|
3
PUBLICIZING
THE ADA: ADVOCACY AND THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Gallaudet University erupted on March 1, 1988, as
an estimated 1,500 alumni, students, faculty, and community supporters
rallied to demand the selection of the university's first deaf president.
The board of trustees had narrowed its candidate pool to three:
Harvey J. Corson and I. King Jordan, both deaf; and Elizabeth A.
Zinser, who neither had a hearing impairment nor understood sign
language. On the evening of March 6, under the leadership of Chairperson
Jane Bassett Spilman, the board selected Zinser as president. Hundreds
of students, alumni, and others responded the next morning by shutting
down the school: they organized before dawn and blocked every campus
entrance. They even searched cars and planned to lie on the ground
to prevent a helicopter from landing in the event that Zinser tried
to step foot on campus (she never did). They also marched to Capitol
Hill and demonstrated at the White House.
Later that day, a ten-person delegation representing
students, faculty, and alumni issued four demands to the board:
appoint a deaf president; demand Spilman's resignation; protect
protestors from punishment; and designate a majority of the board's
seats for deaf persons. But the board rejected the demands. At a
meeting in the field house that followed, where Spilman appealed
to a crowd of protesters to give Zinser a chance, students shouted
down Spilman, sounded a fire alarm to obstruct her presentation,
and taunted her: "If you could sign, we could hear you." The following
day, on March 8, the group hung Zinser and Spilman in effigy; later
they cut them down and burned them.
The volatile activity on the campus of the world's
only deaf university was front-page news; people from around the
world lent their support. Senator Robert Dole (R-KS), Congressmen
David E. Bonior (D-MI) and Tony Coelho (D-CA), and Vice President
George Bush backed selection of a deaf president. Bonior threatened
that the university might lose government funding, which accounted
for 75 percent of its budget, unless it met demonstrators" demands.
The Deaf President Now! protest "proved, convincingly,
that deaf people could band together effectively for a common
cause and succeed."
--Jack Gannon
To students, alumni,
and faculty, the selection of a deaf president symbolized deaf persons'
attempt to attain full citizenship, equal participation, and self-direction.
"The time has come for the plantation mentality, which has for so
long controlled this institution and others serving the deaf, to
end," psychology professor Allen Sussman said. "We want to be free
from hearing oppression," student leader Bridgette Bourne declared.
"We don't want to live off the hearing world, we want to live as
independent people," she continued. Freshman John Limmidis opined:
"We believe that we have to fight to prove to the world that a deaf
person is just as good as a hearing person." The presidency of Gallaudet
was the highest position in the deaf community; a decision to bypass
a deaf person for that office broadcasted the message that hearing
persons were better suited for power and leadership. Consequently,
it questioned the potential of deaf persons in other employment
and social opportunities. Like racial minorities and women, the
deaf community wanted the empowerment and legitimacy that comes
with leadership from one's own ranks.
On March 10, under relentless pressure, Zinser submitted
her resignation. The following day the board acceded to the protestors'
demands: it appointed Jordan president, accepted Spilman's resignation,
committed to reconstituting the board, and dismissed repercussions
for demonstrating. It was a huge victory for the deaf community.
As one historian said, the protest "proved, convincingly, that deaf
people could band together effectively for a common cause and succeed."
The protest also benefitted and strengthened the disability
community as a whole. Students' demands for self-direction, independence,
and opportunity echoed the disability rights movement. National
coverage of the events confronted many Americans with a foreign
image of disability: repudiation of pity and charity, insistence
on civil rights. The protest also came at an opportune moment, just
over a month before the Americans with Disabilities Act was introduced
in Congress. It powerfully symbolized the potential of the disability
community, a fitting beginning to a nationwide education about disability
and the ADA.
Mobilizing the Disability Community
In 1988, the top priorities for the disability community
were the Civil Rights Restoration Act, which became public law on
March 22, 1988, and the Fair Housing Amendments Act, enacted on
September 13, 1988. The ADA would not get the spotlight until 1989.
However, ADA sponsors and the disability community used 1988 as
an opportunity to publicize the act, mobilize grass roots support,
solicit the endorsement of presidential candidates, enlist congressional
cosponsors, and establish the act as a top priority for the next
Congress.
The political sophistication attained by the disability
community during the 1980s enabled ADA advocates to pursue a multi-pronged
strategy to meet its objectives. A Washington-based ADA coalition
coordinated these activities in conjunction with the bill's congressional
sponsors. Although this coalition did not fully form until 1989,
it began to take shape even before the bill's introduction in April,
1988. Describing the emerging leadership is extremely difficult,
however, because it was not highly structured. There was no body
of voting members that elected officials to formally-defined job
positions. There were no department heads. Rather, individuals and
a variety of organizations formed a loose (though united) ADA coalition.
To facilitate communications, the ADA coalition conducted many of
its activities "under the auspices" of the well-established Consortium
for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD).
Paul Marchand, Director of the Governmental Affairs
Office for the Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC), had founded
CCD's predecessor, CCDD, in the early 1970s to unite federal advocacy
efforts of the disability community. By 1988, the consortium represented
dozens of Washington-based organizations. Additional groups enlisted
their support to CCD's campaign to pass the ADA. CCD's operations
were carried out through multiple task forces, including the Civil
Rights Task Force, which from 1988 to 1990 focused almost exclusively
on the ADA. Pat Wright of the Disability Rights Education and Defense
Fund (DREDF), Liz Savage of the Epilepsy Foundation of America (EFA),
and Curt Decker of the National Association of Protection and Advocacy
Systems (NAPAS) were the Civil Rights Task Force Co-chairs. The
ADA coalition used the task force as its headquarters and CCD stationary
for much of its correspondence. Although most of the ADA coalition
leaders were from organizations who were members of CCD, it would
be misleading to refer to CCD and the ADA coalition interchangeably,
since key participants also came from outside CCD. This applied
especially to people with disabilities representing the grass roots:
ADAPT and NCIL, for example. And Dart, who was a full-fledged supporter
and close ally of CCD, nonetheless did not officially represent
a CCD member organization: he served the ADA coalition as a voice
of the people.
The ADA coalition organized its efforts according
to four major functions: overall strategy development; education
and lobbying; grass roots mobilization; and legal writing and analysis.
And it creatively exploited all available resources to accomplish
the job, varying the approach to meet changing circumstances. For
the most part, participants tended to focus on one of these four
areas, but there was overlap. At the core was a handful of leaders
who were most responsible for guiding the overall effort.
The ADA coalition embraced four major functions:
strategy development; education and lobbying; grass roots mobilization;
and legal analysis.
While many people contributed
to developing the overarching strategy for passing the ADA, two
persons in particular focused their efforts on this area: Pat Wright
and Ralph Neas. Wright's leadership during the ADA's passage eventually
earned her the nickname "The General." She had attended medical
school in the 1960s, but, after a progressive eye disease left her
legally blind, she was forced to leave the profession. Temporarily
derailed, she found a new interest in assisting persons with disabilities
move from institutions to community- based living and gained an
intimate knowledge of how legal technicalities affected the lives
of persons with disabilities. Wright made her first major inroads
to the disability rights movement at the San Francisco sit-in of
April, 1977, where she had served as a personal assistant to Judy
Heumann and demonstrated her negotiation skills in working with
the guards. In her decade of work with DREDF, Wright had refined
her extraordinary and tough negotiating techniques.
"She has [more] hutzpah than anyone I've ever met,"
said Eastern Paralyzed Veterans of America (EPVA) attorney Jim Weisman,
who worked with her closely during the ADA's passage. Wright certainly
made her presence known. Her rejection of standard Washington attire
stood out among beltway veterans; one journalist said she appeared
as if she had arrived directly from the 1960s Berkeley campus. But
Wright was so widely respected in Congress and the White House that
her apparel and colorful vocabulary were beyond reproach. "She really
is brassy," said Weisman, "but she got it done." Indeed, the ADA's
success was due in no small part to Wright's efforts, though some
perceived Wright as a "loner" because she took advantage of her
contacts and her capabilities to negotiate unilaterally in high-pressured
situations.
The ADA's success was due in no small part to
Pat Wright's efforts. "She has more hutzpah than anyone I've ever
met."
--Jim Weisman
Neas, an attorney and
Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), brought
to the ADA coalition unparalleled experience in civil rights legislation.
LCCR carried more than three decades of civil rights advocacy, and
was "the broadest, the largest, and oldest coalition in the country,"
with over 185 organizations and their 60 million dues-paying members.
It had either assisted or led the coordination of every civil rights
bill since 1957. As Executive Director of the LCCR since 1981, Neas
led several civil rights campaigns, including the Voting Accessibility
for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, the Civil Rights Restoration
Act, and the Fair Housing Amendments Act. (In 1989, he would begin
work on what became the Civil Rights Act of 1991.) In the spring
of 1988, Wright approached Neas and the Executive Council to obtain
an endorsement of the concept of the ADA. She stressed that the
disability community would work with Congress to develop a viable
bill after the 1988 election; the important consideration was to
lend credibility to the general principles. DREDF's efforts during
the 1980s paid off, and LCCR joined the disability community as
an indispensable ally. Although Neas did not join the strategy team
full-time until he finished with the Civil Rights Restoration Act
and Fair Housing Amendments Act, the ADA would become one of his
top priorities in January, 1989.
While Wright and Neas were the principal strategists,
most strategy development did not take place behind closed doors.
For example, Savage and Marchand (who focused on lobbying in Washington),
Justin Dart and Marilyn Golden (who focused on the grass roots),
and Mayerson and Feldblum (who directed legal strategy) all were
regular participants in shaping strategy. Moreover, important strategic
contributions came from people such as Mary Lou Breslin of DREDF;
National Council on Disability (NCD) Chairperson Sandra Parrino;
Lex Frieden of The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research (TIRR)
and former NCD Executive Director; Paul Hearne of the Dole Foundation;
and Jay Rochlin, Executive Director of the President's Committee
on the Employment of People with Disabilities. These individuals
provided additional contacts in Congress and the administration
and also contributed specific statutory recommendations. Such organizations
as NCIL and ADAPT brought the concerns of consumer-directed organizations
to the table. Further more, when the CCD Civil Rights Task Force
began holding weekly strategy meetings in 1989, out- of-town visitors
were active participants.
Crucial for implementation of strategy was the Washington-based
education and lobbying effort. In this respect, Wright worked especially
closely with Savage--attorney, Assistant Director for Government
Affairs of EFA, and Co-chair of the CCD Civil Rights Task Force.
Wright and Savage had met in 1985, around the time Savage joined
EFA. Together they worked on such landmark civil rights cases as
the Handicapped Children's Protection Act, Civil Rights Restoration
Act, and Fair Housing Amendments Act. Wright and Savage's strengths
complemented one another. Whereas Wright's expertise was in strategy
and negotiating, Savage's strength was lobbying. This experience
and relationship with Wright naturally evolved into the role of
coordinating lobbying activities for the ADA coalition. If Wright
was the "General," Savage was one of the principal "Field Commanders."
Marchand also played a key role in the education and
lobbying effort. As Director of the Governmental Affairs Office
of the ARC, Marchand brought to the ADA coalition the resources
of one of the nation's largest disability organizations: 1,200 chapters
nationwide, and an Action Alert Network that monitored congressional
activities and mustered thousands of letters and phone calls. Advocates
for persons with developmental disabilities were a well-established
and widely-respected presence in Washington, which effectively positioned
Marchand for ADA leadership. Moreover, as Chairman of CCD he had
an effective platform for working with members of Congress and the
administration.
To aid in the crucial task of educating members of
Congress about disability and lobbying them to be ADA cosponsors,
which began even before the ADA was first introduced, the ADA coalition
relied on a number of lobbying "captains." These included Becky
Ogle of the Spina Bifida Association, Bob Williams of the United
Cerebral Palsy Associations (UCPA), Denise Rozell of the National
Association of Developmental Disabilities Councils (NADDC), Tom
Sheridan of the AIDS Action Council, Kathy Megivern of the Association
for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Handicapped,
Fred Cowell of the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), David Capozzi
of the National Easter Seal Society (NESS), Caren Friedman of the
Human Rights Campaign Fund, and Curt Decker of the National Association
of Protection and Advocacy Systems (NAPAS). These lobbyists in turn
worked with members of such organizations as CCD, LCCR, NCIL, the
National Organization Responding to AIDS (NORA), and ADAPT. Together
they organized lobbying teams to visit senators" and congressmen's
offices, which supplemented the efforts of congressional sponsors.
Victory would be won through the efforts of thousands
of advocates across the nation who could humanize and personalize
the issues.
Although lobbying was
important, successful passage of the ADA could not be achieved by
efforts only within the Washington beltway. Well before the ADA
entered Congress, the ADA coalition concluded that success was dependent
on convincing members of Congress, the executive branch, and the
general public that the difficulties faced by persons with disabilities
were a genuine national problem. The ADA could not be viewed as
the brain-child of a coterie of think-tank intellects; it had to
be correctly understood as an outgrowth of the pervasive experience
of discrimination. Victory would be won through the efforts of thousands
of advocates across the nation who could humanize and personalize
the issues, not by privately wrestling with legal technicalities.
NCD had begun this process through "consumer forums," Justin Dart's
public forums, Toward Independence, and The ICD Survey.
After the ADA was introduced, Marilyn Golden of DREDF and Justin
Dart led these efforts. In 1988, the primary goal of the ADA coalition
was to get an army ready. In 1989 and 1990, with a communication
system in place, Dart and Golden would issue a nationwide call to
arms.
There were three main objectives for grass roots mobilization.
The first was to educate persons with disabilities about the ADA
to prepare them for action. An important part of this process was
uniting the fragmented disability community by centering the focus
on a common cause. The second was to accumulate evidence of discrimination.
This came not only through the standard form of congressional testimony,
but also through the novel approach of soliciting "discrimination
diaries." In addition to providing evidence for Congress, preparing
these documents would prompt people throughout the country to organize
diary parties and foster the empowerment that comes from numbers.
Over time, many persons with disabilities had internalized oppression,
taken complete responsibility for their situations, and thus turned
their backs to discrimination. By writing down their experiences,
however, people could face discrimination, recognize society's role,
get "mad as hell," and lose patience with the circumstances to which
they had become acclimated. Third, grass roots mobilization would
provide a means to apply pressure on members of Congress and the
president. Not only did persons with disabilities write letters,
they also joined the lobbying campaign by paying for trips to Washington
out of their own pockets.
Golden drew on the extensive contacts she had made
through administering DREDF disability rights training projects.
In the 1980s, DREDF had brought thousands of persons with disabilities
to Berkeley to educate them in their rights and teach them how to
mobilize communities for action. These persons in turn shared their
knowledge with their local communities. Golden supplemented this
network by establishing ties to other organizations, such as NCIL,
and the ARC, and their grass roots links. The computer network DIMENET
was another avenue for mobilizing people around the country.
As a result of his public forums, Dart had become
famous among people with disabilities around the country, indeed
he had become somewhat of a cultural icon for much of the disability
community. As he toured the country, Dart kept lists of all the
people who attended, which produced a massive list of people he
could later contact for political action. And by spending years
touring the country, people in the grass roots felt as if they were
part of the ADA's development rather than objects of it. They were
thus more willing and eager to join Dart when the time came for
action. Dart simply had "no equal" in getting people mobilized,
said Maria Cuprill, a staff member of the House Subcommittee on
Select Education.
Members of Congress also recognized the need to demonstrate
broad-based support for the ADA. Congressman Major R. Owens (D-NY),
in particular, devoted considerable energy to empowering the grass
roots. Although Owens was a relative newcomer to disability policy,
first encountering it after becoming a member of the House Education
and Labor Committee in 1983, he brought additional assets. He had
experienced the 1960s civil rights movement first-hand, including
service as chairman of the Brooklyn chapter of the Congress on Racial
Equality (CORE)--an organization central to the movement's success.
He had also developed a passion for fostering citizen participation.
In 1987, Owens became Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Select
Education, which had jurisdiction over many disability issues. When
he first learned about the ADA prior to its introduction, he thought
of it primarily as a civil rights issue: carrying forward the banner
for civil rights from African Americans to women to people with
disabilities. Owens wanted to do whatever he could to help energize
people with disabilities.
Accordingly, on May 2, 1988, less than a week after
the ADA's introduction, Congressman Owens created the Task Force
on the Rights and Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities. The
group's purpose was twofold: to present to Congress, the executive
branch, and the general public evidence of disability discrimination,
and to make recommendations. Owens appointed Dart to be the Chairperson.
Dart had testified before Owens's subcommittee as Commissioner of
the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), which was part
of the Department of Education. Owens thereby discovered that Dart
shared his philosophy that disability rights were primarily civil
rights. But, following his critical testimony regarding the Department
of Education and its paternalistic attitudes toward and policies
for people with disabilities, Dart resigned as RSA Commissioner.
Owens saw his task force as an opportunity for Dart to continue
his mission of achieving civil rights for people with disabilities.
Owens named Elizabeth Boggs, of the ARC, as Co-chair with Dart.
And Lex Frieden assumed the reins as Coordinator. Thirty-five others
from the disability community were selected as task force members.
Justin Dart chaired 63 forums in all fifty states,
with over 7,000 people in attendance, and collected more than
5,000 documents supporting the ADA.
Dart immediately began
organizing another series of public forums. As always, Dart's wife
Yoshiko was crucial for the management and execution of Dart's activities,
which they paid for primarily with their own funds. Justin met Yoshiko
in Japan, where Justin worked as president of Japan Tupperware.
Yoshiko was a remarkably successful sales representative for the
company. In addition to managing his company, which met with great
success, Justin used his position as president to assist people
with disabilities in attaining better livelihoods. For example,
he sponsored sales campaigns in which the company and employees
donated profits to buy wheelchairs for persons with disabilities.
Justin also provided employment opportunities to boys who used wheel
chairs. And Yoshiko took an active role in training them for work
and assisting them in building greater self-confidence as productive
citizens. Yoshiko's success, capabilities, and interest in disability
attracted Justin's attention, who ultimately hired her as an executive
assistant. They married in 1968 and became partners in championing
the rights of persons with disabilities.
Between 1988 and 1990 Justin Dart chaired a total
of 63 forums in all fifty states, Guam, and Puerto Rico, with over
7,000 people in attendance overall. Attending a public forum was
extraordinarily empowering, said Denise Figueroa of New York. When
someone has a disability, she said, one tends to "tolerate the discrimination,
because it's how you survive." Hearing people talk about their experiences,
however, could be a consciousness-raising experience and charge
one with a desire to fight for human rights. It was also empowering,
said Figueroa, because one realized "you weren't alone."
While traveling throughout the country, Dart collected
upwards of 5,000 documents and tape recordings detailing discrimination,
offering proposals, and urging passage of the ADA (see Appendix
E for a collection of examples). In addition to people with disabilities,
comments came from parents, health care providers, and others who
worked with people with disabilities. Virtually every type of disability
was represented. Thousands of people filled out petitions titled
"A VOTE FOR JUSTICE," which declared support of the ADA and concluded
with the invitation: "I HAVE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED AND/OR OBSERVED
THE FOLLOWING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES:."
For example, when Gary Janski, who had a psychiatric disability,
tried to rent a favorite, vacant apartment, the owner said: "we
won't rent to your kind." When you're "crippled," observed Sheila
Sorenson, "you get treated like you're a two year old and can't
do anything." "It makes us feel better to [do] things on our own
instead of having everything done for [us]," she said. Ree Steidemann
described how deaf persons she worked with repeatedly tried to reach
hospitals and other institutions through TTY's, where no one answered
or people answered and did not know how to use their TTY devices.
"Please, please help us," wrote Frances Murtagh, an exasperated
mother of a child with cerebral palsy. "I'm at my wits end trying
to fight these people alone." In a profound poem, Carolyn Schwartz
pleaded: "So before you condemn what you don't understand. Let me
reach out to you and come touch my hand." Debbie Wimmer described
how she overheard a security guard announce: "I have a girl in a
wheelchair that needs watching." "I was speechless. I was hurt.
