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
---
---------------