-equipped (local transit authorities could exercise their
local option to provide accessible buses, paratransit, or a
mixture); 2) that transit authorities did not need to spend any
more than 3% of its budget on accessibility.  Supreme Court
upheld local option provisions, but ruled the 3%  safe harbor 
cap was  arbitrary and capricious. 




                           Appendix C
             Chronology: The ADA s Path to Congress

May, 1977White House Conference on Handicapped Individuals proposes the
creation of an agency to evaluate and coordinate federal
disability programsNovember, 1978Creation of the National Council on the
Handicapped.October, 1982President Ronald Reagan appoints new Council with Joe
Dusenbury
as Chairperson.October, 1982 to Au gust, 1983Justin Dart holds public forums
in all fifty states to develop
NCD report.August, 1983Publication of National Policy for Persons with
Disabilities. 
Proposal for comprehensive body of law protecting rights of
persons with disabilities.October, 1983Sandra Parrino appointed NCD
Chairperson.February, 1984Establishment of National Council on the Handicapped
as an inde
pendent federal agency.  Mandate to issue a report evaluating
incen tives and disincentives in federal programs and
recommending changes.December, 1984 to April, 1985Lex Frieden, Bob Burgdorf,
Ethel Briggs, Naomi Karp, Brenda
Bratton join NCD staff.April, 1985 to Janu ary, 1986NCD prepares topic papers
and final report for Toward
Independence.  Justin Dart holds a second set of public forums in
every state.February 1, 1986Publication and distribution of Toward
Independence.  Number one
recommendation:  a comprehensive law requiring equal opportunity
for individuals with disabilities [and] prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of handicap. March, 1986Publication of The ICD
Survey of Disabled Americans.  Two-thirds
of Americans with disabilities unemployed; most want to work but
cannot.February, 1987Robert Burgdorf completes draft of an equal opportunity
law.May, 1987NCD commits to developing a legislative proposal for a comprehen
sive equal opportunity law.November, 1987NCD approves draft of Americans with
Disabilities Act.  Secures
sponsorship of Senator Lowell Weicker and Congressman Tony
Coelho.  Solicits White House support.November, 1987 to March, 1988NCD,
mediated by Senator Weicker, meets with disability community
to discuss the ADA. January, 1988Publication and distribution of On the
Threshold of Independence.
Includes draft of Americans with Disabilities Act to solicit
grassroots support.February 9, 1988Adoption of  donut-hole  approach to
Sections 503 and 504 and
exclusion of insurance.April 28-29, 1988ADA introduced in the Senate by
Senator Weicker and in the House
by Congressman Coelho.



                           Appendix D
           Chronology: Legislative History of the ADA

April 28, 1988Senator Lowell Weicker introduces ADA (S. 2345). April 29,
1988Congressman Tony Coelho introduces ADA (H.R. 4498).August 12, 1988Vice
President Bush commits to supporting a civil rights act for
people with disabilities if elected president.September 27, 1988Joint Hearing:
Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped and the
House Subcommittee on Select Education.October 24, 1988Hearing: House
Subcommittee on Select Education.November 8, 1988George Bush elected
president; Senator Lowell Weicker defeated in
reelection bid.November, 1988Senator Tom Harkin assumes role of ADA sponsor in
the Senate;
Senator Harkin and the disability community solicit Senator
Edward Kennedy to take a lead ADA role to compensate for the loss
of Senator Weicker.November, 1988 to March, 1989
Senators Harkin and Kennedy work with Congressman Coelho, Senator
Hatch, the disability community, the business community, and the
Bush administration in developing a new version of the ADA.
January 19, 1989
President-elect Bush pledges to support an act similar to the
Ameri cans with Disabilities Act.
March 15, 1989
Senators Kennedy and Harkin complete draft of ADA.
May 9, 1989
Senator Tom Harkin and Congressman Tony Coelho jointly introduce
ADA (S. 933 and H.R. 2273).
May 9, 1989
Hearing: Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
May 10, 1989
Hearing: Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
May 14, 1989
NCIL organizes march on the White House.
May 16, 1989
Hearing: Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
June 15, 1989
Congressman Tony Coelho resigns from the House of Representa
tives; Congressman Steny Hoyer assumes the role of managing the
bill.
June 22, 1989
Hearing: Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
Attorney General Richard Thornburgh testifies for the Bush
adminis tration and commits to negotiations with the Senate to
develop a compromise bill.
June 23 to
July 31, 1989
Negotiations held between the Senate and the Bush administration.
July 18, 1989
Joint Hearing: House Subcommittees on Select Education and Em
ployment Opportunities.
August 2, 1989
Mark-up: Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources; S. 933
reported to the Senate as amended.

President Bush endorses the ADA.
August 3, 1989
Hearing: House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.
August 28, 1989
Hearing: House Subcommittee on Select Education (Houston, Texas).
August 30, 1989
Committee report filed: Senate Committee on Labor and Human
Resources.
September 7, 1989
Senate floor deliberations; Senate passes S. 933, 76 to 8.
September 13, 1989
Joint Hearing: House Subcommittees on Select Education and Em
ployment Opportunities.
September 20, 1989
Hearing: House Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
September 26, 1989
Hearing: House Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
September 27, 1989
Hearing: House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance.
September 28, 1989
Hearing: House Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous
Materials.
October 6, 1989
Hearing: Subcommittee on Select Education (Indianapolis,
Indiana).
October 11, 1989
Hearing: Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.
October 12, 1989
Hearing: House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.
Mark-up: House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance;
H.R. 2273 reported to the House Committee on Energy and Com merce
as amended.
Attorney General Richard Thornburgh reaffirms commitment of Bush
administration to passing the ADA.
November 9, 1989
Mark-up: House Committee on Education and Labor.
November 14, 1989
Mark-up: House Committee on Education and Labor; H.R. 2273
reported to the House as amended.
February 22, 1990
Hearing: House Committee on Small Business.
March 1, 1990
Mark-up: House Subcommittee on Surface Transportation; H.R. 2273
reported to the House Committee on Public Works and Transporta
tion as amended.
March 12, 1990
 Wheels of Justice  campaign sponsors march from White House to
Capitol; scores of persons with disabilities climb the Capitol
steps.
March 13, 1990
Participants in  Wheels of Justice  campaign demonstrate in the
Capitol Rotunda, demanding for immediate passage of the ADA.

Mark-up: Committee on Energy and Commerce (House Subcommit tee on
Transportation and Hazardous Materials discharged); H.R. 2273
reported to the House as amended.
April 3, 1990
Mark-up: Committee on Public Works and Transportation; H.R. 2273
reported to the House as amended.
April 25, 1990
Mark-up: House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights;
H.R. 2273 reported to the House Committee on the Judiciary as
amended.
May 1, 1990
Mark-up: House Committee on the Judiciary.
May 2, 1990
Mark-up: House Committee on the Judiciary; H.R. 2273 reported to
the House as amended.
May 14, 1990
Committee report filed: House Committee on Public Works and
Transportation.
May 15, 1990
Committee reports filed: House Committee on Education and Labor;
House Committee on Energy and Commerce; House Committee on the
Judiciary.
May 16, 1990
Committee report filed: House Committee on Rules; H.R. 2273
reported to the House as amended.
May 17, 1990
House floor deliberations.
May 22, 1990
House floor deliberations; House passes H.R. 2273, 403 to 20,
substituting the text of H.R. 2273 for S. 933.
May 24, 1990
House requests a conference with the Senate; House appoints
conferees.
June 6, 1990
Senate appoints conferees; Senate passes motion to instruct
conferees to support the Chapman amendment.
June 25, 1990
Conference meeting held.
June 26, 1990
Conference report filed for consideration in the House and
Senate.
July 11, 1990
Senate floor deliberations; Senate recommits conference report
with an amendment and a motion to instruct conferees about Senate
coverage.
July 12, 1990
Conference meeting held; Conference report filed.
House floor deliberations; motion to recommit conference report
fails; House passes conference report, 377 to 28.
July 13, 1990
Senate floor deliberations; Senate passes conference report, 91
to 6; final amended version of S. 933 submitted to President Bush
for approval.
July 26, 1990
President George Bush signs the Americans with Disabilities Act
into law P.L. 101-336.






                           Appendix E 
                     Discrimination diaries

The following documents are printed as written, without stylistic
or technical changes.  Minor editorial insertions have been
provided to identify selected abbreviations.  Addresses and phone
numbers have been withheld.  All diaries, petitions, and other
documents presented to Congress by the Task Force on the Rights
and Empowerment of People with Disabilities are currently stored
at the President s Committee on Employment of People with
Disabilities in Washington, D.C.


Get Involved!  Help the ADA with this petition!

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is designed to provide
full civil rights protection to Americans with disabilities. 
This legislation, (S.2345/H.R.4498) is expected to be the first
order of business for the 1989 Congress, and members of Congress
have asked for concrete evidence that Americans with disabilities
need full civil rights protection.
We must begin that process now.  Help enact the ADA by:
1.)  Writing a letter to your Senator(s) and Congressional
Representatives indicating your support for the ADA and asking
them to become cosponsors...
2.)  Recruiting others to write such letters your family, your
friends and neighbors, members of your various organizations,
clients, business contacts just about everyone you know...
3.)  Circulating the petition supporting the ADA.  Make copies of
this page and circulate every where.  Send completed petitions
to: Justin Dart, Chairperson, Task Force on the Rights &
Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities, 907 6th St, S.W.,
Suite 516C, Washington, D.C. 20024.

A Petition for Equal Rights for Americans with Disabilities
Whereas: There are more than 36 million individuals in this
nation whose basic life activities are limited in some
significant way by physical disabilities, mental impairments
and/or the effects of age; and
Whereas: Millions of these potentially productive persons are
forced by traditional discrimina tory paternalistic attitudes and
systems to exist in situations of unjust unwanted dependency,
segregation, extreme deprivation and second class citizenship;
and
Whereas: Disability is a universally common characteristic of the
human condition and there is a substantial probability that most
humans will experience significant disability at some point in
their lives; and
Whereas: People with disabilities have the same inalienable
rights and responsibilities as other people; and
Whereas: The forced segregation and dependency of millions of
individuals with disabilities in this country constitutes a gross
violation of their constitutional and basic human rights, a devas
tating waste of productive potential, a totally unnecessary and
increasingly unaffordable drain on public and private budgets and
a significant failure of the great American promise of liberty
and justice for all; and
Whereas: Individuals with disabilities form the nation s largest
severely disadvantaged minority not specifically covered by
federal legislation guaranteeing comprehensive civil rights
protection and equal opportunities to participate in society,
Therefore, Be It Resolved that we, the undersigned advocates for
justice, urge the Congress to immediately enact, and the
President to sign, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1988,
in order to effectively guarantee that all persons with
disabilities will be protected against discrimi nation on the
basis of handicap.


A vote for justice

i urge the congress to enact, and the president to support and to
sign, legislation such as the Americans with disabilities act of
1988, which will effectively protect all persons with
disabilities against discrimination on the basis of handicap.

I furthermore urge the establishment of those basic services and
human support systems necessary to make rights real in every day
life, and which will enable all people with disabilities to
achieve their full potential for independence, productivity and
quality of life in the mainstream of society.

I have personal experienced and/or observed the following
discrimination against people with disabilities:


A vote for justice
          . . .
I have personal experienced and/or observed the following
discrimination against people with disabilities:

     People with developmental disabilities and their families
are torn apart because Medicaid dollars are paid to buildings so
the only way needed services can be obtained is for the person to
be institutionalized where there is no way to live as an equal,
participating member of their community.  Please we must reform
Medicaid and pass the Medicaid Home and Community Quality
Services Act. 
     Do you want to live and learn in an institution of 100's of
strangers or your family? Would you like to work for subminimum
wage in a sheltered workshop or do you like your real job and
paycheck?  What makes you think that people with developmental
disabilities are less valuable?  Take a stance, take action if
you wouldn t choose the life of institutional living and working.

Vickie Ferklic      
Golden, CO


A vote for justice
     . . .

I have personal experienced and/or observed the following
discrimination against people with disabilities:

     When I was a senior at college at the U of SD I was denied
the opportunity to practice teach in the public schools and
therefore was not able to get a SD teaching certificate.  The
Dean of the School of Education at that time and his successor
were convinced that blind people could not teach in public
schools.

Arnold Auch
Sioux Falls, SD


A vote for justice
     . . .

I have personal experienced and/or observed the following
discrimination against people with disabilities:

     I work with adults diagnosed as chronically mentally ill. 
The major problems that my clients face stem from the stigma
associated with mental illness.  Employers are reluctant to hire
them in the first place because they (the employers) do not
understand mental illness.  They think of my clients as being
violent or slow, which they are neither.  I believe more
resources need to be allocated to educate the public about mental
illness and reduce the myths associated with it.

Lynn N. Culey
Vocational Coordinator
Community Support Program
Sioux Falls, SD

A vote for justice
     . . .

I have personal experienced and/or observed the following
discrimination against people with disabilities:

     I fully support ADA.  It is legislation whose time has come. 
It would be a serious injus tice if ADA was not passed.

Phyllis Geldzalh
Salt Lake City, UT


A vote for justice
     . . .

I have personal experienced and/or observed the following
discrimination against people with disabilities:

     I had some friends who had an apartment that I really loved. 
They moved out.  Three months later I was in the market for a new
place.  That apartment had been vacant the entire time. I
applied.  Everything was going great until they asked how do you
get your money.  I said  I m disabled .  They asked what s your
disability.  I told them  I am psychiatrically disabled .  They
then said  we won t rent to your kind.   The apartment remained
vacant for six months after they refused me the place.

Gary Janski
Salt Lake City, UT


A vote for justice
     . . .

I have personal experienced and/or observed the following
discrimination against people with disabilities:

-    very hard time finding a job.
-    people treat you like you can t do a thing.  It makes us
feel better to [do] things on our own instead of having
everything done for me.
-    when your crippled everyone must think you re deaf too
because they yell.
-    you get treated like your a two year old and can t do
anything

Sheila Sorenson
Sioux Falls, SD


A vote for justice
     . . .

I have personal experienced and/or observed the following
discrimination against people with disabilities:

     I have been denied entry into graduate school because I have
Cerebral Palsy.  At the time I applied I was a staff  aide to
Governor Daniel Evans, and told by the Graduate School of Public
Administration that my disability would prevent a career in
public affairs.  Since then, I have been employed steadily in the
public sector, and now am State Prog[ram] M[anager] for the DVR
I[ndependent] L[iving] program I still don t have my M[asters] of
P[ublic] A[dministration].

Donald F.  Kayton
Redmond, WA


A vote for justice
     . . .

I have personal experienced and/or observed the following
discrimination against people with disabilities:

     I am an interpreter in sign language for deaf people.  One
client related his experience in attempting to contact the U of
Wis.  hospital by use of a TDD (Telephone Device for the Deaf)
The hospital has one  the client has one Hospital employees are
not trained to receive calls. The telephone rings there is no
voice they hang up.  The deaf person tries again again 
again each time.  Eventually the one person that is aware and
trained answers the phone and the communication takes place. 
Placement of TDD s in many agencies is needed but also people
must be trained.

     Other clients report similar experiences one missed a court
date and was fined even though he called and reported via TDD to
the sheriffs office that has a TDD but also has employ ees that
didn t even know they had one.

Ree Steidemann
Madison, WI
A Vote For Justice.
     . . .

I have personally experienced and/or observed the following
discrimination against people with disabilities:

     I had 5 pg letter of grievances written down, but I thought
it better to summarize some of them.  My daughter Maureen is now
24 a quadro C.P. wheelchair bound.
     1.  At 18 months she was taken to the best neurologist in
the country, Dr. Spitz.  I was told she had high intellect.  He
was right.  In regular school she always maintained a A to B+
average.
     2.  So called educators branded her retarded.  Never tested
properly.
     3.  Wheelchairs overpriced never fitted properly, she now
has a bad back problem. [and] all prosthesis over priced.
     4.  Regular schools would not accept her.  Finally found a
school, Berlin Elementary in VT, who would   but was placed with
emotionally disturbed children.
     5.  Teachers in Elementary and College not willing to change
classrooms for her.  In college she was exempt from a course
because one teacher felt she was thorn in his side. Refused to
deal with her.
     6.  Some teachers unwilling to give her more [time] during
test.  I had to fight for this one.
     7.  Educators telling her (in elementary school in Ct.) that
she was not college material. This almost destroyed her.
     8.  Restaurants refusing us admittance or telling us to sit
only in certain areas because it was a fire hazard.  If we wanted
to stay, we had to sit where they told us or we could leave.
     9.  College does not have a van w/ a lift.  I ve always
transported Mimi to [and] from school.
     10.  Pres. of Johnson State College refuses to give her a
full [time] aide so that she can achieve her course of study.  He
has overlooked accessability re: bathrooms, cafeteria, etc.  He
has however spent money on new brass door openers, building a
million dollar gym etc. yet will not hire a full [time] aide.
     This is only a few of some of the things happening with
Mimi, Maureen) she can only write her name, and a few sentences
w/ much difficulty.  Yet, last semester she was on the Pres. list
4.0 average.  If this isn t an injustice I wonder what is.
     She is now going to take a leave of absence from school
because the stress [and] frustra tion is getting to be to much
for her.  I am truly angry, yet, nothing I do can change the
minds of these so called educators.
     Please, please help us.  I m at my wits end trying to fight
these people alone.  If you want to hear more, I will gladly talk
to anyone who will listen.  My sweet, loving daughter deserves
better than this 

Very truly yours,
Frances Murtagh
Eden, VT
12/28/88
Mr. Dart:
     I have enclosed a copy of a letter I wrote to our area
newspaper.  These incidents really happened to me.  And, I
thought you may like to include them in your diary.  Good luck!

     Letters to the Editor
 They Have Feelings Too 
     I have been trying to complete my Christmas shopping in
hopes to finish before bad weather gets here.  It is a fast-paced
time of the year requiring extra time and money, not to mention
patience. 
     I am a paraplegic and use a wheelchair to get around.  I
have my own car and most of the time travel independently.  I
have my own money and I am old enough to take care of myself.  I
expect no more from people than anyone else would.
     While I have been doing my Christmas shopping I have
encountered several de pressing situations.  I have been ignored
at the cash register, only to have the next person acknowledged. 
The lanes between each cash register are too narrow for my
wheelchair. Those lanes designated for wheelchairs are either
closed or have an extra long line. Boxes and boxes of extra
merchandise fill the walkways.  People can t walk around it much
less get a wheelchair around.  Parking in handicapped parking
places is abused highly.  If you re lucky enough to get a
handicapped parking place, by the time you reach the front of the
store you find that another car has blocked the ramp.  There is
no other way to get upon the sidewalk.
     With all of these problems to face on each shopping trip,
one episode sticks out more than others.  While shopping in a
large store in Mercer Mall, I overheard the clerk call for
security.   When security called her back I overheard her say,  I
have a girl in a wheel chair that needs watching.   I was
speechless.  I was hurt.  I was mad.  I waited.
     A few minutes later a nicely-dressed young man started
browsing in the same area where I was looking.  A few quick looks
told me that he was  the one.   After some time I approached the
clerk about calling security.  She denied it.  No matter.  The
point is that she called security just because I was in a
wheelchair no other reason.  I find this action rude and
disgusting and it should not be tolerated by anyone.  I realized
that security is  stepped up  during the holidays.  Everyone is
being watched at one time or another.  W hat I can t understand
is why I was singled out to watch. 
     Disabled individuals, including myself, have the same right
to enjoy the holidays as anyone else.   We do expect the same
courtesy and respect that anyone else would re ceive.  During
this time of giving, the public needs to be aware of these
problems.  It would be a good time to give away some good tidings
of respect.  Most of all, remember that a disabled person is just
that a person.   We have feelings just like anyone else. 
     Happy Holidays!
     
     Debbie Wimmer
     Bluefield, VA

* The call for security occurred in a J.C. Penny Store, being
over-looked at the cash register happened in Leggett s.  No lanes
for wheelchairs in several stores.


     I am a head injured survivor and know many survivors who are
not given the opportunity for growth. (in many different ways!). 

     The current problem that I am battling is employment and the
law discontinuing support after being employed for a period of
time and not being eligible for returning to State aid.  This
disincentive means that H[ead] I[njured]] people will not try to
find work, thus remaining on State aid for ever, certainly not a
satisfactory solution!

     I completely support ADA!