I was mad," wrote Wimmer. Phyllis Geldzalh captured the blunt sentiments
of many people with disabilities: "It would be a serious injustice
if ADA was not passed."
In addition to presenting boxes of materials to Congress,
the task force issued 11 interim reports to Congress, and prepared
37 statements to leaders in the disability community. Dart also
sponsored 14 meetings in Washington and made presentations to various
organizations around the country, reaching an estimated 25,000 persons.
Moreover, task force members contributed to lobbying efforts by
consulting with members of Congress and the executive branch. As
a testimony to its dedication to, passion for, and personal investment
in disability policy, the task force carried out all its efforts
without government funding, through volunteered time and money.
And it far exceeded Congressman Owens's expectations.
Although the disability community conducted very little
legal work on the ADA in 1988, this was the fourth main objective
in addition to strategy development, grass roots mobilization, and
lobbying. By mid-1989, a legal team was fairly organized. The lead
attorney for the disability community, and the one who most often
testified before Congress on behalf of the ADA, was Arlene Mayerson
of DREDF. She had worked extensively on the Voting Accessibility
for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, Civil Rights Restoration Act,
and Fair Housing Amendments Act, and had submitted countless briefs
to various committees and courts. Especially significant was her
role in passing the Handicapped Children's Protection Act. Although
Mayerson lived in Berkeley, California, during the congressional
deliberations on the ADA, Mayerson visited Washington frequently,
for weeks at a time, in order to guide legal strategy. Chai Feldblum
of the ACLU, who had met Wright while working on the Civil Rights
Restoration Act (the first time HIV/AIDS entered a Senate bill for
civil rights protections), fulfilled much of the daily responsibilities
of legal writing while Mayerson was in California. Although Feldblum
specialized in AIDS-related law, and championed the efforts to include
persons with HIV and AIDS within the housing provisions, she began
developing a firm grasp on general disability law.
Mayerson and Feldblum were hardly alone, however.
Robert Burgdorf, the original author of the ADA and now a professor
at the District of Columbia School of Law, participated in all modifications
to the bill and helped ensure continuity from the original version.
Tim Cook of the National Disability Action Center offered general
guidance as well as his expertise with respect to public accommodations
and transportation. Weisman, of EPVA, served as the resident specialist
in Transportation. Bonnie Milstein of the Mental Health Law Project
offered her expertise concerning mental impairments. Karen Peltz-Strauss,
from the National Center for Law and the Deaf, focused on telecommunication
provisions. Depending on the issues pressing at any given moment,
these and other attorneys worked closely with Congress, disability
strategists, and lobbyists to translate disability objectives into
proper legal form. Meanwhile, attorneys Robert Funk and Evan Kemp
worked on behalf of the disability community within the Bush administration,
respectively as a White House negotiator and Chairman of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The massive effort of the disability community was
not without its tensions. Many disability organizations had previously
been in conflict with one another over limited government resources.
As with any coalition, there were tensions between those who held
Washington leadership roles and those who worked in the trenches,
between inside-the-beltway politicos and persons throughout the
rest of the country. Some felt that their views were not being adequately
represented in the decision-making process. Others resented claims
that persons outside of Washington did not understand the legislative
process. There was also tension between persons with disabilities
and those without them. It is natural to assume that African-American
and women's advocacy groups would be led by African Americans and
women. In the disability community, however, one found large numbers
of persons without disabilities at the helm. Regardless of the actual
impact on policy development and implementation, some persons with
disabilities demanded that "their own" be in charge. The important
point, however, is not the presence of these tensions, but the way
in which the disability community overcame them.
"No subgroup of people with any type of physical
or mental disability, or perceived disability, . . . will be sacrificed."
--Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment
of Americans with Disabilities
There was something in
the ADA for every one. Virtually all disability sub-groups wanted
to, and subsequently did, champion the goals of the ADA. With few
exceptions, they were united in the commitment that there would
be "no long term legitimation of unequal status for people with
disabilities." Full realization of the goals might take decades,
but they wanted to undercut any national policies that would promote
discrimination indefinitely. The disability community made a second
important commitment. There would be no splintering with respect
to the ADA: "No subgroup of people with any type of physical or
mental disability, or perceived disability, no matter how politically
impotent or how stigmatized, will be sacrificed." And they would
fight each other's battles. Advocates for persons with mental retardation
pushed for ending discrimination against AIDS; people with epilepsy
argued for the need for accessible transportation; and individuals
using wheelchairs urged that persons with mental disabilities equally
deserved freedom from employment discrimination. Even at the most
intense moments in congressional deliberations, the community would
stick together.
The Government Response
While persons with disabilities throughout the country
were mobilizing to learn about and support the ADA, the general
public remained largely unaware of the legislation. Prior to the
ADA's introduction, The Washington Post pointed to the ADA
as a potential rallying point for the disability community. But
there was virtually no mainstream press coverage, either of the
bill's introduction, or during the rest of 1988. This was due in
part to the lateness of the bill's entree to Congress. Since the
ADA's advocates were not pushing for immediate passage, the bill
drew neither the press coverage nor the opposition it would when
the bill became a serious proposal in 1989. Individuals throughout
the country, however, helped raise consciousness about the ADA by
talking with their circles of friends and family. And scores of
disability and non-disability organizations endorsed the ADA and
funneled information to their members.
Disability and congressional advocates focused much
more on the executive branch and Congress than on the general public.
The ADA was first introduced, as Congressman Coelho said, "to just
get reaction, to get people to respond." A prominent executive branch
voice was Evan Kemp, who approached the issue both as a Commissioner
of EEOC and as a disability rights advocate. He made his first public
declaration on the ADA before hundreds of people at the Employers
Banquet of the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped.
The event took place in the International Ballroom of the Washington
Hilton Hotel, just a week after the bill's introduction on May 5.
Kemp wanted a bill that President Bush could support and therefore
alerted people to problematic provisions. Kemp spoke primarily about
employment issues, of how it made good business sense to tap the
market of disabled persons by promoting accessibility, and good
government sense to reduce federal spending through employment.
For these reasons he applauded the ADA, but he also questioned its
current form. Kemp thought the bill needed to be more detailed to
avoid control by bureaucratic regulators. He was especially concerned
about the definition of "reasonable accommodation" (see Appendix
F), and advocated federal economic assistance to employers to ease
the economic burden the ADA might cause. He also thought the proposed
limit on reasonable accommodations was "unrealistic" because an
employer would have to demonstrate either that the business would
be "fundamentally changed" or that it would be forced to file bankruptcy.
The definition of "handicap" (see Appendix F) was also problematic
for Kemp. He proposed a restricted definition that focused on what
he termed the "truly disabled": the "severely handicapped" and persons
"excluded because of myths, fears and stereotypes." Kemp's emphasis
on the vagueness of language, limits for accommodation, and definition
of disability, foreshadowed several issues that would dominate congressional
deliberations.
A vigorous response came from Thomas M. Boyd, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, who presented the position of the Reagan
administration. While the administration "is deeply committed to
the goal of bringing individuals with handicaps into the mainstream
of American life," wrote Boyd, "we have very serious reservations"
about the extent and standards of the ADA. Highlighting the potential
costs associated with disability rights, and rejecting the link
to provisions for minorities and women, Boyd emphasized the need
to keep the pursuit of equal opportunity "within manageable bounds."
Especially problematic were the ways in which the ADA departed from
Section 504 in two ways: first, by requiring barrier removal uniformly
for both existing and new facilities; second, by incorporating the
"utterly unrealistic and extreme" provision that a business could
defend itself against charges of discrimination only if its basic
existence was threatened by the cost of accommodations. The administration
objected to the ADA's novel definitions of "handicap" and "reasonable
accommodation," and questioned the application of reasonable accommodation
beyond employment settings. Boyd also repudiated the proposal for
requiring all new transportation vehicles to be accessible, and
demurred to ordering implementation of universal design in new housing.
Finally, the administration proposed a more limited standard of
accessibility to public accommodations, and demanded that the effective
date for the bill be delayed at least a year.
The ADA was introduced in 1988 to solicit the
endorsement of presidential candidates and induce them to outbid
one another.
Although the Reagan administration,
as illustrated in Boyd's letter, was at best cautious in its sup
port of the ADA, the disability community's sights were set on the
next president. In fact, one of the principal reasons for introducing
the ADA in 1988 was to use the politics of a presidential election
year to solicit candidate endorsement and induce the candidates
to outbid one another. People in the disability community correctly
believed that presidential support was crucial for the ADA's success.
They worked for both campaigns to encourage disabled persons to
vote and make disability a campaign issue. They had some leverage.
On June 30, 1988, the Louis Harris polling company determined that
the disability community comprised 10 percent of the electorate,
was "a force to be reckoned with in the politics of the future,"
and could be the deciding factor in a close election.
Vice President Bush's personal experience with disability
shaped his relationship with the disability community. He had a
daughter who died from leukemia, a son with a learning disability,
an uncle with quadriplegia, and a son whose cancer required a plastic
ostomy bag. In conjunction with his leadership of President Reagan's
Task Force on Regulatory Relief, his support of the disability community
had grown steadily since 1983. This was due in no small part to
Kemp, who worked with Bush by writing many of his public statements.
"I am going to do whatever it takes to make sure
the disabled are included in the mainstream. For too long, they
have been left out, but they are not going to be left out anymore."
--Vice President George Bush
In the September issue
of the disability magazine Mainstream, Kemp faced off with Timothy
Cook of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia (PILCOP)
to argue the respective attributes of the two presidential candidates.
Kemp noted how, on March 1, 1988, Vice President Bush wrote to the
Gallaudet Board of Trustees and urged the Board "to set an example
and . . . appoint a president who is not only highly qualified,
but who is also deaf." A month before the ADA was introduced, on
March 31, Bush also pledged to support legislation providing persons
with disabilities "the same protection in private employment that
is now enjoyed by women and minorities." Kemp noted how Bush made
an even stronger commitment when he participated in the swearing
in ceremony of Paul Hearne as Executive Director of the National
Council on Disability, on August 12, 1988. Bush's presence alone,
before nearly 100 persons with disabilities and the organization
that authored the original ADA, symbolized his support of the disability
community. But Bush went further and, while he did not endorse the
ADA introduced to Congress, said that he would promote a civil rights
act for people with disabilities. Kemp's efforts in courting Bush
also bore fruit at the Republican convention in August, where Bush
incorporated the rights of disabled persons into his acceptance
speech. He did not say much, but it was the first time disability
was included on such an occasion: "I am going to do whatever it
takes to make sure the disabled are included in the mainstream.
For too long, they have been left out, but they are not going to
be left out anymore."
Cook, a leading disability advocate for Dukakis, focused
on Michael Dukakis's strong record on disability as Governor of
Massachusetts. Similar to other states, Massachusetts provided full
access for persons with disabilities in all state-assisted programs
and activities. It was also one of few states to have an executive-level
independent agency to enforce disability civil rights. Cook noted
that Governor Dukakis strengthened enforcement mechanisms for accessibility
standards, including barrier-free sidewalks and roadways. He also
made concerted efforts to recruit persons with disabilities for
government offices, including high-level leadership positions such
as the Massachusetts's Rehabilitation Commission. Moreover, Governor
Dukakis had augmented Massachusetts" health insurance, attendant
care, and education programs for persons with disabilities.
Yet, while Dukakis promoted accessibility in campaign
functions and gave a mild endorsement to the principles of the ADA,
he did not court the disability community as vigorously as Vice
President Bush. In addition to his personal experiences with disability,
Bush's leadership of the Task Force on Regulatory Relief and the
disability community's defensive effort helped convinced Bush of
the power of the community as a voting block: it commanded respect
and could pay high dividends. Bush did not let the opportunity escape
him. For example, at the suggestion of Kemp he made a point to incorporate
disability issues into his presidential debates.
Dukakis, on the other hand, was facing criticism that
he and the Democratic party were too beholden to interest groups,
which led him to downplay rather than accentuate direct appeals
to specific constituencies such as persons with disabilities. He
thereby alienated much of the disability community. Some of Dukakis's
tempered support of the disability community may in fact be attributed
to the disability community itself. Some disability advocates had
advised Dukakis not to come out too strong on behalf of the ADA.
Their goal was to have both candidates endorse the principles of
the ADA so that whoever was elected would be on their side. They
thus wanted to encourage Bush to support the ADA by giving him room
to outbid Dukakis, rather than make Bush feel as if he needed to
contrast himself with Dukakis by being more reserved in his support
of the ADA.
ADA advocates also sought the support of members of
Congress. The disability community joined congressional staff and
members in a cosponsorship drive that began before the ADA was first
introduced and continued throughout the entire session of Congress.
Cosponsorship is crucial to the success of any bill. It promises
affirmative votes and enables advocates to gauge the level of support.
Cosponsorship is also important because, if one can achieve a cross-section
of party and ideology, it helps thwart reflexive, negative reaction
and partisan labeling. Although ADA advocates anticipated a high
level of cosponsorship because they presented the ADA as a civil
rights bill, the process proved to be very difficult. Members did
not take the issue of costs lightly and were reluctant to attach
their name simply because someone else had done so. Nevertheless,
by the close of the 100th Congress on October 22, 1988, 26 senators
and 117 representatives had endorsed the bill.
Congressional Hearings
The highlights of the 1988 ADA campaign were the congressional
hearings held in September and October. On September 27, 1988, the
Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped and the House Subcommittee
on Select Education held a joint hearing in the Hart Senate Office
Building. On October 24, the House Subcommittee on Select Education
held a hearing in the Lafayette Hotel of Boston, Massachusetts.
These hearings were not intended to be substantive examinations
of the ADA's provisions. "This bill is not going anywhere this year,"
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) said flatly at the joint hearing. Senator
Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT) also conceded that the real battle
would not begin until Congress reconvened in 1989. But Weicker emphasized
the need to get disability discrimination on the table for immediate
discussion: "If there is silence now, there will be silence later.
If there is indifference to discrimination now, there will be indifference
later." The purpose was therefore to establish a record of discrimination--to
humanize the ICD Survey data with the lives of real persons--and
make congressional inaction on the ADA intolerable.
The message was clear: persons with disabilities
struggled with unequal opportunities; they confronted not only
the challenges of their impairments, but also the barriers society
erects; federal action was necessary to remedy the situation.
Of the 95 witnesses at
the two hearings, there was not a single technical expert speaking
to the details of the bill. Only seven federal and state government
officials testified. The remaining witnesses were all from the disability
community--persons and parents of persons with disabilities, and
people who worked with disabled persons in such settings as independent
living centers--who spoke of their own experiences. This was, therefore,
the first instance in which a congressional hearing regarding disability
was dominated by the presence of people with disabilities. Some
of the predicaments identified by witnesses were not even issues
that the ADA addressed. But the message was clear: persons with
disabilities struggled with unequal opportunities; they confronted
not only the challenges of their impairments, but also the barriers
society erects; federal action was necessary to remedy the situation.
The joint hearing in the Hart Senate Office Building
overflowed with eager spectators, many of them disabled, and many
having traveled hundreds of miles to participate. Around 200 people
with disabilities came to Washington for the event from New Jersey
alone. Senator Weicker actually had to stop the proceedings to attend
to space needs; he asked those present to rotate so that others
watching on television could have a chance to be in the hearing
room. The stories of those who testified were gripping and spoke
volumes.
Mary Linden, who had been unable to walk since early
childhood as a result of physicians' surgical errors, launched the
first panel. She described her struggles with a public school that
considered her unworthy of education. It was not until after Linden
graduated from a disability- segregated high school in 1951 that
she learned how to write, and then only because she taught herself.
Subsequently she spent over two decades accumulating 61 hours of
college credit. To her dismay, she could not enroll in a four-year
college because of inaccessible public transportation. She therefore
had to do all of her work through correspondence. Linden said she
desperately wanted to finish her degree because it was necessary
for attaining what she significantly termed "the most precious thing
in the world--a paying job!" "I beg you to pass this bill," she
pleaded, so that other children will not have to face the same barriers.
Twelve-year-old Jade Calegory followed Linden's testimony
and, compared with Linden, presented the stark contrast of what
opportunity could do. Jade praised the Federal Government for passing
the Education for all Handicapped Children Act because the act enabled
him, with his spina bifida and wheelchair, to join the rest of his
community's children in the public school. Jade starred in the movie
"Mac and Me," which he described as "terrific because it shows a
kid with a disability giving help instead of just getting help,
and nobody tries to cure me or take away my disability by the end
of the movie. That gives people the idea that it is okay to be disabled
and just be accepted for who you are." Jade also described his passion
for participating in wheelchair races. But he reported that he would
get frustrated when he tried to ride a bus home. "Most of the buses
do not have lifts on them. Some of the drivers are very rude and
get mad if I want to take the bus. Can you believe that? I work
and part of my taxes pay for public buses, and then they get mad
just because I am using a wheelchair." Accessible buses were important,
said Jade, because "it is hard for people to feel good about themselves
if they have to crawl up the stairs of a bus, or if the driver passes
by without stopping."
Dan Piper and his mother, Sylvia Piper, illustrated
the uncertainty they faced because of Dan's developmental disability.
Although the Pipers were told that Dan's condition was "hopeless"
when he was a young child, and that Dan should be institutionalized,
they decided to keep him at home. Ultimately he joined the special
education program of an integrated public school, where he took
courses with non-disabled peers, helped manage the football team,
and became the lead performer in a traveling high school lip-sync
group. The Pipers were worried, however, about what would happen
to Dan when he finished school and wanted to fulfill his dream of
getting a job and living in his own apartment. "Will the landlord
decide, because Dan has mental retardation, that he is incapable
of independent living? Will he be denied access to transportation?
Will restaurants refuse service? Will hotels refuse accommodations?"
The Pipers viewed the ADA as a much- needed extension in disability
policy: "It is now time to expand handicapped antidiscrimination
to the private sector so that Dan's and our visions for his adult
life and the lives of many others can finally become a reality."
Judith Heumann's polio resulted in paralysis. Despite
her remarkably successful career, she was burdened by the psychological
impact of discrimination. She described how she could not enter
public school as a child because she was considered "a fire hazard."
When she graduated from high school, the principal tried to prevent
her from accepting her diploma on stage because of her wheelchair.
In college, she was denied her elementary school teaching credentials
because of her paralysis: administrators did not think she could
teach from a wheelchair. On one occasion, officials at an auction
house attempted to remove Heumann and a friend because they were
allegedly "disgusting to look at." People do not emerge unscathed
from these experiences, concluded Heumann: "this stigma scars for
life."
Belinda Mason knew stigma first-hand. At the age of
30, Mason had been diagnosed HIV- positive after a blood transfusion.
Moreover, a stroke left her partially paralyzed. "I have learned
a terrible truth about America," she said of her subsequent experiences,
"that it is not a good place to be different or to be ill, in spite
of what we teach in government class." She related that her 75-
person town closed the community pool for a week after she entered
it, ostensibly because of a cigarette butt. One neighbor carried
around a petition demanding that she move out. Mason described another
woman who lost her job simply because she decided to have her son,
who had AIDS, live at home. She also told of one occasion where
police locked a man with AIDS in his car overnight, rather than
take him into jail. The next day, people peered through the windows
at him as if looking in an aquarium. Mason acknowledged that one
cannot simply legislate attitudes and behavior. But she poignantly
added: "The truth is that sometimes legislation precedes and enhances
humanity." Mason was the first person with HIV ever to testify before
Congress. And her moving testimony earned her an appointment to
the President's Committee on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic.
Congressman Owens organized the field hearing in Boston
at the request of Dart and others from the New England disability
community. The purpose was to solicit an even more extensive demonstration
of citizen participation. "It was an unforgettable day," said Owens,
for the range of disabilities represented, the racial and gender
diversity, and the united spirit of those in attendance. Everyone
wanted the chance to address Congress. To accommodate as many people
as possible, the subcommittee met nonstop from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m.: over 80 witnesses testified in rapid-fire succession, each
having but a few minutes to relate his or her experiences.
