ENSHRINING THE ADA: HOUSE-SENATE CONFERENCE AND THE SIGNING

On May 22, 1990, it seemed as if the battle to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act was won. Both the Senate and the House approved the bill with upwards of 90 percent majorities. Moreover, rumors that President George Bush might veto the bill because of the remedies conflict proved false. Although Bush hoped to prevent the incorporation of punitive damages by amending the Civil Rights Act of 1990, he continued to endorse the ADA and pledged to sign it. However, the House and Senate had passed two different bills, and the Chapman amendment posed a major negotiation challenge. Throughout the deliberations of the 1989 ADA, most disability advocates had remained at least somewhat optimistic that the bill would pass, albeit only after surmounting significant obstacles. But the circumstances of the conference proceedings caused some advocates to feel, for the first time, that the ADA might unravel altogether.

The Chapman amendment posed a major negotiation challenge, causing some advocates to feel, for the first time, that the ADA might unravel altogether.

Conference Proceedings and Final Passage

On May 24, 1990, just two days after the House passed the ADA, the House requested a conference with the Senate to resolve all points of disagreement. The Speaker appointed 22 conferees representing each of the committees and key participants in the ADA's passage. Two weeks later, on June 6, the Senate met to consider the House's substitute amendment for the Senate bill, S. 933. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) asked for unanimous consent that the Senate object to the House version of the ADA, rather than approve it, and request a conference to settle differences.

Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), however, introduced a motion to instruct the Senate conferees to support the Chapman amendment passed in the House. Reminiscent of the House floor debate, Senator Helms argued that the reason the Chapman amendment was necessary was that it represented "a matter of staying in business." Although Helms acknowledged that there was currently no known evidence that AIDS could be transmitted through food or drink or casual contact, he said the livelihood of restaurants was dependent largely on "public perception." If, said Helms, "the public is led to perceive that there will be a health risk to those coming into the restaurant and eating the food, rightly or wrongly, that business could be destroyed." Helms cited examples of restaurants that closed because people found out their employees had AIDS. He also listed many organizations that supported the amendment, chief among them the National Restaurant Association (NRA). The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), in order to apply pressure on representatives, staked the claim that the amendment was "a key small business vote." Moreover, Helms argued that the Chapman amendment struck "a sensitive balance" by requiring that employers transfer persons with AIDS to comparable jobs of equal pay.

"Persons with disabilities ought to be judged on the basis of their abilities; they should not be judged nor discriminated against based on unfounded fear, prejudice, ignorance, or mythologies."

--Senator Tom Harkin

Senator Harkin disagreed. The amendment "strikes right to the heart and soul of the Americans with Disabilities Act," he said. It violated the act's central thesis: "that persons with disabilities ought to be judged on the basis of their abilities; they should not be judged nor discriminated against based on unfounded fear, prejudice, ignorance, or mythologies." The Chapman amendment, said Harkin, was asking Congress "to codify fear." Harkin noted that Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Louis Sullivan wrote a letter to House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-WA) saying that policy based on misconceptions about, and fear of, HIV would "only complicate and confuse disease control efforts without adding any protection to the public health." William Roper, who had left the White House to become Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), wrote that there was no reason for a person with HIV or AIDS to be prohibited from handling food, unless he or she had another infection for which any worker would be restricted from food service. Harkin requested that these and two dozen other letters opposing the amendment be printed in the Congressional Record. Many senators joined Harkin in opposing the Chapman amendment as well.

Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-ME) attempted to counter Senator Helms by introducing a motion to table, and thereby suspend, Helms's motion. Mitchell's motion came to an immediate vote, but only 40 senators supported it. Democrats counted for 33 of the affirmative votes, but more than a third of the Democrats joined Republicans to oppose the motion. Since the vote on Mitchell's motion illustrated Senate opinion on the Chapman amendment, the Senate then agreed to Helms's motion by a voice vote and appointed conferees.

House and Senate conferees and their staffs reviewed 81 points of dispute. Throughout the House deliberations, Robert Silverstein and others from the Senate side had worked closely with House members and staff to ensure that the Senate agreed with the changes the House made. Consequently, House and Senate staff were able to develop prompt agreements on 79 of the 81 disputed issues. In each case (and with amendments in a few cases), the Senate conferees con ceded the House position.

Although staff swiftly resolved most differences, Robert Silverstein described the time between House passage and final approval of the ADA as "the month from hell."

Although staff swiftly resolved most differences, Silverstein described the time between House passage and final approval of the ADA as "the month from hell." This was because staff and members were at a complete impasse on two issues: the Chapman amendment and congressional coverage by the ADA. Although House and Senate sponsors hoped to get the ADA to the president's desk before July 4, the conflicts could not be resolved that quickly.

House and Senate conferees met on June 25, 1990, with Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) presiding. Congressman Hoyer was the leading conferee and key negotiator for the House; Senator Harkin joined Senator Kennedy as the leading conferees for the Senate. Congressional coverage was the easier of the two disputed areas, for which there were two separate issues. The first concerned who had the power to enforce the application of the ADA to Congress. The original Senate provision had been introduced late in the floor debate on September 7, 1989, as a single sentence of intent, rather than a detailed proposal. Largely at the insistence of Congressman Hoyer, the House had endorsed the Senate's proposal. The House had also clarified the section by specifying that administrative authority would be exercised by the House of Representatives. At the Conference, however, Senate conferees bristled at the thought of "the other" chamber having executive power over the Senate. Conferees thus agreed to have the Senate be responsible for exercising administrative authority over itself. The second point of discussion was whether individuals alleging discrimination by either the House or Senate would have a private right to action--the ability to sue a senator or representative in district court. Conferees decided that persons with disabilities should have the same remedial options available with respect to Congress as they did with other entities covered by the ADA. The conference thus upheld private right to action.

Debate over the Chapman amendment was much more contentious, and conferees devoted hours to discussing it. The arguments for and against the amendment, by this time, were clear. The difficulty for the conferees was that, on one hand, a majority of members in the House voted for the amendment. And in the Senate, a majority of senators indirectly voiced their support for the amendment. Going against the majority opinion of both Houses might endanger the bill. On the other hand, inclusion of the Chapman amendment threatened to kill the bill. The disability community took a firm and united stand that they would withdraw their support from the bill if the amendment stayed in. There simply could not be a viable ADA if the disability community, which the law was designed to assist, opposed it. Moreover, the disability community's chief congressional supporters stood with the disability community.

Senate and House conferees, independently, had to approve decisions for each area of dispute. As it became increasingly clear that the Chapman amendment not only contradicted basic premises of the ADA but also might mean the end of the ADA, some conferees opted to save the bill by rejecting the Chapman amendment, in spite of their sympathy to it. For House conferees, it was a close vote. Among the 22 House conferees, opponents of the amendment won by only two votes, 12 to 10. Senate conferees also voted to reject the Chapman amendment.

On the following day, June 26, the conferees prepared and presented a conference report that listed each point of disagreement and how it had been resolved. It might seem that the ADA was finally secure now that delegations from the House and the Senate agreed, in entirety, about a version of the ADA. But conferees had taken the bold action of ruling against their colleagues and the conference report still had to be passed by both chambers.

