From: Julie Dawson 
Subject: Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TXT  (fwd)
of the Epilepsy Foundation of America (EFA).  Coelho therefore
spoke not only with the authority be stowed upon him from the
Democratic leadership, but also as an example of the potential of
persons with disabilities.   Tony was sort of the epitome of what
a person with a disability can do,  said Dornatt of his staff,
 and what they can achieve given a fair shake and given a
chance.    Coelho echoed this theme in his remarks at the Senate
hearing:  We can be productive, if you will give us that right,
give us that opportunity.  That is all we ask for, nothing more,
but definitely nothing less.  
     In addition to speaking about his personal experiences,
Congressman Coelho addressed Senator Hatch s remarks and stressed
the need for bipartisanship:  We very much want you on board and
very much need your support,  he entreated.   We would prefer
that you not introduce your own bill,  he added, urging Hatch to
work toward a common bill instead.  Hatch replied by pledging his
best efforts to develop consensus.   I would love nothing better 
than to cosponsor this bill, Hatch said.   But in its present
form, I cannot.   Only minutes into the first hearing, it was
clear that considerable work lay ahead to achieve bipartisanship
and shepherd the ADA through Congress.  The prospect of a
competing bill made cooperation much more critical.  The hearings
were an opportunity to find a solution.
     As in 1988, persons with disabilities presented powerful
testimony about the need for the ADA by describing their personal
experiences.   There is not one disabled American alive today who
has not experienced some form of discrimination,  I. King Jordan
said.  The most vivid imagery came from Justin Dart.  In addition
to his carefully crafted and eloquent words, Dart brought visual
aids.  He presented the committee with a box of discrimination
diaries and letters that he and others had gathered from around
the country (see Appendix E).  Yet, Dart acknowledged, no
document could truly demonstrate the impact of discrimination. 
As a supplement, Dart thus brought an extra wheelchair.   I
submit to you this brand new empty wheelchair,  he said to the
committee chairman forcefully.   On January 24, 1988, last year,
my younger brother, Peter, was faced with the necessity to use,
[and] be identified with, this public invitation to
discrimination.   But his brother claimed:  I would rather be
dead.   Four days later, said Dart, he committed suicide.
     Others described specific examples of discrimination.  Mary
DeSapid described being fired by her employer because of her
cancer treatment.  Amy Dimsdale, a wheelchair-user trained in
journalism at the University of Texas at Arlington, described her
experiences of being overlooked by potential employers.   I have
submitted over 300 resumes and more than 100 applications.  I
have indicated my willingness to be flexible, work at home,
relocate, and use my own special equipment  all to no avail.  I
need virtually no special accommodations to work, as long as I
can get in the Discrimination  destroys healthy self-concepts,
and it slowly erodes the human spirit. 
          I. King Jordanbuilding.   Lisa Carl, whose cerebral
palsy impeded her speech and required use of a wheelchair, spoke
about a time when she went to see a movie at a theater around the
corner from her house.  But Lisa was told she could not enter. 
Later the theater explained to Lisa s mother:  I basically don t
have to let her in here, and I don t want her in here.   Betty
Corey, who took into her home a girl born with AIDS, described
having to contact twenty-six different funeral directors before
she could find one who would bury the six-year-old without adding
surcharges for handling a person with AIDS.  Yet, in none of
these situations had a law been broken: there was no protec tion
such as that provided for minorities and women.
     Disability advocates used numerous arguments to justify the
ADA.  Many emphasized the loss of human dignity experienced from
discrimination.  Dimsdale, for example, said she felt  useless,
powerless, and demeaned  by her inability to get a job. 
Discrimination  destroys healthy self-concepts, and it slowly
erodes the human spirit,  said Jordan.  Others argued that
discrimination against the disabled violated one of America s
central tenets: individualism.  Dart explained that he addressed
the committee as  a fiscal conservative, an active Republican,
and, above all, an advocate for the principles of individual
responsibility, individual productivity, and individual rights
which have made America great.  Social barriers to persons with
disabilities, he asserted, under mined an individual s
opportunity to participate in American society fully and equally. 