Cinda Lium
Seattle, WA


     In 1974 I was attending Boettcher School (Specially Designed
school for the Disabled) and is still recognized as a part of the
Denver Public School System.  Unfortunately, the focus more on  
a nice place to keep us  instead of education.  It was my desire
to receive the proper creden tials to continue my education on
the high school and college level.  I pursued a transfer to a
high school in the Denver Public School system, went through
testing and interviewing.  After passing all testing, the school
system still refused the transfer.  It wasn t until I filled a
petition in the city court, did the school system grant me the
transfer.  Three years later I graduated with honors and
continued on to college.

     Mary Frances Brown
     Denver, CO


     Everyone must become aware of the external barriers the
general public has created mentally and physically to the more
obvious impairments that some very intellectual and capable
citizens of our country have to cope with to be fulfilled.  I
have a couple very limiting handicapps that time and wear have
inflicted on my feet and hands; I have a terrific sense of
imagination , so I am able to magnify these minor conditions in
my mind and I would not be able to continue in my job without
some understanding and adjusting.

     I have witnessed the courage and emotional strength of
people inflicted with impair ments and/or disabilities from birth
and from accidents.  We need to utilize this portion of our
society, but to do so we must alter our norms.

     Please consider the possibility of becoming one of the
millions that have had to over come their limitations and create
personal integrity for themselves, and imagine if you were faced
with the same barriers, would you persevere?

     Enact and encourage the signing of the Disabilities Act
1988.

Sincerely,
Andree Kingsley
Clifton, TX


     August 22, 1988
     Dear Mr. Dart

     As a disabled person who uses a wheelchair, discrimination
seems to be a part of my life, and the way that I cope with it
seems to make a difference in not only how I view myself, but the
way others view me also.  I am becoming accustomed to going in
through the door reserved for the hearse when I attend funerals
at certain funeral homes, coping with steps in the homes of
friends and seldom being able to get a reserved handicapped
parking place.  I may not like the problems, but they do exist. 
I have found that because I gently complain each and every time,
two of the funeral homes in the valley have put in ramps, West
Valley City has instituted a parking enforcement officer corps to
give tickets to insensitive drivers, Salt Lake City has en listed
all citizens to play watchdog over handicapped parking places and
even friends have arranged to have portable ramps one even built
a ramp onto his deck for accessibility.

     I continuously talk to the city about curb cuts that are not
there, and slowly, they are beginning to appear.

     I travel as a part of my job.  I have found hotels that
claim to be accessible usually mean that the bathroom doors are
wide and that there are hand rails in place.  Tubs are invariably
very deep and slippery, shower controls are often beyond reach,
sometimes there are shower door rails along the edge of the tub
making the tub inaccessible to any disabled person who transfers
into the tub, and many hotels, even with ramps or lifts, keep
them a secret from the general public, and sometimes even from
the staff.  Many hotels forget that a curb surrounds the building
mak ing it inaccessible and so many of the convention arranged
hotels do not have bathroom doors wide enough for wheelchairs,
and therefore no accommodations.

     . . .

     When the Environmental Protection Agency held a workshop on
the new Superfund grants to community groups, it was held in the
only inaccessible meeting room in the Sheraton Hotel, up a flight
of steps.

     Most galling of all, was a recent Fair Housing,
anti-discrimination tri-regional convention sponsored by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.  At this meeting,
there was a specific workshop called  Advocacy rights for the
Handicapped.   It was moderated by the Southern Nevada
Association for the Handicapped with presenters from
Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, Sioux Falls Human Rights
Commission, Washington State Human Rights Commission and Tacoma
Human Rights Commission.  There was not one disabled person on
the panel.  In this day and age, at an anti-discrimination
conference, I was absolutely outraged.  In my letter to the
director of Region VIII, I pointed out that if the workshop had
been on Black Advo cacy, and there were no blacks on the podium,
pandemonium would follow.

     . . .

     I appreciate you spending time and efforts to address these
issues, and support whole heartedly the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1988.  Discrimination is truly alive and well
in these United States.  We disabled absolutely must have the Act
to begin to combat the paternal ism, discrimination and the
injustices perpetrated upon certain citizens of America.

     Barbara G.  Toomer
     West Valley City, UT
     August 20, 1988


     Dear Mr. Dart:

     Being a bilateral arm amputee, I have some serious concerns
regarding conditions facing handicapped citizens of the United
States.  The Federal Government and most States have done a
commendable job of eliminating architectural barriers for those
with ambulatory handicaps, providing television closed captions
for hearing impaired, and providing audible signals at traffic
intersections and braille warnings in buildings for the
sightless.

     There is, however, one area that has not received sufficient
attention and that is the area concerning barriers that
continually confront individuals who have lost or lost the use of
their hands or arms.  An example is the fact that in most public
buildings the door-opening hardware, especially on internal
doors, consists of round knobs instead of levers.  Other problems
that face upper-extremity handicapped are such things as the
design of pay telephones, vending machines, packaging and many
consumer products.

     It would be appreciated if some attention could be directed
towards this neglected area.

     Sincerely,
     Edwin V.  Rawley
     Bountiful, UT


     October 3, 1988

     To Congressional Task Force

     In my position as rehabilitation counselor, I often see
clients who have been fired from their jobs because of the onset
of or an existing disability.  Most of the time, it seems that
the employer has not instituted any measures of accommodations;
and in many cases, clients were fired simply because of the
disability not because of the inability to perform the duties of
the work.  I feel this is totally unfair and some measures of
correction should be implemented as soon as possible.

     Mrs. Kareen D. Windley
     Virginia Beach, VA


     Discrimination Diary

     Ken Burns

     June 27,1988

     I went to a big department store and asked for some
information.  The woman didn t pay attention to me.  She
pretended she did not hear me.  People don t want to take the
time to listen. If they did, there would not be so much
complaining.

     The new driver on the van does that.  He doesn t listen. 
When I wanted to go to  Best Buy , he didn t listen.  He brought
me home instead, because that s where he picked me up.

     I went to City Hall to find about progress on the issue of
putting in sidewalks throughout the community.  I couldn t get
into the building because there are three steps going up to the
front door and two steps going down on the inside.  We (those who
use wheelchairs) stayed outside the front door.  We put up signs
saying that we couldn t get in.  They didn t have microphones and
loud speakers so we couldn t find out what was going on inside,
and we couldn t speak

     There are no sidewalks outside my door.  I can t go outside
to take a breath of fresh air because if I did, my  wheelchair
would get stuck in the ground.  It keeps me from going to the
store to do my personal shopping.  I have to order a van to take
me to the store and that way, again, I get no fresh air or see
how warm the sun is.  With sidewalks, I could drive my chair to
the store and do my personal shopping.  That way, I could enjoy
the beautiful weather and enjoy driving in my chair.  I have to
take the van just to go one block and it costs money. 

     If I want to go to the front door of the Grand Mall, there
is no place for the van to park. We have to go a block and a half
down the street to get out and then go all the way back to get
inside.

     Once, when I was out, I had to go to the bathroom and I had
a female aid with me.  I went to a near by McDonald s and asked
the person cleaning tables to check to see if there was any other
man in the bathroom.  There was no one.  Fortunately, there was a
lock on the door and so my attendant was able to help me use the
bathroom in privacy. 


     Reason From Rhyme: Poems From Outside the Mainstream
     by Carolyn Schwartz

                  Speak Out
          The doctors gave me a drug to survive.
     It cured my body, but was I alive?
          I was only a child, what had I done?
     to be bound in a cell and locked from the sun.
          But I d committed no crime!  I cried
     out in vain, yet the bars were so real
     and no family came
          The worst was later when I went home.
     I found out what it was to be truly alone.
          I was seen as different and set apart.
     No day care for me, no place with a heart.

          I am just the same as any of you.

          I contribute my work to society too.

          So before you condemn what you don t
     understand.  Let me reach out to you
     and come touch my hand.






                           Appendix F
                     Key Concepts in the ADA

This appendix is intended only to provide elementary descriptions
of several, select concepts in the ADA to supplement the main
text, principally regarding Title I and Title III.  This appendix
should not be used as a technical source.  For complete
information, readers should consult the organiza tions providing
technical assistance that are listed in Appendix J.  


Definition of Disability 

     The ADA prohibits discrimination against  individuals with
disabilities.   Unlike prohibi tions of discrimination according
to race or gender, where one is automatically a member of a
protected class by one s physical characteristics at birth, for
one to be protected by the ADA one must qualify as a person with
a disability.  According to the ADA, a person with a disability
is one who meets at least one of three criteria: 1) having a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one s
ability to perform one or more major life activities; 2) having a
record of such an impairment; or 3) being regarded as having such
an impairment.

     Regulations for the ADA define an impairment as  any
physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or
anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body
systems: Neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense organs
(including speech organs that are not respira tory, such as vocal
cords, soft palate, and tongue); respiratory, including speech
organs; cardiovas cular; reproductive; digestive; genitourinary;
hemic and lymphatic; skin; and endocrine.  It also means any
mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation,
organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific
learning disabilities. 

     In addition to having an impairment, to qualify under the
first prong of the definition of disability one must also have an
impairment that  substantially limits   major life activities. 
According to the regulations, major life activities include such
things as  caring for one s self, performing manual tasks,
walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and
working.   The regulations state that determination of whether a
limitation is  substantial  should be based on whether one cannot
do the activity at all or by comparing  the conditions, manner,
or duration under which  life activities can be performed with
the abilities of most people.  Thus, the inability to walk over
ten miles without experiencing some pain or fatigue would
generally not be considered a disability, since most people would
feel such discomfort.  However, the inability to walk because of
paralysis, or the inability to walk without the assistance of
crutches, could be considered disabilities.

     The second prong of the definition of disability protects
individuals with a record of an impairment whether one actually
had an impairment or was misclassified as having an impair ment. 
This prevents people who have recovered from (or never had) an
impairment from being discriminated against according to a past
experience.  For example, the ADA protects individuals who have
survived cancer or heart disease.  It also protects, for example,
someone mistakenly identified as having a mental illness.

     The third prong of the definition protects persons whose
life activities are not substantially limited, but who are
treated discriminatorily as if their performance of life
activities was limited. The basis for this prong of the
definition of disability is that sometimes negative reactions to
impairments are more disabling than the impairments themselves. 
As stated in the regulations:  A person who is not allowed into a
public accommodation because of the myths, fears, and stereotypes
associated with disabilities would be covered under this third
test whether or not the person s physical or mental condition
would be considered a disability under the first or second test
in the definition. 

     The ADA expressly excludes certain impairments or conditions
and certain individuals from coverage.  Namely, the ADA excludes
 transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism,
voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical
impairments, other sexual behavior disorders, compulsive
gambling, kleptomania, pyromania, and psychoactive substance use
disorders resulting from current illegal use of drugs.   The ADA
also excludes homosexuality and bisexuality, which are not
considered impairments.  Moreover, the ADA excludes current users
of illegal drugs.  Nevertheless, if any individual fitting one of
these exclusionary criteria also has a disability covered by the
ADA, such an individual would be protected. 

     Neither the ADA nor the regulations offer a concrete list of
each condition or impairment that qualifies as a disability. 
This is largely because it would not be possible to account for
every known and unknown or future impairment that could be
considered a disability.  Moreover, identical impairments may not
equally affect individuals  ability to perform major life
activities. 

     In addition to protecting individuals with disabilities, the
ADA offers protection to individuals who are associated with
someone who has a disability.  For example, an employer could not
refuse to hire or fire an individual because his or her spouse or
child had a disability.  This protection is not limited by the
type of association: it applies equally to friends, colleagues,
care givers, and other forms of human association.


Nondiscrimination

     The main purpose of the ADA, as with other civil rights
legislation, is to prohibit and eliminate discrimination against
individuals with disabilities.  There are, however, two different
concepts of nondiscrimination developed in the ADA.  The first is
the concept traditionally found in other civil rights laws:
decisions in employment or the provision of services cannot be
based on an individual s disability.  In the context of
employment this applies to all employment decisions, including
hiring, firing, and promotions.  Thus, the ADA prohibits an
employer from refusing to hire an individual simply because he or
she was deaf.  Likewise, operators of public transportation or a
place of public accommodation cannot deny access to, for example,
a person simply because he or she uses a wheelchair.

     The ADA also incorporates a second concept of
nondiscrimination: requiring that busi nesses, public
transportation providers, operators of public accommodations, and
communications providers take steps to ensure that people with
disabilities are not discriminated against.  The ADA does not
require that an employer should select a person with a disability
over an equally- or better- qualified person without a
disability.  As stated in the Senate Labor and Human Resources
Committee report:  The employer s obligation is to consider
applicants and make decisions without regard to an individual s
disability, or the individual s need for reasonable
accommodation.  But, the employer has no obligation under this
legislation to prefer applicants with disabilities over other
applicants on the basis of disability. 

     Rather, the ADA requires taking steps to provide equality of
opportunity.  In the context of employment, this can mean
providing such  reasonable accommodations  as modifying a work
schedule.  With respect to public transportation this can mean
equipping buses with wheelchair lifts. Concerning places of
public accommodation, this can mean allowing a guide dog to enter
a business where pets are not allowed.  With respect to
telecommunications, this generally means providing a
relay-service that enables a deaf or hard-of-hearing person to
use text-devices to communicate with hearing persons through an
operator/interpreter.


Reasonable Accommodation

     In many respects, the concept of  reasonable accommodation 
is the central concept of civil rights for persons with
disabilities.  It was created for the implementation of Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and applies to employment
decisions.  Reasonable accommodations refer to steps taken by an
employer to enable a person with a disability to perform his or
her job responsibil ities.  Rather than define precisely what a
reasonable accommodation is, the ADA sets out examples of
reasonable accommodations.

     There are three basic types of reasonable accommodations. 
The first concerns structural alterations to an employment
setting to enable, for example, a person with a wheelchair to
gain access to the employment site and have an accessible
work-site, which might include a raised desk. The second type of
reasonable accommodation refers to modification of employment
practices. This might include permitting a person with a
disability to have a modified work schedule that could
accommodate medical treatments.  It could also include adjusting
examinations, training materials, or employer policies to enable
an individual to take an oral rather than written exams, for
example, or allowing a guide dog into the workplace.  The third
type of reasonable accommodation refers to acquiring equipment,
services, or devices for a person with a disability.  For
example, a reasonable accommodation might be providing a deaf or
hard-of-hearing person with an amplified telephone headset, or
providing a personal assistant for an individual with cerebral
palsy.

     Under the ADA, employment discrimination includes a failure
to provide  reasonable accommodations  to the known physical or
mental limitations of a  qualified person with a disability, 
meaning an individual who, with or without reasonable
accommodation, can perform the  essential functions  of a given
position.  This means that employers are obligated to provide
reasonable accommodations to persons who meet employment
criteria, except criteria that an individual cannot meet because
of a disability.  For example, a person with a disability must
meet the same educational requirements any other applicant has to
meet.  If, however, an individual is  otherwise qualified  for a
position, an employer is obligated to provide reasonable
accommoda tions that enable an individual to be fully qualified
for the job in question.  This might include providing a hand
brace that enables a person with limited hand function to type at
a required rate. 
     Similar to the definition of disability, the definition of
reasonable accommodation is intentionally flexible.  It is based
on a notion of individualized treatment, that accommodations
should be tailored to the specific needs of each individual with
a disability.  The ADA, the accompanying regulations, and
congressional reports encourage employers and employees to
collaborate in determining appropriate accommodations through a
 problem-solving  approach. According to a congressional report,
the intent for the ADA was that  the reasonable accommodation
requirement is best understood as a process in which barriers to
a particular individual s equal employment opportunity are
removed,  rather than applying accommodations to certain
disabilities according to a predetermined, inflexible standard.


Essential Functions

     According to the ADA, a qualified individual need be able to
perform only the  essential functions  of a given position,
meaning those job tasks  that are fundamental and not marginal. 
This is directed at situations in which an employer may, for
example, require a driver s license as part of the job
description so that the employee could run an occasional errand. 
The legislative intent for the ADA was that these and similar
types of responsibilities tangential to the basic or essential
portions of a job could be assumed by another employee.


Undue Hardship

     The unique nature of civil rights for disabled persons means
that providing equal opportunity can cost money for businesses,
governments, and other entities covered by the ADA.  The ADA
incorporates a limit to the costs employers must incur: failure
to make reasonable accommodations does not constitute
discrimination if an employer demonstrated that an accommodation
would impose an  undue hardship  on its business.

     As with other legal concepts in the ADA, undue hardship is
designed to be flexible and determined on a case-by-case basis. 
An undue hardship means  an action requiring significant
difficulty or expense.   The ADA identifies four factors to be
considered in assessing whether a reasonable accommodation
constituted an undue hardship, including the resources of a local
facility in addition to a parent company:

  the nature and cost of the accommodation needed under this
Act ; 
  the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities
involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodation; the
number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on
expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such
accommodation upon the operation of the facility ; 
  the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the
overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to
the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of
its facilities; and
 the type of operation or operations of the covered entity,
including the composition, structure, and functions of the
workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness,
administrative, or fiscal relationship of the facility or
facilities in question to the covered entity. 

     The limit of undue hardship is one of several  defenses 
against charges of discrimination available to employers.  For
example, a criteria that tends to screen out individuals with
disabilities may be acceptable if it  has been shown to be
job-related and consistent with business necessity,  and that
reasonable accommodation cannot remedy the situation.  Also, the
ADA allows a religious organization or religious educational
institutional to require employees to conform to its religious
tenets.  In addition, the ADA enables restaurant operators to
remove an employee from food handling positions if he or she has
a contagious disease that has been shown to be transmitted
through food or drink.  Furthermore, the ADA allows employers to
prohibit the use of illegal drugs and alcohol in the workplace.


Public Accommodations

     Public accommodations are private establishments that affect
travel, trade, traffic, com merce, transportation, or
communication.  The ADA identifies 12 types of establishments:
places of lodging (e.g., hotels); establishments serving food or
drink (e.g., restaurants); places of exhibition of entertainment
(e.g. theaters); places of public gathering (e.g., convention
centers); sales or rental establishments (e.g., grocery stores);
service establishments (e.g., professional offices); stations
used for specified public transportation (e.g., terminals);
places of public display or collection (e.g., museums); places of
recreation (e.g., amusement parks); places of education (e.g.,
secondary schools); social service center establishments (e.g.,
day care centers); and places of exercise or recreation (e.g.,
gymnasiums).  Obligations to comply with the ADA apply equally to
owners, managers, and renters of places of public accommodations.

     Prohibited forms of discrimination by places of public
accommodation include: denying participation in or benefit from
 the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommo dations of an entity  because of an individual s
disability; affording individuals with disabilities with unequal
participation in or benefit from  goods, services, etc. ;
providing people with disabilities  goods, services, etc.  that
are different or separate from those provided to others (unless
necessary providing opportunities that are equally effective as
others); and excluding or otherwise denying equal  goods,
services, etc.  to individuals known to have a relationship or
association with a person with a disability.

     Although  reasonable accommodation  is not directly used in
discussing nondiscrimination by places of public accommodation,
the ADA requires that such establishments take steps to provide
equal opportunity that parallel the concept of reasonable
accommodation used with respect to employment.  Three types of
actions are required.  The first refers to structural
accessibility, and is described separately under the heading
 readily achievable.   The second type includes modifica tions to
policies, practices, and procedures.  For example, a restaurant
must modify its rule forbidding pets to enable an individual with
a guide dog to enter the restaurant, in the same way such a
person must be able to enter a workplace.  The third type of
actions are providing aids or services, which are described
separately under the heading  Auxiliary Aids and Services. 


Readily Achievable

     The ADA requires that all new buildings for places of public
accommodation be  readily accessible to and usable by  people
with disabilities.  For existing structures, the ADA applies a
new legal concept,  readily achievable.   As defined by the ADA,
readily achievable  means easily accomplishable and able to be
carried out without much difficulty or expense.   This is a much
more modest standard than the  undue hardship  limitation for
providing reasonable accommoda tions. 

     The ADA requires places of public accommodation to remove
architectural and communica tion barriers to accessibility that
are structural in nature wherever  readily achievable.   As with
undue hardship,  readily achievable  is crafted to be flexible
and determined on a case-by-case basis.  Moreover, the same four
factors identified for undue hardship cost of accommodation,
overall resources of local facility, overall resources of covered
entity, and type of operations and relationship between local
facility and covered entity are to be used in determining whether
a specific action is  readily achievable.   According to the
Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources report, the types
of barrier removal envisioned by the term include  the addition
of grab bars, the simple ramping of a few steps, the lowering of
telephones, the addition of raised letter and braille markings on
elevator control buttons, the addition of flashing alarm lights,
and similar modest adjustments.   Other examples include
rearranging tables in a restaurant or displays in a retail store
to provide access for a wheelchair.

