From: Julie Dawson 
Subject: Equality of Opportunity -- HISTORY.TXT  (fwd)
established exclusion of compulsive gambling, kleptomania, and
pyromania by prohibit ing all  behavior disorders.   Based upon
his belief that the ADA was  a homosexual rights bill in
disguise,  his amendment also proposed the exclusion of anyone
with a contagious or sexually transmitted disease.  These
proposals posed a major threat to the ADA, for they applied not
just to transportation, but to the entire bill.  Although the
committee rejected the Dannemeyer amendment, these issues were
only temporarily put to rest.
     The Public Works and Transportation Committee held its
hearings on the ADA before Energy and Commerce, on September 20
and 26, 1989.  But it held its mark-up several weeks after the
Energy and Commerce Committee, on April 3, 1990.  For disability
advocates, the Public Works and Transportation Committee was much
easier to work with than the Energy and Commerce Committee, but
it ultimately posed a significant threat to their objectives. 
Chairman Anderson was a strong supporter of the ADA and charged
staff member Roger Slagle, whom he appointed to take the lead on
the ADA, with a clear mission:  Get the people on the bus.  
Slagle was not a detached mediator; he strove for optimal
accessibility.  From the disability community, he worked
especially with attorney Chai Feldblum, whom he described as  one
of the brightest people I ve ever worked with in my life.   But
Slagle had one major reservation: unwarranted litigation against
transit authorities.  Slagle said people on the House side
referred to the Senate bill as the  we re-going-to-sue-your-ass 
bill.  They feared that under the Senate bill a person with a
disability might be able to sue a transit authority simply
because a lift-equipped bus was late.   We in the House felt an
obligation to . . . fine tune  the ADA, said Slagle,  in a way
the transit authorities could embrace [the act] and make it
work. 
     The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation
was Congressman Norman Y. Mineta (D-CA).  Congressman Coelho, who
was a close friend of Mineta s, vigorously lobbied Mineta to be
more than a passive supporter of the ADA; Coelho wanted him to be
an active advo cate.  The fact that Mineta was indebted to Coelho
for crucial help on one of his own legislative endeavors helped
persuade him.  And Congressman Mineta came through: he was
 absolutely wonderful,  said Coelho.  
     Although there were strong advocates for the ADA on the
Public Works and Transportation Committee, there was also a
powerful counter-voice in Congressman Bud Shuster (R-PA). 
Shuster repeatedly referred to his mother, who was  a double
amputee in a wheelchair,  and how he  skinned my knuckles more
times than I can count trying to jiggle her wheelchair through a
door that should have been wider . . . or trying to lug a
wheelchair up a set of stairs where there should have been a
ramp.   There was no reason, he thought, that she would ever want
or need to get on a bus, and he outright opposed equipping all
buses with lifts.  Many persons in the disability community,
however, thought Shuster was out of touch with their sentiments. 
Persons in wheelchairs did not want to be pushed around and
transported; rather, they wanted to control their own mobility
and travel as independently as possible which required accessible
vehicles.
     The Public Works and Transportation Committee had
jurisdiction over transit: that is, transportation used primarily
for commuter purposes.  One of the biggest issues the committee
faced was whether to include a lift on every transit bus. 
Eastern Paralyzed Veterans of America (EPVA) attorney Jim
Weisman, who served as a transportation expert for the disability
community, was amazed that some members were opposed to putting
lifts on buses.  It seemed  ridiculous to me,  he said,  because
it was academic. . . . Transit authorities had just about given
this up.  [Everybody] who was anybody knew transit authorities
knew that the handwriting was on the wall.  
     The alternative to equipping buses with lifts was providing
paratransit service.  Congressman Shuster emphasized that persons
with disabilities in his district preferred paratransit over
fixed-route buses.  So might most people, given a chance to have
door-to-door transportation.  The problem with paratransit
service was that its expenses were unlimited, whereas for fixed
route systems the primary cost was a one-time lift installation. 