As it became increasingly clear that the Chapman amendment not only contradicted basic premises of the ADA but also might mean the end of the ADA, some conferees opted to save the bill by rejecting the amendment.

Although the general public remained largely unaware of the conflict that was brewing, since there was virtually no press coverage in the six weeks between House approval and final passage, the disability community and the business community were lobbying aggressively. Some members of the disability community thought it was best to accept the Chapman amendment in order to save the rest of the ADA. The vast majority of advocates, however, insisted that the disability community stick together. Consequently, they worked closely with AIDS organizations to oppose the Chapman amendment. On one occasion, around the Fourth of July weekend, the Human Rights Campaign Fund, a lobbying group for the gay and lesbian community, organized a public relations coup. As the disability community had done throughout congressional deliberations, they prepared position papers to present to members. To distribute their information this time, however, they used brown lunch-bags marked: "The National Restaurant Association is Out to Lunch on the Chapman Amendment." And at a press conference announcing the "Out-to-Lunch" campaign, Wright said the disability community would pull out its support of the ADA if the Chapman amendment was part of the bill.

A powerful demonstration of the disability community's unity occurred later that day in a meeting at the White House. At either end of a table in the Roosevelt Room sat Pat Wright and Boyden Gray. Around the table were other members of White House staff and leaders of the disability community, including representatives from NCIL and UCPA. Gray emphasized that the disability community had secured much if not most of its aims for the ADA and that compromise was a normal part of the legislative process. Wright, however, knowing that President Bush badly wanted to see the legislation passed, reaffirmed the message that the ADA coalition would withdraw its support of the ADA if the Chapman amendment was part of the bill. Around the table, other disability advocates weighed in, one-by-one, describing the Chapman amendment as a horrendous violation of the principles of the ADA. Accordingly, they urged the White House to intervene on their behalf and pass the ADA without the Chapman amendment.

The Chapman amendment:

"I-t a-i-n'-t c-i-v-i-l.
A-n-d i-t a-i-n'-t r-i-g-h-t."

--Bob Williams

The session reached a climax when Bob Williams, who sat next to Gray, offered his words. Williams was sitting in a wheelchair that he used because of cerebral palsy. To speak more clearly he used a lap board covered with letters and symbols, which enabled him to point and spell out sentences one letter at a time. Someone standing by spoke each letter or word. Williams echoed the sentiments of the others in the room. But he personalized the issue with his own experiences. Williams said the Chap man amendment struck a personal chord because it concerned restaurants. Among Williams's earliest childhood memories were experiences of being turned away from restaurants because of his cerebral palsy. Restaurant operators always insisted that they would be happy to serve him and his parents and understood that he posed no threat. But they said Williams's presence bothered other people and thus interfered with business. Williams concluded his remarks with an eloquent and powerful statement of the disability community's understanding of the Chapman amendment: "I-t a-i-n'-t c-i-v-i-l. A-n-d i-t a-i-n'-t r-i-g-h-t." About midway through this declaration, the rest of the disability advocates anticipated the subsequent letters and thus began saying each letter in unison.

The unity of the disability community on behalf of persons HIV/AIDS moved Tim McFeely to tears. It was "incredibly moving," he said. McFeely was the Executive Director of the Human Rights Campaign Fund and the only person in attendance representing the AIDS community. ADA advocates had made a commitment more than a year before that they would stand together: one for all and all for one. And while they agreed that they could be flexible with time lines, they committed to being steadfast on principles. The words spoken that day demonstrated to McFeely that the commitments made by people with disabilities were deep and abiding.

In addition, the disability community illustrated its opposition to the Chapman amendment by developing technical analyses of the food handling issue. For example, Robert Burgdorf, the original author of the ADA, wrote a House staff member on the constitutionality of the Chapman amendment. The thrust of the amendment, Burgdorf explained, was directed primarily at individuals who did not pose a threat to society. Excepting a group of persons as a class, however, according to the Constitution, had to be based on "legitimate" government interests. Burgdorf concluded: "It is blatantly irrational for Congress to rely upon . . . prejudicial attitudes, ignorance, myths, fears, misapprehensions, and reflex reactions about contagiousness, . . . as the basis for an exception from the ADA's nondiscrimination mandate." Singling out persons who did not pose a threat to society, he said, "has no rational relation to any legitimate governmental objective" and violated " the underlying principles, premises, and requirements of the very piece of legislation it is attached to."

The business community was similarly active in demonstrating its support of the Chapman amendment. To counter the efforts of disability organizations, dozens of business organizations sent letters to members of Congress urging support of the Chapman amendment. Chief among them was the NRA. Its Senior Director of Government Affairs, Mark Gorman, had wrote repeated letters urging members of Congress to hold the line on the Chapman amendment and not allow it to get stripped in conference or on the floor of either house.

The Senate was the first to take up the conference report, amidst lobbying from the disability and business communities, on July 11, 1990. Before the Senate floor deliberations began, two conflicting amendments to the conference report were circulating. One was authored by Senator Helms. He had originally planned to introduce an amendment that would send the report back to conference and insist that the conferees put the language of the Chapman amendment into the report. That very day, however, Senator Hatch developed a rival amendment that caused Helms to redraft his own amendment.

Senator Hatch's amendment represented an important shift in his position on the food handling issue. In the conference meeting, Hatch had argued forcefully that the Chapman amendment should be retained in the bill. He disagreed with those who thought the issue should be dropped, suggesting that they did not realize "how electric" the issue was. He also doubted whether the House of Representatives or the White House would accept the ADA without some attention to the issue Congressman Chapman had raised. However, after the conference meeting Silverstein pursued Hatch to discuss the amendment. Silverstein and Hatch had worked together on disability policy for many years, and both agreed that the disability policy should not, generally, encourage business decisions to be made on unfounded fears. Silverstein, however, emphasized to Hatch that it was dangerous to use a different standard for a single constituency of the disability community--persons with contagious or communicable diseases. Supporting the Chapman amendment, said Silverstein, would potentially undo years of Hatch and Silverstein's work in trying to unite the disability community and develop holistic policy. By allowing prejudice to prevail in one area, it would create an internal chasm within the disability community. This meeting had a crucial impact on Hatch: he called it "the key to my own evolution on the Chapman amendment."

This discussion also prepared the senator for an encounter with disability advocates the morning of the July 11 floor deliberations. That morning Wright went looking for Senator Hatch. She figured the best place to find him was in the hallway between the Senate chamber and the Majority Leader's office. But that area was restricted to members of Congress, their staff, and their guests. Accordingly, Wright brought Michael Iskowitz, who was Senator Kennedy's chief staff member regarding AIDS, to gain access to the area. Also with her was Chai Feldblum, who was prepared to translate an agreement into proper legal form. After waiting for some time, the advocates found Senator Hatch. They urged the senator not to allow fear and prejudice to prevail. Rather, they argued, let available medical evidence be the deciding factor. They also made an impassioned plea that the bill was on its way to dying unless Senator Hatch helped resolve the conflict--only he had the stature to shoulder a compromise.