     Where a place of accommodation can demonstrate that removal
of a barrier is not readily achievable, the ADA requires that the
entity make the  goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations available through alternative
methods.   Alternative methods include:  coming to the door to
receive or return dry-cleaning; allowing a disabled patron to be
served beverages at a table even though nondisabled persons
having only drinks are required to drink at the inaccessible bar;
providing assistance to retrieve items in an inaccessible
location; and rotating movies between the first floor accessible
theater and a comparable second floor inaccessible theater.   The
obligation to provide goods, services, etc., however, is also
limited to those methods that are readily achievable.

 Readily achievable  should not be confused with the term
 readily accessible to and usable by.   As the Senate report
states:  While the word  readily  appears in both phrases and has
roughly the same meaning in each context easily, without much
difficulty the concepts of  readily achievable  and  readily
accessible  are sharply distinguishable and present almost polar
opposites in focus.   On one hand,  readily accessible  focuses
on the ease with which individuals with disabilities can enter or
use a facility and its services.  On the other hand,  readily
achievable  focuses on the ease with which a business operator
can eliminate a barrier.


Auxiliary Aids and Services

     The third type of actions required by the ADA with respect
to places of public accommodation is the provision of auxiliary
aids and services.  These include, for example, providing
brailled documents for blind person, or having a waiter read a
menu to a blind person.  Another example would be providing an
interpreter for a deaf or hard-of-hearing person.  As with
reasonable accommodation in the employment section, the
obligation to provide auxiliary aids and services is limited by
the standard of undue burden.  Undue burden is analogous to the
phrase undue hardship used in the employment title; the same four
factors are to be applied when considering whether an aid or
service causes an undue burden.










                           Appendix G
             President Bush s Remarks at the Signing

     Welcome to every one of you, out there in this splendid
scene of hope, spread across the South Lawn of the White House. 
I want to salute the members of the United States Congress, the
House and the Senate who are with us today active participants in
making this day come true. (Applause.)
     This is, indeed, an incredible day.  Especially for the
thousands of people across the nation who have given so much of
their time, their vision, and their courage to see this Act
become a reality.
     You know, I started trying to put together a list of all the
people who should be mentioned today.  But when the list started
looking a little longer than the Senate testimony for the bill, I
decided I better give up, or we d never get out of here before
sunset.  So, even though so many deserve credit, I will single
out but a tiny handful.  And I take those who have guided me
person ally over the years.
     Of course, my friends, Evan Kemp and Just Dart up here on
the platform with me. (Applause.)  And of course, I hope you ll
forgive me for also saying a special word of thanks to two
who from the White House Boyden Gray and Bill Roper, labored long
and hard.  (Ap plause.)
     And I want to thank Sandy Parrino, of course, for her
leadership and I again (applause)  it is very risky with all
these members of congress here who worked so hard.  But I can say
on a very personal basis, Bob Dole has inspired me.  (Applause.)
     And then, the organizations.  So many dedicated
organizations for people with disabilities who gave their time
and their strength and, perhaps most of all, everyone out there
across the breadth of this nation, the 43 million Americans with
disabilities.  You have made this happen.  All of you have made
this happen.  (Applause.)
     To all of you, I just want to say your triumph is that your
bill will now be law, and that this day belongs to you.  On
behalf of our nation, thank you very, very much.  (Applause.)
     Three weeks ago we celebrated our nation s Independence Day. 
Today, we re here to rejoice in and celebrate another
 Independence Day,  one that is long overdue.  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.
     As I look around at all these joyous faces, I remember
clearly how many years of dedicated commitment have gone into
making this historic new civil rights Act a reality.  It s been
the work of a true coalition.  A strong and inspiring coalition
of people who have shared both a dream and a passionate
determination to make that dream come true.  It s been a
coalition in the finest spirit. A Joining of Democrats and
Republicans.  Of the Legislative and the Executive Branches.  Of
federal and state agencies.  Of public officials and private
citizens.  Of people with disabilities and without.
     This historic Act is the world s first comprehensive
declaration of equality for people with disabilities.  The first. 
(Applause.)  Its passage has made the United States the
international leader on this human rights issue.  Already,
leaders of several other countries, including Sweden, Japan, the
Soviet Union and all 12 members of the EEC, have announced that
they hope to enact now similar legislation.  (Applause.)
     Our success with this Act proves that we are keeping faith
with the spirit of our courageous forefathers who wrote in the
Declaration of Independence:  We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.   These
words have been our guide for more than two centuries as we ve
labored to form our more perfect union.  But tragically, for too
many Americans, the blessings of liberty have been limited or
even denied.
     The Civil Rights Act of  64 took a bold step towards
righting that wrong.  But the stark fact remained that people
with disabilities were still victims of segregation and
discrimination, and this was intolerable.  Today s legislation
brings us closer to that day when no Americans will ever again be
deprived of their basic guarantee of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.  (Applause.)
     This Act is powerful in its simplicity.  It will ensure that
people with disabilities are given the basic guarantees for which
they have worked so long and so hard.  Independence, freedom of
choice, control of their lives, the opportunity to blend fully
and equally into the right mosaic of the American mainstream.
     Legally, it will provide our disabled community with a
powerful expansion of protections and then basic civil rights. 
It will guarantee fair and just access to the fruits of American
life which we all must be able to enjoy.  And then, specifically,
first the ADA ensures that employers covered by the Act cannot
discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities. 
(Applause.)  Second, the ADA ensures access to public
accommodations such as restaurants, hotels, shopping centers and
offices.  And third, the ADA ensures expanded access to
transportation services.  (Applause.)
     And fourth, the ADA ensures equivalent telephone services
for people with speech or hearing impediments.  (Applause.) 
These provisions mean so much to so many.  To one brave girl in
particular, they will mean the world.  Lisa Carl, a young
Washington State woman with cerebral palsy, who I m told is with
us today, now will always be admitted to her hometown theater.
     Lisa, you might not have been welcome at your theater, but
I ll tell you welcome to the White House.  We re glad you re
here.  (Applause.)  The ADA is a dramatic renewal, not only for
those with disabilities, but for all of us.  Because along with
the precious privilege of being an American comes a sacred
duty to ensure that every other American s rights are also
guaranteed.
     Together, we must remove the physical barriers we have
created and the social barriers that we have accepted.  For ours
will never be a truly prosperous nation until all within it
prosper.  For inspiration, we need look no further than our own
neighbors.  With us in that wonderful crowd out there are people
representing 18 of the daily points of light that I ve named for
their extraordinary involvement with the disabled community.  We
applaud you and your shining example.  Thank you for your
leadership for all that are here today.  (Applause.)
     Now, let me just tell you a wonderful story a story about
children already working in the spirit of the ADA.  A story that
really touched me.  Across the nation, some 10,000 youngsters
with disabilities are part of Little League s Challenger
Division.  Their teams play just like others, but  and this is
the most remarkable part as they play at their sides are
volunteer buddies from conventional Little League teams.  All of
these players work together.  They team up to wheel around the
bases and to field grounders together and most of all, just to
play and become friends. We must let these children be our guides
and inspiration.
     I also want to say a special word to our friends in the
business community.  You have in your hands the key to the
success of this Act.  For you can unlock a splendid resource of
untapped human potential that, when freed, will enrich us all.
     I know there have been concerns that the ADA may be vague or
costly, or may lead endlessly to litigation.  But I want to
reassure you right now that my administration and the United
States Congress have carefully crafted this Act.  We ve all been
determined to ensure that it gives flexibility, particularly in
terms of the timetable of implementation; and we ve been
committed to containing the costs that may be incurred.
     This Act does something important for American business,
though, and remember this  you ve called for new sources of
workers.  Well, many of our fellow citizens with disabilities are
unemployed, they want to work and can work.  And this is a
tremendous pool of people.  (Ap plause.)  And remember this is a
tremendous pool of people who will bring to jobs diversity,
loyalty, proven low turnover rate, and only one request, the
chance to prove themselves.
     And when you add together federal, state, local and private
funds, it costs almost $200 billion annually to support Americans
with disabilities, in effect, to keep them dependent.  Well, when
given the opportunity to be independent, they will move proudly
into the economic main stream of American life, and that s what
this legislation is all about.  (Applause.)
     Our problems are large, but our unified heart is larger. 
Our challenges are great, but our will is greater.  And in our
America, the most generous, optimistic nation on the face of the
earth, we must not and will not rest until every man and woman
with a dream has the means to achieve it.
     And today, American welcomes into the mainstream of life all
of our fellow citizens with disabilities.  We embrace you for
your abilities and for your disabilities, for our similarities
and indeed for our differences, for your past courage and your
future dreams.
     Last year, we celebrated a victory of international freedom. 
Even the strongest person couldn t scale Berlin Wall to gain the
elusive promise of independence that lay just beyond.  And so
together we rejoiced when that barrier fell.
     And now I sign legislation which takes a sledgehammer to
another wall, one which has  (applause) one which has, for too
many generations, separated Americans with disabilities from the
freedom they could glimpse, but not grasp.  Once again, we
rejoice as this barrier falls, proclaiming together we will not
accept, we will not excuse, we will not tolerate discrimination
in America.  (Applause.)
     With, again, great thanks to the members of the United
States Senate, many of whom are here today, and those who worked
so tirelessly for this legislation on both sides of the aisles. 
And to those members of the House of Representatives with us here
today, Democrats and Republicans as well, I salute you.
     And on your behalf, as well as the behalf of this entire
country, I now lift my pen to sign the Americans with
Disabilities Act and say, let the shameful wall of exclusion
finally come tumbling down.  (Applause.)

     God bless you all.

     (The Act is signed.)
     END 10:26 A.M. EDT 7/26/90





                           Appendix H
           Text of The Americans With Disabilities Act

  S.933 As finally approved by the House and Senate (Enrolled)

                              S.933
   One Hundred First Congress of the United States of America
                      At The Second Session
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the
twenty-third day of 
          January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety

                             An Act
To establish a clear and comprehensive prohibition of
discrimination on the basis of disability.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
     (a) Short Title. This Act may be cited as the  Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990".
     (b) Table of Contents. The table of contents is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

                       TITLE I EMPLOYMENT
Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Discrimination.
Sec. 103. Defenses.
Sec. 104. Illegal use of drugs and alcohol.
Sec. 105. Posting notices.
Sec. 106. Regulations.
Sec. 107. Enforcement.
Sec. 108. Effective date.

                    TITLE II PUBLIC SERVICES
Subtitle A Prohibition Against Discrimination and Other Generally
Applicable Provisions
Sec. 201. Definition.
Sec. 202. Discrimination.
Sec. 203. Enforcement.
Sec. 204. Regulations.
Sec. 205. Effective date.

Subtitle B Actions Applicable to Public Transportation Provided
by Public Entities 
                    Considered Discriminatory
Part I Public Transportation Other Than by Aircraft or Certain
Rail Operations
Sec. 221. Definitions.
Sec. 222. Public entities operating fixed route systems.
Sec. 223. Paratransit as a complement to fixed route service.
Sec. 224. Public entity operating a demand responsive system.
Sec. 225. Temporary relief where lifts are unavailable.
Sec. 226. New facilities.
Sec. 227. Alterations of existing facilities.
Sec. 228. Public transportation programs and activities in
existing facilities and one car per train rule.
Sec. 229. Regulations.
Sec. 230. Interim accessibility requirements.
Sec. 231. Effective date.

  Part II Public Transportation by Intercity and Commuter Rail
Sec. 241. Definitions.
Sec. 242. Intercity and commuter rail actions considered
discriminatory.
Sec. 243. Conformance of accessibility standards.
Sec. 244. Regulations.
Sec. 245. Interim accessibility requirements.
Sec. 246. Effective date.

TITLE III PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND SERVICES OPERATED BY PRIVATE
ENTITIES
Sec. 301. Definitions.
Sec. 302. Prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations.
     Sec. 303. New construction and alterations in public
accommodations and commercial facilities.
Sec. 304. Prohibition of discrimination in specified public
transportation services by private entities.
Sec. 305. Study.
Sec. 306. Regulations.
Sec. 307. Exemptions for private clubs and religious
organizations.
Sec. 308. Enforcement.
Sec. 309. Examinations and courses.
Sec. 310. Effective date.

                   TITLE IV TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Sec. 401. Telecommunications relay services for hearing-impaired
and speech-impaired individu als.
Sec. 402. Closed-captioning of public service announcements.

                TITLE V MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Construction.
Sec. 502. State immunity.
Sec. 503. Prohibition against retaliation and coercion.
Sec. 504. Regulations by the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board.
Sec. 505. Attorney s fees.
Sec. 506. Technical assistance.
Sec. 507. Federal wilderness areas.
Sec. 508. Transvestites.
Sec. 509. Coverage of Congress and the agencies of the
legislative branch.
Sec. 510. Illegal use of drugs.
Sec. 511. Definitions.
Sec. 512. Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act.
Sec. 513. Alternative means of dispute resolution.
Sec. 514. Severability.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
     (a) Findings. The Congress finds that 
     (1) some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or
mental disabilities, and this number is increasing as the
population as a whole is growing older;
     (2) historically, society has tended to isolate and
segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some
improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals
with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social
problem;
     (3) discrimination against individuals with disabilities
persists in such critical areas as employment, housing, public
accommodations, education, transportation, communication,
recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting, and
access to public services;
     (4) unlike individuals who have experienced discrimination
on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, or
age, individuals who have experienced discrimination on the basis
of disability have often had no legal recourse to redress such
discrimination;
     (5) individuals with disabilities continually encounter
various forms of discrimination, including outright intentional
exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural,
transporta tion, and communication barriers, overprotective rules
and policies, failure to make modifica tions to existing
facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification standards
and criteria, segregation, and relegation to lesser services,
programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities;
     (6) census data, national polls, and other studies have
documented that people with disabilities, as a group, occupy an
inferior status in our society, and are severely disadvan taged
socially, vocationally, economically, and educationally;
     (7) individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular
minority who have been faced with restrictions and limitations,
subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and
relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our
society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of
such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not
truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to
participate in, and contribute to, society;
     (8) the Nation s proper goals regarding individuals with
disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full
participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency
for such individuals; and
     (9) the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary
discrimination and prejudice denies people with disabilities the
opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those
opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous,
and costs the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary
expenses resulting from dependency and nonproductivity.
     (b) Purpose. It is the purpose of this Act 
     (1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate
for the elimination of discrimi nation against individuals with
disabilities;
     (2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable
standards addressing discrimination against individuals with
disabilities;
     (3) to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central
role in enforcing the standards established in this Act on behalf
of individuals with disabilities; and
     (4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority,
including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to
regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of
discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.

SEC. 3. 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) Disability. The term  disability  means, with respect to
an individual 
     (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more of the major life activities of such
individual;
     (B) a record of such an impairment; or
     (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.
     (3) 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.


                       TITLE I  EMPLOYMENT

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.
     As used in this title:
     (1) Commission. The term  Commission  means the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission established by section 705 of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-4).
     (2) Covered entity. The term  covered entity  means an
employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint
labor-management committee.
     (3) Direct threat. The term  direct threat  means a
significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be
eliminated by reasonable accommodation.
     (4) Employee. The term  employee  means an individual
employed by an employer.
     (5) Employer. 
     (A) In general. The term  employer  means a person engaged
in an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees
for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the
current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such person,
except that, for two years following the effective date of this
title, an employer means a person engaged in an industry
affecting commerce who has 25 or more employees for each working
day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or
preceding year, and any agent of such person.
     (B) Exceptions. The term  employer  does not include 
     (i) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the
government of the United States, or an Indian tribe; or
     (ii) a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor
organization) that is exempt from taxation under section 501(c)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
     (6) Illegal use of drugs. 
     (A) In general. The term  illegal use of drugs  means the
use of drugs, the posses sion or distribution of which is
unlawful under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).
Such term does not include the use of a drug taken under
supervision by a licensed health care professional, or other uses
authorized by the Controlled Substances Act or other provisions
of Federal law.
     (B) Drugs. The term  drug  means a controlled substance, as
defined in schedules I through V of section 202 of the Controlled
Substances Act.
     (7) Person, etc. The terms  person ,  labor organization ,
 employment agency ,  commerce , and  industry affecting
commerce , shall have the same meaning given such terms in
section 701 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e).
     (8) Qualified individual with a disability. The term
 qualified individual with a disabil ity  means an individual
with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation,
can perform the essential functions of the employment position
that such individual holds or desires. For the purposes of this
title, consideration shall be given to the employer s judgment as
to what functions of a job are essential, and if an employer has
prepared a written descrip tion before advertising or
interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be
considered evidence of the essential functions of the job.
     (9) Reasonable accommodation. The term  reasonable
accommodation  may include 
     (A) making existing facilities used by employees readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; and
     (B) job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules,
reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of
equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of
examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of
qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar
accommodations for individuals with disabilities.
     (10) Undue hardship. 
     (A) In general. The term  undue hardship  means an action
requiring significant difficulty or expense, when considered in
light of the factors set forth in subparagraph (B).
     (B) Factors to be considered. In determining whether an
accommodation would impose an undue hardship on a covered entity,
factors to be considered include 
     (i) the nature and cost of the accommodation needed under
this Act;
     (ii) the overall financial resources of the facility or
facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable
accommodation; the number of persons employed at such facility;
the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of
such accom modation upon the operation of the facility;
     (iii) the overall financial resources of the covered entity;
the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect
to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of
its facilities; and
     (iv) the type of operation or operations of the covered
entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of
the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness,
administrative, or fiscal relationship of the facility or
facilities in question to the covered entity.

SEC. 102. DISCRIMINATION.
     (a) General Rule. No covered entity shall discriminate
against a qualified individual with a disability because of the
disability of such individual in regard to job application
procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees,
employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions,
and privileges of employment.
     (b) Construction. As used in subsection (a), the term
 discriminate  includes 
     (1) limiting, segregating, or classifying a job applicant or
employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or
status of such applicant or employee because of the disability of
such applicant or employee;
     (2) participating in a contractual or other arrangement or
relationship that has the effect of subjecting a covered entity s
qualified applicant or employee with a disability to the discrimi
nation prohibited by this title (such relationship includes a
relationship with an employment or referral agency, labor union,
an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the
covered entity, or an organization providing training and
apprenticeship programs);
     (3) utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of
administration 
     (A) that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of
disability; or
     (B) that perpetuate the discrimination of others who are
subject to common administra tive control;
     (4) excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to
a qualified individual because of the known disability of an
individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a
relationship or association;
     (5)(A) not making reasonable accommodations to the known
physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified
individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee,
unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation
would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business
of such covered entity; or
     (B) denying employment opportunities to a job applicant or
employee who is an otherwise qualified individual with a
disability, if such denial is based on the need of such covered
entity to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental
impairments of the employee or applicant;
     (6) using qualification standards, employment tests or other
selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an
individual with a disability or a class of individuals with
disabili ties 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 is consistent with
business necessity; and
     (7) failing to select and administer tests concerning
employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when such
test is administered to a job applicant or employee who has a
disability that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, such
test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude, or whatever
other factor of such applicant or employee that such test
purports to measure, rather than reflecting the impaired sensory,
manual, or speaking skills of such employee or applicant (except
where such skills are the factors that the test purports to
measure).
     (c) Medical Examinations and Inquiries. 
     (1) In general. The prohibition against discrimination as
referred to in subsection (a) shall include medical examinations
and inquiries.
     (2) Preemployment. 
     (A) Prohibited examination or inquiry. Except as provided in
paragraph (3), a covered entity shall not conduct a medical
examination or make inquiries of a job applicant as to whether
such applicant is an individual with a disability or as to the
nature or severity of such disability.
     (B) Acceptable inquiry. A covered entity may make
preemployment inquiries into the ability of an applicant to
perform job-related functions.
     (3) Employment entrance examination. A covered entity may
require a medical examina tion after an offer of employment has
been made to a job applicant and prior to the com mencement of
the employment duties of such applicant, and may condition an
offer of employment on the results of such examination, if 
     (A) all entering employees are subjected to such an
examination regardless of disabil ity;
     (B) information obtained regarding the medical condition or
history of the applicant is collected and maintained on separate
forms and in separate medical files and is treated as a
confidential medical record, except that 
     (i) supervisors and managers may be informed regarding
necessary restrictions on the work or duties of the employee and
necessary accommodations;
     (ii) first aid and safety personnel may be informed, when
appropriate, if the disability might require emergency treatment;
and
     (iii) government officials investigating compliance with
this Act shall be provided relevant information on request; and
     (C) the results of such examination are used only in
accordance with this title.
     (4) Examination and inquiry. 
     (A) Prohibited examinations and inquiries. A covered entity
shall not require a medical examination and shall not make
inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an
individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of
the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be
job-related and consistent with business necessity.
     (B) Acceptable examinations and inquiries. A covered entity
may conduct voluntary medical examinations, including voluntary
medical histories, which are part of an employee health program
available to employees at that work site. A covered entity may
make inquiries into the ability of an employee to perform
job-related functions.
     (C) Requirement. Information obtained under subparagraph (B)
regarding the medical condition or history of any employee are
subject to the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of
paragraph (3).