William Cavanaugh, a consumer of the Massachusetts
mental health system, spoke about the "abusive treatment practices
and human rights violations" of persons in mental institutions.
He described one man, Vincent Veletia, who suffocated and died after
being restrained with "a full sensory deprivation hood," replete
with ear phones emitting constant static, and being forced into
a fetal position with his hands cuffed behind his knees. Bonnie
O'Day described how a prominent disability advocate from Charlottesville,
Franz Stielfried, died because of poor accessibility. Impeded by
an intersection without curb cuts, Stielfried tried to cross a dangerous,
grassy area next to a 50-foot drop. While trying to lower himself
over another curb, however, he lost control of his wheelchair and
fell over the cliff to his death. He had been traveling to a meeting
to demand for greater accessibility.
"You know, sometimes I almost wish a person would
hate me for being disabled. Then at least I would know they knew
I was alive."
--Anonymous
Nancy Husted-Jensen described
how fully-registered disabled persons were turned away from voting
booths because they supposedly did not look sufficiently "competent"
to vote. Eileen Healy Horndt similarly recounted how one man with
mental retardation was barred from opening a savings account at
a local bank because he "did not fit the image the bank wants to
project." She spoke of another gentlemen with quadriplegia who joined
her in visiting a presidential campaign office to discuss accessibility,
but there was no handicap parking space wide enough for the van
lift. Horndt also described her own frustration of having to use
a calling card at pay telephones because she could not reach the
coin slot.
Only after the Disability Law Center of Boston threatened
legal action did Barbara Waters avoid leaving college when administrators
said her epileptic seizures represented a "liability risk." Eleanor
Blake was not so fortunate. After being hospitalized for manic depression,
college officials denied her graduation from the human services
program because, they said, she was not "psycho logically fit."
Later, after switching majors, she graduated summa cum laude.
Patricia Deegan further illustrated the excessive
discrimination persons with mental illness face, including "the
assumption that what we say about our own experiences is an expression
of a disordered mind and can therefore be ignored." Presumed to
be crazy, one's basic civil rights were readily violated. Deegan
related how one woman reported to mental health workers that she
was pregnant, but the professionals dismissed her claim as delusional.
Later she visited an emergency room only to be met with the same
response. That evening, while roaming the streets in desperation,
the woman miscarried and suffered from serious hemorrhaging.
"We are not asking for pity. We are not even
asking for your sympathy. All we ask is that you make real the
promises and opportunities that America strives to offer everyone."
--Denise Karuth
These examples capture
only a small fraction of the testimony presented about lost education
and employment opportunities, physical and transportation barriers,
social stigma, and violation of basic human rights. But the problem
came not only from actions committed, it also came from simple avoidance.
Michael Oestreicher related how one frustrated, member of a group
discussing beach accessibility poignantly declared: "You know, sometimes
I almost wish a person would hate me for being disabled. Then at
least I would know they knew I was alive."
In a discrimination diary presented to the committee,
Cynthia Miller captured the exasperation evident in these sentiments
and those of many other persons with disabilities. "I got home late
this evening and did the things most Americans do like cooking,
cleaning, feeding the cat," Miller wrote. Then she prepared a list
of things she thought needed to be changed to improve the lives
of persons with disabilities.
I thought of doing all these things, but the list
seems to grow every day. Instead, I got angry and depressed. I
got angry and depressed because after I work all day, fight the
barriers to get to work, [and] fight the barriers to do the things
all Americans do like shop, I have meetings and phone calls and
letters and other things I have to do to fight for my equal rights
as an American with a disability. I'm tired of being tired, frightened,
angry and depressed every day, fighting for my rights. And now,
I'm writing a stupid diary until 2:00 in the morning to prove
that discrimination exists to my Congress. Why does Congress think
so many Americans are fighting this battle if discrimination doesn't
exist? Does Congress think we enjoy or prefer to fight for equal
rights before we eat or sleep sometimes? . . . I would like to
watch The Cosby Show, with slippers on my feet, and time on my
hands, like other Americans. I don't want to be Rosa Parks. I
just want to be Cyndy Miller.
Denise Karuth, who used a wheelchair because of multiple
sclerosis and was legally blind, eloquently stated what people like
herself and Cyndy Miller were fighting for. "We are not asking for
your money," she explained. "We are not asking for pity. We are
not even asking for your sympathy. All we ask is that you make real
the promises and opportunities that America strives to offer everyone:
the respect and dignity we deserve as free and responsible citizens."
The hearings were captivating and televised on C-Span.
Savage used a copy of the proceedings to edit a 30-minute version
and make it available all around the country. She became known as
the "Girl Scout Cookie-Lady" for her persistence in pushing the
video on people. Dart also played a crucial role in spreading the
edited hearings by taking copies with him as he traveled around
the country for his public forums. People could use the video to
explain what disability discrimination was all about and draw on
the testimony for examples of how to describe their own experiences.
The ADA on the Eve of the 1988 Election
Although no further action was taken on the ADA in
1988, the ADA did not "die," as some people claimed, when Congress
closed its 100th Session on October 22. On the contrary, the ADA
of 1988 fulfilled its mission. ADA sponsors never intended it to
come to a vote that year. The goal, rather, was to complete the
process begun by the National Council on Disability in getting the
ADA on the legislative agenda, not only as a token measure, but
as a congressional priority. The disability community reached this
objective with a pronouncement from Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)
at the joint hearing. "I just want to give the assurance," he asserted,
"that this will be the first order of business" when Congress convenes
for the 101st session in 1989.
The ADA of 1988 fulfilled its mission. The goal
was to get the ADA on the legislative agenda as a congressional
priority.
The disability community
had begun its education process, both internally and with members
of Congress and presidential candidates. Members were learning more
about what it meant to be disabled. They were being exposed to scores
of people with disabilities for the first time. Many declared their
support by becoming cosponsors of the bill. The disability community
was also becoming much more optimistic at the close of 1988. The
1980s had been a decade of struggle against encroachments. But the
Civil Rights Restoration Act symbolized the new alliance formed
with the civil rights community. And the Fair Housing Amendments
Act broke new ground by extending disability policy to encompass
the private sector. The Reagan administration was winding to a close,
and the tide was apparently turning. Both presidential candidates
had vowed to support legislation akin to the ADA. By the end of
1988, the compelling problem of discrimination had been fused with
the solution crafted by the National Council on Disability. The
political climate was also changing in a way that would invite,
rather than impede, future action.
4 CREATING
A WORKABLE ADA: THE SENATE AND THE WHITE HOUSE
On November 8, 1988, George Bush defeated Michael
Dukakis in the election for President of the United States. Bush's
strong statements in support of the disability community, and particularly
civil rights legislation for people with disabilities, had swayed
many disabled voters, including many Democrats. In fact, a poll
of voter intentions on the eve of the election, conducted by Louis
Harris and Associates, suggested that the wide margin of persons
with disabilities supporting Bush was a deciding factor in the election.
Although many persons with disabilities had campaigned for Dukakis
and were disappointed by the outcome, Bush's election clearly offered
an opportunity to the disability community. His attentiveness to
disability issues signaled a change in the political climate and
made passage of the ADA seem more promising. Moreover, two days
before his inauguration, Bush avowed his intent to follow through
on his pledges and push the ADA toward passage. "I said during the
campaign that disabled people have been excluded for far too long
from the mainstream of American life," Bush noted. "One step that
I have discussed will be action on the Americans with Disabilities
Act in order, in simple fairness, to provide the disabled with the
same rights afforded others, afforded other minorities."
In another respect, however, the election of 1988
was damaging to the ADA cause. Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT),
a long-time supporter of persons with disabilities and the Senate
sponsor of the ADA in 1988, lost his bid for reelection to Joseph
Lieberman. As one senate staff member said, Weicker was "one of
the 5ive-hundred-pound gorillas" in Congress. His leadership in
the area of disability was consistent and strong. Now someone else
had to fill the void he left. The chief cosponsor of the 1988 ADA
was Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), who had worked closely with Weicker,
the National Council on the Handicapped (NCD), and the disability
community in the development of the ADA. Weicker and Harkin had
even discussed whether Harkin's position as Chairman of the Subcommittee
on the Handicapped placed him in the best position to be the original
sponsor in 1988. Harkin also had a personal understanding of the
need for the ADA because of his brother, who was deaf. It was therefore
natural for Harkin to assume Senate leadership. But it was not a
foregone conclusion.
"I didn't get elected to get re-elected. My brother
is deaf. I understand discrimination. . . . We are doing this
legislation."
--Senator Tom Harkin
Sponsorship of the ADA
was a risky endeavor for the first-term senator. He was up for reelection
in 1990, and no Democratic senator from Iowa had ever won a second
term. As a relative newcomer to disability policy, Senator Harkin
would have to begin his relationship with the disability community
by making compromises with respect to provisions in the ADA--potentially
alienating the people he was trying to help. Moreover, failure to
pass the bill rapidly might lead some people to compare the leadership
skills of Senators Harkin and Weicker. By sponsoring the ADA, Harkin
would also become a target for the opposition, which included employers,
transit operators, owners of public accommodations, railroads, telecommunications
providers, and state and local governments. Finally, the prospects
for successfully expanding civil rights protections to incorporate
an additional "class" of people, while improved with the change
in administration, remained uncertain at best.
Sponsoring the ADA and risking failure could potentially
jeopardize Senator Harkin's political career. Although Robert Silverstein,
Staff Director and Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee on the Handicapped,
cautioned him about the pitfalls, Harkin accepted the challenge.
"I didn't get elected to get re-elected," he told Silverstein. "My
brother is deaf. I understand discrimination. I understand what
it means and what this country can look like in thirty years. We
are doing this legislation."
Master Strategy and the Retooling of the ADA
Senator Harkin took the lead in preparing the ADA
for reintroduction. Success depended on developing a solid strategy
for maneuvering the bill through the treacherous terrain of Congress.
It also required attaining the complete backing of the disability
community. Harkin's first step was to establish an effective relationship
with Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Carolyn Osolinik and Michael
Iskowitz from Kennedy's committee staff. This was important because
a bill successfully voted out of Harkin's Subcommittee on the Handicapped
would have to clear Kennedy's Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
Coordination of all legislative activities with Kennedy could improve
the possibility of a smooth and quick transition to the Senate floor.
The disability community was also courting the support of Kennedy.
They hoped his stature as a "heavy hitter" senator with seniority
could match the standing of Senator Weicker and augment the efforts
of Harkin. Kennedy brought the experience of decades of civil rights
leadership. Osolinik, whom Pat Wright described as "one of few people
who really saw disability as a civil rights issue," directed civil
rights issues in Kennedy's office. Moreover, Kennedy had personal
experiences with disability through his son who lost a leg to cancer
and a sister with a developmental disability. Kennedy's support,
however, depended on making significant changes to the ADA.
Senator Kennedy brought the experience of decades
of civil rights leadership in addition to his stature as a "heavy
hitter" senator with seniority.
Senators Harkin and Kennedy
concluded that the bill introduced in 1988 was too ambitious and
stood little chance for passage. Therefore, they decided to rewrite
the ADA. In accordance with the objectives of the disability community,
the senators' primary goal was to achieve the best possible civil
rights coverage for persons with disabilities. Toward this end,
they and their staffs, in consultation with leaders from the disability
community, developed a four-pronged legislative strategy.
First, Senators Kennedy and Harkin made a commitment
to achieving bipartisanship. They believed that the ultimate goal
of legislation must not simply be to pass a bill, but rather to
make an enforceable law. For the bill to be taken seriously, it
needed to be widely supported by the business community as well
as the disability community, Republicans and Democrats, the Senate
and the House, and the Bush administration. Second, Senators Harkin
and Kennedy wanted to craft a bill that could withstand the strict
scrutiny of Congress. Rather than introduce a bill with aggressive
provisions and rely on subsequent negotiations, which ran the risk
of permanently labeling the bill "extreme," they hoped to hold extensive
discussions and reach important compromises before they even introduced
the bill.
While the ADA's complete effect would not be
immediately apparent, the American landscape would be transformed
for subsequent generations.
The third and fourth
strategic commitments followed logically: modesty and parity. The
original ADA applied rigorous and rigid standards of accessibility
that would be implemented immediately. Senators Kennedy and Harkin
instead promoted accessibility at some point in time, and varied
provisions according to specific circumstances. While the bill's
complete effect would not be apparent immediately following its
enactment, the American landscape would be transformed for subsequent
generations. Finally, in crafting the actual language of the bill,
Silverstein and Osolinik worked with the disability community to
build the ADA securely on the foundation of earlier legislation--especially
on the Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
and the Fair Housing Amendments Act (See Appendix B). Proponents
could therefore argue that the bill was an application of tested
principles, not a new creation.
With this strategy in place, Osolinik and Silverstein
began 1989 by reviewing the bill line by line. Redrafting the ADA
was not, however, a solitary endeavor. After developing their own
preliminary ideas about what provisions should constitute a new
bill, Silverstein and Osolinik turned to others to identify interests
in and reservations about the bill, including the disability community,
all "covered entities," the Bush administration, and members of
Congress and their staffs. The principal House contacts were Congressman
Tony Coelho (D-CA) and Rochelle Dornatt from his staff. Especially
helpful from the business community was Nancy Reed Fulco of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Osolinik and Silverstein worked most closely,
however, with a group of representatives from the disability community.
In addition to the general guidance provided by Pat Wright, Ralph
Neas, Liz Savage, and Paul Marchand, Silverstein and Osolinik received
technical expertise from attorneys Arlene Mayerson, Chai Feldblum,
Robert Burgdorf, Jim Weisman, and others according to specialties.
By retooling the bill in close cooperation with this group, Osolinik
and Silverstein hoped to earn the backing of the disability community.
Then they could present a united front as the bill went through
Congress.
From January to March, 1989, Silverstein and Osolinik
produced scores of different drafts of the ADA. By March 15 they
completed a draft (S. 933), which they circulated privately to representatives
of the disability community, the Bush administration, and several
members of Congress. The bill duplicated the findings and purpose
of the original bill (S. 2345) crafted by NCD (see §2 in Appendix
H). It also covered the same main areas, with the exception of housing
(which had been addressed by the Fair Housing Amendments Act). S.
933 even incorporated some language of S. 2345 verbatim. But there
were marked distinctions.
The new bill, S. 933, demonstrated the commitment
to modesty and flexibility in standards by tailoring definitions,
provisions, and enforcement to four main titles--Employment, Public
Services, Public Accommodations, and Telecommunications. The dedication
to legal precedent was also clear. S. 933, for example, incorporated
more than five times as many references to earlier statutes. There
was also a difference in tone. Whereas the original bill, S. 2345,
emphasized discriminatory practices that should not be tolerated--for
example, providing unequal services. S. 933 spelled out positive,
proactive steps that must be taken to meet nondiscriminatory standards.
Several major revisions are worth noting.
One of the most contested aspects of the ADA was the
definition of disability (see Appendix F). People asked: Who would
be protected by the ADA? It was a difficult question because one
cannot readily identify disability with the same precision that
one can identify, for example, race and gender. It would also be
impractical to name, in a statute, each and every type of disability.
This would be cumbersome, if not impossible, and require constant
adjustment for future, unknown impairments. The challenge, therefore,
was to find a definition that was at once inclusive enough to cover
diverse disabilities, but not so universal that anyone could claim
protection by the ADA. Under the original bill, S. 2345, a disability
was defined as "a physical or mental impairment, perceived impairment,
or a record of impairment." This definition was similar to the three-pronged
definition implemented under Section 504, except that it did not
limit the first prong to impairments that "substantially limit"
major life activities. This meant that anyone with "any physiological
disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss"
or "any mental or psychological disorder" was covered. Osolinik
and Silverstein instead used the Section 504 standard and restricted
the first prong to "a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more of the major life activities--such as seeing,
walking, self-care, and learning. This meant that a physical impairment
such as an infected finger would not constitute a disability.
The most controversial issue in the redrafting stage
was the cost and burden imposed upon covered entities. Legislative
endeavors of the 1980s successfully established that, in the area
of disability civil rights, equal treatment was not enough. The
goal had to be equal opportunity. That required modifying policies,
providing services, and breaking down barriers: "reasonable accommodations"
(see Appendix F). In other words, it was not enough simply to leave
the door open, the door also had to be widened. And this meant that
civil rights for persons with disabilities could cost money. But
at what point does providing "equal opportunity" become an "unreasonable"
burden?
Under S. 2345, the only defensible limits to providing
accommodations were actions that "would fundamentally alter the
essential nature, or threaten the existence of, the program, activity,
business, or facility in question." Although Burgdorf wrote the
provision to assure that compliance would not mean shutting down
a business, it came to be known pejoratively as the "bankruptcy"
provision: interpreted to mean that a business would have to go
to the brink of bankruptcy before it could defend against charges
of discrimination. S. 933, on the other hand, followed Section 504
in using "undue hardship" (see Appendix F) as the standard for determining
whether employment accommodations were "reasonable." Undue hardship
meant "an action that is unduly costly, extensive, substantial,
disruptive, or that will fundamentally alter the nature of the program."
It was not a fixed concept, but rather varied on a case-by-case
basis, according to such factors as the size of the business, the
type of operation, and the nature and cost of the accommodation.
Concern for cost shaped the new approach to barrier
removal. S. 2345 required the retrofitting of all public transportation
vehicles and facilities to make them accessible. S. 933, on the
other hand, varied its demands according to whether vehicles and
facilities were newly constructed or already in operation. The general
principle was that all new vehicles and transportation facilities
would have to be "readily accessible to and usable by individuals
with disabilities" (see Appendix F). For used vehicles, transportation
operators had to make "good faith efforts" to find accessible vehicles.
If a company remanufactured a vehicle to extend its life for at
least five years, it had to be made readily accessible to "the maximum
extent feasible." With regard to existing facilities, S. 933 required
only that certain "key stations" had to be retrofitted for accessibility.
The approach in S. 933 to barrier removal in public
accommodations paralleled the transportation provisions. The original
bill, S. 2345, required that nearly every place of public accommodation
had to remove all barriers within five years. This provision earned
S. 2345 the nickname of the "flat earth" bill. Drafters of S. 933,
however, dispensed with the idea of wholesale retrofitting. Instead
they required that all new construction be accessible. Nevertheless,
they did not want to leave existing structures untouched. Consequently,
drafters created a new legal term. S. 933 required that businesses
make changes to existing structures where accessibility was "readily
achievable" (see Appendix F), which was eventually defined to mean
"easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty
or expense." The goal was to create a mind-set of accessibility,
to encourage people to look for creative ways to make the world
more accessible. "Readily achievable" modifications might include
installing grab bars, ramping a few steps, lowering telephones,
adding raised letter and braille markings on elevator controls,
and adding flashing alarm lights.
S. 933 also required that where structural changes
were not readily achievable, covered entities had to make their
services available through alternative methods: for example, coming
to the doorway of a Laundromat to pick up laundry when a person
could not get inside. Moreover, the bill required the provision
of "auxiliary aids and services" (see Appendix F) to persons with
disabilities: for example, reading a menu to persons with visual
impairments so that they could fully enjoy the benefits of places
of public accommodation.
The version of the ADA crafted by Senators Harkin
and Kennedy did not only limit initial provisions. In one significant
area they significantly expanded the scope of the original bill.
Under S. 2345, only those public accommodations (see Appendix F)
covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had to be accessible.
This principally meant places of lodging, eating, and entertainment.
Service establishments such as doctors" offices, retail stores,
and private clubs, were not included. S. 933, by contrast, defined
within its scope virtually every privately-operated establishment
that was used by the general public and affected commerce. This
included places of lodging, office buildings, parks, recreation
facilities, theaters, retail stores, medical facilities, and restaurants.
Although this apparently broke the commitment to parity with the
Civil Rights Act, advocates argued that it was consistent in spirit:
just as the Civil Rights Act addressed the universe where race discrimination
was an issue, the ADA covered the broader universe where disability
discrimination was relevant.