Senator Hatch's views had been changing since the conference meeting; now he agreed with the disability advocates that the Chapman amendment, as written, should not be part of the ADA. Yet he still thought the issue needed to be taken seriously and resolved in a way that could win broad support. Accordingly, he searched for, and found, a compromise. Science would be the linchpin. On an annual basis, proposed Hatch, the Secretary of HHS would prepare a list of those communicable and contagious diseases that were knowingly able to be transmitted through food handling. Then, restaurant operators would be able to insist that anyone with a disease on that list could be removed from food handling positions. The ADA, moreover, would not preempt any local laws concerning food handling.

Senator Hatch called on Nancy Taylor from his staff, who was nine-months pregnant, to craft the language. Hatch, Taylor, Wright, Feldblum, and Iskowitz then worked together to scrawl the agreement on a piece of paper, and prepared to introduce it to the Senate as an alternative to the Helms amendment. It was a major breakthrough. "That could have been the end of the ADA," said Wright. Helms, predictably, was irate. Feldblum recalled passing Helms in the hall later that morning: he was walking briskly with an unidentified sheet of paper, red with anger.

"I think if we would rely more on science and a little less on fears and misperception we would be better off as a society, as a nation, and there would be less prejudice."

--Senator Orrin Hatch

Senator Hatch had come up with "another miracle."

--Senator Dave Durenberger

Later that day in the Senate chamber, after several senators tried unsuccessfully for two hours to reach a consensus on food handling and the Hatch-Helms proposals, Majority Leader Mitchell concluded that the conflict could only be settled in open floor debate. Senator Hatch worked with Senator Harkin to manage the deliberations. They expected the Senate to approve the vast majority of the conference report. Besides the Chapman amendment, only the issue of congressional coverage was contested, concerning which Senator Wendell H. Ford (D-KY) intended to recommit the ADA to conference. According to Harkin and Hatch's strategy, Hatch would introduce his "perfecting amendment" after Ford submitted his motion regarding congressional coverage. Following debate on the Hatch amendment, the Senate would lay the amendment aside and allow Senator Helms to introduce his own "perfecting amendment." After consideration of the Helms amendment, the Senate would proceed to vote in order: first on the Helms amendment, then on the Hatch amendment, and finally on the Ford motion. No other motions or amendments would be allowed.

As an early application of the ADA, Majority Leader Mitchell asked unanimous consent to have the Senate floor debate translated into sign language, which had never been done before. As planned, the issue of congressional coverage came up first. The night before, on July 10, the Senate had passed legislation concerning application of all civil rights laws to the Senate, and rejected private right to action: only administrative remedies, through internal review, were allowed. Senators were thus concerned about the ADA being inconsistent with other civil rights laws. Accordingly, Senator Ford introduced his motion to send the ADA back to conference and instruct the conferees to exclude private right to action for the Senate. Although Senators Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) and Tom Harkin objected that people should have a private right to action to remedy Senate violations of the ADA, they agreed to let the motion stand.

Senator Hatch then introduced his amendment to Senator Ford's motion, and senators rehashed the arguments for and against the Chapman amendment yet another time. Hatch emphasized that his amendment "places a premium on science" as the basis for decision-making. "I think if we would rely more on science and a little less on fears and misperception we would be better off as a society, as a nation," explained Hatch, "and there would be less prejudice." Senator Dave Durenberger (R-MN) said Hatch had come up with "another miracle"; he hailed the ability of Hatch to fulfill the role of intermediary. Senator Helms, however, said the Hatch proposal would gut the Chapman amendment and "render it totally nugatory." Because public health experts such as HHS Secretary Sullivan and CDC Director Roper affirmed that AIDS could not be transmitted through food handling, restaurant operators would not be allowed to discriminate against them.

To counter Senator Hatch's amendment, Senator Helms modified his original amendment and introduced one with language virtually identical to the Hatch amendment. The main difference was that instead of the HHS Secretary posting a list of diseases that are transmitted through food handling, as the Hatch amendment specified, the Secretary would post a list of diseases that may be transmitted through food handling. Thus, anyone who had a disease that might possibly be transmitted through food handling, even if there was no evidence to prove it, could be barred from food handling positions.

When the time came to vote, the Senate decisively rejected the Helms amendment, 61 to 39, with 78 percent of Democrats opposing the amendment and 60 percent of Republicans supporting it. The Senate then immediately voted on the Hatch amendment and approved it 99 to 1: Senator Helms stood alone in opposition. Subsequently, after a clarifying colloquy between Senators Hatch and Dole, the Senate approved the Ford motion, as amended, by a voice vote.

The deliberative process "perfected" the ADA and made it "an excellent piece of legislation."

--Congressman Steny Hoyer

The following day, on July 12, conferees met to review the Senate proposals. They accepted the Senate instructions concerning both food handling and congressional coverage and submitted their report that same day. Later that afternoon, the House of Representatives met to consider the second version of the conference report. Once again, they first had to accept a rule structuring debate. But this time there was little dispute: 86 percent of members voted in favor of the closed rule. Afterward, Congressman Hoyer congratulated the House for its bipartisan collaboration. The deliberative process, he said, had "perfected" the ADA and made it "an excellent piece of legislation." All House members, he said, should be "proud to say" that they had played a part in the Congress that "extended to" Americans with disabilities "the welcome sign . . . to come into our society, . . . to have the ability to work and support themselves and their families, . . . to ride on our transportation systems, . . . to come into our stores, and our banks, and our doctors" offices, and fully avail themselves of the opportunities of American society."

The only real issue left for House consideration was the Chapman amendment. Many members argued that the Hatch amendment did not adequately fulfill the purpose of the Chapman amendment: persons with AIDS would still be able to hold food handling positions. Accordingly, Congressman William E. Dannemeyer (R-CA) submitted a motion to recommit the conference report back to conference yet again, with instructions that House conferees insist that the Chapman amendment be accepted. This time, however, there were not enough votes in the House. The vote split along party lines, with 77 percent of Democrats opposing the amendment and 75 percent of Republicans supporting it. But, overall, 55 percent of the House voted to reject adding the language of the Chapman amendment. The House immediately voted on the entire bill that evening, and members passed the ADA, for the final time, with near unanimity. More than 90 percent of the members voted in favor of the ADA.

Although many in the disability community hoped that the Senate could take its final vote that night, the Senate waited until the following day, July 13. It was an emotional occasion. Similar to Congressman Hoyer, Senator Harkin praised his fellow senators for the spirit of bipartisan collaboration that produced a bill with a broad base of support. And he was especially complimentary of the disability community. "It may be raining outside," he said, "but this is truly a day of sunshine for all Americans with disabilities." Harkin wanted to communicate directly with his brother, who taught Harkin, "at a very early age, that people with disabilities could do anything that they set their minds to do and that people should be judged on the basis of their abilities . . . not on the basis of their disabilities." Accordingly, Harkin signed to his brother that this was the proudest day of his sixteen-year career in Congress--the ADA opened doors to all Americans with disabilities and promoted an end to fear, ignorance, and prejudice.