SEC. 103. DEFENSES.
     (a) In General. It may be a defense to a charge of
discrimination under this Act that an alleged application of
qualification standards, tests, or selection criteria that screen
out or tend to screen out or otherwise deny a job or benefit to
an individual with a disability has been shown to be job-related
and consistent with business necessity, and such performance
cannot be accom plished by reasonable accommodation, as required
under this title.
     (b) Qualification Standards. The term  qualification
standards  may include a requirement that an individual shall not
pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals
in the workplace.
     (c) Religious Entities. 
     (1) In general. This title shall not prohibit a religious
corporation, association, educa tional institution, or society
from giving preference in employment to individuals of a
particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying
on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or
society of its activities.
     (2) Religious tenets requirement. Under this title, a
religious organization may require that all applicants and
employees conform to the religious tenets of such organization.
     (d) List of Infectious and Communicable Diseases. 
     (1) In general. The Secretary of Health and Human Services,
not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act,
shall 
     (A) review all infectious and communicable diseases which
may be transmitted through handling the food supply;
     (B) publish a list of infectious and communicable diseases
which are transmitted through handling the food supply;
     (C) publish the methods by which such diseases are
transmitted; and
     (D) widely disseminate such information regarding the list
of diseases and their modes of transmissibility to the general
public.
     Such list shall be updated annually.
     (2) Applications. In any case in which an individual has an
infectious or communicable disease that is transmitted to others
through the handling of food, that is included on the list
developed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under
paragraph (1), and which cannot be eliminated by reasonable
accommodation, a covered entity may refuse to assign or continue
to assign such individual to a job involving food handling.
     (3) Construction. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
preempt, modify, or amend any State, county, or local law,
ordinance, or regulation applicable to food handling which is
designed to protect the public health from individuals who pose a
significant risk to the health or safety of others, which cannot
be eliminated by reasonable accommodation, pursuant to the list
of infectious or communicable diseases and the modes of
transmissibility published by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services.

SEC. 104. ILLEGAL USE OF DRUGS AND ALCOHOL.
     (a) Qualified Individual With a Disability. For purposes of
this title, the term  qualified individual with a disability 
shall not include any employee or applicant who is currently
engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when the covered entity
acts on the basis of such use.
     (b) Rules of Construction. Nothing in subsection (a) shall
be construed to exclude as a qualified individual with a
disability an individual who 
     (1) has successfully completed a supervised drug
rehabilitation program and is no longer engaging in the illegal
use of drugs, or has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully
and is no longer engaging in such use;
     (2) is participating in a supervised rehabilitation program
and is no longer engaging in such use; or
     (3) is erroneously regarded as engaging in such use, but is
not engaging in such use; except that it shall not be a violation
of this Act for a covered entity to adopt or administer
reasonable policies or procedures, including but not limited to
drug testing, designed to ensure that an individual described in
paragraph (1) or (2) is no longer engaging in the illegal use of
drugs.
     (c) Authority of Covered Entity. A covered entity 
     (1) may prohibit the illegal use of drugs and the use of
alcohol at the workplace by all employees;
     (2) may require that employees shall not be under the
influence of alcohol or be engaging in the illegal use of drugs
at the workplace;
     (3) may require that employees behave in conformance with
the requirements established under the Drug-Free Workplace Act of
1988 (41 U.S.C. 701 et seq.);
     (4) may hold an employee who engages in the illegal use of
drugs or who is an alcoholic to the same qualification standards
for employment or job performance and behavior that such entity
holds other employees, even if any unsatisfactory performance or
behavior is related to the drug use or alcoholism of such
employee; and
     (5) may, with respect to Federal regulations regarding
alcohol and the illegal use of drugs, require that 
     (A) employees comply with the standards established in such
regulations of the Department of Defense, if the employees of the
covered entity are employed in an industry subject to such
regulations, including complying with regulations (if any) that
apply to employment in sensitive positions in such an industry,
in the case of employees of the covered entity who are employed
in such positions (as defined in the regulations of the
Department of Defense);
     (B) employees comply with the standards established in such
regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if the
employees of the covered entity are employed in an industry
subject to such regulations, including complying with regulations
(if any) that apply to employment in sensitive positions in such
an industry, in the case of employees of the covered entity who
are employed in such positions (as defined in the regulations of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission); and
     (C) employees comply with the standards established in such
regulations of the Department of Transportation, if the employees
of the covered entity are employed in a transportation industry
subject to such regulations, including complying with such
regulations (if any) that apply to employment in sensitive
positions in such an industry, in the case of employees of the
covered entity who are employed in such positions (as defined in
the regulations of the Department of Transportation).
     (d) Drug Testing. 
     (1) In general. For purposes of this title, a test to
determine the illegal use of drugs shall not be considered a
medical examination.
     (2) Construction. Nothing in this title shall be construed
to encourage, prohibit, or authorize the conducting of drug
testing for the illegal use of drugs by job applicants or
employees or making employment decisions based on such test
results.
     (e) Transportation Employees. Nothing in this title shall be
construed to encourage, prohibit, restrict, or authorize the
otherwise lawful exercise by entities subject to the jurisdiction
of the Department of Transportation of authority to 
     (1) test employees of such entities in, and applicants for,
positions involving safety-sensitive duties for the illegal use
of drugs and for on-duty impairment by alcohol; and
     (2) remove such persons who test positive for illegal use of
drugs and on-duty impairment by alcohol pursuant to paragraph (1)
from safety-sensitive duties in implementing subsection (c).

SEC. 105. POSTING NOTICES.
     Every employer, employment agency, labor organization, or
joint labor-management committee covered under this title shall
post notices in an accessible format to applicants, employees,
and members describing the applicable provisions of this Act, in
the manner prescribed by section 711 of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-10).

SEC. 106. REGULATIONS.
     Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Commission shall issue regulations in an accessible
format to carry out this title in accordance with subchapter II
of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.

SEC. 107. ENFORCEMENT.
     (a) Powers, Remedies, and Procedures. The powers, remedies,
and procedures set forth in sections 705, 706, 707, 709, and 710
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-4, 2000e-5,
2000e-6, 2000e-8, and 2000e-9) shall be the powers, remedies, and
procedures this title provides to the Commission, to the Attorney
General, or to any person alleging discrimination on the basis of
disability in violation of any provision of this Act, or
regulations promulgated under section 106, concerning employment.
     (b) Coordination. The agencies with enforcement authority
for actions which allege employment discrimination under this
title and under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 shall develop
procedures to ensure that administrative complaints filed under
this title and under the Rehabilita tion Act of 1973 are dealt
with in a manner that avoids duplication of effort and prevents
imposition of inconsistent or conflicting standards for the same
requirements under this title and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The Commission, the Attorney General, and the Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs shall establish such coordinating
mechanisms (similar to provisions contained in the joint
regulations promulgated by the Commission and the Attorney
General at part 42 of title 28 and part 1691 of title 29, Code of
Federal Regulations, and the Memorandum of Understanding between
the Commission and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs dated January 16, 1981 (46 Fed. Reg. 7435, January 23,
1981)) in regulations implementing this title and Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 not later than 18 months after the date of enactment
of this Act.

SEC. 108. EFFECTIVE DATE.
     This title shall become effective 24 months after the date
of enactment.


                    TITLE II PUBLIC SERVICES

Subtitle A Prohibition Against Discrimination and Other Generally
ApplicableProvisions

SEC. 201. DEFINITION.
     As used in this title:
     (1) Public entity. The term  public entity  means 
     (A) any State or local government;
     (B) any department, agency, special purpose district, or
other instrumentality of a State or States or local government;
and
     (C) the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and any
commuter authority (as defined in section 103(8) of the Rail
Passenger Service Act).
     (2) Qualified individual with a disability. The term
 qualified individual with a disabil ity  means an individual
with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications
to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural,
communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of
auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility
requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in
programs or activities provided by a public entity.

SEC. 202. DISCRIMINATION.
     Subject to the provisions of this title, no qualified
individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability,
be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of
the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be
subjected to discrimination by any such entity.

SEC. 203. ENFORCEMENT.
     The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section
505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794a) shall be
the remedies, procedures, and rights this title provides to any
person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in
violation of section 202.

SEC. 204. REGULATIONS.
     (a) In General. Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall promulgate
regulations in an accessible format that implement this subtitle.
Such regulations shall not include any matter within the scope of
the authority of the Secretary of Transportation under section
223, 229, or 244.
     (b) Relationship to Other Regulations. Except for  program
accessibility, existing facilities , and  communications ,
regulations under subsection (a) shall be consistent with this
Act and with the coordination regulations under part 41 of title
28, Code of Federal Regulations (as promul gated by the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on January 13,
1978), applicable to recipients of Federal financial assistance
under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
794). With respect to  program accessibility, existing
facilities , and  communications , such regulations shall be
consistent with regulations and analysis as in part 39 of title
28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, applicable to federally
conducted activities under such section 504.
     (c) Standards. Regulations under subsection (a) shall
include standards applicable to facilities and vehicles covered
by this subtitle, other than facilities, stations, rail passenger
cars, and vehicles covered by subtitle B. Such standards shall be
consistent with the minimum guidelines and requirements issued by
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board in
accordance with section 504(a) of this Act.

SEC. 205. EFFECTIVE DATE.
     (a) General Rule. Except as provided in subsection (b), this
subtitle shall become effective 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act.
     (b) Exception. Section 204 shall become effective on the
date of enactment of this Act.


Subtitle B Actions Applicable to Public Transportation Provided
by Public Entities Considered Discriminatory

 PART I PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OTHER THAN BY AIRCRAFT OR CERTAIN
RAIL OPERATIONS

SEC. 221. DEFINITIONS.
     As used in this part:
     (1) Demand responsive system. The term  demand responsive
system  means any system of providing designated public
transportation which is not a fixed route system.
     (2) Designated public transportation. The term  designated
public transportation  means transportation (other than public
school transportation) by bus, rail, or any other conveyance
(other than transportation by aircraft or intercity or commuter
rail transportation (as defined in section 241)) that provides
the general public with general or special service (including
charter service) on a regular and continuing basis.
     (3) Fixed route system. The term  fixed route system  means
a system of providing designated public transportation on which a
vehicle is operated along a prescribed route according to a fixed
schedule.
     (4) Operates. The term  operates , as used with respect to a
fixed route system or demand responsive system, includes
operation of such system by a person under a contractual or other
arrangement or relationship with a public entity.
     (5) Public school transportation. The term  public school
transportation  means transportation by schoolbus vehicles of
schoolchildren, personnel, and equipment to and from a public
elementary or secondary school and school-related activities.
     (6) Secretary. The term  Secretary  means the Secretary of
Transportation.

SEC. 222. PUBLIC ENTITIES OPERATING FIXED ROUTE SYSTEMS.
     (a) Purchase and Lease of New Vehicles. It shall be
considered discrimination for purposes of section 202 of this Act
and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794)
for a public entity which operates a fixed route system to
purchase or lease a new bus, a new rapid rail vehicle, a new
light rail vehicle, or any other new vehicle to be used on such
system, if the solicitation for such purchase or lease is made
after the 30th day following the effective date of this
subsection and if such bus, rail vehicle, or other vehicle is not
readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.
     (b) Purchase and Lease of Used Vehicles. Subject to
subsection (c)(1), it shall be considered discrimination for
purposes of section 202 of this Act  and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) for a public entity
which operates a fixed route system to purchase or lease, after
the 30th day following the effective date of this subsection, a
used vehicle for use on such system unless such entity makes
demonstrated good faith efforts to purchase or lease a used
vehicle for use on such system that is readily accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals
who use wheelchairs.
     (c) Remanufactured Vehicles. 
     (1) General rule. Except as provided in paragraph (2), it
shall be considered discrimina tion for purposes of section 202
of this Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
U.S.C. 794) for a public entity which operates a fixed route
system 
     (A) to remanufacture a vehicle for use on such system so as
to extend its usable life for 5 years or more, which
remanufacture begins (or for which the solicitation is made)
after the 30th day following the effective date of this
subsection; or
     (B) to purchase or lease for use on such system a
remanufactured vehicle which has been remanufactured so as to
extend its usable life for 5 years or more, which purchase or
lease occurs after such 30th day and during the period in which
the usable life is extended; unless, after remanufacture, the
vehicle is, to the maximum extent feasible, readily accessible to
and usable by individuals with disabilities, including
individuals who use wheelchairs.
     (2) Exception for historic vehicles. 
     (A) General rule. If a public entity operates a fixed route
system any segment of which is included on the National Register
of Historic Places and if making a vehicle of historic character
to be used solely on such segment readily accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities would significantly alter
the historic character of such vehicle, the public entity only
has to make (or to purchase or lease a remanufactured vehicle
with) those modifications which are necessary to meet the
requirements of paragraph (1) and which do not significantly
alter the historic character of such vehicle.
     (B) Vehicles of historic character defined by
regulations. For purposes of this paragraph and section 228(b), a
vehicle of historic character shall be defined by the regulations
issued by the Secretary to carry out this subsection.

SEC. 223. PARATRANSIT AS A COMPLEMENT TO FIXED ROUTE SERVICE.
     (a) General Rule. It shall be considered discrimination for
purposes of section 202 of this Act and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) for a public entity
which operates a fixed route system (other than a system which
provides solely commuter bus service) to fail to provide with
respect to the operations of its fixed route system, in
accordance with this section, paratransit and other special
transportation services to individuals with disabilities,
including individuals who use wheelchairs, that are sufficient to
provide to such individuals a level of service (1) which is
comparable to the level of designated public transportation
services provided to individuals without disabilities using such
system; or (2) in the case of response time, which is comparable,
to the extent practicable, to the level of designated public
transportation services provided to individuals without
disabilities using such system.
     (b) Issuance of Regulations. Not later than 1 year after the
effective date of this subsection, the Secretary shall issue
final regulations to carry out this section.
     (c) Required Contents of Regulations. 
     (1) Eligible recipients of service. The regulations issued
under this section shall require each public entity which
operates a fixed route system to provide the paratransit and
other special transportation services required under this
section 
     (A)(i) to any individual with a disability who is unable, as
a result of a physical or mental impairment (including a vision
impairment) and without the assistance of another individual
(except an operator of a wheelchair lift or other boarding
assistance device), to board, ride, or disembark from any vehicle
on the system which is readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities;
     (ii) to any individual with a disability who needs the
assistance of a wheelchair lift or other boarding assistance
device (and is able with such assistance) to board, ride, and
disembark from any vehicle which is readily accessible to and
usable by individu als with disabilities if the individual wants
to travel on a route on the system during the hours of operation
of the system at a time (or within a reasonable period of such
time) when such a vehicle is not being used to provide designated
public transportation on the route; and
     (iii) to any individual with a disability who has a specific
impairment-related condition which prevents such individual from
traveling to a boarding location or from a disembarking location
on such system;
     (B) to one other individual accompanying the individual with
the disability; and
     (C) to other individuals, in addition to the one individual
described in subparagraph (B), accompanying the individual with a
disability provided that space for these additional individuals
is available on the paratransit vehicle carrying the individual
with a disability and that the transportation of such additional
individuals will not result in a denial of service to individuals
with disabilities.
     For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A),
boarding or disembarking from a vehicle does not include travel
to the boarding location or from the disembarking location.
     (2) Service area. The regulations issued under this section
shall require the provision of paratransit and special
transportation services required under this section in the
service area of each public entity which operates a fixed route
system, other than any portion of the service area in which the
public entity solely provides commuter bus service.
     (3) Service criteria. Subject to paragraphs (1) and (2), the
regulations issued under this section shall establish minimum
service criteria for determining the level of services to be
required under this section.
     (4) Undue financial burden limitation. The regulations
issued under this section shall provide that, if the public
entity is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Secretary that the provision of paratransit and other special
transportation services otherwise required under this section
would impose an undue financial burden on the public entity, the
public entity, notwithstanding any other provision of this
section (other than paragraph (5)), shall only be required to
provide such services to the extent that providing such services
would not impose such a burden.
     (5) Additional services. The regulations issued under this
section shall establish circum stances under which the Secretary
may require a public entity to provide, notwithstanding paragraph
(4), paratransit and other special transportation services under
this section beyond the level of paratransit and other special
transportation services which would otherwise be required under
paragraph (4).
     (6) Public participation. The regulations issued under this
section shall require that each public entity which operates a
fixed route system hold a public hearing, provide an opportu nity
for public comment, and consult with individuals with
disabilities in preparing its plan under paragraph (7).
     (7) Plans. The regulations issued under this section shall
require that each public entity which operates a fixed route
system 
     (A) within 18 months after the effective date of this
subsection, submit to the Secre tary, and commence implementation
of, a plan for providing paratransit and other special
transportation services which meets the requirements of this
section; and
     (B) on an annual basis thereafter, submit to the Secretary,
and commence implementa tion of, a plan for providing such
services.
     (8) Provision of services by others. The regulations issued
under this section shall 
     (A) require that a public entity submitting a plan to the
Secretary under this section identify in the plan any person or
other public entity which is providing a paratransit or other
special transportation service for individuals with disabilities
in the service area to which the plan applies; and
     (B) provide that the public entity submitting the plan does
not have to provide under the plan such service for individuals
with disabilities.
     (9) Other provisions. The regulations issued under this
section shall include such other provisions and requirements as
the Secretary determines are necessary to carry out the
objectives of this section.
     (d) Review of Plan. 
     (1) General rule. The Secretary shall review a plan
submitted under this section for the purpose of determining
whether or not such plan meets the requirements of this section,
including the regulations issued under this section.
     (2) Disapproval. If the Secretary determines that a plan
reviewed under this subsection fails to meet the requirements of
this section, the Secretary shall disapprove the plan and notify
the public entity which submitted the plan of such disapproval
and the reasons therefor.
     (3) Modification of disapproved plan. Not later than 90 days
after the date of disapproval of a plan under this subsection,
the public entity which submitted the plan shall modify the plan
to meet the requirements of this section and shall submit to the
Secretary, and commence implementation of, such modified plan.
     (e) Discrimination Defined. As used in subsection (a), the
term  discrimination  includes 
     (1) a failure of a public entity to which the regulations
issued under this section apply to submit, or commence
implementation of, a plan in accordance with subsections (c)(6)
and (c)(7);
     (2) a failure of such entity to submit, or commence
implementation of, a modified plan in accordance with subsection
(d)(3);
     (3) submission to the Secretary of a modified plan under
subsection (d)(3) which does not meet the requirements of this
section; or
     (4) a failure of such entity to provide paratransit or other
special transportation services in accordance with the plan or
modified plan the public entity submitted to the Secretary under
this section.
     (f) Statutory Construction. Nothing in this section shall be
construed as preventing a public entity 
     (1) from providing paratransit or other special
transportation services at a level which is greater than the
level of such services which are required by this section,
     (2) from providing paratransit or other special
transportation services in addition to those paratransit and
special transportation services required by this section, or
     (3) from providing such services to individuals in addition
to those individuals to whom such services are required to be
provided by this section.

SEC. 224. PUBLIC ENTITY OPERATING A DEMAND RESPONSIVE SYSTEM.
     If a public entity operates a demand responsive system, it
shall be considered discrimination, for purposes of section 202
of this Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
U.S.C. 794), for such entity to purchase or lease a new vehicle
for use on such system, for which a solicitation is made after
the 30th day following the effective date of this section, that
is not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, unless
such system, when viewed in its entirety, provides a level of
service to such individuals equivalent to the level of service
such system provides to individuals without disabilities.