Others argued that it was more costly to keep persons with
disabilities dependent on government assistance than it was to
spend the small amount needed to break down barriers and enable
people to support themselves.  Senator Harkin, for example,
hypothesized that the cost to institutionalize one of his
constituents with a developmental disability would cost nearly
five million dollars over 65 years.
     Another argument on behalf of the ADA was simply that it was
nothing new, nothing radical.  These standards are not new, they
are not confusing, and they are workable,  Arlene Mayerson of the
Disability rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) declared in
reference to the ADA s foundation in Section 504.   We tried very
hard to avoid any kind of new language,  Senator Harkin
explained.  Although transportation was the most controversial
aspect of the ADA, many defended it as the linchpin to the entire
bill.   The freedom to go to college does not exist without the
means to get to the college,  testified Michael McIntyre,
Executive Director of Queens Independent Living Center.   The
freedom to work does not exist without the ability to get to
work.  The freedom to organize politically does not exist without
people being able to get together in one place.  The freedom to
date, to go to the movies, to go to the library, to go shopping,
to go to a ball game, [to go] anyplace that makes life
meaningful, is predicated on the ability to travel.   ADA
supporters also emphasized the need to develop solid enforcement
provisions to make the bill have a practical effect.  The whole
trick is to make it more expensive to break the law than it is to
keep the law,  testified Neil Hartigan, the Attorney General of
Illinois.   It won t work without damages.  
     Although testimony also came from those proposing changes to
the bill, virtually every witness pledged support of the overall
ADA concept. The Chamber of Commerce, for example, testified that
the chamber  shares the goal of the sponsors of this act,  and
pledged to cooperate  in trying to achieve a workable piece of
legislation that we can fully support.   Similarly, the National
Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) endorsed  the right of
every American to have the opportunity to realize his or her full
potential.   These sentiments were manifested in the name of the
business community s coalition: the Disability Rights Working
Group.
     The two dominant reservations about the ADA were cost and
litigation.  Cost was an issue because the ADA, unlike other
civil rights legislation, required businesses and employers to
spend money on accommodations and modifications.  The second main
concern was that, as Lawrence Lorber testified, the  litigation
potential of this bill is enormous.   This fear built on the
perception that phrases such as  reasonable accommodation, 
 undue hardship,   readily achievable,   essential function,  and
 less effective  were inadequately defined, compelling courts to
decide the meaning of the ADA.  It also stemmed from the belief
that the remedies available under the ADA would invite frivolous
law suits.  Specific concerns included objections to the public
accommodations provisions.  William Ball, representing the
Association of Christian Schools International, argued that
religious organizations and religious schools should be exempt
from the public accommodations provisions.  The ADA, he argued,
would be too costly, might force schools to hire drug/alcohol
abusers or homosexuals, and threatened the constitutional
separation of church and state.  The small business community
also argued for an exemption from public accommodations
provisions, because of the associated costs and because small
business owners were exempt from other civil rights laws.
     Careful preparations by Senators Harkin and Kennedy, their
staffs, and the disability commu nity paid off in the course of
the hearings.  Harkin, presiding over the deliberations, was
especially deft in handling one of the most controversial issues:
mandatory lifts for intercity buses (called  over-the-road  buses
because their passengers ride above luggage compartments).  In a
dialogue with Charles Webb of the American Bus Association (ABA),
Harkin creatively used Webb s testimony to defend the ADA.  Webb
testified that a bus lift cost $35,000, required annual mainte
nance of $2,000, and resulted in a 38 percent loss in luggage
space and a loss of 11 or 12 seats. Harkin, however, asked Webb
whether a technologically-advanced lift that cost less than
$8,000, required little or no maintenance, and resulted in no
loss of package space and only one seat, would be acceptable.  
 Absolutely,  Webb replied.   Well, now, I am glad to hear you
say that,  said Harkin with pride,  because I have a letter here
from the Regional Transportation District of Denver, Colorado, 
which has secured a contract for a lift with exactly those
specifications. To the applause of those assembled, Senator
Harkin went on to explain that competition and technology would
only drive the price further down when lifts were ordered by the
thousands.