The floor deliberations brought Senator Hatch to tears. He remarked how "senseless discrimination, intended or not," had "subjected persons with disabilities to isolation and robbed America of the minds, the spirit, and the dedication we need to remain a competitive force in a worldwide economy." Hatch also extended his appreciation to scores of people who contributed to the ADA's passage. Many more senators followed in proclaiming the virtues of the ADA and crediting various contributors.

When the Senate finally voted on the conference report, it passed the ADA with margins almost identical to those in the House: 93 percent of the senators voted in the affirmative. The ADA had made it through Congress. The final step in making the ADA public law was a signature from the President of the United States, George Bush.

The White House Signing Ceremony

As early as May 1, 1990, President Bush told persons with disabilities that there would be "a proud bill-signing ceremony" for the Americans with Disabilities Act. Many in the disability community hoped this meant a grand celebration of thousands of people uniting to celebrate the American dream. Virginia Thornburgh, for example, whose husband was the attorney general, suggested that the White House sign the bill at the Lincoln Memorial, where she proposed as many as 100,000 people could attend. She hoped the ADA would be viewed as an initiative that was good for all Americans and thus wanted persons with and without disabilities to be welcome. She advised White House staff that a celebratory platform should include members of Congress from both parties, Cabinet members, and representatives from major sectors of society. Such an event could attract the attention of international media and promote the improvement of the lives of persons with disabilities around the world.

Shortly after the Senate passed the ADA on July 13, however, rumors spread that the Act would be signed in the White House's East Room, which could seat no more than 220 people. Apparently, White House staff feared that the summer heat might cause medical problems for persons with disabilities if the ceremony was held outdoors. But people from the disability community protested when they heard the news. Congressional sponsors joined in advocating a "people's signing ceremony" comparable to the democratic principles of the ADA, where thousands could attend. Finally, due to the efforts of such people as Virginia Thornburgh, Boyden Gray, Justin Dart, and Evan J. Kemp, Jr., the White House announced, on July 16, that it would hold a ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House. The proposed time was 10:00 a.m. on July 26, 1990, rain or shine.

That left Bonnie Kilberg, Deputy Assistant to the President from the Office of Public Liaison, just ten days to plan the event and prepare an invitation list. To determine who should attend the gala event, Kilberg worked predominantly with colleague Shiree Sanchez; Phil Calkins, an executive with the EEOC; Sharon Mistler; Evan Kemp; and disability advocates Justin and Yoshiko Dart, who supplied thousands of names. In addition to Washington-area supporters of the ADA, Kilberg included hundreds of people with disabilities from around the country on the list. By July 18, Kilberg had drafted an invitation. People were to arrive at the White House gate at 9:00 a.m. for admittance, with photo identification in hand. Seven airlines and seven area hotels agreed to give visitors significant discounts.

"From ancient times to today we celebrate the breaking of the chains holding your people in bondage." The ADA provides "new access to the Promised Land of work, play and service."

--Reverend Harold Wilke

Roughly 3,000 persons with and without disabilities gathered on the White House South Lawn on the morning of July 26. It was the largest signing ceremony ever held by the White House. After the U.S. Marine Band played the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The Stars and Stripes Forever," President and Mrs. George Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle walked to the stage to the tune of "Hail to the Chief." There they joined EEOC Chairman Evan Kemp, National Council on Disability Chairwoman Sandra Parrino, disability rights advocate Justin Dart, Reverend Harold H. Wilke, and two sign language interpreters. Conspicuously absent from the platform were any of the ADA leaders from Congress: among them Senators Harkin, Kennedy, Weicker, Hatch, Durenberger, and Robert Dole (R-KS); and Congressmen Tony Coelho (D-CA), Steny Hoyer, Norman Y. Mineta (D-CA), Major R. Owens (D-NY), Steve Bartlett (R-TX), and Hamilton Fish, Jr. (R-NY).

As suggested by Virginia Thornburgh, Reverend Wilke opened with an invocation--reputedly the first ever offered at a bill signing ceremony. "From ancient times to today we celebrate the breaking of the chains holding your people in bondage," Wilke prayed. The passage and signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act was a new occasion for celebration, he said, which provided "new access to the Promised Land of work, play and service."

After Reverend Wilke's interfaith prayer, Kemp introduced the president. He praised the efforts of persons in Congress, the Bush administration, and the disability community, who "worked tirelessly to develop this civil rights bill." Then he pointed to President Bush, without whose "steadfast support . . . this bill would not have become law." He likened President Bush to Abraham Lincoln for his foresight and introduced him as "the foremost member of the disability community." "Welcome to every one of you, out there in this splendid scene of hope," began President Bush, as the crowd interrupted him with applause for the first of 20 times. "This is, indeed, an incredible day," he said, especially for those who worked to pass the ADA. In consideration of the vast numbers of participants, Bush identified those who had personally helped him. He mentioned Justin Dart, Boyden Gray, Evan Kemp, William Roper, Sandra Parrino, and Robert Dole. Bush also praised the contributions of disability organizations and the collective efforts of 43 million Americans with disabilities, who "have made this happen." (See Appendix G for the complete text of Bush's remarks.)

The ADA is the world's first "declaration of equality" for persons with disabilities. "Every man, woman and child with a disability can now pass through once-closed doors into a bright new era of equality, independence and freedom."

--President George Bush

President Bush likened the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act to Independence Day, which had been celebrated just three weeks earlier. The ADA was the world's first "declaration of equality" for persons with disabilities, he said. Because of it, "every man, woman and child with a disability can now pass through once-closed doors into a bright new era of equality, independence and freedom." It offered persons with disabilities the basic guarantees of "independence, freedom of choice, control of their lives, the opportunity to blend fully and equally into the right mosaic of the American mainstream." This was important, said Bush, because if America was to be "a truly prosperous nation," everyone within it had to prosper. To those who expressed reservations about the ADA, Bush emphasized that the Act was carefully crafted to contain costs. He added that the ADA could help answer businesses" request for additions to the working force. As an alternative to spending $200 billion a year to keep persons with disabilities dependent on the government, Bush urged that people give them the opportunity to "move proudly into the economic mainstream of American life."

President Bush concluded his remarks with an additional analogy to an event not yet a year old: the fall of the Berlin Wall. Signing the ADA represented taking "a sledgehammer to another wall," said Bush, "one which has, for too many generations, separated Americans from the freedom they could glimpse, but not grasp." He rejoiced in the fall of this barrier, affirming that "we will not tolerate discrimination in America." Finally, as he lifted his pen to sign the ADA to the applause of those surrounding him, at 10:26 a.m., Bush proclaimed: "Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down." With his signature, the long-fought battle to make the ADA public law reached its climax.

President Bush signed four copies of the ADA, each with a different pen. He gave three of the pens to Dart, Kemp, and Parrino, saving the fourth for Attorney General Thornburgh. He then took a fifth pen from his pocket to present to Reverend Wilke, who, because he had no arms, promptly and deftly accepted the pen with his foot.