SEC. 225. TEMPORARY RELIEF WHERE LIFTS ARE UNAVAILABLE.
     (a) Granting. With respect to the purchase of new buses, a
public entity may apply for, and the Secretary may temporarily
relieve such public entity from the obligation under section
222(a) or 224 to purchase new buses that are readily accessible
to and usable by individuals with disabilities if such public
entity demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary 
     (1) that the initial solicitation for new buses made by the
public entity specified that all new buses were to be
lift-equipped and were to be otherwise accessible to and usable
by individuals with disabilities;
     (2) the unavailability from any qualified manufacturer of
hydraulic, electromechanical, or other lifts for such new buses;
     (3) that the public entity seeking temporary relief has made
good faith efforts to locate a qualified manufacturer to supply
the lifts to the manufacturer of such buses in sufficient time to
comply with such solicitation; and
     (4) that any further delay in purchasing new buses necessary
to obtain such lifts would significantly impair transportation
services in the community served by the public entity.
     (b) Duration and Notice to Congress. Any relief granted
under subsection (a) shall be limited in duration by a specified
date, and the appropriate committees of Congress shall be
notified of any such relief granted.
     (c) Fraudulent Application. If, at any time, the Secretary
has reasonable cause to believe that any relief granted under
subsection (a) was fraudulently applied for, the Secretary shall 
     (1) cancel such relief if such relief is still in effect;
and
     (2) take such other action as the Secretary considers
appropriate.

SEC. 226. NEW FACILITIES.
     For purposes of section 202 of this Act and section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), it shall be
considered discrimination for a public entity to construct a new
facility to be used in the provision of designated public
transportation services unless such facility is readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities,
including individuals who use wheelchairs.

SEC. 227. ALTERATIONS OF EXISTING FACILITIES.
     (a) General Rule. With respect to alterations of an existing
facility or part thereof used in the provision of designated
public transportation services that affect or could affect the
usability of the facility or part thereof, it shall be considered
discrimination, for purposes of section 202 of this Act and
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794),
for a public entity to fail to make such alterations (or to
ensure that the alterations are made) in such a manner that, to
the maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the facility
are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, upon the
completion of such alterations. Where the public entity is
undertaking an alteration that affects or could affect usability
of or access to an area of the facility containing a primary
function, the entity shall also make the alterations in such a
manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the path of travel
to the altered area and the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking
fountains serving the altered area, are readily accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals
who use wheelchairs, upon completion of such alterations, where
such alterations to the path of travel or the bathrooms,
telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered area are
not disproportion ate to the overall alterations in terms of cost
and scope (as determined under criteria established by the
Attorney General).
     (b) Special Rule for Stations. 
     (1) General rule. For purposes of section 202 of this Act
and section 504 of the Rehabili tation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
794), it shall be considered discrimination for a public entity
that provides designated public transportation to fail, in
accordance with the provisions of this subsection, to make key
stations (as determined under criteria established by the
Secretary by regulation) in rapid rail and light rail systems
readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.
     (2) Rapid rail and light rail key stations. 
     (A) Accessibility. Except as otherwise provided in this
paragraph, all key stations (as determined under criteria
established by the Secretary by regulation) in rapid rail and
light rail systems shall be made readily accessible to and usable
by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use
wheelchairs, as soon as practicable but in no event later than
the last day of the 3-year period beginning on the effective date
of this paragraph.
     (B) Extension for extraordinarily expensive structural
changes. The Secretary may extend the 3-year period under
subparagraph (A) up to a 30-year period for key stations in a
rapid rail or light rail system which stations need
extraordinarily expensive structural changes to, or replacement
of, existing facilities; except that by the last day of the 20th
year following the date of the enactment of this Act at least 2/3 
of such key stations must be readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities.
     (3) Plans and milestones. The Secretary shall require the
appropriate public entity to develop and submit to the Secretary
a plan for compliance with this subsection 
     (A) that reflects consultation with individuals with
disabilities affected by such plan and the results of a public
hearing and public comments on such plan, and
     (B) that establishes milestones for achievement of the
requirements of this subsection.

     SEC. 228. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES IN
EXISTING FACILITIES AND ONE CAR PER TRAIN RULE.
     (a) Public Transportation Programs and Activities in
Existing Facilities. 
     (1) In general. With respect to existing facilities used in
the provision of designated public transportation services, it
shall be considered discrimination, for purposes of section 202
of this Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
U.S.C. 794), for a public entity to fail to operate a designated
public transportation program or activity conducted in such
facilities so that, when viewed in the entirety, the program or
activity is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities.
     (2) Exception. Paragraph (1) shall not require a public
entity to make structural changes to existing facilities in order
to make such facilities accessible to individuals who use
wheelchairs, unless and to the extent required by section 227(a)
(relating to alterations) or section 227(b) (relating to key
stations).
     (3) Utilization. Paragraph (1) shall not require a public
entity to which paragraph (2) applies, to provide to individuals
who use wheelchairs services made available to the general public
at such facilities when such individuals could not utilize or
benefit from such services provided at such facilities.
     (b) One Car Per Train Rule. 
     (1) General rule. Subject to paragraph (2), with respect to
2 or more vehicles operated as a train by a light or rapid rail
system, for purposes of section 202 of this Act and section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), it shall be
considered discrimination for a public entity to fail to have at
least 1 vehicle per train that is accessible to individuals with
disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, as soon
as practicable but in no event later than the last day of the
5-year period beginning on the effective date of this section.
     (2) Historic trains. In order to comply with paragraph (1)
with respect to the remanufac ture of a vehicle of historic
character which is to be used on a segment of a light or rapid
rail system which is included on the National Register of
Historic Places, if making such vehicle readily accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities would significantly alter
the historic character of such vehicle, the public entity which
operates such system only has to make (or to purchase or lease a
remanufactured vehicle with) those modifications which are
necessary to meet the requirements of section 222(c)(1) and which
do not significantly alter the historic character of such
vehicle.

SEC. 229. REGULATIONS.
     (a) In General. Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
issue regulations, in an accessible format, necessary for
carrying out this part (other than section 223).
     (b) Standards. The regulations issued under this section and
section 223 shall include standards applicable to facilities and
vehicles covered by this subtitle. The standards shall be
consistent with the minimum guidelines and requirements issued by
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board in
accordance with section 504 of this Act.

SEC. 230. INTERIM ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
     If final regulations have not been issued pursuant to
section 229, for new construction or alterations for which a
valid and appropriate State or local building permit is obtained
prior to the issuance of final regulations under such section,
and for which the construction or alteration authorized by such
permit begins within one year of the receipt of such permit and
is completed under the terms of such permit, compliance with the
Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards in effect at the time the
building permit is issued shall suffice to satisfy the
requirement that facilities be readily accessible to and usable
by persons with disabilities as required under sections 226 and
227, except that, if such final regulations have not been issued
one year after the Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board has issued the supplemental minimum guidelines
required under section 504(a) of this Act, compliance with such
supplemental minimum guidelines shall be necessary to satisfy the
requirement that facilities be readily accessible to and usable
by persons with disabilities prior to issuance of the final
regulations.

SEC. 231. EFFECTIVE DATE.
     (a) General Rule. Except as provided in subsection (b), this
part shall become effective 18 months after the date of enactment
of this Act.
     (b) Exception. Sections 222, 223 (other than subsection
(a)), 224, 225, 227(b), 228(b), and 229 shall become effective on
the date of enactment of this Act.

  PART II PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BY INTERCITY AND COMMUTER RAIL

SEC. 241. DEFINITIONS.
     As used in this part:
     (1) Commuter authority. The term  commuter authority  has
the meaning given such term in section 103(8) of the Rail
Passenger Service Act (45 U.S.C. 502(8)).
     (2) Commuter rail transportation. The term  commuter rail
transportation  has the meaning given the term  commuter service 
in section 103(9) of the Rail Passenger Service Act (45 U.S.C.
502(9)).
     (3) Intercity rail transportation. The term  intercity rail
transportation  means transpor tation provided by the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation.
     (4) Rail passenger car. The term  rail passenger car  means,
with respect to intercity rail transportation, single-level and
bi-level coach cars, single-level and bi-level dining cars,
single-level and bi-level sleeping cars, single-level and
bi-level lounge cars, and food service cars.
     (5) Responsible person. The term  responsible person  means 
     (A) in the case of a station more than 50 percent of which
is owned by a public entity, such public entity;
     (B) in the case of a station more than 50 percent of which
is owned by a private party, the persons providing intercity or
commuter rail transportation to such station, as allocated on an
equitable basis by regulation by the Secretary of Transportation;
and
     (C) in a case where no party owns more than 50 percent of a
station, the persons providing intercity or commuter rail
transportation to such station and the owners of the station,
other than private party owners, as allocated on an equitable
basis by regulation by the Secretary of Transportation.
     (6) Station. The term  station  means the portion of a
property located appurtenant to a right-of-way on which intercity
or commuter rail transportation is operated, where such portion
is used by the general public and is related to the provision of
such transportation, including passenger platforms, designated
waiting areas, ticketing areas, restrooms, and, where a public
entity providing rail transportation owns the property,
concession areas, to the extent that such public entity exercises
control over the selection, design, construction, or alteration
of the property, but such term does not include flag stops.

     SEC. 242. INTERCITY AND COMMUTER RAIL ACTIONS CONSIDERED
DISCRIMINA TORY.
     (a) Intercity Rail Transportation. 
     (1) One car per train rule. It shall be considered
discrimination for purposes of section 202 of this Act and
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) for
a person who provides intercity rail transportation to fail to
have at least one passenger car per train that is readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities,
including individuals who use wheelchairs, in accordance with
regulations issued under section 244, as soon as practicable, but
in no event later than 5 years after the date of enactment of
this Act.
     (2) New intercity cars. 
     (A) General rule. Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection with respect to individuals who use wheelchairs, it
shall be considered discrimination for purposes of section 202 of
this Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
U.S.C. 794) for a person to purchase or lease any new rail
passenger cars for use in intercity rail transportation, and for
which a solicitation is made later than 30 days after the
effective date of this section, unless all such rail cars are
readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, as
prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation in regulations
issued under section 244.
     (B) Special rule for single-level passenger coaches for
individuals who use wheel chairs. Single-level passenger coaches
shall be required to 
     (i) be able to be entered by an  individual who uses a
wheelchair;
     (ii) have space to park and secure a wheelchair;
     (iii) have a seat to which a passenger in a wheelchair can
transfer, and a space to fold and store such passenger s
wheelchair; and
     (iv) have a restroom usable by an individual who uses a
wheelchair, only to the extent provided in paragraph (3).
     (C) Special rule for single-level dining cars for
individuals who use wheelchairs.  Single-level dining cars shall
not be required to 
     (i) be able to be entered from the station platform by an
individual who uses a wheelchair; or
     (ii) have a restroom usable by an individual who uses a
wheelchair if no restroom is provided in such car for any
passenger.
     (D) Special rule for bi-level dining cars for individuals
who use wheelchairs. Bi-level dining cars shall not be required
to 
     (i) be able to be entered by an  individual who uses a
wheelchair;
     (ii) have space to park and secure a wheelchair;
     (iii) have a seat to which a passenger in a wheelchair can
transfer, or a space to fold and store such passenger s
wheelchair; or
     (iv) have a restroom usable by an individual who uses a
wheelchair.
     (3) Accessibility of single-level coaches. 
     (A) General rule. It shall be considered discrimination for
purposes of section 202 of this Act and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) for a person who
provides intercity rail transportation to fail to have on each
train which includes one or more single-level rail passenger
coaches 
     (i) a number of spaces 
     (I) to park and secure wheelchairs (to accommodate
individuals who wish to remain in their wheelchairs) equal to not
less than one-half of the number of single-level rail passenger
coaches in such train; and
     (II) to fold and store wheelchairs (to accommodate
individuals who wish to transfer to coach seats) equal to not
less than one-half of the number of single-level rail passenger
coaches in such train, as soon as practicable, but in no event
later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act; and
     (ii) a number of spaces 
     (I) to park and secure wheelchairs (to accommodate
individuals who wish to remain in their wheelchairs) equal to not
less than the total number of single-level rail passenger coaches
in such train; and
     (II) to fold and store wheelchairs (to accommodate
individuals who wish to transfer to coach seats) equal to not
less than the total number of single-level rail passenger coaches
in such train, as soon as practicable, but in no event later than
10 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
     (B) Location. Spaces required by subparagraph (A) shall be
located in single-level rail passenger coaches or food service
cars.
     (C) Limitation. Of the number of spaces required on a train
by subparagraph (A), not more than two spaces to park and secure
wheelchairs nor more than two spaces to fold and store
wheelchairs shall be located in any one coach or food service
car.
     (D) Other accessibility features. Single-level rail
passenger coaches and food service cars on which the spaces
required by subparagraph (A) are located shall have a restroom
usable by an individual who uses a wheelchair and shall be able
to be entered from the station platform by an individual who uses
a wheelchair.
     (4) Food service. 
     (A) Single-level dining cars. On any train in which a
single-level dining car is used to provide food service 
     (i) if such single-level dining car was purchased after the
date of enactment of this Act, table service in such car shall be
provided to a passenger who uses a wheelchair if 
     (I) the car adjacent to the end of the dining car through
which a wheelchair may enter is itself accessible to a
wheelchair;
     (II) such passenger can exit to the platform from the car
such passenger occupies, move down the platform, and enter the
adjacent accessible car described in subclause (I) without the
necessity of the train being moved within the station; and

     (III) space to park and secure a wheelchair is available in
the dining car at the time such passenger wishes to eat (if such
passenger wishes to remain in a wheel chair), or space to store
and fold a wheelchair is available in the dining car at the time
such passenger wishes to eat (if such passenger wishes to
transfer to a dining car seat); and

     (ii) appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including a
hard surface on which to eat, shall be provided to ensure that
other equivalent food service is available to individuals with
disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, and to
passengers traveling with such individuals.

     Unless not practicable, a person providing intercity rail
transportation shall place an accessible car adjacent to the end
of a dining car described in clause (I) through which an
individual who uses a wheelchair may enter.
     (B) Bi-level dining cars. On any train in which a bi-level
dining car is used to provide food service 
     (i) if such train includes a bi-level lounge car purchased
after the date of enactment of this Act, table service in such
lounge car shall be provided to individuals who use wheelchairs
and to other passengers; and
     (ii) appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including a
hard surface on which to eat, shall be provided to ensure that
other  equivalent food service is available to individuals with
disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, and to
passengers traveling with such individuals.
     (b) Commuter Rail Transportation. 
     (1) One car per train rule. It shall be considered
discrimination for purposes of section 202 of this Act and
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) for
a person who provides commuter rail transportation to fail to
have at least one passenger car per train that is readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities,
including individuals who use wheelchairs, in accordance with
regulations issued under section 244, as soon as practicable, but
in no event later than 5 years after the date of enactment of
this Act.
     (2) New commuter rail cars. 
     (A) General rule. It shall be considered discrimination for
purposes of section 202 of this Act and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) for a person to
purchase or lease any new rail passenger cars for use in commuter
rail transportation, and for which a solicitation is made later
than 30 days after the effective date of this section, unless all
such rail cars are readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use
wheelchairs, as prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation in
regulations issued under section 244.
     (B) Accessibility. For purposes of section 202 of this Act
and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
794), a requirement that a rail passenger car used in commuter
rail transportation be accessible to or readily accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals
who use wheelchairs, shall not be construed to require 
     (i) a restroom usable by an individual who uses a wheelchair
if no restroom is provided in such car for any passenger;
     (ii) space to fold and store a wheelchair; or
     (iii) a seat to which a passenger who uses a wheelchair can
transfer.
     (c) Used Rail Cars. It shall be considered discrimination
for purposes of section 202 of this Act and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) for a person to
purchase or lease a used rail passenger car for use in intercity
or commuter rail transportation, unless such person makes
demonstrated good faith efforts to purchase or lease a used rail
car that is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, including individuals who use wheel chairs, as
prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation in regulations
issued under section 244.
     (d) Remanufactured Rail Cars. 
     (1) Remanufacturing. It shall be considered discrimination
for purposes of section 202 of this Act and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) for a person to
remanufacture a rail passenger car for use in intercity or
commuter rail transportation so as to extend its usable life for
10 years or more, unless the rail car, to the maximum extent
feasible, is made readily accessible to and usable by individuals
with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, as
prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation in regula tions
issued under section 244.
     (2) Purchase or lease. It shall be considered discrimination
for purposes of section 202 of this Act and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) for a person to
purchase or lease a remanufactured rail passenger car for use in
intercity or commuter rail transportation unless such car was
remanufactured in accordance with paragraph (1).
     (e) Stations. 
     (1) New stations. It shall be considered discrimination for
purposes of section 202 of this Act and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) for a person to build
a new station for use in intercity or commuter rail
transportation that is not readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use
wheelchairs, as prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation in
regulations issued under section 244.
     (2) Existing stations. 
     (A) Failure to make readily accessible. 
     (i) General rule. It shall be considered discrimination for
purposes of section 202 of this Act and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) for a responsible
person to fail to make existing stations in the intercity rail
transportation system, and existing key stations in commuter rail
transportation systems, readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use
wheelchairs, as prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation in
regulations issued under section 244.
     (ii) Period for compliance. 
     (I) Intercity rail. All stations in the intercity rail
transportation system shall be made readily accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals
who use wheelchairs, as soon as practicable, but in no event
later than 20 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
     (II) Commuter rail. Key stations in commuter rail
transportation systems shall be made readily accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals
who use wheelchairs, as soon as practicable but in no event later
than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, except that
the time limit may be extended by the Secretary of Transportation
up to 20 years after the date of enactment of this Act in a case
where the raising of the entire passenger platform is the only
means available of attaining accessibility or where other
extraordinarily expensive structural changes are necessary to
attain accessibility.
     (iii) Designation of key stations. Each commuter authority
shall designate the key stations in its commuter rail
transportation system, in consultation with individuals with
disabilities and organizations representing such individuals,
taking into consider ation such factors as high ridership and
whether such station serves as a transfer or feeder station. 
Before the final designation of key stations under this clause, a
commuter authority shall hold a public hearing.
     (iv) Plans and milestones. The Secretary of Transportation
shall require the appropriate person to develop a plan for
carrying out this subparagraph that reflects consultation with
individuals with disabilities affected by such plan and that
establishes milestones for achievement of the requirements of
this subparagraph.
     (B) Requirement when making alterations. 
     (i) General rule. It shall be considered discrimination, for
purposes of section 202 of this Act and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), with respect to
alterations of an existing station or part thereof in the
intercity or commuter rail transportation systems that affect or
could affect the usability of the station or part thereof, for
the responsible person, owner, or person in control of the
station to fail to make the alterations in such a manner that, to
the maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the station
are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabili
ties, including individuals who use wheelchairs, upon completion
of such alterations.
     (ii) Alterations to a primary function area. It shall be
considered discrimination, for purposes of section 202 of this
Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
794), with respect to alterations that affect or could affect the
usability of or access to an area of the station containing a
primary function, for the responsible person, owner, or person in
control of the station to fail to make the alterations in such a
manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the path of travel
to the altered area, and the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking
fountains serving the altered area, are readily accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals
who use wheelchairs, upon completion of such alterations, where
such alterations to the path of travel or the bathrooms,
telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered area are
not disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost
and scope (as determined under criteria established by the
Attorney General).
     (C) Required cooperation. It shall be considered
discrimination for purposes of section 202 of this Act and
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) for
an owner, or person in control, of a station governed by
subparagraph (A) or (B) to fail to provide reasonable cooperation
to a responsible person with respect to such station in that
responsible person s efforts to comply with such subparagraph. An
owner, or person in control, of a station shall be liable to a
responsible person for any failure to provide reasonable
cooperation as required by this subparagraph. Failure to receive
reasonable cooperation required by this subparagraph shall not be
a defense to a claim of discrimination under this Act.

SEC. 243. CONFORMANCE OF ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS.
     Accessibility standards included in regulations issued under
this part shall be consistent with the minimum guidelines issued
by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
under section 504(a) of this Act.

SEC. 244. REGULATIONS.
     Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue regulations, in
an accessible format, necessary for carrying out this part.