     In addition to their compelling testimony, the Senate
hearings were significant for the dialogue concerning
bipartisanship and the Bush administration, which was carried out
between Senators Kennedy and Harkin, on the one hand, and
Senators Dole and Hatch, on the other.  On May 10, under
relentless pressure from the disability community, Dole made an
appearance before the Senate committee to make a statement.  On
the previous Friday, May 5, he had met with President Bush s
chief counsel C. Boyden Gray, Chief of Staff John Sununu, head of
the Domestic Policy Council Roger Porter, and others in the White
House, to discuss how they could cooperate in working out a
bipartisan bill.  Dole had also spoken with President Bush on May
9.  Before the committee, Dole now asserted that he and the
administration hoped to see, before year s end,  a bipartisan
piece of legislation passed by Congress, signed by the president,
and embraced by, hopefully, the business community and certainly
by the disability community.   He was  somewhat cautious, 
however, because he wanted a bill that all affected parties could
defend.  He feared the potential for litigation and promoted a
gradual phase-in to protect small businesses.  Nevertheless, he
wanted to be a  positive force  rather than  an obstructionist, 
and urged that the administration needed more time to formulate
its position on the bill.
     The disability community, however, was growing impatient. 
NCIL held its annual conference in Washington, D.C., from May 12
to May 14.  At the conference, Bonnie O Day, Chairperson of the
NCIL Civil Rights Subcommittee, met with Pat Wright and Liz
Savage, whereupon they talked about organizing NCIL conferees to
hold a rally at the White House to demand swift action on the
ADA. In short order, O Day and others from NCIL began planning a
march for Sunday, May 14 Mother s Day.  Committees formed to make
signs and work out such details as getting a police permit.  They
planned to march from NCIL s reception on Capitol Hill to the
White House.  Several hundred people, including local ADA
supporters, joined the march.  They left in the evening amidst
pouring rain, carrying candles.  People using wheelchairs covered
themselves with garbage bags, a symbol of their
second-class-citizen status. 
     Boyden Gray is the most powerful counsel to a president
we ve had in a long, long time. . . .  On the issues Boyden has
chosen, he is awfully damned influential. 
          A.B. Culvahouse     At the White House, Marca Bristo,
President of NCIL, approached the security desk to place a call
to President Bush.  Al though she intended only to mobilize and
rally the crowd, an operator actually answered the phone and
placed a call through to the Domes tic Policy Office. 
Subsequently, Bristo told a White House representative that she
and others were out in the rain, were concerned about the ADA,
and wanted to see the president.  In reply, the representative
offered Bristo a meeting with White House staff the following
morning.  The next day, Bristo, Dart, and several other
representatives from the disability community met with Dr.
William L. Roper, of the Domestic Policy Counsel, Chief Counsel
Boyden Gray, and EEOC Chairman Evan Kemp to complain about the
president s delays.  Although the discussion did not result in a
specific commitment, the disability representa tives came away
feeling as if they had gotten their message through to the
administration.
     Two days later, at the final scheduled hearing on May 16,
the NCIL march appeared to have had an effect.  Having consulted
with the White House, Senator Hatch said that it was  imperative
that this committee hear testimony from the administration on
this bill.   Accordingly, he requested that the committee give
the administration one more chance.  Hatch proposed that the
committee delay mark-up for five weeks, hold one additional
hearing during the week of June 19, and invite the administration
to come forward.  If it did not, Hatch pledged that he would not
stand in the way of the bill.  Although the administration had
already possessed a draft of the bill for nearly two months,
Senator Kennedy agreed to grant more time, stipulating that if it
did not come forward, the committee would move on without its
input.
                       White House Testimony
     President Bush wanted the ADA  done in a way that was good
for the American people . . . this was not going to be a shell
promise. 
          Dr. William Roper   During the next five weeks,
executive agencies reviewed the bill to make recommendations for
an administration position.  Unlike Congress, which follows a
fairly organized deliberative process to reconcile the views of
two parties, policy-making in the White House is an ongoing
internal dynamic.  It organizes its decision-making according to
a series of functions, which are administered by such advisory
boards as the National Security Council, the Domestic Policy
Council, the Office of Counsel, and the Office of Personnel. 
---
---------------