As members of Congress, the Bush administration, the disability community, and others in the audience shouted, cheered, smiled, cried, and embraced, President Bush, the First Lady, and Vice President Quayle worked through the crowd to regain entrance to the White House. About a half an hour later, people moved across the street to Ellipse Park for a colossal picnic of fried chicken and soda. Music played in the background. For dessert, people found cakes adorned with the faces of President Bush, Senator Harkin, and Congressman Hoyer. Dozens of advocates in and out of government presented remarks from a makeshift platform. Media swarmed the grounds for interviews and photographs. Later in the afternoon, as the temperature reached 92 degrees, the crowd dispersed. At 5:00 p.m., however, hundreds gathered for an additional celebration in the Hart Senate Office Building sponsored by Justin and Yoshiko Dart, where wine and a seafood buffet were served. There were more hugs, more kisses, and more speeches. They had much to be proud of. The battle, finally, was won.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as so many people have said, was truly landmark legislation. It promoted an America in which all persons have the right to participate as valuable citizens. In the areas of employment, public services, public accommodations, and telecommunications, the ADA took steps to break down barriers that stood in the way of persons with disabilities and prevented them from reaping the benefits of our society and offering their own contributions.

It should be clear that the ADA is not the starting point of United States disability policy. The ADA stands on the legal foundation of the "twin pillars": the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The former provided the philosophical foundation, the general principle of nondiscrimination. The latter offered a framework for applying nondiscrimination to persons with disabilities. These two legislative initiatives represent two streams of policy: civil rights and disability rights. With respect to each, elements of the ADA represent a portion of a continuum as well as a unique departure.

The ADA stands on the legal foundation of the "twin pillars": the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The ADA is similar to other civil rights laws in that it provides the same basic protections. Making employment decisions according to circumstances that do not have a bearing on actual performance is simply wrong. All individuals must have an equal opportunity to partake of such social services as public transportation. No one should be denied access to places of public accommodation. All must be able to share in our nation's communication system.

Applying these principles to persons with disabilities, however, required unique attention. By the end of the 1980s, state and federal laws had established a central principle of the ADA: that in granting civil rights to persons with disabilities, equal treatment alone is inadequate. Truly equal opportunity for people with disabilities required that governments and businesses take proactive steps to provide opportunity. This might mean adding a lift to a bus, providing an employee with an amplified telephone headset, ramping a few steps, installing braille signs, or allowing an individual to modify his or her work schedule. Unlike providing civil rights to minorities or to women, however, bestowing civil rights upon persons with disabilities could therefore require governments and businesses to spend money. Unique among civil rights laws, this meant that disability rights had to be balanced against the fiscal responsibility of society.

There could have been no successful and meaningful ADA without a ground swell of people who demonstrated what happened in the absence of significant legal protections and told positive stories of how legislative initiatives helped improve their lives.

In the context of disability rights legislation, the various provisions of the ADA are not unique. In fact, virtually every one had been implemented somewhere in the nation by a state or local government in the form of new laws and constitutional amendments. The ADA built on these provisions as well as on federal statutes and court cases. The ADA was nonetheless unique amidst this growing nationwide recognition of disability rights in its comprehensive application to the entire nation and the private sector. Pat Wright likens disability policy before the ADA to Swiss cheese covering a map of the United States: there were many holes where there were little to no civil rights protections for persons with disabilities. Disability policy under the ADA, by contrast, is more like a piece of American cheese: it covers the entire nation thoroughly and uniformly. Every new building must follow accessibility guidelines. Every new transit bus must be accessible. No place of public accommodation can willfully exclude persons with disabilities. Every state must provide a telecommunication relay service. No employer can overlook an applicant because he or she required a reasonable accommodation.

These two unique aspects of the ADA--civil rights that had financial implications and comprehensive application to the public and private sectors--are what made the ADA's passage so difficult. The overwhelming margins in both the House and the Senate with which the ADA was finally approved mask how challenging it was to work the bill through Congress and acquire a signature from the president. By the fall of 1989, it was evident that an ADA would pass in some form, but the provisions it would contain were still very much contested. Only through intense efforts were disability rights advocates able to achieve their goals.

No single factor alone can account for the ADA's success. Rather, a whole host of factors worked in its favor. First and foremost, the ADA is a tribute to the growth and organization of the disability rights movement. Through such pivotal developments as the protests to issue the Section 504 regulations and the nationwide outcry against President Ronald Reagan's Task Force on Regulatory Relief, the disability community asserted itself and became a political force to be reckoned with. On the state and local levels, persons and parents of persons with disabilities fought aggressively to obtain for themselves and their children decent education and employment opportunities. Students on college campuses organized to demand greater accessibility. Centers for independent living built systems of community support and helped people with disabilities understand and exercise their rights. Disability-specific and cross-disability organizations advocated for state and federal laws that became building blocks for the ADA. And people with disabilities demonstrated a willingness to take to the streets and risk arrest to bring public attention to the problems they faced. There could have been no successful and meaningful ADA without a ground swell of people who demonstrated what happened in the absence of significant legal protections and told positive stories of how legislative initiatives helped improve their lives.

A crucial factor that helps explain the ADA's positive reception in Congress was the extent to which the ADA drew on ideological justifications from both the left and the right.

In addition to providing sheer numbers to demand passage of the ADA, the disability rights movement produced extraordinarily effective leaders. Disability rights advocates such as Pat Wright, Ralph Neas, Justin and Yoshiko Dart, Liz Savage, Paul Marchand, Marilyn Golden, and Lex Frieden were simply remarkable. The legal expertise of people such as Arlene Mayerson, Chai Feldblum, Robert Burgdorf, Jim Weisman, David Capozzi, Timothy Cook, Karen Peltz-Strauss, and Bonnie Milstein was indispensable. Scores of organizations and their members contributed countless hours to the ADA campaign. Over the course of the 1980s, the disability community proved that it could stand its own ground in the court room and in the halls of Congress. Moreover, the disability community effectively formed crucial relationships with members of Congress and the White House. By the time the ADA emerged on the national scene, people were in place to move it.

The ADA would have made little headway were it not for the early and consistent support from the nation's highest office.

The success of the ADA is due in no small part to the American civil rights heritage. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided not only a legal principle that could be extended to other constituencies, but also a model for civil protest to achieve political goals. Although during the 1970s and 1980s there were attempts to roll back some of the achievements of the civil rights movement, the basic notion that no individual should be denied basic civil rights endured. Because the disability community successfully presented the ADA as a civil rights initiative, few could afford to take the position of opposing the ADA outright. Indeed, a crucial development in the ADA's success was that even those organizations that worked to tighten and refine the ADA in Congress called themselves the Disability Rights Working Group. The disability community forced opponents to fight the battle on its own terms: opponents had to explain why disability advocates" proposals should not be implemented. Forming a tight bond with Neas and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) was essential for that achievement.

More than any other single player, the role of President Bush cannot be overestimated. The ADA would have made little headway were it not for the early and consistent support from the nation's highest office. Of course, the president did not do the detail work: there were plenty of others to assume that role. But, by speaking out on behalf of the ADA, Bush made passage more certain. In Congress, Democrats were primarily responsible for pushing the ADA aggressively forward. The president's support brought people to the table to work out a bipartisan compromise bill that could attain the support of the business community as well as that of the disability community.