SEC. 245. INTERIM ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
     (a) Stations. If final regulations have not been issued
pursuant to section 244, for new construction or alterations for
which a valid and appropriate State or local building permit is
obtained prior to the issuance of final regulations under such
section, and for which the construc tion or alteration authorized
by such permit begins within one year of the receipt of such
permit and is completed under the terms of such permit,
compliance with the Uniform Federal Accessi bility Standards in
effect at the time the building permit is issued shall suffice to
satisfy the requirement that stations be readily accessible to
and usable by persons with disabilities as required under section
242(e), except that, if such final regulations have not been
issued one year after the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board has issued the supplemental minimum
guidelines required under section 504(a) of this Act, compliance
with such supplemental minimum guidelines shall be necessary to
satisfy the requirement that stations be readily accessible to
and usable by persons with disabilities prior to issuance of the
final regulations.
     (b) Rail Passenger Cars. If final regulations have not been
issued pursuant to section 244, a person shall be considered to
have complied with the requirements of section 242 (a) through
(d) that a rail passenger car be readily accessible to and usable
by individuals with disabilities, if the design for such car
complies with the laws and regulations (including the Minimum
Guidelines and Requirements for Accessible Design and such
supplemental minimum guidelines as are issued under section
504(a) of this Act) governing accessibility of such cars, to the
extent that such laws and regulations are not inconsistent with
this part and are in effect at the time such design is
substantially completed.

SEC. 246. EFFECTIVE DATE.
     (a) General Rule. Except as provided in subsection (b), this
part shall become effective 18 months after the date of enactment
of this Act.
     (b) Exception. Sections 242 and 244 shall become effective
on the date of enactment of this Act.


    TITLE III PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND SERVICES OPERATED BY 
                        PRIVATE ENTITIES

SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.
     As used in this title:
     (1) Commerce. The term  commerce  means travel, trade,
traffic, commerce, transpor tation, or communication 
     (A) among the several States;
     (B) between any foreign country or any territory or
possession and any State; or
     (C) between points in the same State but through another
State or foreign country.
     (2) Commercial facilities. The term  commercial facilities 
means facilities 
     (A) that are intended for nonresidential use; and
     (B) whose operations will affect commerce.
     Such term shall not include railroad locomotives, railroad
freight cars, railroad cabooses, railroad cars described in
section 242 or covered under this title, railroad rights-of-way,
or facilities that are covered or expressly exempted from
coverage under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3601 et
seq.).
     (3) Demand responsive system. The term  demand responsive
system  means any system of providing transportation of
individuals by a vehicle, other than a system which is a fixed
route system.
     (4) Fixed route system. The term  fixed route system  means
a system of providing transportation of individuals (other than
by aircraft) on which a vehicle is operated along a prescribed
route according to a fixed schedule.
     (5) Over-the-road bus. The term  over-the-road bus  means a
bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a
baggage compartment.
     (6) Private entity. The term  private entity  means any
entity other than a public entity (as defined in section 201(1)).
     (7) Public accommodation. The following private entities are
considered public accom modations for purposes of this title, if
the operations of such entities affect commerce 
     (A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except
for an establishment located within a building that contains not
more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually
occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence
of such proprietor;
     (B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food
or drink;
     (C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium,
or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
     (D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other
place of public gathering;
     (E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store,
shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
     (F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty
shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas
station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance
office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital,
or other service establishment;
     (G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified
public transportation;
     (H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public
display or collection;
     (I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of
recreation;
     (J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or
postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
     (K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless
shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service
center establishment; and
     (L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or
other place of exercise or recreation.
     (8) Rail and railroad. The terms  rail  and  railroad  have
the meaning given the term  railroad  in section 202(e) of the
Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 431(e)).
     (9) Readily achievable. The term  readily achievable  means
easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much
difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action is
readily achievable, factors to be considered include 
     (A) the nature and cost of the action needed under this Act;
     (B) the overall financial resources of the facility or
facilities involved in the action; the number of persons employed
at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the
impact otherwise of such action upon the operation of the
facility;
     (C) the overall financial resources of the covered entity;
the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect
to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of
its facilities; and
     (D) the type of operation or operations of the covered
entity, including the composi tion, structure, and functions of
the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness,
administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or
facilities in question to the covered entity.
     (10) Specified public transportation. The term  specified
public transportation  means transportation by bus, rail, or any
other conveyance (other than by aircraft) that provides the
general public with general or special service (including charter
service) on a regular and continuing basis.
     (11) Vehicle. The term  vehicle  does not include a rail
passenger car, railroad locomotive, railroad freight car,
railroad caboose, or a railroad car described in section 242 or
covered under this title.

SEC. 302. PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS.
     (a) General Rule. No individual shall be discriminated
against on the basis of disability in the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommoda tions of any place of public
accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or
operates a place of public accommodation.
     (b) Construction. 
     (1) General prohibition. 
     (A) Activities. 
     (i) Denial of participation. It shall be discriminatory to
subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a
disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly,
or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a
denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to
participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity.
     (ii) Participation in unequal benefit. It shall be
discriminatory to afford an individual or class of individuals,
on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual
or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other
arrangements with the opportunity to participate in or benefit
from a good, service, facility, privi lege, advantage, or
accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other
individu als.
     (iii) Separate benefit. It shall be discriminatory to
provide an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a
disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly,
or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a
good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation
that is different or separate from that provided to other
individuals, unless such action is necessary to provide the
individual or class of individuals with a good, service,
facility, privilege, advantage, or accom modation, or other
opportunity that is as effective as that provided to others.
     (iv) Individual or class of individuals. For purposes of
clauses (i) through (iii) of this subparagraph, the term
 individual or class of individuals  refers to the clients or
customers of the covered public accommodation that enters into
the contractual, licensing or other arrangement.
     (B) Integrated settings. Goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, and accommodations shall be afforded to
an individual with a disability in the most integrated setting
appropriate to the needs of the individual.
     (C) Opportunity to participate. Notwithstanding the
existence of separate or different programs or activities
provided in accordance with this section, an individual with a
disability shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in
such programs or activities that are not separate or different.
     (D) Administrative methods. An individual or entity shall
not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements,
utilize standards or criteria or methods of administra tion 
     (i) that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of
disability; or
     (ii) that perpetuate the discrimination of others who are
subject to common administrative control.
     (E) Association. It shall be discriminatory to exclude or
otherwise deny equal goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, accommodations, or other opportunities to an
individual or entity because of the known disability of an
individual with whom the individual or entity is known to have a
relationship or association.
     (2) Specific prohibitions. 
     (A) Discrimination. For purposes of subsection (a),
discrimination includes 
     (i) the imposition or application of eligibility criteria
that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a
disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from
fully and equally enjoying any goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, or accommodations, unless such criteria
can be shown to be necessary for the provi sion of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations
being offered;
     (ii) a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies,
practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary
to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities,
unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications
would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations;
     (iii) a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to
ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied
services, segregated or otherwise treated differ ently than other
individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and
services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such
steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service,
facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or
would result in an undue burden;
     (iv) a failure to remove architectural barriers, and
communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing
facilities, and transportation barriers in existing vehicles and
rail passenger cars used by an establishment for transporting
individuals (not including barriers that can only be removed
through the retrofitting of vehicles or rail passenger cars by
the installation of a hydraulic or other lift), where such
removal is readily achievable; and
     (v) where an entity can demonstrate that the removal of a
barrier under clause (iv) is not readily achievable, a failure to
make such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations available through alternative methods if such
methods are readily achievable.
     (B) Fixed route system. 
     (i) Accessibility. It shall be considered discrimination for
a private entity which operates a fixed route system and which is
not subject to section 304 to purchase or lease a vehicle with a
seating capacity in excess of 16 passengers (including the
driver) for use on such system, for which a solicitation is made
after the 30th day following the effective date of this
subparagraph, that is not readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use
wheelchairs.
     (ii) Equivalent service. If a private entity which operates
a fixed route system and which is not subject to section 304
purchases or leases a vehicle with a seating capacity of 16
passengers or less (including the driver) for use on such system
after the effective date of this subparagraph that is not readily
accessible to or usable by individuals with disabilities, it
shall be considered discrimination for such entity to fail to
operate such system so that, when viewed in its entirety, such
system ensures a level of service to individuals with
disabilities, including individuals who use wheel chairs,
equivalent to the level of service provided to individuals
without disabilities.
     (C) Demand responsive system. For purposes of subsection
(a), discrimination includes 
     (i) a failure of a private entity which operates a demand
responsive system and which is not subject to section 304 to
operate such system so that, when viewed in its entirety, such
system ensures a level of service to individuals with
disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs,
equivalent to the level of service provided to individuals
without disabilities; and
     (ii) the purchase or lease by such entity for use on such
system of a vehicle with a seating capacity in excess of 16
passengers (including the driver), for which solicita tions are
made after the 30th day following the effective date of this
subparagraph, that is not readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities (including individuals who use
wheelchairs) unless such entity can demonstrate that such system,
when viewed in its entirety, provides a level of service to
individuals with disabilities equivalent to that provided to
individuals without disabilities.
     (D) Over-the-road buses. 
     (i) Limitation on applicability. Subparagraphs (B) and (C)
do  not apply to over-the-road buses.
     (ii) Accessibility requirements. For purposes of subsection
(a), discrimination includes (I) the purchase or lease of an
over-the-road bus which does not comply with the regulations
issued under section 306(a)(2) by a private entity which provides
transportation of individuals and which is not primarily engaged
in the business of transporting people, and (II) any other
failure of such entity to comply with such regulations.
     (3) Specific Construction. Nothing in this title shall
require an entity to permit an individual to participate in or
benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advan
tages and accommodations of such entity where such individual
poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. The term
 direct threat  means a significant risk to the health or safety
of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of
policies, practices, or proce dures or by the provision of
auxiliary aids or services.

     SEC. 303. NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATIONS IN PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATIONS AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES.
     (a) Application of Term. Except as provided in subsection
(b), as applied to public accom modations and commercial
facilities, discrimination for purposes of section 302(a)
includes 
     (1) a failure to design and construct facilities for first
occupancy later than 30 months after the date of enactment of
this Act that are readily accessible to and usable by individuals
with disabilities, except where an entity can demonstrate that it
is structurally impracticable to meet the requirements of such
subsection in accordance with standards set forth or incorporated
by reference in regulations issued under this title; and
     (2) with respect to a facility or part thereof that is
altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of an establishment in a
manner that affects or could affect the usability of the facility
or part thereof, a failure to make alterations in such a manner
that, to the maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the
facility are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs. Where
the entity is undertaking an alteration that affects or could
affect usability of or access to an area of the facility
containing a primary function, the entity shall also make the
alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum extent
feasible, the path of travel to the altered area and the
bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered
area, are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities where such alterations to the path of travel or the
bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered
area are not disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms
of cost and scope (as determined under criteria established by
the Attorney General).
     (b) Elevator. Subsection (a) shall not be construed to
require the installation of an elevator for facilities that are
less than three stories or have less than 3,000 square feet per
story unless the building is a shopping center, a shopping mall,
or the professional office of a health care provider or unless
the Attorney General determines that a particular category of
such facilities requires the installation of elevators based on
the usage of such facilities.

     SEC. 304. PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION IN SPECIFIED PUBLIC
TRANSPORTA TION SERVICES PROVIDED BY PRIVATE ENTITIES.
     (a) General Rule. No individual shall be discriminated
against on the basis of disability in the full and equal
enjoyment of specified public transportation services provided by
a private entity that is primarily engaged in the business of
transporting people and whose operations affect commerce.
     (b) Construction. For purposes of subsection (a),
discrimination includes 
     (1) the imposition or application by a entity described in
subsection (a) of eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to
screen out an individual with a disability or any class of
individuals with disabilities from fully enjoying the specified
public transportation services provided by the entity, unless
such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of
the services being offered;
     (2) the failure of such entity to 
     (A) make reasonable modifications consistent with those
required under section 302(b)(2)(A)(ii);
     (B) provide auxiliary aids and services consistent with the
requirements of section 302(b)(2)(A)(iii); and
     (C) remove barriers consistent with the requirements of
section 302(b)(2)(A) and with the requirements of section
303(a)(2);
     (3) the purchase or lease by such entity of a new vehicle
(other than an automobile, a van with a seating capacity of less
than 8 passengers, including the driver, or an over-the-road bus)
which is to be used to provide specified public transportation
and for which a solicitation is made after the 30th day following
the effective date of this section, that is not readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities,
including individuals who use wheelchairs; except that the new
vehicle need not be readily accessible to and usable by such
individuals if the new vehicle is to be used solely in a demand
responsive system and if the entity can demonstrate that such
system, when viewed in its entirety, provides a level of service
to such individuals equivalent to the level of service provided
to the general public;
     (4)(A) the purchase or lease by such entity of an
over-the-road bus which does not comply with the regulations
issued under section 306(a)(2); and
     (B) any other failure of such entity to comply with such
regulations; and
     (5) the purchase or lease by such entity of a new van with a
seating capacity of less than 8 passengers, including the driver,
which is to be used to provide specified public transporta tion
and for which a solicitation is made after the 30th day following
the effective date of this section that is not readily accessible
to or usable by individuals with disabilities, including
individuals who use wheelchairs; except that the new van need not
be readily accessible to and usable by such individuals if the
entity can demonstrate that the system for which the van is being
purchased or leased, when viewed in its entirety, provides a
level of service to such individuals equivalent to the level of
service provided to the general public;
     (6) the purchase or lease by such entity of a new rail
passenger car that is to be used to provide specified public
transportation, and for which a solicitation is made later than
30 days after the effective date of this paragraph, that is not
readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs; and
     (7) the remanufacture by such entity of a rail passenger car
that is to be used to provide specified public transportation so
as to extend its usable life for 10 years or more, or the
purchase or lease by such entity of such a rail car, unless the
rail car, to the maximum extent feasible, is made readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities,
including individuals who use wheelchairs.
     (c) Historical or Antiquated Cars. 
     (1) Exception. To the extent that compliance with subsection
(b)(2)(C) or (b)(7) would significantly alter the historic or
antiquated character of a historical or antiquated rail passenger
car, or a rail station served exclusively by such cars, or would
result in violation of any rule, regulation, standard, or order
issued by the Secretary of Transportation under the Federal
Railroad Safety Act of 1970, such compliance shall not be
required.
     (2) Definition. As used in this subsection, the term
 historical or antiquated rail passenger car  means a rail
passenger car 
     (A) which is not less than 30 years old at the time of its
use for transporting individu als;
     (B) the manufacturer of which is no longer in the business
of manufacturing rail passenger cars; and
     (C) which 
     (i) has a consequential association with events or persons
significant to the past; or
     (ii) embodies, or is being restored to embody, the
distinctive characteristics of a type of rail passenger car used
in the past, or to represent a time period which has passed.

SEC. 305. STUDY.
     (a) Purposes. The Office of Technology Assessment shall
undertake a study to determine 
     (1) the access needs of individuals with disabilities to
over-the-road buses and over-the-road bus service; and
     (2) the most cost-effective methods for providing access to
over-the- road buses and over-the-road bus service to individuals
with disabilities, particularly individuals who use wheelchairs,
through all forms of boarding options.
     (b) Contents. The study shall include, at a minimum, an
analysis of the following:
     (1) The anticipated demand by individuals with disabilities
for accessible over-the-road buses and over-the-road bus service.
     (2) The degree to which such buses and service, including
any service required under sections 304(b)(4) and 306(a)(2), are
readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities.
     (3) The effectiveness of various methods of providing
accessibility to such buses and service to individuals with
disabilities.
     (4) The cost of providing accessible over-the-road buses and
bus service to individuals with disabilities, including
consideration of recent technological and cost saving
developments in equipment and devices.
     (5) Possible design changes in over-the-road buses that
could enhance accessibility, including the installation of
accessible restrooms which do not result in a loss of seating
capacity.
     (6) The impact of accessibility requirements on the
continuation of over-the-road bus service, with particular
consideration of the impact of such requirements on such service
to rural communities.
     (c) Advisory Committee. In conducting the study required by
subsection (a), the Office of Technology Assessment shall
establish an advisory committee, which shall consist of 
     (1) members selected from among private operators and
manufacturers of over-the-road buses;
     (2) members selected from among individuals with
disabilities, particularly individuals who use wheelchairs, who
are potential riders of such buses; and
     (3) members selected for their technical expertise on issues
included in the study, including manufacturers of boarding
assistance equipment and devices.
     The number of members selected under each of paragraphs (1)
and (2) shall be equal, and the total number of members selected
under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall exceed the number of members
selected under paragraph (3).
     (d) Deadline. The study required by subsection (a), along
with recommendations by the Office of Technology Assessment,
including any policy options for legislative action, shall be
submitted to the President and Congress within 36 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act. If the President
determines that compliance with the regulations issued pursuant
to section 306(a)(2)(B) on or before the applicable deadlines
specified in section 306(a)(2)(B) will result in a significant
reduction in intercity over-the-road bus service, the President
shall extend each such deadline by 1 year.
     (e) Review. In developing the study required by subsection
(a), the Office of Technology Assessment shall provide a
preliminary draft of such study to the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792).
The Board shall have an opportunity to comment on such draft
study, and any such comments by the Board made in writing within
120 days after the Board s receipt of the draft study shall be
incorporated as part of the final study required to be submitted
under subsection (d).

SEC. 306. REGULATIONS.
     (a) Transportation Provisions. 
     (1) General rule. Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
issue regulations in an accessible format to carry out sections
302(b)(2) (B) and (C) and to carry out section 304 (other than
subsection (b)(4)).
     (2) Special rules for providing access to over-the-road
buses. 
     (A) Interim requirements. 
     (i) Issuance. Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
issue regulations in an accessible format to carry out sections
304(b)(4) and 302(b)(2)(D)(ii) that require each private entity
which uses an over-the-road bus to provide transportation of
individuals to provide accessibility to such bus; except that
such regulations shall not require any structural changes in
over-the-road buses in order to provide access to individuals who
use wheelchairs during the effective period of such regulations
and shall not require the purchase of boarding assistance devices
to provide access to such individuals.
     (ii) Effective period. The regulations issued pursuant to
this subparagraph shall be effective until the effective date of
the regulations issued under subparagraph (B).
     (B) Final requirement. 
     (i) Review of study and interim requirements. The Secretary
shall review the study submitted under section 305 and the
regulations issued pursuant to subparagraph (A).
     (ii) Issuance. Not later than 1 year after the date of the
submission of the study under section 305, the Secretary shall
issue in an accessible format new regulations to carry out
sections 304(b)(4) and 302(b)(2)(D)(ii) that require, taking into
account the purposes of the study under section 305 and any
recommendations resulting from such study, each private entity
which uses an over-the-road bus to provide transportation to
individuals to provide accessibility to such bus to individuals
with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.
     (iii) Effective period. Subject to section 305(d), the
regulations issued pursuant to this subparagraph shall take
effect 
     (I) with respect to small providers of transportation (as
defined by the Secre tary), 7 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
     (II) with respect to other providers of transportation, 6
years after such date of enactment.
     (C) Limitation on requiring installation of accessible
restrooms. The regulations issued pursuant to this paragraph
shall not require the installation of accessible restrooms in
over-the-road buses if such installation would result in a loss
of seating capacity.
     (3) Standards. The regulations issued pursuant to this
subsection shall include standards applicable to facilities and
vehicles covered by sections 302(b)(2) and 304.
     (b) Other Provisions. Not later than 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall issue
regulations in an accessible format to carry out the provisions
of this title not referred to in subsection (a) that include
standards applicable to facilities and vehicles covered under
section 302.
     (c) Consistency With ATBCB Guidelines. Standards included in
regulations issued under subsections (a) and (b) shall be
consistent with the minimum guidelines and requirements issued by
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board in
accordance with section 504 of this Act.
     (d) Interim Accessibility Standards. 
     (1) Facilities. If final regulations have not been issued
pursuant to this section, for new construction or alterations for
which a valid and appropriate State or local building permit is
obtained prior to the issuance of final regulations under this
section, and for which the construction or alteration authorized
by such permit begins within one year of the receipt of such
permit and is completed under the terms of such permit,
compliance with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards in
effect at the time the building permit is issued shall suffice to
satisfy the requirement that facilities be readily accessible to
and usable by persons with disabilities as required under section
303, except that, if such final regulations have not been issued
one year after the Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board has issued the supplemental minimum guidelines
required under section 504(a) of this Act, compliance with such
supplemental minimum guidelines shall be necessary to satisfy the
requirement that facilities be readily accessible to and usable
by persons with disabilities prior to issuance of the final
regulations.
     (2) Vehicles and rail passenger cars. If final regulations
have not been issued pursuant to this section, a private entity
shall be considered to have complied with the requirements of
this title, if any, that a vehicle or rail passenger car be
readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, if the design for such vehicle or car complies with
the laws and regulations (including the Minimum Guidelines and
Requirements for Accessible Design and such supplemental minimum
guidelines as are issued under section 504(a) of this Act)
governing accessibility of such vehicles or cars, to the extent
that such laws and regulations are not inconsistent with this
title and are in effect at the time such design is substantially
completed.