The new draft of the ADA also took steps to define
the original ADA's prohibition of discrimination in "broadcasts,
communications, or telecommunications." S. 933 required that communications
providers implement telecommunication relay services. A relay service
enabled an individual using a Telecommunication Device for the Deaf
(TDD)--a machine that transmits typed data over telephone lines--to
communicate with someone without such a device, through an operator
who would translate text to voice, and voice to text.
Another significant change from S. 2345 concerned
legal actions available to remedy discrimination. S. 2345 included
both administrative and civil remedies. It granted administrative
agencies the authority to order "all appropriate remedial relief"
and gave individuals the right to sue in a district court for both
injunctive relief and monetary damages, including punitive damages."
Drafters of S. 933, however, viewed these remedial provisions as
extreme and politically impossible. Therefore they introduced remedies
tailored to each title. Only administrative remedies were available
for the public accommodations and telecommunications provisions.
Private right to action was granted for employment and public services
provisions. For employment discrimination, S. 933 also allowed for
punitive damages.
Building Support for S. 933
Before publicly circulating the final draft of the
bill, Silverstein and Osolinik submitted it to a group of individuals
in the disability community for their approval. On one occasion,
the two staff members were grilled for hours by persons with disabilities
who objected to the apparent weakening of the bill. Osolinik tried
to explain that the bill could not be passed without the proposed
changes. Silverstein emphasized that the new bill remained true
to the original principles. Some in the disability community, however,
were outraged. "Lots of people felt let down," said Bonnie O'Day
about the reactions at the spring, 1989, conference of the National
Council on Independent Living (NCIL). Yet most agreed that it was
dangerous to include provisions that might endanger the entire bill.
Ultimately, the disability community lent its support, persuaded
that it was the best that could be achieved politically. This was
crucial, for a competing Republican bill might polarize the debate
and kill the ADA; unity behind S. 933 made it difficult for an alternative
proposal to gain a foothold.
After the disability community backed S.933, the next
task for ADA supporters was to enlist the cosponsorship of members
of Congress and the endorsement of President Bush. As in 1988, Liz
Savage coordinated a cosponsorship drive in conjunction with House
and Senate sponsors. This time the drive was even more aggressive,
and it continued throughout the entire ADA deliberations. At the
same time, Justin Dart, Marilyn Golden, and others throughout the
disability community continued to mobilize the national grass roots
network. Persons with disabilities began writing letters urging
their representatives to support the ADA.
On the Senate side, ADA advocates were especially
interested in enlisting the support of Senators Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)
and Robert Dole (R-KS). Hatch's support was extremely important
because he was the ranking Republican on the Labor and Human Resources
Committee, and the rest of the committee Republicans generally followed
his lead in disability policy. In December, 1988, Senator Harkin
began meeting with Hatch personally, in addition to consultations
between their staffs. Harkin had hoped that Hatch's long and solid
record of supporting persons with disabilities would lead to his
endorsement of the bill as chief cosponsor. As with Senators Kennedy
and Harkin, Hatch had personal experience with disability through
his brother, who lost the use of his legs from polio. Hatch, however,
had serious reservations about the bill. For example, he proposed
more limited remedies and the exemption of religious groups from
the public accommodations provisions. He also wanted to coordinate
his position with the White House. As a result, he declined Harkin's
invitation to be the lead cosponsor.
Senator Dole's support was crucial because, as
Minority Leader, he could wield considerable influence over the
progress of the ADA through Senate committees and on the Senate
floor.
Instead, Senator Hatch
directed his chief counsel, Mark Disler, to draft an alternative
bill. Disler had worked for Bradford Reynolds in the attorney general's
office during the Reagan administration. During the battles over
President Reagan's Task Force on Regulatory Relief, Disler had formed
good working relationships with Kemp and Wright and become much
more knowledgeable about disability, which helped smooth working
with Senator Hatch's staff. The bill Disler crafted was similar
to S. 2345 in that it was short and focused on general principles
of nondiscrimination. Rather than propose strong, detailed requirements
as in S. 933, it gave executive agencies the responsibility and
authority to create nondiscrimination standards.
Senator Hatch's actions were, nonetheless, ultimately
designed to aid in the ADA's passage. A quick endorsement of the
Harkin bill might have alienated other Republicans, whose support
was necessary for effective implementation. Senator Dave Durenberger
(R-MN), whose advocacy for people with disabilities stretched back
to his tenure as chief of staff for the Governor of Minnesota in
the 1960s, explained that Hatch "in effect had to stay off of the
original bill in order to leverage Republican support for the final
product." By drafting his own bill, Hatch paved the way for achieving
a broader base of consensus and helped prevent filibustering on
the Senate floor.
Senator Dole's support was also crucial because, as
Minority Leader, he had the power to wield considerable influence
over the progress of the ADA through Senate committees and on the
Senate floor. For example, he could discourage his party from requesting
that the ADA be referred to multiple committees, which could delay
or even kill the bill. He could also help prevent damaging amendments
from being introduced on the floor. Similar to Senator Hatch, Dole
had a solid record on disability issues. He knew disability first-hand
from the paralysis he incurred in World War II. On each anniversary
of his injury, April 14, he gave a speech about disability on the
Senate floor. In fact, he devoted his first official speech in the
Senate, on April 14, 1969, to the needs of the disability community.
"It is a minority group whose existence affects every person in
our society and the very fiber of our Nation," said Dole. He noted
that people with disabilities faced significant problems with employment,
income, health care, education, rehabilitation, transportation,
and access to public accommodations. Accordingly, he urged Congress
to promote collaboration between the public and private sectors
to improve opportunities for persons with disabilities. He asserted
his commitment to make wise use of financial resources, but he wanted
to do what was necessary to achieve for people with disabilities
"the independence, security, and dignity" to which they are "entitled."
Subsequently, in 1984, Dole established the Dole Foundation, which
he dedicated to improving the employment prospects of persons with
disabilities.
Nevertheless, Senator Dole had reservations about
the ADA. In part, he was ambivalent because he had talked with Senator
Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), Senator Harkin's fellow senator from
Iowa about introducing his own bill. Dole, however, received a flood
of phone calls from the disability community urging him to cosponsor
Harkin's bill and abstain from introducing a competing bill. Crucial
in shaping Dole's position on the ADA and encouraging him to support
it was one of his staff members, Maureen West. Paul Hearne, Executive
Director of NCD and a long-time associate of Dole, assisted West
in educating the senator about the ADA. Dole refrained from introducing
his own bill. But he also continued to withhold his support of S.
933, even though he was one of fourteen original cosponsors of S.
2345.
In addition to Senators Hatch and Dole, ADA supporters
were interested in enlisting the support of President Bush and his
administration. President Bush had already spoken strongly on behalf
of civil rights legislation for people with disabilities on multiple
occasions. And Senators Harkin and Kennedy had consulted with the
administration throughout the winter and spring of 1989 for input
on the development of S. 933. Sometimes these conversations were
held person-to- person; at other times they were mediated by members
of the disability community, such as Pat Wright and Justin Dart,
who had very strong White House connections. The main goal, however,
was to encourage the Bush administration take a further step and
endorse the version of the ADA developed by Senators Harkin and
Kennedy. Faced with the demands of forming an administration and
lacking adequate technical disability expertise, however, the White
House did not develop a firm position on the bill. Harkin was actually
ready to introduce S. 933 in March, but he delayed its introduction
at the request of the administration. By April, ADA supporters decided
they simply had to move forward with the bill, with or without President
Bush. Accordingly, Senator Harkin scheduled the introduction of
S. 933 for May 9, 1989, at which time Congressman Coelho would also
introduce the companion bill, H.R. 2273. Although ADA supporters
were unsuccessful in securing the cosponsorship of Hatch and Dole
and the endorsement of Bush, the congressional cosponsorship drive
was effective. By May 9, the bill had acquired 33 Senate cosponsors
and 84 House cosponsors.
In consultation with Congressman Coelho, Senators
Kennedy and Harkin developed a strategy for maneuvering the ADA
through Congress. They decided to begin the ADA deliberations in
the Senate. The Senate would be more manageable because of its rules
for legislative deliberations. Whereas in the House a bill went
to all committees with partial jurisdiction, in the Senate a bill
went only to one committee, whichever had the preponderance of jurisdiction
(subsequent referrals to additional committees could be requested).
Moreover, Kennedy and Harkin were chairmen of the committee and
subcommittee with jurisdiction. Kennedy's Committee on Labor and
Human Resources also had a comfortable Democratic majority. And
the ranking Republicans of both the committee and subcommittee--Senators
Orrin Hatch and Dave Durenberger--were strong supporters of disability
policy. Furthermore, the Senate had a better working relationship
with the administration. Given the importance of bringing the administration
on board, it was wise to tailor strategy to its interests.
Senators Harkin and Kennedy hoped to push the ADA
through the Senate as rapidly as possible with minimal alterations.
They feared that lengthy deliberations would increase the chance
of losing control of how the ADA was characterized in public debate.
Kennedy thus proposed going to mark-up before the Fourth of July
recess and to the Senate floor before the August recess. The House
would then proceed with the version passed by the Senate, which
would help limit the discrepancy between House and Senate versions
and smooth conference deliberations.
Senate sponsors scheduled three hearings for May 9,
10, and 16; they devoted April to preparing for them. (See Appendix
D for a chronology of legislative action on the ADA.) They hoped
to prevent any surprises by getting the facts in order and crafting
responses to anticipated opposition. Silverstein turned to those
who knew disability the best: members of the disability community.
He developed a list of about 100 questions and asked representatives
of the disability community to explain, based on their experiences
at the local level, how various covered entities would respond to
ADA provisions. Osolinik and Silverstein then prepared thick briefing
books based on the responses. They also worked with the disability
community to select witnesses to testify on each aspect of the bill.
Unlike the hearings of 1988, the 1989 Senate hearings would include
very detailed, technical analyses of the ADA, with a balance of
testimony from those who supported the legislation outright and
those who promoted changes. Accordingly, the business community
and other covered entities were gearing up for the hearings and
working with Senate leaders to identify effective witnesses. On
May 5, for example, just before the bill's introduction, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce sponsored the first of several meetings for
all business organizations to discuss their strategy for the ADA,
which culminated in their testimony before Congress. Subsequently,
a group of business organizations formed a coalition called the
Disability Rights Working Group.
Senate Hearings and the Quest for Bipartisanship
Senate Hearings on S. 933 began in the Dirksen Senate
Office Building on Tuesday morning, May 9, 1989. Ranking minority
member Senator Hatch set the stage for the hearings in his opening
statement. "I support a comprehensive civil rights bill for persons
with disabilities," Hatch declared unambiguously. But he also stated
he had "serious concerns." Hatch challenged the extension of public
accommodations provisions beyond those establishments covered under
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He promoted an exemption for small
businesses. He also opposed provisions for remedies that included
monetary and punitive damages. Moreover, Hatch stated that his reservations
concerning S.933 might compel him to introduce his own bill, or
support a different bill, presumably one introduced by Senator Dole.
"We can be productive, if you will give us that
right, give us that opportunity. That is all we ask for, nothing
more, but definitely nothing less."
--Congressman Tony Coelho
Traditionally the administration
offers the lead testimony on major bills, but by May 9 the Bush
administration had still not developed a formal position. In fact,
the White House had to cancel a May 1 Rose Garden press conference
with Senate leadership, which had been designed to promote the ADA.
Consequently, Congressman Coelho was the lead witness. He was selected
to open the deliberations not only because he was the sponsor of
the identical ADA bill introduced in the House; he also poignantly
symbolized the ADA. In his senior year of college, Coelho learned
he had epilepsy--reputed by some to be demonic possession. As a
result, he was barred from the Catholic priesthood and his familial
relationships were severely strained. "I was suicidal and I was
down," Coelho said of his experience with discrimination. But Bob
Hope took him into his own home and encouraged him to pursue his
ministry through public service.
Congressman Coelho met with considerable success after
following Hope's advice and beginning a government career. Elected
to Congress in 1978, he became Chairman of the Democratic Congressional
Campaign committee in 1981. Five years later, he was elected Majority
Whip. He also became a national leader in disability issues, which
included service as Director of the Epilepsy Foundation of America
(EFA). Coelho therefore spoke not only with the authority be stowed
upon him from the Democratic leadership, but also as an example
of the potential of persons with disabilities. "Tony was sort of
the epitome of what a person with a disability can do," said Dornatt
of his staff, "and what they can achieve given a fair shake and
given a chance." Coelho echoed this theme in his remarks at the
Senate hearing: "We can be productive, if you will give us that
right, give us that opportunity. That is all we ask for, nothing
more, but definitely nothing less."
In addition to speaking about his personal experiences,
Congressman Coelho addressed Senator Hatch's remarks and stressed
the need for bipartisanship: "We very much want you on board and
very much need your support," he entreated. "We would prefer that
you not introduce your own bill," he added, urging Hatch to work
toward a common bill instead. Hatch replied by pledging his best
efforts to develop consensus. "I would love nothing better" than
to cosponsor this bill, Hatch said. "But in its present form, I
cannot." Only minutes into the first hearing, it was clear that
considerable work lay ahead to achieve bipartisanship and shepherd
the ADA through Congress. The prospect of a competing bill made
cooperation much more critical. The hearings were an opportunity
to find a solution.
As in 1988, persons with disabilities presented powerful
testimony about the need for the ADA by describing their personal
experiences. "There is not one disabled American alive today who
has not experienced some form of discrimination," I. King Jordan
said. The most vivid imagery came from Justin Dart. In addition
to his carefully crafted and eloquent words, Dart brought visual
aids. He presented the committee with a box of discrimination diaries
and letters that he and others had gathered from around the country
(see Appendix E). Yet, Dart acknowledged, no document could truly
demonstrate the impact of discrimination. As a supplement, Dart
thus brought an extra wheelchair. "I submit to you this brand new
empty wheelchair," he said to the committee chairman forcefully.
"On January 24, 1988, last year, my younger brother, Peter, was
faced with the necessity to use, [and] be identified with, this
public invitation to discrimination." But his brother claimed: "I
would rather be dead." Four days later, said Dart, he committed
suicide.
Others described specific examples of discrimination.
Mary DeSapid described being fired by her employer because of her
cancer treatment. Amy Dimsdale, a wheelchair-user trained in journalism
at the University of Texas at Arlington, described her experiences
of being overlooked by potential employers. "I have submitted over
300 resumes and more than 100 applications. I have indicated my
willingness to be flexible, work at home, relocate, and use my own
special equipment--all to no avail. I need virtually no special
accommodations to work, as long as I can get in the building. 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 protection
such as that provided for minorities and women.
Discrimination "destroys healthy self-concepts,
and it slowly erodes the human spirit."
--I. King Jordan building."
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 community 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 maintenance 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 representatives 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
During the next five weeks, executive agencies reviewed
the bill to make recommendations for an administration position.
Unlike Congress, which follows a fairly organized deliberative process
to reconcile the views of two parties, policy-making in the White
House is an ongoing internal dynamic. It organizes its decision-making
according to a series of functions, which are administered by such
advisory boards as the National Security Council, the Domestic Policy
Council, the Office of Counsel, and the Office of Personnel. These
groups, which are composed of cabinet members and staff, theoretically
report to the Chief of Staff, who coordinates decisions with the
president. Although a presidential administration is generally comprised
of officials from one political party, conflicts over specific policies
abound.
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
Technically, White House
policy regarding the ADA fell under the purview of the Domestic
Policy Council, which was chaired by Roger Porter and included the
attorney general, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), and the Secretary of Transportation. The key to the ADA in
the White House, however, was Chief Counsel C. Boyden Gray. There
is no formal job description for the White House Chief Counsel.
Rather, responsibilities are tailored by each individual president.
Gray had served as Bush's counsel for eight years during the Reagan
administration. They became close friends and shared similar family
backgrounds: their fathers were golf partners. Their relationship
gave Gray considerable influence. "Boyden is the most powerful counsel
to a president we've had in a long, long time," said Gray's immediate
predecessor during the Reagan administration, A.B. Culvahouse. Gray
was selective in the issues which he engaged. But "on the issues
Boyden has chosen," said Culvahouse, "he is awfully damned influential."
And, based on his friendship with Evan Kemp and following his experience
with President Reagan's Task Force on Regulatory Relief, Gray took
a keen interest in the ADA.
White House action on the ADA was framed by President
Bush's declarations in support of disability rights legislation.
This was a relatively unique interest for Bush, as he was best known
and respected for his expertise on, and passion for, foreign policy.
The question, said Dr. William Roper, who worked for Porter on the
Domestic Policy Council, was precisely how Bush's commitments would
be translated into specific policy. There were discussions about
the extent to which the administration would abide by the campaign
promise. But Bush was steadfast in his commitment to getting a solid
act passed. "He wanted it done in a way that was good for the American
people," said Roper: "this was not going to be a shell promise."
Others inside the White House were much less enamored
with the ADA, and had substantive reservations. Civil rights was
a charged issue in the Bush administration. Kemp explained that
the White House would not entertain any concept of "quotas" with
regard to the ADA. Officials within the Bush administration emphasized
that people with disabilities needed to be qualified for any given
job, that the original ADA definition needed to be limited, and
that there needed to be a sensible limit to the responsibility of
providing reasonable accommodations. If these fundamental issues
were settled, said Kemp, the White House could move forward with
shaping the details. As White House consultant Robert Funk explained,
Funk, Gray, and others reminded skeptics of Bush's promise. In addition
to Gray, Attorney General Richard Thornburgh was a crucial advocate
of the ADA and Bush's aspirations. So was Kemp, who functioned as
a vital link between the disability community and the White House.
Thornburgh's testimony was crucial: it demonstrated
that the White House was willing to work toward consensus on a
bill that President Bush could endorse.
The Department of Justice
(DOJ) organized the various recommendations made by executive agencies,
and Attorney General Thornburgh became the point person to represent
the administration. Thornburgh, as many others, had personal experience
with disability. His son, Peter, had acquired a learning disability
from an automobile accident. As parents, Thornburgh and his wife
Ginny had moved from caring for the special needs of their own son
to working for others with similar conditions. In Pennsylvania,
Mrs. Thornburgh had served as county chairperson of the ARC and
was a member of President Reagan's Committee on Mental Retardation.
Her work influenced her husband, who used his authority as Governor
of Pennsylvania to assist persons with disabilities.
At the Senate hearing on June 22, 1989, it was clear
that those in support of the ADA within the White House prevailed
in shaping the administration's position, which was presented by
Attorney General Thornburgh. "We at the Department of Justice,"
Thornburgh said, "wholeheartedly share [the ADA's] goals and commit
ourselves, along with the president and the rest of his administration,
to a bipartisan effort to enact comprehensive legislation attacking
discrimination in employment, public services, transportation, public
accommodations, and telecommunications." He explained that granting
civil rights to disabled persons would help the American economy
by promoting employment instead of dependence. Moreover, Thornburgh
declared the administration's support of every basic principle,
as well as to the overall principle of linking the bill to the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. He also identified
areas of concern: drug-abusers should not be covered by the definition
of disability; measures should be taken to ameliorate the burden
on small businesses; the extension of public accommodations beyond
the Civil Rights Act should be carefully analyzed; attempts should
be made to minimize litigation; the Secretary of Transportation
should be able to grant exemptions to transit systems; and "the
most cost-effective and efficient system" of telecommunications
should be pursued. Most significantly, however, Thornburgh pledged
to begin working, both at the staff and principal levels, to work
toward bipartisan consensus on the ADA.
Although there were pronounced differences between
ADA sponsors and the Bush administration, Senator Harkin responded
to Attorney General Thornburgh by emphasizing all the areas of agreement.
Accordingly, a Washington Post headline declared: "Thornburgh
Endorses Civil Rights Protection for the Disabled." This statement
masked deep divisions, but it effectively identified the ADA's advances
and potential.
