--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EBY00035Date: 07/28/97 From: JULIE DAWSON Time: 11:00am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: 48:Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TX11:00:3307/28/97 From: Julie Dawson Subject: Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TXT (fwd) 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 --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EBY00036Date: 07/28/97 From: JULIE DAWSON Time: 11:00am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: 49:Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TX11:00:3307/28/97 From: Julie Dawson Subject: Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TXT (fwd) 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 --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EBY00037Date: 07/28/97 From: JULIE DAWSON Time: 11:00am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: 29:Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TX11:00:3307/28/97 From: Julie Dawson Subject: Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TXT (fwd) 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 --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EBY00038Date: 07/28/97 From: JULIE DAWSON Time: 11:00am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: 30:Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TX11:00:3307/28/97 From: Julie Dawson Subject: Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TXT (fwd) 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 --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EBY00039Date: 07/28/97 From: JULIE DAWSON Time: 11:00am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: 31:Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TX11:00:3307/28/97 From: Julie Dawson Subject: Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TXT (fwd) 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 --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EBY00040Date: 07/28/97 From: JULIE DAWSON Time: 11:00am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: 32:Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TX11:00:3307/28/97 From: Julie Dawson Subject: Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TXT (fwd) 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, --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EBY00041Date: 07/28/97 From: JULIE DAWSON Time: 11:00am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: 33:Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TX11:00:3307/28/97 From: Julie Dawson Subject: Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TXT (fwd) 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 enter 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 eaf 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 , 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 , 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, 996, 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, y 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, at 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. --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EBY00042Date: 07/28/97 From: JULIE DAWSON Time: 11:00am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: 34:Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TX11:00:3307/28/97 From: Julie Dawson Subject: Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TXT (fwd) 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 orums 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 urgdorf, 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 pportunity 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. --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EBY00043Date: 07/28/97 From: JULIE DAWSON Time: 11:00am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: 35:Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TX11:00:3307/28/97 From: Julie Dawson Subject: Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TXT (fwd) 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 --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EBY00044Date: 07/28/97 From: JULIE DAWSON Time: 11:00am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: 36:Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TX11:00:3307/28/97 From: Julie Dawson Subject: Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TXT (fwd) 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 --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)