SEC. 307. EXEMPTIONS FOR PRIVATE CLUBS AND RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS.
     The provisions of this title shall not apply to private
clubs or establishments exempted from coverage under title II of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000-a(e)) or to
religious organizations or entities controlled by religious
organizations, including places of worship.

SEC. 308. ENFORCEMENT.
     (a) In General. 
     (1) Availability of remedies and procedures. The remedies
and procedures set forth in section 204(a) of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a-3(a)) are the remedies and
procedures this title provides to any person who is being
subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability in
violation of this title or who has reasonable grounds for
believing that such person is about to be subjected to
discrimination in violation of section 303. Nothing in this
section shall require a person with a disability to engage in a
futile gesture if such person has actual notice that a person or
organization covered by this title does not intend to comply with
its provisions.
     (2) Injunctive relief. In the case of violations of sections
302(b)(2)(A)(iv) and section 303(a), injunctive relief shall
include an order to alter facilities to make such facilities
readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities
to the extent required by this title. Where appropriate,
injunctive relief shall also include requiring the provision of
an auxiliary aid or service, modification of a policy, or
provision of alternative methods, to the extent required by this
title.
     (b) Enforcement by the Attorney General. 
     (1) Denial of rights. 
     (A) Duty to investigate. 
     (i) In general. The Attorney General shall investigate
alleged violations of this title, and shall undertake periodic
reviews of compliance of covered entities under this title.
     (ii) Attorney general certification. On the application of a
State or local govern ment, the Attorney General may, in
consultation with the Architectural and Transpor tation Barriers
Compliance Board, and after prior notice and a public hearing at
which persons, including individuals with disabilities, are
provided an opportunity to testify against such certification,
certify that a State law or local building code or similar
ordinance that establishes accessibility requirements meets or
exceeds the minimum requirements of this Act for the
accessibility and usability of covered facilities under this
title. At any enforcement proceeding under this section, such
certification by the Attorney General shall be rebuttable
evidence that such State law or local ordinance does meet or
exceed the minimum requirements of this Act.
     (B) Potential violation. If the Attorney General has
reasonable cause to believe that 
     (i) any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern
or practice of discrimi nation under this title; or
     (ii) any person or group of persons has been discriminated
against under this title and such discrimination raises an issue
of general public importance, the Attorney General may commence a
civil action in any appropriate United States district court.
     (2) Authority of court. In a civil action under paragraph
(1)(B), the court 
     (A) may grant any equitable relief that such court considers
to be appropriate, including, to the extent required by this
title 
     (i) granting temporary, preliminary, or permanent relief;
     (ii) providing an auxiliary aid or service, modification of
policy, practice, or procedure, or alternative method; and
     (iii) making facilities readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabili ties;
     (B) may award such other relief as the court considers to be
appropriate, including monetary damages to persons aggrieved when
requested by the Attorney General; and
     (C) may, to vindicate the public interest, assess a civil
penalty against the entity in an amount 
     (i) not exceeding $50,000 for a first violation; and
     (ii) not exceeding $100,000 for any subsequent violation.
     (3) Single violation. For purposes of paragraph (2)(C), in
determining whether a first or subsequent violation has occurred,
a determination in a single action, by judgment or settlement,
that the covered entity has engaged in more than one
discriminatory act shall be counted as a single violation.
     (4) Punitive damages. For purposes of subsection (b)(2)(B),
the term  monetary damages  and  such other relief  does not
include punitive damages.
     (5) Judicial consideration. In a civil action under
paragraph (1)(B), the court, when considering what amount of
civil penalty, if any, is appropriate, shall give consideration
to any good faith effort or attempt to comply with this Act by
the entity. In evaluating good faith, the court shall consider,
among other factors it deems relevant, whether the entity could
have reasonably anticipated the need for an appropriate type of
auxiliary aid needed to accommodate the unique needs of a
particular individual with a disability.

SEC. 309. EXAMINATIONS AND COURSES.
     Any person that offers examinations or courses related to
applications, licensing, certification, or credentialing for
secondary or postsecondary education, professional, or trade
purposes shall offer such examinations or courses in a place and
manner accessible to persons with disabilities or offer
alternative accessible arrangements for such individuals.

SEC. 310. EFFECTIVE DATE.
     (a) General Rule. Except as provided in subsections (b) and
(c), this title shall become effective 18 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
     (b) Civil Actions. Except for any civil action brought for a
violation of section 303, no civil action shall be brought for
any act or omission described in section 302 which occurs 
     (1) during the first 6 months after the effective date,
against businesses that employ 25 or fewer employees and have
gross receipts of $1,000,000 or less; and
     (2) during the first year after the effective date, against
businesses that employ 10 or fewer employees and have gross
receipts of $500,000 or less.
     (c) Exception. Sections 302(a) for purposes of section
302(b)(2) (B) and (C) only, 304(a) for purposes of section
304(b)(3) only, 304(b)(3), 305, and 306 shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act.


                   TITLE IV TELECOMMUNICATIONS

     SEC. 401. TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICES FOR
HEARING-IMPAIRED AND SPEECH-IMPAIRED INDIVIDUALS.
     (a) Telecommunications. Title II of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new section:

      SEC. 225. TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FOR HEARING-IMPAIRED
AND SPEECH-IMPAIRED INDIVIDUALS.
     (a) Definitions. As used in this section 
     (1) Common carrier or carrier. The term  common carrier  or
 carrier  includes any common carrier engaged in interstate
communication by wire or radio as defined in section 3(h) and any
common carrier engaged in intrastate communication by wire or
radio, notwith standing sections 2(b) and 221(b).
     (2) TDD. The term  TDD  means a Telecommunications Device
for the Deaf, which is a machine that employs graphic
communication in the transmission of coded signals through a wire
or radio communication system.
     (3) Telecommunications relay services. The term
 telecommunications relay services  means telephone transmission
services that provide the ability for an individual who has a
hearing impairment or speech impairment to engage in
communication by wire or radio with a hearing individual in a
manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of an
individual who does not have a hearing impairment or speech
impairment to communicate using voice communication services by
wire or radio. Such term includes services that enable two-way
communication between an individual who uses a TDD or other
nonvoice terminal device and an individual who does not use such
a device.
     (b) Availability of Telecommunications Relay Services. 
     (1) In general. In order to carry out the purposes
established under section 1, to make available to all individuals
in the United States a rapid, efficient nationwide communication
service, and to increase the utility of the telephone system of
the Nation, the Commission shall ensure that interstate and
intrastate telecommunications relay services are available, to
the extent possible and in the most efficient manner, to
hearing-impaired and speech-impaired individuals in the United
States.
     (2) Use of General Authority and Remedies. For the purposes
of administering and enforcing the provisions of this section and
the regulations prescribed thereunder, the Commission shall have
the same authority, power, and functions with respect to common
carriers engaged in intrastate communication as the Commission
has in administering and enforcing the provisions of this title
with respect to any common carrier engaged in interstate
communication. Any violation of this section by any common
carrier engaged in intrastate communication shall be subject to
the same remedies, penalties, and procedures as are applicable to
a violation of this Act by a common carrier engaged in interstate
communication.
     (c) Provision of Services. Each common carrier providing
telephone voice transmission services shall, not later than 3
years after the date of enactment of this section, provide in
compliance with the regulations prescribed under this section,
throughout the area in which it offers service,
telecommunications relay services, individually, through
designees, through a competitively selected vendor, or in concert
with other carriers. A common carrier shall be considered to be
in compliance with such regulations 
     (1) with respect to intrastate telecommunications relay
services in any State that does not have a certified program
under subsection (f) and with respect to interstate telecommunica
tions relay services, if such common carrier (or other entity
through which the carrier is providing such relay services) is in
compliance with the Commission s regulations under subsection
(d); or
     (2) with respect to intrastate telecommunications relay
services in any State that has a certified program under
subsection (f) for such State, if such common carrier (or other
entity through which the carrier is providing such relay
services) is in compliance with the program certified under
subsection (f) for such State.
     (d) Regulations. 
     (1) In general. The Commission shall, not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this section, prescribe
regulations to implement this section, including regulations
that 
     (A) establish functional requirements, guidelines, and
operations procedures for telecommunications relay services;
     (B) establish minimum standards that shall be met in
carrying out subsection (c);
     (C) require that telecommunications relay services operate
every day for 24 hours per day;
     (D) require that users of telecommunications relay services
pay rates no greater than the rates paid for functionally
equivalent voice communication services with respect to such
factors as the duration of the call, the time of day, and the
distance from point of origination to point of termination;
     (E) prohibit relay operators from failing to fulfill the
obligations of common carriers by refusing calls or limiting the
length of calls that use telecommunications relay services;
     (F) prohibit relay operators from disclosing the content of
any relayed conversation and from keeping records of the content
of any such conversation beyond the duration of the call; and
     (G) prohibit relay operators from intentionally altering a
relayed conversation.
     (2) Technology. The Commission shall ensure that regulations
prescribed to implement this section encourage, consistent with
section 7(a) of this Act, the use of existing technology and do
not discourage or impair the development of improved technology.
     (3) Jurisdictional separation of costs. 
     (A) In general. Consistent with the provisions of section
410 of this Act, the Commission shall prescribe regulations
governing the jurisdictional separation of costs for the services
provided pursuant to this section.
     (B) Recovering costs. Such regulations shall generally
provide that costs caused by interstate telecommunications relay
services shall be recovered from all subscribers for every
interstate service and costs caused by intrastate
telecommunications relay services shall be recovered from the
intrastate jurisdiction. In a State that has a certified program
under subsection (f), a State commission shall permit a common
carrier to recover the costs incurred in providing intrastate
telecommunications relay services by a method consistent with the
requirements of this section.
     (e) Enforcement. 
     (1) In general. Subject to subsections (f) and (g), the
Commission shall enforce this section.
     (2) Complaint. The Commission shall resolve, by final order,
a complaint alleging a violation of this section within 180 days
after the date such complaint is filed.
     (f) Certification. 
     (1) State documentation. Any State desiring to establish a
State program under this section shall submit documentation to
the Commission that describes the program of such State for
implementing intrastate telecommunications relay services and the
procedures and remedies available for enforcing any requirements
imposed by the State program.
     (2) Requirements for certification. After review of such
documentation, the Commis sion shall certify the State program if
the Commission determines that 
     (A) the program makes available to hearing-impaired and
speech-impaired individu als, either directly, through designees,
through a competitively selected vendor, or through regulation of
intrastate common carriers, intrastate telecommunications relay
services in such State in a manner that meets or exceeds the
requirements of regulations prescribed by the Commission under
subsection (d); and
     (B) the program makes available adequate procedures and
remedies for enforcing the requirements of the State program.
     (3) Method of funding. Except as provided in subsection (d),
the Commission shall not refuse to certify a State program based
solely on the method such State will implement for funding
intrastate telecommunication relay services.
     (4) Suspension or revocation of certification. The
Commission may suspend or revoke such certification if, after
notice and opportunity for hearing, the Commission determines
that such certification is no longer warranted. In a State whose
program has been suspended or revoked, the Commission shall take
such steps as may be necessary, consistent with this section, to
ensure continuity of telecommunications relay services.
     (g) Complaint. 
     (1) Referral of complaint. If a complaint to the Commission
alleges a violation of this section with respect to intrastate
telecommunications relay services within a State and
certification of the program of such State under subsection (f)
is in effect, the Commission shall refer such complaint to such
State.
     (2) Jurisdiction of commission. After referring a complaint
to a State under paragraph (1), the Commission shall exercise
jurisdiction over such complaint only if 
     (A) final action under such State program has not been taken
on such complaint by such State 
     (i) within 180 days after the complaint is filed with such
State; or
     (ii) within a shorter period as prescribed by the
regulations of such State; or
     (B) the Commission determines that such State program is no
longer qualified for certification under subsection (f). .
     (b) Conforming Amendments. The Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is amended 
     (1) in section 2(b) (47 U.S.C. 152(b)), by striking  section
224  and inserting  sections 224 and 225 ; and
     (2) in section 221(b) (47 U.S.C. 221(b)), by striking
 section 301  and inserting  sections 225 and 301 .

SEC. 402. CLOSED-CAPTIONING OF PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS.
     Section 711 of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended to
read as follows:

 SEC. 711. CLOSED-CAPTIONING OF PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS.
     Any television public service announcement that is produced
or funded in whole or in part by any agency or instrumentality of
Federal Government shall include closed captioning of the verbal
content of such announcement. A television broadcast station
licensee 
     (1) shall not be required to supply closed captioning for
any such announcement that fails to include it; and
     (2) shall not be liable for broadcasting any such
announcement without transmitting a closed caption unless the
licensee intentionally fails to transmit the closed caption that
was included with the announcement. .


                TITLE V MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. CONSTRUCTION.
     (a) In General. Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply a lesser standard
than the standards applied under title V of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 790 et seq.) or the regulations issued by
Federal agencies pursuant to such title.
     (b) Relationship to Other Laws. Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to invalidate or limit the remedies, rights, and
procedures of any Federal law or law of any State or political
subdivi sion of any State or jurisdiction that provides greater
or equal protection for the rights of individuals with
disabilities than are afforded by this Act. Nothing in this Act
shall be construed to preclude the prohibition of, or the
imposition of restrictions on, smoking in places of employ ment
covered by title I, in transportation covered by title II or III,
or in places of public accom modation covered by title III.
     (c) Insurance. Titles I through IV of this Act shall not be
construed to prohibit or restrict 
     (1) an insurer, hospital or medical service company, health
maintenance organization, or any agent, or entity that
administers benefit plans, or similar organizations from
underwriting risks, classifying risks, or administering such
risks that are based on or not inconsistent with State law; or
     (2) a person or organization covered by this Act from
establishing, sponsoring, observing or administering the terms of
a bona fide benefit plan that are based on underwriting risks,
classifying risks, or administering such risks that are based on
or not inconsistent with State law; or
     (3) a person or organization covered by this Act from
establishing, sponsoring, observing or administering the terms of
a bona fide benefit plan that is not subject to State laws that
regulate insurance.
     Paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) shall not be used as a
subterfuge to evade the purposes of title I and III.
     (d) Accommodations and Services. Nothing in this Act shall
be construed to require an individual with a disability to accept
an accommodation, aid, service, opportunity, or benefit which
such individual chooses not to accept.

SEC. 502. STATE IMMUNITY.
     A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to
the Constitution of the United States from an action in Federal
or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this
Act. In any action against a State for a violation of the
requirements of this Act, remedies (including remedies both at
law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same
extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in an
action against any public or private entity other than a State.

SEC. 503. PROHIBITION AGAINST RETALIATION AND COERCION.
     (a) Retaliation. No person shall discriminate against any
individual because such individual has opposed any act or
practice made unlawful by this Act or because such individual
made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner
in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this Act.
     (b) Interference, Coercion, or Intimidation. It shall be
unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any
individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his
or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her
having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise
or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this Act.
     (c) Remedies and Procedures. The remedies and procedures
available under sections 107, 203, and 308 of this Act shall be
available to aggrieved persons for violations of subsections (a)
and (b), with respect to title I, title II and title III,
respectively.

     SEC. 504. REGULATIONS BY TO THE ARCHITECTURAL AND
TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD.
     (a) Issuance of Guidelines. Not later than 9 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board shall issue minimum
guidelines that shall supplement the existing Minimum Guidelines
and Requirements for Accessible Design for purposes of titles II
and III of this Act.
     (b) Contents of Guidelines. The supplemental guidelines
issued under subsection (a) shall establish additional
requirements, consistent with this Act, to ensure that buildings,
facilities, rail passenger cars, and vehicles are accessible, in
terms of architecture and design, transportation, and
communication, to individuals with disabilities.
     (c) Qualified Historic Properties 
     (1) In general. The supplemental guidelines issued under
subsection (a) shall include procedures and requirements for
alterations that will threaten or destroy the historic signifi
cance of qualified historic buildings and facilities as defined
in 4.1.7(1)(a) of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards.
     (2) Sites eligible for listing in national register. With
respect to alterations of buildings or facilities that are
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
under the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et
seq.), the guidelines described in paragraph (1) shall, at a
minimum, maintain the procedures and requirements established in
4.1.7 (1) and (2) of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards.
     (3) Other sites. With respect to alterations of buildings or
facilities designated as historic under State or local law, the
guidelines described in paragraph (1) shall establish procedures
equivalent to those established by 4.1.7(1) (b) and (c) of the
Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, and shall require, at a
minimum, compliance with the requirements established in 4.1.7(2)
of such standards.

SEC. 505. ATTORNEY S FEES.
     In any action or administrative proceeding commenced
pursuant to this Act, the court or agency, in its discretion, may
allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a
reason able attorney s fee, including litigation expenses, and
costs, and the United States shall be liable for the foregoing
the same as a private individual.

SEC. 506. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
     (a) Plan for Assistance. 
     (1) In general. Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation with
the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the
Secretary of Transportation, the Chair of the Architectural and
Transporta tion Barriers Compliance Board, and the Chairman of
the Federal Communications Commis sion, shall develop a plan to
assist entities covered under this Act, and other Federal
agencies, in understanding the responsibility of such entities
and agencies under this Act.
     (2) Publication of plan. The Attorney General shall publish
the plan referred to in paragraph (1) for public comment in
accordance with subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United
States Code (commonly known as the Administrative Procedure Act).
     (b) Agency and Public Assistance. The Attorney General may
obtain the assistance of other Federal agencies in carrying out
subsection (a), including the National Council on Disability, the
President s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities,
the Small Business Adminis tration, and the Department of
Commerce.
     (c) Implementation. 
     (1) Rendering assistance. Each Federal agency that has
responsibility under paragraph (2) for implementing this Act may
render technical assistance to individuals and institutions that
have rights or duties under the respective title or titles for
which such agency has responsibility.
     (2) Implementation of titles. 
     (A) Title I. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and
the Attorney General shall implement the plan for assistance
developed under subsection (a), for title I.
     (B) Title ii. 
     (i) Subtitle a. The Attorney General shall implement such
plan for assistance for subtitle A of title II.
     (ii) Subtitle b. The Secretary of Transportation shall
implement such plan for assistance for subtitle B of title II.
     (C) Title iii. The Attorney General, in coordination with
the Secretary of Transporta tion and the Chair of the
Architectural Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, shall
implement such plan for assistance for title III, except for
section 304, the plan for assistance for which shall be
implemented by the Secretary of Transportation.
     (D) Title iv. The Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission, in coordi nation with the Attorney General, shall
implement such plan for assistance for title IV.
     (3) Technical assistance manuals. Each Federal agency that
has responsibility under paragraph (2) for implementing this Act
shall, as part of its implementation responsibilities, ensure the
availability and provision of appropriate technical assistance
manuals to individuals or entities with rights or duties under
this Act no later than six months after applicable final
regulations are published under titles I, II, III, and IV.
     (d) Grants and Contracts. 
     (1) In general. Each Federal agency that has responsibility
under subsection (c)(2) for implementing this Act may make grants
or award contracts to effectuate the purposes of this section,
subject to the availability of appropriations. Such grants and
contracts may be awarded to individuals, institutions not
organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which
inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual
(including educational institutions), and associations
representing individuals who have rights or duties under this
Act.  Contracts may be awarded to entities organized for profit,
but such entities may not be the recipients or grants described
in this paragraph.
     (2) Dissemination of information. Such grants and contracts,
among other uses, may be designed to ensure wide dissemination of
information about the rights and duties established by this Act
and to provide information and technical assistance about
techniques for effective compliance with this Act.
     (e) Failure to Receive Assistance. An employer, public
accommodation, or other entity covered under this Act shall not
be excused from compliance with the requirements of this Act
because of any failure to receive technical assistance under this
section, including any failure in the development or
dissemination of any technical assistance manual authorized by
this section.

SEC. 507. FEDERAL WILDERNESS AREAS.
     (a) Study. The National Council on Disability shall conduct
a study and report on the effect that wilderness designations and
wilderness land management practices have on the ability of
individuals with disabilities to use and enjoy the National
Wilderness Preservation System as established under the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
     (b) Submission of Report. Not later than 1 year after the
enactment of this Act, the National Council on Disability shall
submit the report required under subsection (a) to Congress.
     (c) Specific Wilderness Access. 
     (1) In general. Congress reaffirms that nothing in the
Wilderness Act is to be construed as prohibiting the use of a
wheelchair in a wilderness area by an individual whose disability
requires use of a wheelchair, and consistent with the Wilderness
Act no agency is required to provide any form of special
treatment or accommodation, or to construct any facilities or
modify any conditions of lands within a wilderness area in order
to facilitate such use.
     (2) Definition. For purposes of paragraph (1), the term
 wheelchair means a device designed solely for use by a
mobility-impaired person for locomotion, that is suitable for use
in an indoor pedestrian area.