The ADA's progress in Congress and the administration was dependent largely on the roles of key individuals who were extraordinarily dedicated to the objectives of the ADA. Part of this was due to personal experience, either from having a disability or through a relative's disability. Senator Tom Harkin's (D-IA) brother was deaf. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) had a son who lost a leg to cancer and a sister with mental retardation. Senator Orrin G. Hatch's (R-UT) brother-in-law was paralyzed from polio. Senator Robert Dole (R-KS) acquired partial paralysis from a war injury. Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT) had a son with Down's Syndrome. Congressman Tony Coelho (D-CA) had epilepsy. Congressman Steny H. Hoyer's (D-MD) wife had epilepsy. These and other personal encounters with disability made the ADA vitally real to many members of Congress.

The ADA's progress in Congress and the administration was dependent largely on the roles of key individuals who were extraordinarily dedicated to the objectives of the ADA.

The same was true for the Bush administration. President George Bush had a daughter who died from leukemia, a son with a learning disability, an uncle with quadriplegia, and a son whose cancer required a plastic ostomy bag. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh's son had a traumatic head injury. EEOC Chairman Evan J. Kemp used a wheelchair because of a form of muscular dystrophy. White House negotiator Robert Funk had part of one leg amputated due to a disease similar to leprosy and tuberculosis. These and other members of Congress and White House officials approached the ADA with a passionate desire to see not only their own and their children's lives improved, but those of the entire population of Americans with disabilities.

One of the key factors of the ADA's success was, as President Bush said, the desire of members of Congress and representatives of the Bush administration, "on both sides of the political aisle," to "put politics aside" and "do something decent, something right." This is seen most clearly in the negotiations between the Senate and the White House during the summer of 1989 and the member-to-member negotiations of Congressmen Steny Hoyer and Steve Bartlett (D-TX). Although working out the details was frequently intense, most Washington political leaders supported the basic goals of the ADA and wanted to see people with disabilities enter the mainstream of American life. This cooperation was critical. Voting on the ADA "would have come out as deep partisan splits," said Chai Feldblum, "if people had not committed to engage in a negotiation process and if the negotiation process did not have effective people in them."

Another crucial factor that helps explain the ADA's positive reception in Congress was the extent to which the ADA drew on ideological justifications from both the left and the right. Historically, the disability community has had a powerful Democratic contingency because of its insistence on governmental support and its identity as a disadvantaged class. But the ADA entered Congress at the behest of a Republican federal agency: the National Council on the Handicapped (NCD). NCD's work in reviewing federal disability programs, identifying problems, and making legislative proposals, among them passage of equal opportunity laws, rooted the ADA in principles of independence, personal choice, and fiscal responsibility. By presenting the ADA as a way to reduce dependence on government, the NCD helped win over people who might otherwise be reluctant to extend civil rights protections.

Voting on the ADA "would have come out as deep partisan splits if people had not committed to engage in a negotiation process."

--Chai Feldblum

"I'm convinced that maybe more than anything else I ever worked on, people were motivated primarily by what they perceived as the right thing to do."

--Ralph Neas

There was a certain inherent righteousness to the ADA. How could one argue with the desire of people who wanted simply to become part of the American mainstream and to share in the fruits of society that others took for granted? "What's wrong with a person trying to work instead of securing welfare?" asked Wright. People involved in the ADA's passage recognized that the cause was just. "I'm convinced that maybe more than anything else I ever worked on," said Ralph Neas, "people were motivated primarily by what they perceived as the right thing to do." There was comparatively little negative fallout for advocating the ADA: "you could do the right thing without really getting anybody that upset." Some people question whether pity played a role in the ADA's passage. Congressman Coelho appropriately said the issue is irrelevant. "If what you want to do is really right," he said, "get the votes and worry about those other things later."

One factor that helped secure the necessary votes was that the deliberations over the ADA were, for the most part, kept out of the "gutter." Although ADA advocates wanted to educate the public about the ADA, especially administration officials and members of Congress, they worked to control the level of press coverage. People such as Congressman Coelho and Pat Wright feared that the press might distort the ADA. As Rochelle Dornatt of Coelho's staff explained: "it would be too easy to lose control over the spin of what this bill was supposed to be, which was a bill to help people realize their potential and incorporate them and assimilate them into . . . American society, as opposed to it down to its dollar figures." Coelho repeatedly told those around him, "I don't want fanfare, I don't want a lot of publicity." Rather, the goal was to work toward agreement with members of Congress and the Bush administration quietly and efficiently. Wright described it as "a press blackout." While this helped the ADA make it through Congress, Denise Figueroa noted that it had the side effect of limiting the general public's knowledge of the ADA, which complicates the implementation process. Nevertheless, "in retrospect, I would do it again," says Wright, "be cause the final bill simply would not have looked the same if we had carried the debate into the press."

"The final bill simply would not have looked the same if we had carried the debate into the press."

--Pat Wrightboiling

Although this historical account closes with the signing of the ADA into public law, the history of the ADA does not end on July 26, 1990. It continues through the important process of regulation-writing and implementation. In stark contrast to the regulatory delay regarding Section 504, the Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission moved with striking speed to issue their regulations within a year of the ADA's signing. On July 26, 1991, Attorney General Thornburgh signed the regulations at a ceremony reminiscent of President Bush's signing a year before.

In the years since the ADA's passage, the act has proved remarkably durable. This is a tribute to the deliberative process that refined the ADA. Many critics have claimed that the ADA was passed as motherhood and apple pie and without serious consideration. But the Senate and House records indicate that such assertions are false. Members, staff, disability advocates, officials from the Bush administration, and representatives of covered entities scrutinized every title, section, paragraph, line, and word of the ADA--countless times. The intense and detailed deliberations, especially those in the House, served an important function. Although businesses and other covered entities were not entirely satisfied with the outcome, the ability of the business and disability constituencies to work together toward scores of compromises helped make a bill that can achieve broad support, promote voluntary compliance, and avoid subsequent amendments.

The ADA "will proclaim to America and to the world that people with disabilities are fully human; that paternalistic, discriminatory, segregationist attitudes are no longer acceptable."

Justin Dart

Truly, the process by which the ADA became public law stands as a model for the legislative process and for cooperation between Congress and the White House. Neas observed that it is an example others would do well to follow "in terms of bipartisanship, in terms of broad coalitions, in terms of strategies, and media efforts, and grassroots efforts, as well as the legislation lobbying effort." The ADA did not solve every predicament facing people with disabilities. But it took giant steps forward, shattering the barriers of today and tomorrow, so that the future may be shared by all. "It is the world's first declaration of equality for people with disabilities," said Justin Dart. "It will proclaim to America and to the world that people with disabilities are fully human; that paternalistic, discriminatory, segregationist attitudes are no longer acceptable; and that henceforth people with disabilities must be accorded the same personal respect and the same social and economic opportunities as other people."

The dawn of a new day.