Attorney General Thornburgh's testimony was crucial
because it demonstrated that the Bush administration was willing
to work toward consensus on a bill that President Bush could endorse.
Senators Harkin and Kennedy eagerly accepted the invitation to open
negotiations with the Bush administration. And, as a result of Thornburgh's
testimony, Senators Dole and Hatch laid to rest the possibilities
of introducing competing bills. The ADA, sweeping in its provisions,
emerged from the hearings with virtually every witness supporting
the concept of the bill. Every argument against the ADA met with
an effective rebuttal. The ADA was sound and it was on the move.
Negotiations Between the Senate and the White House
Although Senator Harkin was the Senate sponsor, Senator
Kennedy--the full committee Chair and a senior Senator--took the
lead in negotiating with the White House. Kennedy's plan of attack
was to get all parties into the same room and essentially stay there
until all issues were resolved. These discussions would include
the administration, the Senate, the House, and both the business
and disability communities. House Republicans, however, declined
to participate, for they did not want to be bound by any agreements.
Moreover, the White House insisted that only representatives of
Congress and the administration could join the negotiations. Kennedy
and Harkin wanted disability representatives to be at the table
because they had so much technical expertise, but they and all other
outside constituencies were not allowed into the negotiating room.
Thus, only representatives from the Senate and the Bush administration
came to the table.
The first meeting took place about a week after Attorney
General Thornburgh's testimony in the anteroom of the Senate Committee
on Labor and Human Resources. Roper was the lead negotiator for
the administration. He worked especially closely with Robert Funk,
a co-founder of DREDF and a disability advocate from the Domestic
Policy Council. Osolinik and Silverstein were the leaders for the
Senate. At the outset of the meeting, in light of the absence of
House Republicans as participants, Osolinik insisted on two main
ground rules. First, she emphasized that they needed to come up
with a complete settlement: leaving any issue unresolved might undercut
the agreements that were made. Second, she argued that the administration
had to stand by the negotiated agreements, even if House Republicans
later opposed them and looked for administration support. Roper,
however, said he could not commit to these stipulations because
he had not cleared them with his superior, Chief of Staff Sununu.
Osolinik promptly called off the meeting and said she was ready
to continue whenever the administration was willing to agree to
the conditions. Such actions led Wright to claim that Osolinik was
"one of the toughest negotiators I have ever seen."
Over the Fourth of July weekend, Chief of Staff Sununu
telephoned Senator Kennedy to talk about the abruptly-ended meeting.
Kennedy repeated the two ground rules submitted by Osolinik, and
Sununu agreed to abide by them. Accordingly they made plans to resume
negotiations on July 6, 1989, and settled on the times, participants,
and location. Over the next two weeks, through July 18, Senate staff
and administration staff held ten negotiation sessions. From the
Senate, the principal participants were the staffs of Senators Kennedy,
Harkin, Hatch, Durenberger, and Dole. Staff from the office of Senator
John McCain (R-AZ) joined the discussion regarding telecommunications
provisions and were pivotal in shaping that portion of the bill.
For the administration, participants came primarily from the White
House, including Roper and Funk; the Justice Department, especially
the author of the Section 504 regulations, John Wodatch; the Department
of Transportation; and OMB.
Although non-governmental constituencies were not
allowed in the Senate anteroom, they waited in a nearby conference
room where they could be consulted during breaks. Those present
in the meetings devoted several hours to each session, went through
the bill line by line, and identified scores of disagreements for
discussion. The staffs reached agreement on the vast majority of
issues, but a few unresolvable disputes were left for the principals.
These more difficult issues included the scope of remedies (namely
the inclusion of compensatory and punitive damages), the scope of
public accommodations (namely whether the ADA applied to more establishments
than those covered by the Civil Rights Act), exemption of religious
groups from the public accommodations provisions, the definition
of disability, and coverage of drug and alcohol users.
On July 28, ten days after the conclusion of negotiation
sessions, Senator Dole sponsored a principals meeting in his conference
room. They met there because of the ample space and because the
office of the Minority Leader was friendlier terrain for the administration.
Those present included Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Dole, Hatch, and
Durenberger, Chief Counsel Gray, Chief of Staff Sununu, Secretary
of Transportation Samuel K. Skinner, Attorney General Thornburgh,
head of the Domestic Policy Counsel Roger Porter, and others representing
executive agencies covered by the ADA. The purpose of the meeting
was to hammer out agreements on remaining issues. But at one point
Sununu lost his temper and began yelling at Silverstein. Kennedy
slammed his hand on the table, yelled back that he would not stand
for shouting at Senate staff, and threatened to walk out. The discussion
resumed, but no official agreements were made: the meeting was cut
short.
Three days later, on July 31, Senators Kennedy and
Harkin and Attorney General Thornburgh resolved the handful of remaining
issues and closed the negotiations. The breakthrough compromise,
which facilitated agreement on other issues, was essentially a swap
concerning public accommodations and remedies. In the area of public
accommodations, the administration had used the parity principle
against ADA sponsors by arguing that the ADA should cover only those
establishments covered under the Civil Rights Act. With respect
to remedies, the administration wanted to exclude compensatory and
punitive damages. As a compromise, Kennedy and Harkin agreed to
restrict remedies to the standards of the Civil Rights Act in exchange
for the administration's consent to apply the ADA to the broad spectrum
of public accommodations.
The breakthrough compromise, which facilitated
agreement on other issues, was essentially a swap concerning public
accommodations and remedies.
There were several other
major agreements included in what Senator Kennedy termed a "fragile
compromise." First, with respect to employment, negotiators incorporated
a two-year delay of the effective date for operations with 25 or
more employees, and a four-year delay for operations with 15 to
24 employees. Establishments with fewer than 15 employees were already
exempted from the employment title. They also introduced stronger
language to ensure that current employees who abused drugs and alcohol
would not be a protected class. Second, concerning public transportation,
the agreement included authority for the Secretary of Transportation
to waive the requirement of bus lifts for fixed-route systems when
lifts were unavailable. For private intercity bus transportation,
the agreement delayed implementation of lift requirements for at
least five years and mandated a study to explore how best to make
intercity buses accessible. Third, regarding public accommodations,
the negotiated agreement delayed implementation for 18 months, exempted
religious organizations and private clubs, and specified that elevators
were required only in buildings with at least three stories or more
than 3,000 square feet per floor.
Senate Approval
After reaching a final agreement with Attorney General
Thornburgh on July 31, 1989, Senators Kennedy and Harkin continued
to push the ADA forward, scheduling the Labor and Human Resources
committee mark-up for August 2. This gave Senate staff only a couple
of days to translate every agreement into appropriate legislative
language. They did not finish writing the substitute bill until
about 3:00 in the morning on the day of the mark-up. The committee
mark-up itself was rather uneventfull--lasted less than an hour.
This was mainly because the intense and detailed negotiations had
settled most issues. Moreover, committee Democrats and Republicans
gave deference to Senators Kennedy and Harkin, and Senators Hatch
and Durenberger, all of whom supported the rewrite of S. 933. Accordingly,
the committee voted unanimously, 16 to 0, to report the ADA to the
Senate floor for final consideration. The Senate, the Bush administration,
and the disability and business communities had truly come a long
way since January to achieve unanimous, bipartisan support. It was
"one of the most extraordinary legislative accomplishments I've
ever seen," said Neas. For the disability community, it was a remarkable
victory. Moreover, the compromise empowered President Bush, who
had previously supported the principles of the ADA, to endorse a
specific version of the bill.
The Labor and Human Resources Committee voted
unanimously, 16 to 0, to report the ADA to the Senate floor for
final consideration--a remarkable victory for the disability community.
The Senate closed for
recess just two days after the mark-up, on August 4. But while many
members and their staffs went on vacation, Senators Harkin and Kennedy
continued to drive the ADA forward to keep the momentum alive. They
wanted to make the ADA one of the first items of business when the
Senate resumed on September 6. This meant that the committee report
had to be filed by August 30 in order to give Senators and their
staffs ample time to review the issues. For three weeks Democratic
and Republican Senate staff worked intensively with the administration,
the disability community, and the business community to develop
a report that established an accurate historical record reflecting
the various negotiated agreements. They completed a draft by August
22, and submitted the report to accompany the substitute version
of S. 933 on August 30.
The speed with which the Labor and Human Resources
Committee moved the ADA shocked many senators and staff members.
When the ADA came up for a vote on September 7, just a day after
the Senate reopened for the fall, some senators complained that
things had happened too quickly, that they did not have enough time
to review the legislation. Others opposed the bill outright. Humphrey
(R-NH) called it "one of the most radical pieces of legislation
I have encountered." Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) cynically suggested
the bill should be called the "Lawyers Relief Act of 1989." For
the most part, however, senators applauded the concepts of the ADA.
In fact, by September 6 more than 60 senators had signed on as cosponsors.
Debate on the Senate floor lasted late into the night,
totaling over fourteen hours. Although the fundamentals of the bill
were never threatened, several divisive issues emerged. The first
was a proposed amendment by Senator Hatch, which would provide a
$5,000 tax credit to businesses for making accommodations and modifications--an
alternative to a complete exemption for small businesses from the
public accommodations provisions. Hatch warned that the government
was a potentially "oppressive" institution and said that it was
unfair to burden small businesses with the costs of implementation
without placing any of the responsibility on the government. Senator
Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX), however, argued that the amendment was a "killer
amendment" because all bills affecting revenue are constitutionally
required to come from the House. Hatch disagreed with Bentsen, as
did a majority of the Senate. But since the Budget Act required
a two-thirds majority for such revenue amendments, the tax credit
proposal failed.
Near the end of the floor debate, shortly before 10:00
p.m., Senator Grassley introduced an amendment that brought Congress
under the purview of the ADA. Senator Hatch had raised the issue
during the committee mark-up, but Senator Kennedy had cautioned
Hatch that the provision might kill the bill if introduced too early.
On the Senate floor, Grassley argued that it was unfair for the
Senate to impose a burden on the American people without sharing
it. Senator Wendell H. Ford (D-KY), however, argued that such an
amendment blurred the constitutional balance of powers by giving
the executive branch administrative control over Congress. Ford
agreed with Senators Harkin and Kennedy that the ADA should apply
to Congress. But he thought the issue should be considered more
carefully in conference, not passed hastily because people were
tired and wanted to go home. Despite his objections, the Senate
approved the amendment (by counting the number of Senators standing
in favor of and against it) with the supposition that the amendment
only articulated intent: details would be worked out in the House
or in conference.
A much more acrimonious debate centered on the definition
of disability. Senator William L. Armstrong (R-CO) argued that the
definition of disability in the ADA was too broad. He was especially
concerned about the inclusion of "mental disorders" and disorders
with a "moral con tent." He questioned whether senators thought
homosexuality, bisexuality, exhibitionism, pedophilia, voyeurism,
and kleptomania should be protected by the ADA. Senator Jesse Helms
shared Armstrong's concerns, especially with respect to homosexuality,
and feared that employers would no longer be allowed to maintain
"moral standards" in their businesses. Senator Kennedy, however,
argued that prohibiting discrimination against persons with HIV
was crucial if the epidemic was to be controlled, because people
would otherwise be less likely to reveal their illness. And Senator
Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) cautioned against excluding persons with
mental illness, noting the recent recognition that such legendaries
as Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill struggled with bipolar
disorder. Although Senators Kennedy and Harkin opposed unduly restricting
the definition, it appeared that the bill would not go forward unless
specific conditions or impairments were expressly excluded from
the bill. They thus worked with Armstrong and Hatch for hours, in
consultation with the disability community, to prepare a list. Senator
Hatch typed the amendment himself, and the Senate approved it by
a voice vote.
"If it had become a Democratic bill, we would
have lost. . . . It had to be bipartisan."
--Congressman Tony Coelho
With these and several
other smaller amendments considered and resolved, the Senate finally
voted on the ADA. In a remarkable demonstration of bipartisanship,
the Senate voted affirmatively by a count of 76 to 8. This bipartisanship
was crucial for the ADA's success, because the bill consequently
entered the House deliberations as a coalition bill with the indispensable
support of President Bush. Without the negotiations that had culminated
in the support of Senators Hatch and Dole and President Bush, the
ADA might have been labeled as a partisan initiative. "If it had
become a Democratic bill," said Congressman Coelho, "we would have
lost. . . . It had to be bipartisan." The ADA had indeed achieved
a broad base of support from both parties, but a difficult battle
in the House of Representatives lay ahead.
5 FASHIONING
A DURABLE ADA: THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The overwhelming affirmative vote in the Senate contributed
to the ADA's remarkable momentum. The intense negotiations with
the White House had resulted in a bill that earned President Bush's
endorsement, which essentially guaranteed passage of the bill in
some form. The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources had
been unanimous in its support of the ADA. A grassroots disability
community had made its presence known on Capitol Hill by uniting
to advocate aggressively for the ADA. Meanwhile, no considerable
opposition had organized. By the time the Senate voted on September
7, 1989, nearly half the House had cosponsored the bill--almost
enough votes to pass it. These factors led many senators and the
Bush administration to anticipate and hope for swift passage in
the House before year's end. Other factors, however, pointed to
a more challenging process.
Much more work had to be done to achieve the
bipartisan support that ADA advocates sought. Hopes for quick
passage were dashed; debate in the House took nearly nine more
months.
Whereas 185 Democrats
signed on as cosponsors (88 percent of all House signatures), only
25 Republicans attached their names to the bill. Moreover, while
House Democrats had worked with the Senate in redrafting the ADA
and were kept informed about the negotiations with the administration,
House Republicans had kept their distance. They did not contribute
substantively to the redrafting process; they also declined from
participating in the White House negotiations to avoid being bound
by them, and because they wanted to convey "that they were trying
to look out for [the] needs" of the business community. Consequently,
though the Senate crafted a breakthrough compromise bill, House
deliberations would have to cover the same issues all over again.
Much more work had to be done to achieve the bipartisan support
that ADA advocates sought. Hopes for quick passage were dashed;
debate in the House took nearly nine more months.
Early Actions in the House
Compared with the Senate, where there were powerful
and passionate advocates of disability in leadership positions on
both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democratic leadership in
the House, with the exception of Majority Whip Tony Coelho (D-CA),
were much more cautious. House Speaker James C. Wright, Jr. (D-TX)
and Majority Leader Thomas S. Foley (D-WA) were skeptical of the
ADA's wide-ranging impact and viewed the bill more as a private
agenda of Congressman Coelho than an issue of national policy importance.
"I had the leadership unwilling to tell me no because it was me,"
Coelho said. But they were not openly supportive and would have
"killed" the ADA, "if it hadn't been [for] my making it so personal."
Although in time the ADA would come to be viewed as a leadership
bill, largely because of Coelho's status as Majority Whip, the initially
weak support of Democratic leadership placed Republicans in a position
to shape the ADA to their interests.
Congressman Coelho was the first member of the House
to join the campaign to pass the ADA. He was the bill's sponsor
both in 1988 and in 1989. He also collaborated with Senators Tom
Harkin (D-IA) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) to rewrite the ADA and
craft a master strategy for passage. House Republicans did not demonstrate
significant interest in the ADA until it entered Congress for the
second time in the spring of 1989. The leader among Republicans
was Congress man Steve Bartlett (R-TX). He had played an integral
role in recasting disability policy in terms of independence and
in issuing a mandate to the National Council on the Handicapped
(NCD) to review federal programs and make recommendations. Although
he generally supported the proposals in Toward Independence,
Bartlett was cautious about the lead recommendation pertaining to
an equal opportunity law. Throughout 1988 he had watched the ADA
from a distance. But after President- elect Bush promised support
of an act similar to the ADA at a pre-inaugural event on January
19, making passage seem imminent, Bartlett decided to become involved
to ensure that it was a reason able bill.
In April, 1989, Congressman Bartlett joined with Minority
Leader Robert H. Michel (R-IL) and Congressman William F. Goodling
(R-PA) to propose a partnership with Congressman Coelho. "We would
like to work with you to develop a good bipartisan bill," they wrote
to Coelho on April 25. "By working together, we hope to develop
language that we can agree upon, support, and introduce together."
But the revised draft was already completed and Bartlett, Michel,
and Goodling did not cosponsor the ADA at the time of its introduction.
Michel also wrote a letter to President Bush, on April 26, urging
him to join in the efforts of working toward a bipartisan bill.
Such an effort, Michel said "is appropriate, definitely warranted,
and most importantly, deserved by individuals with disabilities
and others who will be affected by it." Bush fulfilled this request
by working with the Senate to develop a compromise bill.
Shortly into the House deliberations in the spring
of 1989, ADA supporters received a significant blow that paralleled
the 1988 defeat of Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT). While
House Speaker Wright was under scrutiny for alleged ethics violations,
some members accused Congressman Coelho of violating House ethical
standards by investing in certain bonds. Unlike Wright, however,
who dragged out his own investigation before leaving Congress, Coelho
promptly submitted his resignation, effective June 15. His commitment
to the ADA influenced this decision. Coelho had become a national
leader for disability policy. And, though he flatly denied the charges
against him, he feared that an investigation might, by association,
embarrass the disability community and consequently hurt its prospects
for success on the ADA.
Although Congressman Coelho's career as a U.S. Representative
drew to a close, his advocacy for the ADA did not. According to
Ralph Neas, "he played a key role, if not a crucial role, on many
different occasions with Democrats in the House and the Senate,
with Republicans in the House and the Senate, and with President
Bush, pushing the calendar on a number of occasions, really helping
get us through some difficult times." For example, he took the lead
in the House cosponsorship drive and capitalized on his personal
attachment to the bill and the trust he had cultivated among colleagues.
Moreover, though he was a partisan Democrat, Coelho was well known
for his desire to bring opponents to his side by working to empower
them with shared ownership and finding common ground, rather than
pitch battles.
"There was always the possibility that having
to go through four committees . . . could endanger some of the
best and strongest provisions."
--Ralph Neas
Accordingly, Congressman
Coelho joined with Democratic Congressman Major R. Owens (D-NY),
and Republican Congressmen Silvio O. Conte (R-MA) and Hamilton Fish,
Jr. (R-NY), to facilitate cosponsorship. In a letter to the rest
of their colleagues on June 1, they emphasized the Republican origins
of the bill through NCD and the problem of paying persons with disabilities
not to work. "Persons with disabilities want to be productive, self-supporting,
and tax-paying participants in society," they wrote. "This bill
will grant them that dignity and that right." Because the ADA was
a civil rights bill, ADA supporters anticipated that members would
readily support it. Yet, despite the bipartisan effort, the process
of enlisting House cosponsors was slow: the issue of costs caused
people to hesitate. Whereas members often cosponsor a bill when
certain colleagues do, in this case they wanted to scrutinize the
bill individually.
The House cosponsorship drive was less successful
than that in the Senate--33 percent of all senators and 19 percent
of all representatives were cosponsors on May 9. But Congressman
Coelho secured a crucial commitment from Congressman Steny H. Hoyer
(D-MD). The two members had become close friends since Coelho, as
Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, had
assisted Hoyer in his first campaign. At Coelho's request, Hoyer
assumed the role of managing the ADA in the House. This meant organizing
committee deliberations, serving as the principal negotiator, and
leading floor deliberations. Out of respect for Coelho's commitment
to the ADA, Hoyer called himself "chief cosponsor," and continued
to identify Coelho as the ADA's sponsor. Like so many other members
of Congress, the ADA had personal significance for Hoyer: his wife
had epilepsy. He became a zealous advocate for the ADA.
A Bird's Eye View of the House Deliberations
By the time the ADA reached the House committees,
the basic goals of the bill had been widely affirmed. Many members,
however, viewed the legislative process as an incremental one, whereby
major policies would be assembled step by step over many years.