SEC. 508. TRANSVESTITES.
     For the purposes of this Act, the term  disabled  or
 disability  shall not apply to an individual solely because that
individual is a transvestite.

     SEC. 509. COVERAGE OF CONGRESS AND TO THE AGENCIES OF TO THE
LEGISLA TIVE BRANCH.
     (a) Coverage of the Senate. 
     (1) Commitment to Rule XLII. The Senate reaffirms its
commitment to Rule XLII of the Standing Rules of the Senate which
provides as follows:
     No member, officer, or employee of the Senate shall, with
respect to employment by the Senate or any office thereof 
     (a) fail or refuse to hire an individual;
     (b) discharge an individual; or
     (c) otherwise discriminate against an individual with
respect to promotion, compensa tion, or terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment on the basis of such individual s race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or state of physical
handicap. 
     (2) Application to Senate employment. The rights and
protections provided pursuant to this Act, the Civil Rights Act
of 1990 (S. 2104, 101st Congress), the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 shall apply with respect to employment
by the United States Senate.
     (3) Investigation and adjudication of claims. All claims
raised by any individual with respect to Senate employment,
pursuant to the Acts referred to in paragraph (2), shall be
investigated and adjudicated by the Select Committee on Ethics,
pursuant to S. Res. 338, 88th Congress, as amended, or such other
entity as the Senate may designate.
     (4) Rights of employees. The Committee on Rules and
Administration shall ensure that Senate employees are informed of
their rights under the Acts referred to in paragraph (2).
     (5) Applicable Remedies. When assigning remedies to
individuals found to have a valid claim under the Acts referred
to in paragraph (2), the Select Committee on Ethics, or such
other entity as the Senate may designate, should to the extent
practicable apply the same remedies applicable to all other
employees covered by the Acts referred to in paragraph (2). Such
remedies shall apply exclusively.
     (6) Matters Other Than Employment. 
     (A) In General. The rights and protections under this Act
shall, subject to subpara graph (B), apply with respect to the
conduct of the Senate regarding matters other than employment.
     (B) Remedies. The Architect of the Capitol shall establish
remedies and procedures to be utilized with respect to the rights
and protections provided pursuant to subparagraph (A). Such
remedies and procedures shall apply exclusively, after approval
in accordance with subparagraph (C).
     (C) Proposed remedies and procedures. For purposes of
subparagraph (B), the Architect of the Capitol shall submit
proposed remedies and procedures to the Senate Committee on Rules
and Administration. The remedies and procedures shall be
effective upon the approval of the Committee on Rules and
Administration.
     (7) Exercise of rulemaking power. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, enforce ment and adjudication of the rights and
protections referred to in paragraph (2) and (6)(A) shall be
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Senate.
The provisions of paragraph (1), (3), (4), (5), (6)(B), and
(6)(C) are enacted by the Senate as an exercise of the rulemaking
power of the Senate, with full recognition of the right of the
Senate to change its rules, in the same manner, and to the same
extent, as in the case of any other rule of the Senate.
     (b) Coverage of the House of Representatives. 
     (1) In general. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act or of law, the purposes of this Act shall, subject to
paragraphs (2) and (3), apply in their entirety to the House of
Representatives.
     (2) Employment in the house. 
     (A) Application. The rights and protections under this Act
shall, subject to subpara graph (B), apply with respect to any
employee in an employment position in the House of
Representatives and any employing authority of the House of
Representatives.
     (B) Administration. 
     (i) In general. In the administration of this paragraph, the
remedies and proce dures made applicable pursuant to the
resolution described in clause (ii) shall apply exclusively.
     (ii) Resolution. The resolution referred to in clause (i) is
House Resolution 15 of the One Hundred First Congress, as agreed
to January 3, 1989, or any other provision that continues in
effect the provisions of, or is a successor to, the Fair
Employment Practices Resolution (House Resolution 558 of the One
Hundredth Congress, as agreed to October 4, 1988).
     (C) Exercise of rulemaking power. The provisions of
subparagraph (B) are enacted by the House of Representatives as
an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives, with full recognition of the right of the House
to change its rules, in the same manner, and to the same extent
as in the case of any other rule of the House.
     (3) Matters other than employment. 
     (A) In general. The rights and protections under this Act
shall, subject to subpara graph (B), apply with respect to the
conduct of the House of Representatives regarding matters other
than employment.
     (B) Remedies. The Architect of the Capitol shall establish
remedies and procedures to be utilized with respect to the rights
and protections provided pursuant to subparagraph (A). Such
remedies and procedures shall apply exclusively, after approval
in accordance with subparagraph (C).
     (C) Approval. For purposes of subparagraph (B), the
Architect of the Capitol shall submit proposed remedies and
procedures to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The
remedies and procedures shall be effective upon the approval of
the Speaker, after consultation with the House Office Building
Commission.
     (c) Instrumentalities of Congress. 
     (1) In general. The rights and protections under this Act
shall, subject to paragraph (2), apply with respect to the
conduct of each instrumentality of the Congress.
     (2) Establishment of remedies and procedures by
instrumentalities. The chief official of each instrumentality of
the Congress shall establish remedies and procedures to be
utilized with respect to the rights and protections provided
pursuant to paragraph (1). Such remedies and procedures shall
apply exclusively.
     (3) Report to congress. The chief official of each
instrumentality of the Congress shall, after establishing
remedies and procedures for purposes of paragraph (2), submit to
the Congress a report describing the remedies and procedures.
     (4) Definition of instrumentalities. For purposes of this
section, instrumentalities of the Congress include the following:
the Architect of the Capitol, the Congressional Budget Office,
the General Accounting Office, the Government Printing Office,
the Library of Congress, the Office of Technology Assessment, and
the United States Botanic Garden.
     (5) Construction. Nothing in this section shall alter the
enforcement procedures for individuals with disabilities provided
in the General Accounting Office Personnel Act of 1980 and
regulations promulgated pursuant to that Act.

SEC. 510. ILLEGAL USE OF DRUGS.
     (a) In General. For purposes of this Act, the term
 individual with a disability  does not include an individual who
is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when the
covered entity acts on the basis of such use.
     (b) Rules of Construction. Nothing in subsection (a) shall
be construed to exclude as an individual with a disability an
individual who 
     (1) has successfully completed a supervised drug
rehabilitation program and is no longer engaging in the illegal
use of drugs, or has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully
and is no longer engaging in such use;
     (2) is participating in a supervised rehabilitation program
and is no longer engaging in such use; or
     (3) is erroneously regarded as engaging in such use, but is
not engaging in such use; except that it shall not be a violation
of this Act for a covered entity to adopt or administer
reasonable policies or procedures, including but not limited to
drug testing, designed to ensure that an individual described in
paragraph (1) or (2) is no longer engaging in the illegal use of
drugs; however, nothing in this section shall be construed to
encourage, prohibit, restrict, or authorize the conducting of
testing for the illegal use of drugs.
     (c) Health and Other Services. Notwithstanding subsection
(a) and section 511(b)(3), an individual shall not be denied
health services, or services provided in connection with drug
rehabilitation, on the basis of the current illegal use of drugs
if the individual is otherwise entitled to such services.
     (d) Definition of Illegal use of drugs. 
     (1) In general. The term  illegal use of drugs  means the
use of drugs, the possession or distribution of which is unlawful
under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812). Such term
does not include the use of a drug taken under supervision by a
licensed health care professional, or other uses authorized by
the Controlled Substances Act or other provisions of Federal law.
     (2) Drugs. The term  drug  means a controlled substance, as
defined in schedules I through V of section 202 of the Controlled
Substances Act.

SEC. 511. DEFINITIONS.
     (a) Homosexuality and Bisexuality. For purposes of the
definition of  disability  in section 3(2), homosexuality and
bisexuality are not impairments and as such are not disabilities
under this Act.
     (b) Certain Conditions. Under this Act, the term
 disability  shall not include 
     (1) transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism,
voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical
impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;
     (2) compulsive gambling, kleptomania, or pyromania; or
     (3) psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from
current illegal use of drugs.

SEC. 512. AMENDMENTS TO THE REHABILITATION ACT.
     (a) Definition of Handicapped Individual. Section 7(8) of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 706(8)) is amended by
redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D), and by
inserting after subparagraph (B) the following subparagraph:
     (C)(i) For purposes of title V, the term  individual with
handicaps  does not include an individual who is currently
engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when a covered entity acts
on the basis of such use.
     (ii) Nothing in clause (i) shall be construed to exclude as
an individual  with handicaps an individual who 
     (I) has successfully completed a supervised drug
rehabilitation program and is no longer engaging in the illegal
use of drugs, or has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully
and is no longer engaging in such use;
     (II) is participating in a supervised rehabilitation program
and is no longer engaging in such use; or
     (III) is erroneously regarded as engaging in such use, but
is not engaging in such use; except that it shall not be a
violation of this Act for a covered entity to adopt or administer
reasonable policies or procedures, including but not limited to
drug testing, designed to ensure that an individual described in
subclause (I) or (II) is no longer engaging in the illegal use of
drugs.
     (iii) Notwithstanding clause (i), for purposes of programs
and activities providing health services and services provided
under titles I, II and III, an individual shall not be excluded
from the benefits of such programs or activities on the basis of
his or her current illegal use of drugs if he or she is otherwise
entitled to such services.
     (iv) For purposes of programs and activities providing
educational services, local educational agencies may take
disciplinary action pertaining to the use or possession of
illegal drugs or alcohol against any handicapped student who
currently is engaging in the illegal use of drugs or in the use
of alcohol to the same extent that such disciplinary action is
taken against nonhandi capped students. Furthermore, the due
process procedures at 34 CFR 104.36 shall not apply to such
disciplinary actions.
     (v) For purposes of sections 503 and 504 as such sections
relate to employment, the term  individual with handicaps  does
not include any individual who is an alcoholic whose current use
of alcohol prevents such individual from performing the duties of
the job in question or whose employment, by reason of such
current alcohol abuse, would constitute a direct threat to
property or the safety of others. .
     (b) Definition of Illegal Drugs. Section 7 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 706) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
     (22)(A) The term  drug  means a controlled substance, as
defined in schedules I through V of section 202 of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).
     (B) The term  illegal use of drugs  means the use of drugs,
the possession or distribution of which is unlawful under the
Controlled Substances Act. Such term does not include the use of
a drug taken under supervision by a licensed health care
professional, or other uses authorized by the Controlled
Substances Act or other provisions of Federal law. .
     (c) Conforming Amendments. Section 7(8)(B) of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 706(8)(B)) is amended 
     (1) in the first sentence, by striking  Subject to the
second sentence of this subparagraph,  and inserting  Subject to
subparagraphs (C) and (D), ; and
     (2) by striking the second sentence.

SEC. 513. ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
     Where appropriate and to the extent authorized by law, the
use of alternative means of dispute resolution, including
settlement negotiations, conciliation, facilitation, mediation,
factfinding, minitrials, and arbitration, is encouraged to
resolve disputes arising under this Act.

SEC. 514. SEVERABILITY.
     Should any provision in this Act be found to be
unconstitutional by a court of law, such provision shall be
severed from the remainder of the Act, and such action shall not
affect the enforceability of the remaining provisions of the Act.


                              Speaker of the House of
Representatives.

                              Vice President of the United States
and President of the Senate.





                           Appendix I
          Mission of the National Council on Disability


Overview and Purpose

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent
federal agency led by 15 members appointed by the President of
the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.  

The overall purpose of NCD is to promote policies, programs,
practices, and procedures that guarantee equal opportunity for
all individuals with disabilities, regardless of the nature or
severity of the disability; and to empower individuals with
disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent
living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of
society.


Specific Duties

The current statutory mandate of NCD includes the following:

_    Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, policies,
programs, practices, and procedures concerning individuals with
disabilities conducted or assisted by federal departments and
agencies, including programs established or assisted under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, or under the
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act; as
well as all statutes and regulations pertaining to federal
programs that assist such individuals with disabilities, in order
to assess the effectiveness of such policies, programs,
practices, procedures, statutes, and regulations in meeting the
needs of individuals with disabilities.

_    Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, new and
emerging disability policy issues affecting individuals with
disabilities at the federal, state, and local levels, and in the
private sector, including the need for and coordination of adult
services, access to personal assistance services, school reform
efforts and the impact of such efforts on individuals with
disabilities, access to health care, and policies that operate as
disincentives for individuals to seek and retain employment.

_    Making recommendations to the President, the Congress, the
Secretary of Education, the Director of the National Institute on
Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and other officials of
federal agencies, respecting ways to better promote equal
opportunity, economic self- sufficiency, independent living, and
inclusion and integration into all aspects of society for
Americans with disabilities.

_    Providing the Congress, on a continuing basis, advice,
recommendations, legislative proposals, and any additional
information that the Council or the Congress deems appropriate.

_    Gathering information about the implementation,
effectiveness, and impact of the  Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).

_    Advising the President, the Congress, the Commissioner of
the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the Assistant
Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
within the Department of Education, and the Director of the
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research on
the development of the programs to be carried out under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

_    Providing advice to the Commissioner with respect to the
policies and conduct of the Rehabilitation Services
Administration.

_    Making recommendations to the Director of the National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research on ways to
improve research, service, administration, and the collection,
dissemi nation, and implementation of research findings affecting
persons with disabilities.

_    Providing advice regarding priorities for the activities of
the Interagency Disability Coordinating Council and reviewing the
recommendations of this Council for legislative and
administrative changes to ensure that such recommendations are
consistent with the purposes of the Council to promote the full
integration, independence, and productivity of individuals with
disabilities;

_    Preparing and submitting to the President and the Congress
an annual report titled National Disability Policy:  A Progress
Report. 

_    Preparing and submitting to the Congress and the President
an annual report containing a summary of the activities and
accomplishments of the Council.


International

In 1995, NCD was designated by the Department of State to be the
official contact point with the U.S. government for disability
issues.  Specifically, NCD interacts with the special rapporteur
of United Nations Commission for Social Development on disability
matters.


Consumers Served and Current Activities

While many government agencies deal with issues and programs
affecting people with disabilities, NCD is the only federal
agency charged with addressing, analyzing, and making
recommendations on issues of public policy that affect people
with disabilities regardless of age, disability type, perceived
employment potential, economic need, specific functional ability,
status as a veteran, or other individual circumstance.  NCD
recognizes its unique opportunity to facilitate independent
living, community integration, and employment opportunities for
people with disabilities by ensuring an informed and coordinated
approach to addressing the concerns of persons with disabilities
and eliminating barriers to their active participation in
community and family life.

NCD plays a major role in developing disability policy in
America.  In fact, it was NCD that originally proposed what
eventually became ADA.  NCD s present list of key issues includes
improving personal assistance services, promoting health care
reform, including students with disabilities in high-quality
programs in typical neighborhood schools, promoting equal
employment and community housing opportunities, monitoring the
implementation of ADA, improving assistive technology, and
ensuring that persons with disabilities who are members of
minority groups fully participate in society.


Statutory History

NCD was initially established in 1978 as an advisory board within
the Department of Education (Public Law 95-602).  The
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-221) trans
formed NCD into an independent agency.








                           Appendix J
              ADA Technical Assistance Information:

Information about the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
guidance about complying with the ADA, may be obtained from the
following federal agencies and private sources.


     Department of Justice provides technical assistance on the
Standards for Accessible Design and provisions concerning
businesses, non-profit service agencies, and state and local
government programs, as well as information on how to file
complaints.

     ADA Information Line: 800-514-0301 (voice); 800-514-0383
(TTY)
     Electronic Bulletin Board: 202-514-6193
     Internet: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm


     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provides technical
assistance on employment provisions, including information on how
to file complaints.

     Employment Information: 800-669-4000 (voice); 800-669-6820
(TTY)
     Employment Documents: 800-669-3362 (voice); 800-800-3302
(TTY)
     Internet: http://www.eeoc.gov


     Department of Transportation provides technical assistance
on public transportation provisions

     Transportation Information & Documents: 202-366-1656 (voice)
     Transportation Legal Questions: 202-366-1936 (voice)
     Complaints and Enforcement: 202-366-2285 (voice);
202-366-0153 (TTY)
     Electronic Bulletin Board 202-366-3764
     Internet: http://www.fta.dot.gov


     Federal Communications Commission provides technical
assistance on telephone relay services

     Relay Service Information: 202-418-1898 (voice);
202-418-2224 (TTY)
     Relay Service Documents: 202-857-3800 (voice); 202-293-8810
(TTY)
     Internet: http://www.fcc.gov/dtf/dtfhome.html



     Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
(ATBCB) provides technical assistance on the ADA Accessibility
Guidelines.

     Information & Documents: 800-872-2253 (voice); 800-993-2822
(TTY)
     Electronic Bulletin Board: 202-272-5448
     Internet: http://www.access-board.gov/


     Department of Education provides general ADA technical
assistance through ten regional information centers

     Disability & Business Technical Assistance Centers:
800-949-4232 (voice/TTY)
     Internet: http://www.icdi.wvu.edu/tech/ada.htm


     President's Committee on Employment of People with
Disabilities provides employment information and funds the Job
Accommodation Network (JAN), which provides advice on
accommodating employees with disabilities.

     Employment Information: 202-376-6200 (voice); 202-376-6205
(TTY)
     Internet: http://www.pcepd.gov
     Job Accommodation Network: 800-526-7234 (voice/TTY)
     JAN Internet: http://janweb.icdi.wvu.edu/english/homeus.htm


     Internal Revenue Service provides information about tax code
provisions that can facilitate business compliance

     Tax Code Information: 800-829-1040 (voice); 800-829-4059
(TTY)
     Tax Code Legal Information: 202-622-3110 (voice)
     For Publication 907: 800-829-3676 (voice); 800-829-4059
(TTY)


     Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) 
provides general ADA technical assistance

     Information and Documents: 800-466-4232 (voice/TTY)


          Project ACTION provides information and publications
about transportation accessibility

     Transportation Information and Documents: 800-659-6428
(voice); 202-347-3066 (voice); 202-347-7385 (TTY)


National Council on Disability offers publications about the ADA
and its implementation.

     Information and Documents: 202-272-2004 (voice);
202-272-2074 (TTY)
     Internet: http://www.ncd.gov


     Empowerment Zone offers information, ideas, and software
related to the general theme of empowerment for individuals and
communities, including ADA documents and publications from
various organizations under the heading of civil rights.

     Internet: http://www.empowermentzone.com

     








                             Notes:

 Abbreviations


  ADA of 1988
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1988, 100th Cong., 2nd
sess., S. 2345, April 28, 1988.
  ADA of 1989
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989, 101st Cong., 1st
sess., S. 933, May 9, 1989.
  ADA of 1990
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336,
101st Cong., 2nd sess., July 26, 1990.
  Cong. Rec.
Congressional Record.
  Leg. Hist.
House Committee on Education and Labor, Legislative History of
Public Law 101-336, The Americans with Disabilities Act, 3 vols.,
101st Cong., 2nd sess., December 1990, Serial No. 102-A (102-B,
102-C).
  Senate Rept.
Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1989: Report together with Additional Views,
101st Cong., 1st sess., August 30, 1989.
  Senate Hrgs.
Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Hearings Before
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the Subcommittee
on the Handicapped, United States Senate, 101st Cong., 1st sess.,
May 9, 10, 16, 1989, S. Hrg. 101-156.
  USCCAN
United States Code Congressional and Administrative News (St.
Paul, Minn: West Publishing Company). 
Case, spelling, and punctuation in quotations have been corrected
silently, according to the editorial standards used throughout
the manuscript, to ensure fluidity and consistency.


                            Foreword









National Council on Disability
1331 F Street, N. W., Suite 1050
Washington, D.C.  20004-1107

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use   $300
Standard Mail (B)
Postage and Fees Paid
NCD
Permit No. G-279





































Address Correction Requested

----------
End of Document


-- 
TNET Mail to News Gateway
For information about this gateway, email info@tnet.com
Dimenet Network Page Generation Copyright (c) 2004-2005 DIMENET and TNET Services, Inc.
Module: archive.php - Version: 2.50 - Build: August 11 2013 01:08:58 MST
Valid HTML 4.01!   Valid CSS!