BEYOND THE ADA: THE PAST IS PROLOGUE

The Future for Americans with Disabilities

ADA represents a significant accomplishment in the evolution of society's views and treatment of people with disabilities. . . . Nonetheless, ADA is but one node in a continuum of progress, and it pales in relation to the extant overwhelming service and survival needs of people with disabilities. Ultimately, the full impact of ADA will be realized only after the majority of people with disabilities gain access to certain basic services like attendant care, readers, interpreters, transportation, housing assistance, affordable health care, and medical and vocational rehabilitation. Formless as liquid in a vacuum, the concept of equality has little meaning for people who struggle to survive without the resources necessary to meet fundamental human needs.

Lex Frieden

Looking to the Twenty-First Century

The United States has long been a champion of civil rights. It is only natural that we are now in the forefront of efforts to ensure equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, as exemplified in the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have begun shifting disability policy in America from exclusion to inclusion; from dependence to independence; from paternalism to empowerment.

But our work is far from finished. As we work to build an accessible bridge to the twenty-first century, we cannot be satisfied until all citizens with disabilities receive equal treatment under the law--whether in the workplace, in schools, in places of public accommodation, in government, or in the courts. Every American deserves a chance to participate in society. And our nation needs every individual's contribution. For America will succeed in the next century only by pooling all our resources and capabilities. By working together we can ensure that every individual and our nation have the opportunity to succeed.

President William Jefferson Clinton

ABA -- American Bus Association
ACB -- American Council of the Blind
ACCD -- American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities
ACLU -- American Civil Liberties Union
ADA -- Americans with Disabilities Act
ADAPT -- American Disabled for Accessible Public Transit (prior to 1990) American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today (since 1990)
AIDS -- Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
APTA -- American Public Transit Authority
ARC -- Association for Retarded Citizens
ATBCB -- Architectural Barriers and Compliance Board
CCD -- (CCDD) Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (formerly the Consortium for Citizens with Developmental Disabilities)
CDC -- Centers for Disease Control
CORE -- Congress on Racial Equality
DIA -- Disabled in Action
DIMENET -- Disabled Individuals Movement for Equality Network
DLRC -- Disability Law Resource Center
DOJ -- Department of Justice
DRC -- Disability Rights Center
DREDF -- Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
DVA -- Disabled Veterans of America
EEOC -- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
EFA -- Epilepsy Foundation of America
EPVA -- Eastern Paralyzed Veterans of America
GSA -- General Services Administration
HAC -- Hearing Aid Compatibility Act
HEW -- Department of Health, Education and Welfare
HHS -- Department of Health and Human Services
HIV -- Human Immunodeficiency Virus
ICD -- International Center for the Disabled
INSPIRE -- Institute for Public Interest Representation
LCCR -- Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
NAD -- National Association of the Deaf
NADDC -- National Association of Developmental Disabilities Councils
NAPAS -- National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems
NCD (NCH) -- National Council on Disability (formerly National Council on the Handicapped)
NCIL -- National Council on Independent Living
NCLH -- National Center for Law and the Handicapped
NESS -- National Easter Seal Society
NFB -- National Federation of the Blind
NFIB -- National Federation of Independent Business
NIHR (NIDRR) -- National Institute of Handicapped Research (now National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research)
NMHA -- National Mental Health Association
NORA -- National Organization Responding to AIDS
NPRM -- Notice of Proposed Rule Making
NRA -- National Restaurant Association
OBRA -- Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act
OCR -- Office of Civil Rights
OMB -- Office of Management and Budget
PCEH (PCEPD) -- Presidents Committee on Employment of the Handicapped (now Presidents Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities)
PDSP -- Physically Disabled Students Program
PILCOP -- Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia
PVA -- Paralyzed Veterans of America
RSA -- Rehabilitation Services Administration
SHHH -- Self-Help for Hard of Hearing
TAPT -- Tulsans for Accessible Public Transportation
TDD -- Telecommunication Device for the Deaf
TIRR -- The Institute for Rehabilitation Research
UCPA -- United Cerebral Palsy Association
UMTA -- Urban Mass Transportation Administration
USPHS -- United States Public Health Service

Only those interviews for which proper authorization was obtained have been listed here and used in writing this manuscript, though many others were held. Some individuals important in the history of the ADA were unavailable to participate in interviews.

I. Personal Interviews:

Bartlett, Steve -- March 10, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Batavia, Andrew -- November 7, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

Bristo, Marca -- January 6, 1994, by Gerben DeJong and Ruth Brannon; February 20, 1997, by Jonathan Young; May 29, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Burgdorf, Robert -- February 19, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Carr, Charlie -- March 14, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Cherry, Jim -- November 13, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

Coelho, Tony -- November 22, 1996 and December 2, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

Cuprill, Maria -- April 28, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Dart, Justin -- August 18, 1993, by Gerben DeJong; January 31, 1997, by Jona than Young.

Decker, Curtis -- October 12, 1993, by Gerben DeJong and Karin Behe.

Disler, Mark -- November 13, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

Dornatt, Rochelle -- August 6, 1993, by Gerben DeJong; December 4, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

Durenberger, Dave -- November 26, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

Dusenbury, Joe -- February 25, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Feldblum, Chai -- January 13, 1997 and March 14, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Figueroa, Denise -- March 12, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Fiorito, Eunice -- May 30, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Frieden, Lex -- December 27, 1996 and December 28, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

Fulco, Nancy Reed -- August 3, 1993, by Ruth Brannon and Karin Behe.

Funk, Robert -- February 3, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Golden, Marilyn -- February 24, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Gray, C. Boyden -- October 23, 1996, by Jonathan Young and Gerben DeJong.

Hearne, Paul -- July 23, 1993, by Ruth Brannon and Karin Behe.

Johnson, Mark -- March 7, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Kailes, June -- March 14, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Kemp, Evan -- December 16, 1996 and February 3, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Lechner, Wendy -- November 4, 1993, by Gerben DeJong.

Marchand, Paul -- October 26, 1993, by Gerben DeJong, Ruth Brannon, and Karin Behe.

Marge, Michael -- December 27, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

Mayerson, Arlene -- October 13, 1993, by Gerben DeJong and Karin Behe; October 28, 1993, by Gerben DeJong, Ruth Brannon, and Karin Behe.

Milbank, Jeremiah -- November 1, 1993, by Ruth Brannon and Karin Behe.

Muilenburg, Terry -- December 11, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

Neas, Ralph -- December 10, 1993, by Gerben DeJong; January 21, 1994, by Gerben DeJong, Ruth Brannon, and Karin Behe.

Osolinik, Carolyn -- June 1, 1994, by Gerben DeJong, Ruth Brannon, and Karin Behe; November 25, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

O'Day, Bonnie -- February 20, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Owens, Major -- April 29, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Reich, Alan -- February 18, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Roper, William -- December 2, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

Rubenfeld, Phyllis -- May 23, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Savage, Liz -- July 30, 1993, by Ruth Brannon and Karin Behe; February 26, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Schulman, Melissa -- July 9, 1993, by Gerben DeJong, Ruth Brannon, and Karin Behe; December 6, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

Silverstein, Robert -- August 30, 1993, by Gerben DeJong and Karin Behe; October 31, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

Slagle, Roger -- December 2, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

Sykes, Roland -- March 5, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Thornburgh, Richard -- October 22, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

Thornburgh, Virginia -- February 18, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Treanor, Richard -- November 27, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

Vierra, Roxanne -- 1993, by Ruth Brannon.