Passing the ADA was especially challenging because, as Rochelle
Dornatt of Coelho's staff observed, "we were creating a whole new
set of rights . . . a whole new set of civil rights." The principal
focus in the House was not the needs of persons with disabilities,
which had already been well-established by the Senate, but, rather,
the bill's effect on "covered entities." As Melissa Schulman of
Congressman Hoyer's office explained: "What the House was doing
. . . was making the bill more acceptable to business." Coelho often
noted that "the trick" in the legislative process was "to find that
magic number, that 218, to get the bill passed." With the ADA, advocates
were trying to get much more than that, but it required extensive
work at the committee level to satisfy members concerned with covered
entities in their districts.
House consideration of the ADA was different and more
complicated than the Senate's for several reasons. First, the committee
structure was more complex. In the Senate, the bill went only to
one committee and one subcommittee. There it was considered primarily
as a civil rights bill and did not undergo the technical scrutiny
of the commerce and transportation committees. In the House it went
to four committees (Education and Labor, Public Works and Transportation,
Energy and Commerce, and Judiciary), and six subcommittees (Select
Education; Employment Opportunities; Surface Transportation; Telecommunications
and Finance; Transportation, Tourism, and Hazardous Materials; and
Civil and Constitutional Rights). In addition, the Committee on
Small Business held a non-legislative hearing to generate information
that could be used by other committees or during floor deliberations.
These multiple committee referrals meant that the ADA would have
to withstand the scrutiny of various technical experts, especially
with regard to transportation. Moreover, 164 representatives, compared
with 16 senators, and many more House staff than Senate staff reviewed
the bill in committee. This increased the chance of a committee
altering, delaying, or even killing the bill and posed a major challenge
to coordinating the deliberative process and keeping the bill intact.
All indications suggested that a bill would pass. But, as Neas explained,
"there was always the possibility that having to go through four
committees . . . could endanger some of the best and strongest provisions."
According to Arlene Mayerson, it was "an overwhelming strategic
nightmare."
A second factor also complicated the House deliberations.
In the Senate, the chief sponsors of the bill, Senators Kennedy
and Harkin, were chairmen of the full committee and subcommittee
with jurisdiction. In the House, however, Congressman Hoyer was
not even a member of any of the committees reviewing the bill. He
was "responsible for shepherding . . . the bill through the process,"
explained Schulman, even though he had to do it without committee
authority, relying on forming relationships with chairmen who often
guarded their committee jurisdiction jealously. Keeping everything
together was a challenging task indeed. But Hoyer rose to the challenge.
As Neas said, he "put on one of the best legislative shows of all
time." One cannot underestimate Hoyer's importance. "Unless you
have somebody who is going to take responsibility for seeing that
it all gets done and there is some cohesion in the process," Schulman
said, "it never would have happened."
"Unless you have somebody who is going to take
responsibility for seeing that it all gets done and there is some
cohesion in the process, it never would have happened."
--Melissa Schulman
Congressman Hoyer and
staff member Schulman were central players, if not the leaders,
in every aspect of the bill's development in the House--cosponsorship,
hearings, committee review, negotiations, committee and floor amendments,
interactions with the White House, floor deliberations, conference
proceedings, and crisis management. They feared that the committees
might significantly weaken the bill, and that the disability community
might walk out of the process in frustration. Hoyer thus committed
to meeting with any member who wanted to discuss the bill. He even
walked through a Giant Food store with concerned parties to explore
the practical impact of the ADA. Schulman remained confident that
the bill would pass. But at times, she said, "it just looked next
to impossible."
The legislative process in the House also differed
in a third respect: the roles assumed by the business and disability
communities and the Bush administration. The ADA went through the
Senate like a "blitzkrieg." This had compelled many business lobbyists
essentially to throw in the towel with respect to the Senate and
strategically focus their efforts on the House. The disability community,
on the other hand, had been very much on the offensive throughout
the Senate deliberations, seeking to persuade senators and the Bush
administration to support its goals for an accessible America. Although
many compromises had to be made to achieve presidential and Senate
support, the disability community had been generally satisfied with
an ADA that emerged from the Senate. And with respect to the Bush
administration, it had been an active participant in hammering out
a compromise bill that could win the endorsement of President Bush,
which Bush granted on August 2, 1989.
Persons with disabilities were now more on the
defensive. Their chief goal was to hold as much ground as possible,
amidst an onslaught of proposed revisions.
The circumstances were
much different in the House. While business groups worked extensively
with the Senate and the Bush ad ministration in developing a compromise
bill, activity was primarily in Washington: there were only limited
efforts to apply pressure on members from their constituents at
home. But, during House deliberations, the business community vigorously
lobbied the House by mobilizing constituent pressure. By the time
the ADA reached the House, Mayerson said, the National Federation
of Independent Business (NFIB) was distributing "millions of flyers
to every business across the country." Moreover, because of President
Bush's endorsement of the ADA, outright opposition was futile and
apathy was dangerous. Barring an unexpected calamity, the bill was
going to pass, at least in some form. If businesses wanted their
voice to make a difference and meet some of their objectives, they
had to support the overall concept of the bill. Persons with disabilities,
on the other hand, were now more on the defensive. Their chief goal
was to hold as much ground as possible amidst an onslaught of proposed
revisions.
The disability community continually reminded opponents
that a Republican president backed the ADA. Indeed, President Bush
was a strong advocate of the ADA and had been in the forefront of
promoting civil rights legislation for people with disabilities.
By endorsing the negotiated version of the ADA on August 2, 1989,
President Bush set the stage for the House deliberations, where
passage consequently seemed imminent. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh
most actively articulated the Bush administration's support. For
example, on September 19, Thornburgh wrote a powerful letter to
the editor of the New York Times on behalf of the ADA. He underscored
his and the president's support of the ADA. In particular, he challenged
the errors of a Times article--for example, its allegation that
there had been "surprisingly narrow public scrutiny" of the ADA.
Thornburgh described how the Bush administration, the Senate, and
interested parties had entered "painstaking negotiations" that resulted
in "a carefully balanced measure."
On October 12, Attorney General Thornburgh testified
on behalf of the administration, before the House Subcommittee on
Civil and Constitutional Rights and gave a ringing endorsement of
the ADA. He noted that many people with disabilities continue to
live "in an intolerable state of isolation and dependence" and argued
that the ADA could be "the vehicle that brings persons with disabilities
into the mainstream of American life." It was a "historic opportunity,"
he said, to have the chance to help move the ADA through Congress.
Thornburgh's testimony was important because it demonstrated the
Bush administration's continued support of the ADA and reflected
President Bush's desire to see the ADA passed quickly.
For the most part, however, compared with its intense
and consistent interaction with the Senate, the Bush administration
participated in the House deliberations only intermittently. Proponents
of the ADA widely assumed that the administration stayed in the
background because the administration was willing to let the House
modify the bill and perhaps implement proposals the administration
had been unable to negotiate with the Senate. House Republicans,
for their part, preferred that the White House let them have the
freedom to conduct their own analysis and revisions of the bill.
House Democrats wanted the administration to speak out more authoritatively
on behalf of the negotiated ADA, but they would settle for not having
the administration advocate any weakening amendments. President
Bush satisfied all parties by remaining outside the fray.
The House deliberations were also characterized by
ideological distinctions. ADA supporters widely hailed the bill
as bipartisan legislation. Indeed, in the final analysis the ADA
received overwhelming support from both parties--93 percent of the
vote in each chamber and at least 86 percent of the vote in each
party. There were also key advocates on both sides of the aisle,
especially in the Senate, where Senators Harkin, Kennedy, Orrin
G. Hatch (R-UT), Dave Durenberger (R-MN), and Robert Dole (R-KS)
were deeply committed to the ADA. Moreover, Republicans and Democrats
found common ground: they agreed "that it was a bad idea to pay
people not to work, to stay home." Nevertheless, an ideological
fault line emerged between the interests of the business and disability
communities. Republicans tended to vote in favor of easing the demands
imposed on business. This became evident during the Senate floor
deliberations. For example, Senator Hatch's amendment to include
a tax credit for businesses (the only vote to be recorded) split
along party lines. Whereas 71 percent of Republicans supported the
amendment, 64 percent of Democrats opposed it. In the House, the
division was even more clear. For example, whereas 85 percent of
Democratic committee members were cosponsors of the ADA, only 10
percent of Republican committee members were. In the committees,
members tended to split along party lines regarding amendments that
most viewed as helping businesses.
It is important, however, not to lose sight of the
enormous area of agreement on the ADA, which was established in
the course of negotiations. Although Republicans and Democrats had
their differences, it is a testament to their talents and commitment
to a laudable objective that they were largely able to put aside
partisanship to find common ground.
Lobbying & Grass Roots Activities
For business organizations such as NFIB, the Senate
deliberations represented a failure. "The reason we failed in the
Senate," said Wendy Lechner, the NFIB point person for the ADA,
"was we didn't have time to educate" the members. The ADA was "pushed
through as motherhood and apple pie before we had a chance to do
anything." In the House, therefore, the objective was to "slow it
down long enough for education." NFIB was not alone. Largely under
the direction of Nancy Reed Fulco of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
business groups formed the Disability Rights Working Group to help
mold the ADA. Different organizations focused on different provisions:
NFIB and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce devoted considerable attention
to public accommodations; the American Bus Association (ABA), the
American Public Transit Authority (APTA), and Greyhound examined
transportation issues; the National Restaurant Association (NRA),
the Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers
dealt with employment. But they banded together to lobby members
of the House about their common concerns. As illustrated in the
Senate testimony, business groups were not completely opposed to
the bill. "We really weren't trying to deep-six it," said Lechner.
"We were really trying to get a better bill, a more livable bill."
"We really weren't trying to deep-six it. We
were really trying to get a better bill, a more livable bill."
--Wendy Lechner
To create a more "livable"
bill, representatives of covered entities developed a list of about
20 to 30 amendments. Throughout the House deliberations they continually
updated this list, removing those changes that were accomplished,
and adding others as new issues arose. And they lobbied members
of Congress to argue the need for those amendments by issuing various
position papers and visiting members' offices. In addition to lobbying
inside Washing ton, organizations such as NFIB sent out action alerts
to their members urging people to write their representatives, especially
those serving on committees. Some opponents of the ADA took their
concerns about the ADA to the main stream media.
Business groups had a number of overriding concerns.
One was the "vagueness of language" contained in the ADA. Business
lobbyists argued that such phrases as "undue hardship," "readily
achievable," and "readily accessible," were inadequately defined,
and would therefore invite frivolous law suits. Businesses, they
argued, would not be able to know whether they were in compliance.
A second concern was the potential cost of accommodations. One proposed
solution was to have the government share some of the burden through
tax credits and other mechanisms. Third, numerous covered entities
lobbied to have a more concrete definition of disability, ideally
one that listed every covered disability instead of relying on a
flexible definition. Fourth, small businesses argued that they should
be exempt from the public accommodations requirements, or at least
be phased in more gradually, because small businesses were exempt
from other civil rights legislation. Fifth, scores of organizations
protested the enforcement mechanisms available under the ADA, especially
private litigation and the availability of punitive damages. Sixth,
many business groups proposed that the ADA should preempt all other
disability laws, so that there would be no confusion between different
statutes, and no possibility for bringing multiple law suits for
one violation.
The business community, however, faced a significant
problem in educating and lobbying Congress: it had a much more difficult
time than the disability community in keeping its coalition together.
By the end of the fall of 1990, the coalition had begun to break
down, as organizations focused on those provisions that affected
them most. They were, therefore, unable to present a united front
to Congress. Nevertheless, during the course of the House deliberations,
business groups succeeded in obtaining many of the changes they
sought.
In response to a variety of objections posed by business
groups, some House members took the initiative in undertaking vigorous
publicity campaigns against the ADA. Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN),
for example, sent out a flyer in which he enumerated "some of the
more onerous provisions" of the ADA. According to Burton, the ADA
would "federalize American private enterprise," "wreak havoc in
the workplace," "crush small and medium-sized businesses," and "confer
federal approval on homosexual/heterosexual "domestic partners."
"He also attached an editorial by Gene Antonio that characterized
the ADA as "the last ditch attempt of the remorseless sodomy lobby
to achieve its national agenda before the impending decimation of
AIDS destroys its political clout. This bill simply must be stopped
. . . and will become law unless there is a massive public outcry
immediately."
"The beauty of the ADA was it was an effort where
people in the grass roots were just as important, if not more
important, than people in Washington."
--Liz Savage
Similarly, Congressman
Ron Marlenee (R-MN) issued a flyer to all the postal patrons in
his district. The headline read: "Americans With Disabilities Act:
Washington's Latest Way to Crush Businesses, Schools, While Hurting
The Disabled." A subheading announced: "ADA Bill To Give Federal
Endorsement For Homosexual "Partners" and "AIDS." Congressman Chuck
Douglas (R-NH) distributed a letter that pictured a man pointing
a gun at the reader. "Berserkers: Time Bombs in the Workplace,"
the headline declared. Douglas favored the general idea of the ADA,
but said the bill "needs dramatic rewriting." He was especially
with preventing per sons with mental illness from endangering their
coworkers and thus proposed excluding such persons from protection
under the ADA.
The disability community was more unified than the
business community, but the heightened activity of the business
community during House deliberations demanded a strong response
from the disability community. "The beauty of the ADA," said Liz
Savage, "was it was an effort where people in the grass roots were
just as important, if not more important, than people in Washington."
To facilitate disability grass roots involvement, leaders such as
Marilyn Golden developed regional coordination networks: it was
too complicated for one or even a handful of people to manage the
calls for an entire nation. While in some cases there was a coordinator
for an individual state, most states were organized in groups under
a regional coordinator. The regional coordinators were selected
because they were well known in their states. They came from a variety
of organizations, often from independent living centers.
During the House deliberations, the ADA coalition
coordinated its lobbying efforts with each of the scheduled committee
mark-ups. As the bill went through each committee, members of the
legal team responded to virtually every business position paper
by issuing rebuttals. They would proceed point-by-point through
amendment lists and either show how claims were in error or why
the disability community took a different position. ADA Lobbyists
used this information in visiting members of the House, presenting
a "Disability Rights 101" education course. Lobbyists were not just
Washingtonians. Often at their own expense, persons with disabilities
flew and drove in from around to be part of the Washington effort.
The National Council on Independent Living (NCIL), for example,
ensured that at least one of its representatives resided in Washington
throughout the congressional deliberations. On many occasions, Liz
Savage offered her apartment as a sort of boarding house for out-of-town
visitors. Once they arrived in Washington, grass roots advocates
met with leaders in the ADA coalition to get weekly briefings and
plot strategy. They also coordinated their lobbying techniques to
ensure that they were presenting a unified message to members of
Congress.
Grass roots participation in lobbying helped humanize
the ADA. Many members were seeing persons with disabilities for
the first time and viewing them as assertive citizens. This helped
break down the stereotype of persons with disabilities as dependent
children. It also illustrated that disabled people could make a
difference and offer valuable contributions to society--if only
given the chance. Only a minority of people with disabilities, however,
could make personal trips to Washington. Others did what they could
in their local communities. Kathleen Kleinmann, for example, wanted
to do whatever she could do from her home in rural Pennsylvania.
She felt she simply had to be a part of the action. "We had that
urgency about us," she said. "It was contagious. It spread through
the whole country." For Kleinmann and many others, NCIL was the
crucial link to activities taking place in Washington. Through it
they could learn when and to whom they should write letters. Moreover,
people in various local committees applied pressure on the local
offices of their representatives. They also contested erroneous
public statements about the ADA by calling into local radio shows
and making local television appearances.
"The President has endorsed it. The Senate has
overwhelmingly passed it. Now it's up to you. Don't weaken a law
that will strengthen America."
--New Year's Postcard
The largest single letter-writing
campaign took place between the 100th and 101st Congresses, during
the winter of 1989-90. The campaign was directed at members of the
House of Representatives, who were frustrating many in the disability
community by taking so much longer than the Senate and proposing
"weakening amendments." Thousands of "New Year's" postcards were
mailed throughout the country with a cover letter from James S.
Brady, soliciting individuals to mail to them to their congressman.
The front of the card printed "ADA" in giant letters for a background.
Set over it was the statement: "Our New Year's Wish For Congress:
Open the Doors to America. Pass the Americans with Disabilities
Act." On the back it said: "The President has endorsed it. The Senate
has overwhelmingly passed it." And in larger letters: "Now it's
up to you. Don't weaken a law that will strengthen America." Space
was provided for people to add their own personal messages. They
were encouraged to send cards to their own Congressperson, committee
members from their states, Speaker of the House Foley, and Minority
Leader Michel.
In addition to lobbying, sending letters, and making
phone calls, persons in the disability community, both inside and
outside Washington, served the important function of presenting
testimony at congressional hearings. As with the hearings of 1988
and the Senate hearings of 1989, the House's ADA hearings included
powerful testimony about the need for civil rights protections for
persons with disabilities. Persons from the disability community
also offered their technical expertise on specific issues and countered
the claims of those who proposed weakening amendments.
A final way in which the disability community exerted
pressure on Congress and the Bush administration was through demonstrations.
One of the most significant protests was organized by ADAPT in September,
1989. In a long ADAPT tradition, the demonstration coincided with
the annual meeting of APTA in Atlanta, where Secretary of Transportation
Samuel K. Skinner was expected to present an address. On Sunday,
September 24, about 100 people throughout the U.S. and Canada, most
of whom were in wheelchairs, protested at the entrance of the Hilton
Hotel convention site. Stephanie Thomas, a spokesperson for ADAPT,
said they were protesting APTA because of its opposition to the
ADA.
"We're here until the order gets signed. They'll
have to carry everybody out or arrest them."
--Mike Auberger
At about ten o'clock
the following morning, on September 25, more than 100 disability
activists occupied the main floor of the Richard B. Russell Federal
Building and blockaded the main entrances. Some attached chains
and bicycle locks to their necks and locked them to door handles
so that security could not simply lift them from their wheelchairs.
ADAPT demanded that Secretary Skinner sign an executive order requiring
the purchase of accessible vehicles for all new transit buses, which
would take effect immediate. "We're here until the order gets signed,"
said Michael W. Auberger, one of the co-founders and leading organizers
for ADAPT. "They'll have to carry everybody out or arrest them."
Later that day, at around six o'clock, Atlanta police and security
officers from the General Services Administration (GSA) did just
that. They used bolt cutters to remove demonstrators from the building.
About two hours later, only a few protesters still
remained in the building. From inside the building, Marca Bristo
contacted Evan Kemp, who told her to call Boyden Gray directly.
As she was on the phone with Gray, a police officer insisted that
she leave the building. Bristo left, but only after she handed the
phone to the officer to prove she was talking to Gray from the White
House. Gray subsequently contacted President Bush. Within minutes,
police and other security officers began letting the disability
activists back into the building. After speaking with Gray, President
Bush had personally intervened to inform Gary C. Carson, Regional
General Services Administration (GSA) administrator, that the protesters
should be allowed to stay. Carson attributed Bush's action to the
president's "deep commitment to the handicapped and their right
to protest." Apparently, Bush was also concerned about the alternative
of having them stay overnight outside the building in a chilling
rain. Auberger and others welcomed Bush's intervention, but threatened
to stay until Skinner signed the executive order they demanded.
The sit-in ended the following afternoon subsequent
to an agreement between the Urban Mass Transportation Administration
(UMTA) and leaders of ADAPT. UMTA agreed to help facilitate a process
of identifying and interfering with transit operators that were
rushing to buy inaccessible buses before the ADA was enacted. UMTA
also agreed to relay to Secretary Skinner ADAPT's desire to see
more effective implementation of the Air Carriers Access Act of
1986, which required accessibility for air travel. The agreement
fell short of ADAPT's demands. Yet it appeared to be the best possible
action, since UMTA explained that Skinner did not have the authority
to issue such an executive order.
ADAPT, however, was not finished with its demonstrations.
The next day, Wednesday, September 27, protesters effectively shut-down
the Atlanta Greyhound terminal for several hours by encircling the
terminal and blocking buses. They chanted: "We Will ride!" "Access
is our civil right!" One protester even climbed into the bus, sat
in the driver's seat, and chained himself to the steering column.
Only four buses carrying about 80 passengers left the terminal during
the protest, compared with a typical 20 buses carrying 600 passengers.