Fixed-route buses collected money with every ride; each ride on
paratransit cost the operator substantial money.  Consequently,
paratransit service was unable to meet the demand of its
clientele.  Transit authorities such as APTA, as Weisman
observed, were becoming convinced that it was more cost-effective
for them to purchase lift-equipped buses and were thus very
moderate in their reservations about the ADA.  Members of
Congress were the most vigorous opponents.  Ultimately, however,
the committee sided with its constituents who pushed for
lift-equipped, fixed-route bus systems and a supplemental
paratransit service for those unable to use standard service. 
     Debate about what to do with intercity bus services such as
Greyhound was much more contentious.  Senators had responded by
removing the original lift mandate and requiring that a
three-year study assess the most effective and cost-efficient
accessibility.  Greyhound and the ABA argued that people who
could not manage the steps into an intercity bus should simply be
carried onto the bus.  The difference with intercity
( over-the-road ) buses was that a lift potentially took away
seats and luggage space.  Companies such as Greyhound were in
many cases the only transpor tation serving rural areas.  They
argued that the loss of revenue from lift-installation would
necessi tate reduced service areas, and that many people would
thus be deprived of their only form of transportation.  The
disability community used the same evidence to make the opposite
point: since buses were in some cases the only available form of
transportation, it was imperative that persons with disabilities
be able to use them.  They also argued that it was unfair for
Greyhound, which was struggling financially, to point to
accessibility as the cause or potential cause of its problems.
Ultimately, the committee agreed with the Senate s provision
requiring a study and thereby delayed the final decision.
     The Public Works and Transportation Committee s primary
responsibility with respect to the ADA was bus transit, subways,
paratransit, and intercity buses, but it had jurisdiction over
rail systems operated by transit authorities.  Thus, certain
commuter rail routes for example, from Balt imore to
Washington fell under its jurisdiction.  This meant that two
different committees had the opportunity to craft rail
requirements.  The bill the Public Works and Transportation
Committee brought before the mark-up, like that of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, endorsed the Senate requirements for one car
per train, and accessibility for all new vehicles.  But an
amendment was introduced at the Public Works and Transportation
Committee mark-up that removed the accessibil ity requirement for
all new vehicles.  Proponents of the amendment contended that
trains should be approached like airplanes, where only designated
seats, not the entire plane, had to be accessible. The amendment
attracted a small number of Democrats whose districts had made
little headway in rail accessibility.  Combined with the votes of
Republicans, who almost unanimously supported the amendment,
these Democrats  votes helped give the amendment a majority.  It
was a significant defeat for the disability community, since the
provision violated one of the community s main principles:
accessibility for all new vehicles.
     The matter was not, however, settled.  The amendment created
a jurisdictional conflict that had to be settled by House
leadership, the House Parliamentarian, and the Rules Committee.
Chairman Dingell characteristically and vigorously argued that
his committee s jurisdiction should prevail.  Democratic
leadership on the Public Works and Transportation Committee, on
the other hand, especially Congressman Mineta, subtly revealed to
Congressman Hoyer and the House leadership that they supported
the Energy and Commerce version of the ADA.  To the relief of the
disability community, the House Parliamentarian and the Rules
Committee ruled in favor of Energy and Commerce.
                  Phase iii: judiciary committee
     After surviving review by the first three
committees Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Public
Works and Transportation the ADA s final committee hurdle was the
Judiciary Committee.  This final phase of the House committee
process was also a symbolic one: the last chance for opponents of
the bill to offer unrestricted amendments.  Once the bill went to
the House floor, the Rules Committee would allow only certain
amendments for consideration.  Similar to the Education and Labor
Committee, where Subcommittee Chairman Major Owens effectively
led the committee s deliberations, Don Edwards (D-CA), Chairman
of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights,
essentially took the lead in the Judiciary Committee s
consideration of the ADA.  Moreover, as with the Education and
Labor Committee, Congressman Hoyer played a central role in
shaping the Judiciary Committee s negotiations and Congressman
Bartlett continued to represent the Republican party.
     The Judiciary Committee held three hearings, on August 3,
October 11, and October 12, 1989.  The Subcommittee on Civil and
Constitutional Rights met for mark-up on April 25, 1990. The full
committee held mark-up sessions on May 1 and 2, at which time it
reported the ADA favorably to the House, as amended. 