The purpose of the demonstration was to urge Greyhound and other
intercity bus services to begin purchasing lift-equipped buses.
The protest ended, however, with the arrest of over 20 activists,
who received $75 fines the following day.
Five-and-a-half months later, amidst seemingly stalled
House deliberations, ADAPT organized another demonstration--the
"Wheels of Justice" campaign. Disability activists from around the
country gathered on Sunday night, March 11, to plan the week's events.
Wade Blank and Michael Auberger, co-founders of ADAPT, were there.
Other leading ADAPT organizers included Bob Kafka, Mark Johnson,
Stephanie Thomas, Dianne Coleman, Ben Freeman, and Bernard Baker.
At noon the following day, hundreds of activists associated with
ADAPT and other disability organizations assembled at the White
House. From there they marched and rolled to the Capitol, where
they gathered at the west front to listen to speeches from ADA supporters.
On the way, they chanted: "What do we want?" "ADA!" "When do we
want it?" "Now!"
At the Capitol, Justin Dart, now Chairman of the President's
Committee on the Employment of People with Disabilities, addressed
the crowd as "pioneer patriarchs of the twentieth century." He likened
the ADA to the Declaration of Independence and urged those assembled
to "go forward, in the spirit of Ghandi and Martin Luther King,
with love, with reasoned truth, with unyielding insistence on respect
for the sacred value of each human life." Concluding with a demand
for immediate passage of the ADA, Dart declared: "We are American
citizens and we will be part of the American dream." Congresswoman
Patricia Schroeder and Congressman Major Owens also spoke in support
of the ADA, likening the disability rights movement to the civil
rights movement of the 1960s. Additional speakers included I. King
Jordan, President of Gallaudet University, Evan Kemp, Chairman of
the EEOC, and James Brady, former press secretary for President
Ronald Reagan.
"We are American citizens and we will be part
of the American dream."
--Justin Dart
Auberger was the final
speaker. He, too, likened the efforts of those gathered to earlier
movements for equality. He described the plight of people with disabilities
and urged that disability activists must remain steadfast in demanding
civil rights. Then, sitting in his wheelchair at the base of the
Capitol steps, Auberger observed that the steps "were a symbol of
discrimination against the disabled." Yet, he said, he would not
let them continue to be an obstruction. "We will not let any barrier
prevent us from the equality that is rightfully ours." As he concluded
his speech in front of television cameras, many individuals left
their wheelchairs behind to climb the Capitol steps--a symbol of
their fortitude in surmounting barriers.
On Tuesday, March 13, ADAPT continued its campaign
by meeting with House Speaker Foley (who assumed the House leadership
position after Congressman Wright's resignation), Republican Leader
Michel, and Congressman Hoyer in the Capitol Rotunda. Leaders of
the protest insisted on immediate passage of the ADA. When Foley
informed the crowd that two months was a likely time frame, more
than 100 demonstrators began chanting: "ADA Now!" Foley and Michel
subsequently departed. Hoyer stayed a little longer and departed
with a thumbs-up signal. Then, Capitol police told the demonstrators
to leave, as demonstrating in the Capitol is against federal law.
Most demonstrators refused, however, and formed a tight circle;
many chained their wheelchairs together. They chanted: "Access is
a civil right!" and "The people united will never be defeated!"
But police officers, many protected with riot gear, began using
chain-cutters and torches to break through the links demonstrators
had fashioned. For about two hours, police reportedly arrested 104
people whom charged them with demonstrating in the Capitol building.
The next day, Wednesday, March 14, protesters assembled in Congressmen
Shuster and Fish's offices. Others crowded the Energy and Commerce
Committee mark-up session. Numbers dwindled over the rest of the
week, however, as many were appearing in court.
The "Wheels of Justice" campaign did not bring immediate
passage of the ADA. And the ADAPT demonstration in Atlanta did not
result in an executive order that required the purchase only of
accessible transit buses. Yet the protesters were more concerned
with demonstrating the lengths to which persons with disabilities
would go to secure their rights. In that sense they succeeded. The
events were also an indication that further demonstrations could
follow if the ADA got stuck in a quagmire. Combined with the other
education and lobbying efforts of the ADA coalition, these activities
underscored the nationwide, grass roots demand for passage of the
ADA.
Although such demonstrations reflected unity within
the disability community, there was not complete unanimity among
all people with disabilities. The National Federation of the Blind
(NFB), for example, was outspoken in its reservations about the
ADA. At its 1989 convention in Denver, Colorado, NFB passed a resolution
declaring that if the ADA "could not be amended to cure its weaknesses,
it should be opposed." Early in 1990, Kenneth Jernigan of NFB wrote
a brief, "Reflections on the Americans with Disabilities Act," to
explain NFB's position. The primary concern, he said, was that the
ADA might create additional problems for blind people as it attempted
to eliminate other problems. In particular, NFB feared that the
ADA might force people with disabilities "to accept the special
accommodations mandated by the bill and . . . [prevent people] from
using the same facilities and services that are available to others."
Such accommodations, Jernigan said, may themselves become discriminatory,
and make the ADA "a source of unintentional discrimination against
some persons with disabilities."
For instance, NFB cautioned that the provision of
specially-equipped rooms in hotels might require blind persons to
use specific rooms and prevent them from staying near friends. To
NFB, the alleged need for this accommodation (or for street corners
with audible sounds for crossing and specially-designated seats
on buses) was based on "the false assumption that sight is essential
for successful performance of most tasks." Blindness, said Jernigan,
"is not generally disabling." Consequently, unwanted accommodations
falsely portrayed blind people "as limited in ways that they are
not" and imposed unfair and unequal restrictions.
As a solution, NFB proposed an amendment stipulating
that people with disabilities had the right not to participate in
programs or activities specially designed for disabled persons.
During the fall of 1989, NFB worked with John Wodatch of the Justice
Department to elicit the backing of the administration. Following
a meeting with White House staff on January 19, 1990, NFB representatives
were confident that they would obtain their proposed amendment.
But, Jernigan said, if the amendment is rejected, "we must oppose
the bill as vigorously as we can . . . we will do anything we can
to slow it down and block [the ADA's] passage." He concluded his
"Reflections" with the cautionary statement: "Simply because a thing
calls itself civil rights, that does not mean that it is civil rights."
NFB eventually attained its goal through an additional clause to
the ADA: "an individual with a disability shall not be denied the
opportunity to participate in . . . programs or activities that
are not separate or different." Subsequently, NFB did not oppose
the ADA.
The ADA and the House Committees: Three Phases
Part of the master strategy for passing the ADA involved
organizing the committee deliberations in the House. Leading ADA
supporters among Democrats, including Congressmen Coelho, Hoyer,
and Owens, wanted to start the bill in a committee that was familiar
with and favorable to civil rights. In consultation with each of
the committee Chairs--Augustus F. Hawkins (D-CA), for Education
and Labor; John D. Dingell (D-MI), for Energy and Commerce; Glenn
M. Anderson (D-CA), for Public Works and Transportation; and Jack
Brooks (D-TX), for Judiciary--they decided to begin with Education
and Labor. Several factors made this a logical choice. First, most
of its Democratic members supported disability rights. Second, Democratic
leadership included Congress man Owens, Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Select Education, who had created the Task Force on the Rights
and Empowerment of People with Disabilities and was a strong advocate
of civil rights and grass roots activism. Third, the ranking Republican
for the Subcommittee on Select Education was Congressman Bartlett,
who had a strong record on disability policy and was instrumental
in shaping the mission of NCD. Bartlett, in fact, urged Republicans
on other committees to promote letting Education and Labor go first.
Fourth, Pat Morrisey, a leading Republican staff member, had also
worked extensively with disability policy and, in addition, had
a disability. Ideally, the Education and Labor Committee would complete
its review of the ADA as a starting point for the rest of the committees.
Although committees operate differently, they tend
to follow a similar process of deliberation. The committee chair
and committee members give overall guidance to their staff regarding
what they would desire to achieve. Then, hearings are scheduled,
designed, and held. The purpose of hearings is to solicit justification
and document the need for the bill, as well as to hear and discuss
reservations about the bill. As much as possible, staff try to settle
issues raised by the hearings on their own, which is generally the
vast majority of a given bill. For issues that remain unresolved,
however, there is a ladder of conflict resolution. Usually, the
first step the staff take is to prepare memos for their congressmen
about the issues in dispute and then obtain the member's feedback,
which can be used in negotiations. If this proves inadequate, members
meet directly with one another. Finally, issues that members cannot
settle get carried to committee mark-up sessions where they can
be introduced as amendments for member voting. Typically, mark-up
sessions begin with the consideration of one collective amendment
that incorporates all the agreed upon changes. Then, members proceed
to discuss and vote upon individual amendments concerning the disputed
issues.
Although the activities of all four committees often
overlapped (see Appendix C for a chronology), there were three distinguishable
phases in the committees' review process. Deliberations by the Education
and Labor Committee marked the first phase. A focus on transportation
provisions by two committees, the Energy and Commerce Committee
and the Public Works and Transportation Committee, constituted the
second phase. Activities by the Judiciary committee represented
the third and final phase before moving the deliberations to the
House floor.
PHASE I: EDUCATION AND LABOR COMMITTEE
The Education and Labor Committee conducted the most
thorough evaluation of the bill, at least with respect to the volume
of testimony received. Two subcommittees had jurisdiction over the
bill: Select Education, chaired by Congressman Owens, and Employment
Opportunities, chaired by Matthew G. Martinez (D-CA). In the interest
of facilitating rapid consideration of the ADA, Owens negotiated
with Martinez to have Employment Opportunities yield to Owens's
Select Education Subcommittee. Moreover, Congressman Hawkins, Chairman
of the full committee, essentially deferred to Owens for leading
the committee's consideration. In addition to the two hearings held
in 1988, the Subcommittee on Select Education hosted four hearings
between July 18 and October 6, 1989, two of which were joint hearings
with the Employment Opportunities Subcommittee.
Congressman Owens welcomed Hoyer as the leader
in committee negotiations, because it gave Owens an opportunity
to be a "Watch Dog" for the disability community.
Perhaps the most significant
of the four hearings was the field hearing of the Subcommittee on
Select Education held on August 28, in Houston, Texas. Lex Frieden
and Justin Dart had recommended such a hearing to Congressman Owens
due to concerns that Congressman Bartlett might not be fully supportive
of the ADA be cause of his close associations with such business
groups as NFIB. Owens approved of the idea and enjoyed playing the
role of bringing the U.S. Congress to local communities. The purpose
of the field hearing was to demonstrate to Bartlett that his own
constituents strongly supported the ADA. Hundreds of persons with
disabilities attended the hearing and an open forum that followed.
At the hearing, businessmen, government officials, and transit authorities
gave a ringing endorsement to the ADA. And dozens of people with
disabilities spoke about their personal experiences at the forum.
The proceedings appeared to have a significant impact on Bartlett.
Later that evening, he told Frieden and others that he had been
"kind of a skeptic" of the ADA. But the day of discussions "made
me a believer," and he pledged to do what he could to support the
legislation.
Contrary to the typical committee process, where staff
settle most disagreements following the hearings, negotiations for
the Committee on Education and Labor were led by Congressmen Hoyer
and Bartlett in a lengthy series of member-to-member meetings. This
was also a unique circumstance because Hoyer was not even on the
committee. Although Chairman Hawkins could have exercised his authority
over the full committee, he "graciously," as Ralph Neas described
it, allowed Hoyer to take the lead. This gave Hoyer, the House manager
of the ADA, an opportunity to set the tone for the rest of the House
deliberations. Congressman Owens welcomed Hoyer as the leader of
committee negotiations, because it gave Owens an opportunity to
be a "Watch Dog" for the disability community: he could help ensure
that negotiations did not result in a net loss for people with disabilities.
Congressman Hoyer spoke mostly on behalf of Democrats
and the disability community, Congressman Bartlett mostly on behalf
of Republicans and the business community. But they shared enough
in common to produce extraordinarily productive negotiations.
Congressmen Hoyer and
Bartlett represented different parties and different clientele--Hoyer
spoke mostly on behalf of Democrats and the disability community,
Bartlett mostly on behalf of Republicans and the business community.
But they shared enough in common to produce extraordinarily productive
negotiations. Bartlett wanted to foster business development. His
position as Republican point man was to prepare a bill that could
gain the support of Republicans and the business community. Hoyer
shared similar goals. As Schulman explained: "we weren't interested
in creating a new right and doing it in such a way that it would
have been impossible for the private sector, for employers and businesses,
to meet their responsibilities." Rather, in meeting the needs of
persons with disabilities, Hoyer wanted to ensure that businesses
knew what was expected of them, that language was clear and fair,
and that the bill did not impose an undue burden on business. By
working together, the two congressmen were able to help craft legislation
that would be acceptable to both sides of the aisle and foster a
level of bipartisanship comparable to what had developed in the
Senate. The meetings were "the most productive and satisfying legislative
negotiations that I had ever been involved with," said Bartlett.
Throughout October, Congressmen Hoyer and Bartlett
met extensively and negotiated fourteen amendments that would later
be brought up for a vote in committee. Although the committee had
jurisdiction mainly over portions of the Employment and Public Accommodations
titles, some of their proposed amendments affected the entire bill.
The most significant amendment concerned the application of "undue
hardship" and "readily achievable." Business lobbyists wanted precise
dollar figures to determine exactly how much businesses had to spend
on accommodations and modifications. Rather than offer a price cap,
the Senate bill specified that three factors should be evaluated
in determining whether an accommodation was "reasonable" or a structural
modification was "readily achievable"--the size of a business, the
type of operation, and the cost of the accommodation. Although this
provision fell mainly under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee,
and was ultimately settled there, Hoyer and Bartlett began discussions
about "site-specific" factors. They suggested that in determining
whether an accommodation was "reasonable" a court should consider
the financial resources of the local facility as well as those of
the entire covered entity. Thus, a local K-Mart in financial difficulty
would not be evaluated only according to the resources of the entire
K-Mart corporation. Hoyer and Bartlett also clarified that an employer's
obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation was always limited
by the standard of "undue hardship" (see Appendix F): there would
be no loopholes.
The meetings with Congressman Steny Hoyer were
"the most productive and satisfying legislative negotiations that
I had ever been involved with."
--Congressman Steve Bartlett
Congressmen Hoyer and
Bartlett addressed another persistent concern of employers by adding
tougher language for drug and alcohol abuse. They agreed that past
drug users who had completed, or were actively engaged in, drug
rehabilitation treatment were protected under the ADA. They also
decided that covered entities should be free to administer drug
tests and exclude individuals who used drugs and had not sought
treatment.
Congressmen Hoyer and Bartlett also worked to help
minimize the potential for excessive litigation. They added language
requiring that all complaints filed under the ADA or Sections 503
and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act must be coordinated so that only
one case could be brought against the covered entity; a claimant
could not file two claims under two different statutes. They also
developed a procedure whereby the attorney general could certify
state or local building codes that met ADA accessibility standards,
which would be a defense against discrimination charges. In cases
where the attorney general exercised authority to pursue monetary
damages for aggrieved persons, the two congressmen proposed to exclude
punitive damages. They also suggested that when courts considered
assessing civil penalties, they must consider the "good faith" efforts
of the covered entity. Finally, Congressmen Bartlett and Hoyer incorporated
into the bill requirements that executive agencies prepare technical
assistance manuals to be disseminated to those with rights and responsibilities
under the ADA.
These changes were brought before, and approved by,
members of the Committee on Education and Labor at the mark-up sessions
on November 9 and 16. Eight additional amendments came up for consideration.
Among other things, these amendments would have:
- linked the determination of reasonableness for
accommodations and modifications exclusively to the resources
of a local facility;
- reduced the penalties the attorney general could
assess;
- substituted "significant risk" for "direct threat"
as the standard according to which persons with contagious diseases
could be discriminated against;
- capped the amount a business had to spend on "readily
achievable" modifications to 5 percent of a company's profits;
- delayed implementation until regulations were completed;
and,
- limited nondiscrimination protection for association
with someone who had AIDS to one's family members.
Except for the package of amendments introduced by
Congressmen Hoyer and Bartlett, all amendments introduced at the
committee mark-up were voted down, predominantly along party lines.
The Democratic position was a "no" vote on all amendments besides
the Hoyer-Bartlett package. In the final vote, the committee voted
unanimously, 35 to 0, to report H.R. 2273 to the House, as amended
by the committee. Despite the contested amendments, this was another
strong endorsement of the ADA, and gave the bill a boost similar
to that given by the Senate vote. Tough battles lay ahead. But the
Hoyer-Bartlett compromises positioned the ADA for future success,
and Hoyer and Bartlett would continue to play central roles in the
negotiations of other committees.
PHASE II: ENERGY AND COMMERCE & PUBLIC
WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEES
Although the Committee on Education and Labor reached
a significant compromise that drew the support of many members,
it accomplished little with respect to transportation and telecommunications
provisions. These responsibilities fell to two committees: Energy
and Commerce, and Public Works and Transportation. Their deliberations
constituted the second phase of the House process of committee review.
From the beginning of the ADA campaign, advocates
worried most about the transportation provisions. Transit authorities
had historically posed vigorous challenges to accessibility for
persons with disabilities. When the Department of Transportation
issued its original Section 504 regulations, APTA responded with
a lawsuit--and won. The court ruled that requiring lifts on every
bus went beyond the purview of Section 504 and left it up to transit
authorities to decide whether to have accessible buses, provide
paratransit service, or use a mixture. As a result of this so-called
"local option," transportation operators throughout the country
provided widely varying levels of accessible transportation. Cities
such as New York and Seattle had achieved nearly 100 percent accessible
buses, while Chicago had virtually none. Railroad systems had other
problems. Accessibility standards for Amtrak, for example, had been
in effect for nearly two decades; the regulations simply were not
being enforced. By proposing fully accessible public transportation
vehicles, the ADA would thus face resistance from such powerful
lobbying groups as the ABA, Greyhound, Amtrak, and APTA.
Working the transportation provisions of the ADA through
the committee was also challenging because the scope was so broad.
The ADA covered all public transportation by both public and private
entities, with the exception of air travel, which had been addressed
in the Air Carriers Access Act. This included: fixed route systems
(including buses, light and rapid rail), paratransit service (which
applied only to public entities), demand responsive systems, intercity
rail, commuter rail, over-the-road buses (which applied only to
private entities), and transportation facilities. To avoid presenting
executive agencies with any ambiguity, the transportation committees
prepared extraordinarily detailed provisions. Given the memory of
the regulatory nightmare of Section 504, where lack of detail in
the statute resulted in intense conflict over the regulations, many
people in the disability community welcomed the specificity promoted
by the transportation committees. Although the two transportation
committees upheld the basic principles of the Senate bill, they
made the most changes "nearly tripling the amount of space dedicated
to transportation provisions.
The two committees operated simultaneously, but the
Energy and Commerce Committee was the first to complete its review.
It held its hearings on September 27 and 28, 1989 and met for mark-
up six months later on March 13, 1990, at which time it reported
the ADA, as amended, to the House. The ADA's fate in the transportation
committees was largely a function of personalities. Working with
the Energy and Commerce Committee was difficult for the disability
community. Chairman Dingell was notorious for jealously guarding
his committee's jurisdiction, and he was one of Amtrak's greatest
advocates. Over the course of the 1980s, funding for Amtrak had
plummeted, and Dingell was reluctant to impose any new demands on
the struggling public service. This made for a much different dynamic
than the other three House committees, where Democrats generally
sided with disability advocates to prevent any "weakening" amendments.
In this case, Democrats tended to side with the public rail company
and were thus more skeptical of the ADA's objectives. The principal
staff person for the Energy and Commerce Committee was Alan Roth.
By the end of the process he became a hero of sorts for the disability
community, but in the beginning Roth posed a great challenge. He
thought things had happened too quickly in the Senate, where there
was little expert review of transportation provisions, and he wanted
to conduct a thorough review of the bill's provisions within his
committee's jurisdiction. This had the effect of extending the deliberative
process.
Unlike the Education and Labor Committee, and its
open negotiations, the Energy and Commerce Committee began its consideration
privately, without consulting the disability community. The relationship
between disability advocates and the committee was not improved
when Pat Wright and Ralph Neas worked with Michigan constituents
to apply pressure on the Chairman. It was not until the committee
circulated a draft of its own version of the bill, which invited
a 30-page rebuttal from the outraged disability community, that
Congressman Hoyer could persuade the committee to work with him
in developing a bill that the disability community could support.
Although the Energy and Commerce Committee could introduce
amendments that affected the entire bill, its jurisdiction over
the ADA centered on two main components: telecommunications and
railroads. Telecommunications provisions were the least controversial
of the ADA's four main titles. Karen Peltz-Strauss and Sy Dubow
were the principal attorneys from the deaf community who worked
with congressional staff. The National Association of the Deaf (NAD),
Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc., and Self-Help for the Hard
of Hearing (SHHH) were active in demonstrating broad support for
changes in the nation's telecommunications system. Peltz-Strauss
described Congress man Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, as the deaf community's
"chief advocate" in the House. He was "very interested in expanding
telecommunications access for people with disabilities." This made
for "smooth and harmonious" deliberations, as Congressman Bob Whittaker
(R-KS) later described them. "There was striking cooperation among
industry, commerce, and Congress," said Peltz-Strauss, which produced
provisions "that met the needs of people who were deaf and hard
of hearing."
Historically, three of the main telecommunications
issues for the deaf and hard of hearing were hearing-aid compatibility,
teletype devices, and television decoding. During the 1980s, the
deaf community succeeded in passing legislation that required employers
to provide hearing-aid compatible telephones, which were equipped
to transmit electromagnetic signals to certain hearing aids. In
1988, the Hearing Aid Compatibility (HAC) Act expanded this requirement
such that nearly all telephones manufactured or imported into the
country had to be compatible. The issue the ADA addressed most directly
were teletype (TTY) devices, often called a Telecommunication Device
for the Deaf (TDD). Under the original bill introduced to the House
and Senate, the ADA required states to establish telecommunications
relay services that would allow people to communicate, through an
operator, with people who did not have TTY devices. During House
deliberations, the basic requirement was affirmed, though the implementation
date was extended from two to three years. The most significant
change was the removal of the "undue burden" limit on the mandate
to provide relay service. The committee also addressed the issue
of closed captioning for televisions. Earlier legislation required
public television to broadcast with closed captioning. During the
House deliberations, Congressman Markey's subcommittee stipulated
that all public service announcements partly- or fully-funded by
the Federal Government must be produced with closed captioned text.
"The perpetuation of prejudice and discrimination
against persons with mental disorders in a vehicle designed to
end discrimination is sadly ironic."
--American Psychological Association
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and Finance was the first of all House subcommittees to complete
its action, on October 12, 1989. Subsequently, the Energy and Commerce
Committee devoted several months to deliberating transportation
provisions. The committee held the preponderance of jurisdiction
over railroads and had absolute jurisdiction over Amtrak. It began
its deliberations with the Senate bill, which required that all
new rail cars had to be accessible, and mandated that at least one
car per train had to be accessible within five years. Since Amtrak
was standardized throughout the nation, the committee could be extraordinarily
detailed about what accessibility meant for Amtrak. For example,
the committee delineated distinctions between single- and bi-level
cars. It also designed separate provisions for sleeping, dining,
and passenger cars. For Amtrak, the Energy and Commerce Committee
even developed a formula to determine precisely how many spaces
had to be available for persons using wheelchairs, including space
to store wheelchairs. Perhaps the most important decision coming
out of this committee, however, was that it sustained the Senate's
one-car-per-train rule and the stipulation that all new cars had
to be accessible. This was significant because the Public Works
and Transportation Committee shared partial jurisdiction over railroads,
and wrestled with whether all cars had to be accessible.
"We in the House felt an obligation to . . .
fine tune" the ADA "in a way the transit authorities could embrace"
the act "and make it work."
--Roger Slagle
Although negotiating
over transportation provisions was difficult, the most controversial
and intense negotiations in the Energy and Commerce Committee had
nothing to do with structural transportation accessibility. Members
of the Energy and Commerce Committee were concerned that the ADA's
protection of persons who were mentally ill could result in uncontrollable
train disturbances, where train operators would be unable to ask
meddlesome riders to leave. Consequently, their initial draft of
the ADA excluded persons who were mentally ill from the definition
of disability. This caused an uproar in the disability community.
"Persons with mental disabilities, among all the disabled, have
suffered the greatest stigmatization and resulting discrimination,"
said the American Psychological Association. "The perpetuation of
prejudice and discrimination against persons with mental disorders
in a vehicle designed to end discrimination is sadly ironic."
The committee ultimately removed the exclusion, but
the issue came back up at mark-up. Congressman William E. Dannemeyer
(R-CA) proposed an amendment that would have supplemented the established
exclusion of compulsive gambling, kleptomania, and pyromania by
prohibiting 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 advocate. 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 transportation serving
rural areas. They argued that the loss of revenue from lift-installation
would necessitate 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 Baltimore 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 accessibility 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 Committee's
consideration of the ADA, the Senate and the White House had reached
a breakthrough compromise 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 retained the cross-reference to the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, 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 amendments."
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 Appendix
F). Discussions on the topic had begun in earnest between Congressmen
Hoyer and Bartlett during the Education and Labor Committee's deliberations
and continued throughout the House deliberations. For the most part,
the Judiciary Committee introduced the same changes proposed by
the Education and Labor Committee. But the Judiciary Committee rearranged
the factors for clarity and for different emphasis. It was primarily
concerned with avoiding a determination that sided either with the
local facility or the covered entity. Rather, the committee stressed
that, on a case-by-case and flexible basis, both entities should
be evaluated. Moreover, it emphasized that the relationship between
the parent company and the local facility should be taken into consideration.
The committee made many other changes, most of which
were technicalities compared with earlier, more sweeping compromises.
In addition to clarifying the cross-referencing on remedies and
site-specific factors, the Judiciary Committee added a new section
to the bill that encouraged alternative dispute resolution through
reconciliation before moving to litigation. And it made technical
changes to the interim standards of accessibility. The final amendment
accepted by the Judiciary Committee was a package of six amendments
introduced by Congressman Fish, based on negotiations that included
the disability community, the White House, and Congressmen Hoyer
and Bartlett. Essentially, three of the amendments came from the
disability community, and three from the administration. For the
administration, the committee added language clarifying: the meaning
of "direct threat," the standards by which "anticipatory discrimination"
were valid, and that an employer's view of what constituted "essential
functions" would be considered by courts. For the disability community,
the package included clarification about which entities were covered
in the public accommodations title and what was meant by "commercial
facilities." It also provided that places where exams were administered
had to be accessible.
Additional amendments were introduced, but they failed.
Two of these failed amendments--a proposal to cap an employer's
obligation to provide accommodations at 10 percent of an employee's
salary, and a proposal to enable employers to remove persons with
contagious diseases, such as AIDS, from food handling positions--would
reemerge on the House floor. On May 2, the Judiciary Committee concluded
its deliberations by favorably reporting its version of the ADA
to the full House.
Moving to the House Floor
The ADA proceeded rapidly to the House floor after
the Judiciary Committee completed its work. On May 14 and 15, 1990,
the four committees submitted their reports, which included four
different drafts of the ADA. It was then the task of the Rules Committee
to produce a bill that synthesized the four versions. A bipartisan
staff working group collaborated to sort out the different texts.
The only conflict was between the transportation committees over
whether new rail vehicles had to be accessible. Otherwise, it was
a matter, albeit a challenging one, of piecing everything together.
The staff working group crafted a new bill, H.R. 4807, which they
substituted for the text of H.R. 2273. On May 16, the Rules Committee
submitted its own report that included the new version of H.R. 2273
and a resolution, H. Res. 394. This resolution provided that, at
any subsequent time, the Speaker of the House could take up H.R.
2273, the Americans with Disabilities Act, for consideration on
the House floor.
Floor deliberations are somewhat of a free-for-all
in the Senate: a senator may introduce virtually any amendment,
even one that is not germane to the bill, and also filibuster--dominating
the floor for unlimited time. The House, by contrast, conducts its
floor proceedings according to rules established by the Rules Committee.
In the case of the ADA, H. Res. 394 submitted a modified closed
rule, meaning that general debate would be restricted and that only
specific amendments would be allowed for consideration. The resolution
provided that at any time after adoption of the resolution the Speaker
of the House could resolve the House into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for consideration of the ADA and
the proposed amendments. There would be two hours of general debate:
30 minutes for each committee, split equally between majority and
minority members. Eight amendments were approved for consideration.
On May 17, only one day after the Rules Committee
presented its resolution, the House met to consider passage of the
ADA. The first order of business was to accept the closed rule.
Minority congressmen protested. Congressman Robert S. Walker (R-PA)
called it a "totalitarian rule" and said the committee used "a process
which is both undemocratic and . . . sad." Congressman Bill McCollum
(R-FL) said the rule was "an abomination" and "ridiculous" and suggested
that the lack of House activity that session provided plenty of
time for free debate. Congressman Lynn Martin (R-IL) complained
that only 8 of the 45 amendments proposed to the Rules Committee
were accepted, and noted that a proposal to have an open rule was
defeated on a strict party line vote. Congressman Newt Gingrich
(R-GA) said the ADA was an "extraordinarily important bill" and
that consideration of every amendment submitted to the Rules Committee
was therefore appropriate. Congressmen in the majority, however,
generally supported the rule and argued that allowing open debate
would undermine all the agreements made in the committees and defeat
the basic purpose of committee deliberations. As is customary, the
House passed the rule on virtually a straight, party-line vote.
"We have worked closely with" businesses, "and
adopted numerous amendments, to ensure that American business
can work with the ADA."
--Congressman Steny Hoyer
Immediately following
the vote, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole.
Congressman Hoyer took the lead for ADA supporters throughout the
deliberations and frequently entered debate to clarify various aspects
of the ADA. The general debate provided members an opportunity to
make basic statements about the virtues and problems of the bill,
review the history of committee deliberations, and note key accomplishments.
Hoyer drew special attention to how the ADA was "truly the product
of thousands and thousands and thousands of people." Similarly,
Congressman Owens thanked "all of the members of the community of
people with disabilities, who 43 million strong raised their voices
across the Nation, and it was their push, their sense of empowerment,
that has brought us to where we are." Hoyer also emphasized how
much business interests were taken into consideration: "We have
worked closely with them, and adopted numerous amendments, to ensure
that American business can work with the ADA."
Others, however, thought more work needed to be done.
Congressman Bartlett was Congressman Hoyer's counterpart in coordinating
the efforts to amend the ADA. Congressman McCollum said the issue
was not whether to bestow civil rights, but how to "minimize costs
to the employers while still doing that." Back and forth across
the aisle, Democrats emphasized the bill's balance and the need
to reject "weakening" amendments, and Republicans stressed the potential
pitfalls of the bill and the need to fine tune it with further amendments.
The House considered four of the seven amendments
on May 17. Two were noncontroversial. Congressman John J. LaFalce
(D-NY), based on the Small Business Committee hearing he chaired,
proposed postponing the time at which civil actions could be brought
against a covered entity. Republicans and Democrats united in unanimous
support. The House also approved, by voice vote, Congressman James
V. Hansen's (R-UT) amendment to allow wheelchair use in wilderness
areas.
Congressman Jim Olin's (D-VA) amendment, to impose
a 10 percent salary cap on the amount of accommodations an employer
had to provide an employee, was more contentious. The NFIB strongly
endorsed the amendment, and Congressman McCollum called it "the
small business amendment in this legislation." He suggested that
a vote against it would be a vote against small business--a position
no member was eager to take. The bill would have put a finite dollar
cap on accommodations. But, according to ADA supporters, there were
two main problems. First, as Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-CO)
said: "It is great for Donald Trump. It is lousy for the person
who is cleaning up after Donald Trump." The amendment would mean
that persons with similar disabilities would not be given individualized
treatment--a central premise of the ADA. Rather, they would be grouped
according to income level.
Second, as Congressman Bartlett stated forcefully,
the amendment "would in fact be harmful both to those who are disabled
and to the employers themselves." By setting a dollar cap, persons
with disabilities might insist on 10 percent of their income as
a mandatory level of accommodation, when much less might be needed.
"The Olin amendment attempts to set a ceiling," said Bartlett, "but
in fact it sets a floor." Members on both sides argued that they
had the White House's support. Congressman Fish, on one hand, said
the Bush administration had tried to negotiate a similar amendment
at the committee level but concluded that the principle was unacceptable.
Congressman Olin, on the other hand, said he had called the White
House during the course of deliberations and was told the administration
"very much favors" the amendment. Bartlett put an end to the discussion
by declaring that the White House had no position. The final vote
was close. The 32 members who did not vote could have passed the
amendment, which failed 187 to 213. As with each of the contested
amendments, votes split along party lines. Whereas 71 percent of
Democrats voted no, 74 percent of Republicans voted yes.
The most controversial amendment to reach the floor
was the Chapman amendment, which would enable employers to remove
persons with contagious diseases, such as AIDS, from food handling
positions. The issue of AIDS was not new. It had always been covered
by the ADA. From the beginning, many organizations supported the
bill precisely because it offered protection to persons with HIV
and AIDS. Moreover, the provisions in the ADA that protected persons
with AIDS essentially replicated what had already been settled in
the Fair Housing Amendments Act. Nevertheless, the Chapman amendment
posed a significant challenge to members, most of whom would have
preferred the issue did not exist. By this time, in May, 1990, it
appeared the ADA would pass; few wanted to stand in its way. But
members also feared that being forced to vote on an "AIDS" amendment
during an election year could be damaging: a perfect ten-second
sound bite. Moreover, the Chapman amendment was precisely the kind
of issue that could kill the ADA. It seemed to represent more than
just concerns about contagious diseases: it looked like a way to
stop the ADA in its tracks.
Congressman Jim Chapman (D-TX) led the debate in favor
of his amendment. By having a Democrat such as Chapman lead the
charge, supporters of the amendment might counter the perception
that it was a Republican amendment and enlist the support of more
Democrats. For similar reasons, the lead floor opponent of the amendment
was Republican Congressman Fish. Arguments in support of the amendment
rested on the claim that customers who knew that food handlers at
a given establishment had AIDS would discontinue taking their business
there. "The reality is that many Americans would refuse to patronize
any food establishment if an employee were known to have a communicable
disease," said Chapman. He also argued that the "hospitality" industry
was the best employer of persons with disabilities and that it would
be foolish to harm that source of employment. Congressman Douglas,
who introduced the same amendment in the Judiciary Committee, supported
it "because perception is reality." Significantly, Chapman, Douglas
and others admitted that there was no known evidence that AIDS could
be transmitted through food handling. The amendment was needed not
to stop the spread of AIDS, they said, but to protect businesses
from fears and prejudice.
"We should not make exceptions to the principle
in ADA that employment decisions should not be based on myth or
stereotype. Mr Chairman, the Congress must not enshrine ignorance
and prejudice in the law."
--Congressman Hamilton Fish
For ADA supporters, as
Congressman Ted Weiss (D-NY) said, "The Chapman amendment flies
in the face of the very purpose of the ADA" by institutionalizing
irrational discrimination. Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), who
was also a physician, said he would support the amendment if it
protected public health. "But the amendment is not about the reality
of contagious disease," he explained. "It is about the fear of contagious
disease." The amendment established public policy in contradistinction
to known facts "in deliberate deference to the fears and prejudice
of others." This, he said, was "bad medicine, bad science, bad public
policy." Congressmen Don Edwards (D-CA) and Steny Hoyer likened
the amendment to arguments used against the Civil Rights Act: that
"white customers would not eat in restaurants where black Americans
were served," as Edwards put it. Hoyer simply called it "the Jim
Crow amendment of 1990."
Largely due to the efforts of Congressman Hoyer, the
Bush administration entered the Chapman debate by issuing formal
statements on the medical facts of AIDS and food handling. Louis
W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Dr.
William L. Roper, Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC),
wrote letters on the issue. They flatly repudiated the notion that
persons diagnosed with HIV or AIDS posed a health risk in the context
of food handling.
Congressman Fish brought the floor debate to a close
by pleading: "We should not make exceptions to the principle in
ADA that employment decisions should not be based on myth or stereotype.
Mr. Chairman, the Congress must not enshrine ignorance and prejudice
in the law." Congressman Chapman, however, prevailed. In a strikingly
close vote--199 to 187--the House supported the exclusion of persons
with contagious and communicable diseases from food handling. The
46 members who abstained from voting easily could have swayed the
tally. Although it was not as pronounced as in some of the other
amendments, this issue also tended to split on party lines. Whereas
80 percent of Republicans supported the measure, 67 percent Democrats
opposed it.
The Chapman amendment was the last of the day. The
disability community, which made a commitment to staying united
no matter what the cost, had encountered a significant defeat. Persons
with HIV and AIDS, they believed, were equally entitled to civil
rights protections. They also feared that allowing one group to
fall prey to prejudice might establish a trend. Would persons with
mental illness, for whom exclusions had also been proposed, be next?
Where would it stop? More than anything else, it seemed inconceivable
to embrace a nondiscrimination law that patently enshrined discrimination
based on irrational fear.
Although the Chapman amendment was the first major
defeat for the disability community in congressional floor deliberations,
three more threatening amendments were left for consideration on
May 22, 1990. Two concerned transportation. The Lipinski amendment
was a repeat of the amendment passed by the Public Works and Transportation
Committee and overruled by the Rules Committee: it rejected the
requirement that all new rail vehicles had to be accessible. William
O. Lipinski (D-IL) argued that his amendment provided better accessibility
and did not weaken the ADA: it would guarantee space according to
demand. But most members and spectators viewed it as undermining
one of the basic premises of the ADA: that all new buildings and
vehicles will be accessible, that society will not consciously build
obstacles to persons with disabilities. Moreover, they pointed out
that the Lipinski amendment would mean that spaces accessible for
wheelchairs would be confined to one car, providing a sort of "cattle
car" effect. The White House chose not to take a stand on the issue.
The amendment failed decisively, with 75 percent of members voting
against it.
The second transportation amendment came from Congressman
Shuster. With the Rules Committee having supported the principle
of all new transit buses being lift-equipped, Shuster proposed an
alternative. He suggested that the Secretary of Transportation should
be allowed to waive the requirements of accessible vehicles for
urban areas of less than 200,000, or in non-urban areas, provided
that the community designed an alternative based on input from persons
with disabilities. Shuster was concerned that the lift mandate would
be implemented at the expense of paratransit. But Congressman Mineta's
argument, that "local option simply does not work as a national
policy," prevailed. Democrats tended to side with Mineta, and Republicans
with Shuster. But, overall, the disability community won with a
favorable margin: 64 percent of the House opposed the amendment.
The final amendment taken up by the House was a revisit
of the Sensenbrenner amendment: restricting remedies to those currently
stated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The basic argument on behalf
of the amendment was that the potential to add punitive damages
through the Civil Rights Act of 1990 represented a violation of
the negotiated agreement with the White House. Congressman Bartlett,
speaking in favor of the amendment, said it "simply codifies" what
the Education and Labor Committee reported in principle. Although
representatives of the disability community felt all along that
the principle was parity, representatives of the administration
and many Republicans felt that the compromise was a fixed reference
to the Civil Rights Act, and that they therefore had been double-crossed.
Congressman Sensenbrenner also expressed the widespread fear that
the ADA would lead to excessive litigation and that the availability
of punitive damages would do nothing but encourage adversarial law
suits. The Bush administration expressly supported this amendment.
"You have lesser rights if you have lesser remedies."
--Congresswoman Pat Schroeder
Opponents, however, thought
that this amendment, like the Chapman amendment, struck at the very
essence of the ADA. The philosophical 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.
|