     One of the hottest issues for the Judiciary Committee, which
had jurisdiction over portions of the employment and public
accommodations titles, was remedies.  Prior to the Judiciary
Commit tee s consideration of the ADA, the Senate and the White
House had reached a breakthrough comp romise on the issue of
remedies: the Senate agreed to restrict available employment and
public accommodations remedies to those in the Civil Rights Act,
which omitted punitive damages.  As a result of this agreement,
the Education and Labor Committee never even considered changing
the available remedies.  A crucial development during the
Judiciary Committee s deliberations, however, made them a live
issue once again.
     On February 7, 1990, Senator Kennedy and Congressman Hawkins
introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1990.  This bill amended the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 by allowing courts to award compensatory
and punitive damages at jury trials, to persons who successfully
proved they were victims of discrimination.  Because the ADA
merely incorporated the remedies of the Civil Rights Act by
reference, this proposed change to the Civil Rights Act would
also apply to the ADA. Representatives from the disability
community contended that this was consistent with earlier
agreements with the White House, that the principle all along had
been parity with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, regardless of
whether those provisions were strengthened or weakened over time.
     The Bush administration, however, felt betrayed and argued
that their negotiated agreement expressly excluded punitive
damages from the bill.  On March 12, The Washington Post reported
rumors that President Bush might withdraw his endorsement of the
bill if the ADA did not expressly limit its remedial provisions
to injunctive relief, reinstatement, and back pay.  That same
night, Attorney General Richard Thornburgh wrote a letter to
Congressman Steny Hoyer.  He said the administration opposed the
link to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and proposed that the
conflict be resolved by specifying the current standards of the
Act. 
     The most significant contribution of the Judiciary Committee
concerned  site- specific  factors for the determination of
 reasonable accommodation  and  readily achievable. When the
committee introduced an am- ended version of the ADA to the
Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights on April 25, it
sided with the disability community and re tained the
cross-reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Congressman F.
James Sensen brenner, Jr. (R-WI), however, introduced an
amendment to eliminate the reference.  Some people with
disabilities suggested giving up on the remedies issue in order
to save the rest of the bill, but the disability community
generally lobbied vigorously to oppose this and all other
 weakening amend ments.   To the relief of disability activists,
the Sensenbrenner amendment failed.  Sensenbrenner tried to pass
the amendment a second time when the full committee met on May 1
and 2, but it was voted down again.  In its report on the bill,
the Judiciary Committee argued that the Sensenbrenner amendment
was  antithetical  to the very nature of the ADA.  It also
referred directly to the Civil rights Act of 1990 and stated that
any changes there would be applied to the ADA.  Sensenbrenner
joined five colleagues in authoring  Additional Views  for the
report, where they continued to insist on the need for the
Sensenbrenner amendment.  They also cryptically threatened that a
failure to pass it might jeopardize the entire ADA.
     The most significant contribution of the Judiciary Committee
concerned  site-specific  factors for the determination of
 reasonable accommodation  and  readily achievable  (see Appen
dix F).  Discussions on the topic had begun in earnest between
Congressmen Hoyer and Bartlett during the Education and Labor
Committee s deliberations and continued throughout the House
deliberations.  For the most part, the Judiciary Committee
introduced the same changes proposed by the Education and Labor
Committee.  But the Judiciary Committee rearranged the factors
for clarity and for different emphasis.  It was primarily
concerned with avoiding a determination that sided either with
the local facility or the covered entity.  Rather, the committee
stressed that, on a case-by-case and flexible basis, both
entities should be evaluated.  Moreover, it emphasized that the
relationship between the parent company and the local facility
should be taken into consideration.
     The committee made many other changes, most of which were
technicalities compared with earlier, more sweeping compromises. 
In addition to clarifying the cross-referencing on remedies and
site-specific factors, the Judiciary Committee added a new
section to the bill that encouraged alternative dispute
resolution through reconciliation before moving to litigation. 
And it made technical changes to the interim standards of
accessibility.  The final amendment accepted by the Judiciary
Committee was a package of six amendments introduced by
---
---------------