Weisman, Jim -- November 16, 1993, by Gerben DeJong, Ruth Brannon, and Karin Behe.

West, Maureen -- November 11, 1996, by Jonathan Young.

Wright, Pat -- November 19, 1993, by Gerben DeJong, Ruth Brannon, and Karin Behe; February 7, 1997, by Jonathan Young.

Yale, Ken -- September 20, 1993, by Gerben DeJong and Karin Behe.

II. Correspondence Interviews:

Bush, George -- Jonathan M. Young to President George Bush, February 3, 1997; George Bush to Jonathan M. Young, February 26, 1997.

Hatch, Orrin G. -- Jonathan M. Young to The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, February 19, 1997; Orrin G. Hatch to Jonathan M. Young, February 24, 1997.

Civil Rights Act of 1964
Prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and religion. Important provisions: 1) access to places of public accommodation; 2) nondiscrimination in employment practices' 3) desegregation of all public facilities; 4) desegregation of public education; 5) nondiscrimination in all federally-assisted programs. Represents the philosophical foundation of the ADA.

Voting Rights Act of 1965
Provided for U.S. marshals to oversee state and local elections to ensure voting access for blacks and other minorities. Required that any change in state voting laws had to be cleared by the U.S. government, shifting the burden of proof to potential perpetrators of discrimination. Confirmed that Americans should not be discriminated against in voting.

Fair Housing Act of 1968
Added Title VIII to the Civil Rights Act of 1964; prohibited housing discrimination according to race, ethnicity, or religion. Served as the basis for the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
Required that most buildings designed, constructed, or altered with federal funds had to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

Urban Mass Transit Amendments Act of 1970
Required certain local jurisdictions to provide mass transit facilities and services so that they could be used by elderly persons or people with disabilities. Established a program of grants and loans to assist state and local agencies in developing accessible transportation.

Education Amendments of 1972
Added Title IX to the Education Act; provided that no person shall be denied participation in, denied the benefits of, or discriminated against in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Modeled after Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Re-authorized and expanded the vocational rehabilitation program to include all persons with disabilities; provided for research and training to improve vocational prospects for disabled persons. Title V instituted affirmative action hiring policies for federal agencies and parties contracting with the Federal Government; created the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB). Section 504 prohibited discrimination on the basis of handicap among entities receiving federal financial assistance.

Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (now IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)
Required that states receiving federal financial assistance provide all children with disabilities a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive setting possible. Amendments added grant programs for developing comprehensive services for infants and toddlers, research and demonstration projects, dissemination of instructional materials, and recruitment of special education personnel.

Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1975
Responded to abusive and inadequate treatment for persons with mental retardation residing in institutions; provided for the coordination and funding of services for persons with long-term disabilities; created a bill of rights for persons with disabilities (unenforceable guidelines); implemented protection and advocacy systems in states to promote the rights of persons with developmental disabilities and provide legal services.

Section 504 Regulations, 1977
Implemented the single-sentence Section 504; defined handicap; delineated actions prohibited as discriminatory; established construction standards; and instituted educational policies. Important not only for the detailed provisions but also for the symbolic victory of the disability community that united to protest delay in promulgation. Represents the content foundation of the ADA.

Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 1979
First Section 504 case decided by the Supreme Court, assessing the viability of the recently-issued regulations. Concerned a hearing-impaired woman seeking admission to a nursing school. Ruled that Davis's impairment disqualified her from the ability to participate and cast doubt on the entire principle of taking affirmative steps to provide reasonable accommodation, as specified in the 504 regulations.

The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980
Granted Department of Justice the authority to sue state or local authorities operating an institution (including prisons and mental hospitals) where there is a "pattern or practice" of subjecting institutionalized persons to flagrant violations of Constitutional rights and privileges.

Telecommunications for the Disabled Act of 1982
Required that workplace telephones used by persons with hearing aids and emergency telephones had to be hearing-aid-compatible, meaning that such phones had to be equipped to transmit electromagnetic signals that could be received by hearing aids.

Task Force on Regulatory Relief, 1983
President Ronald Reagan's Task Force on Regulatory Relief, chaired by Vice President George Bush, sought to deregulate the burdens and costs imposed on businesses, schools, and governments. Targeted Section 504, the Education for all Handicapped Children Act, and the ATBCB. Following remarkably organized opposition from the disability community, Task Force chose not to alter Section 504 and the Education Act; changes made to the ATBCB regulations. Nelson v. Thornburgh, 1983 Concerned whether Section 504 required the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare to provide and pay for readers or electronic devices for employees with visual impairments. Court ruled the Department failed to show that the cost of such accommodations would be an "undue hardship," and therefore had to absorb the expenses of the accommodations. Important affirmation of the principle of reasonable accommodation.

The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984
Required that polling sites for federal elections had to be physically accessible to elderly persons and voters with physical disabilities; required election officials to provide large-print instructions and telecommunication devices for the deaf to persons with sensory impairments.

Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone, 1984
Second Supreme Court ruling on Section 504; represented a reversal of interpretation from the 1979 Davis decision. Concerned whether Section 504 provisions applied to employment discrimination. Court ruled that employment discrimination was prohibited by Section 504, and established that courts must give considerable deference to the 504 regulations.

The Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986
Overturned 1984 Supreme Court decision Smith v. Robinson, which curtailed parents' ability to obtain attorneys' fees when prevailing in litigation. Gave parents the right to receive reasonable compensation for attorneys' fees that matched community standards for similar cases.

Alexander v. Choate, 1985
Concerned a group of Medicaid recipients who brought a class action suit against the Governor of Tennessee, arguing that the state's reduction in the number of days Medicaid covered for inpatient hospital stays from 20 to 14 had a disparate impact on persons with disabilities and therefore violated Section 504. Supreme Court ruled that this incident did not violate Section 504. But it established a significant policy statement on the Rehabilitation Act. Court concurred with Congress that discrimination against persons with disabilities was "most often the product, not of invidious animus, but rather of thoughtlessness and indifference--of benign neglect." As such, Section 504 applied not only to situations where there was deliberate and malicious intent to discriminate, but also to policies and actions that had a disproportionately adverse effect on persons with disabilities. Not every action with disproportionate effect is a violation; there must, according to the Court, be a balance of the needs of persons with disabilities and the costs to society.

City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, 1985
Concerned a proposed operator of a group home for persons with mental retardation who challenged the validity of zoning restrictions that excluded such a group home. Supreme Court decided that mental retardation did not constitute a "quasi-suspect" classification calling for the "heightened-scrutiny" equal protection test by the judiciary. Instead upheld that persons with mental retardation had distinguishing characteristics warranting policies that are "rationally related to a legitimate state interest." But ruled there was no evidence the group home posed a "special threat" to the city's "legitimate interests." Decided that the exclusion was based on "irrational prejudice" against persons with mental retardation and therefore unconstitutional.

The Air Carriers Access Act, 1986 Overturned 1986
Supreme Court decision in U.S. Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America, which ruled that commuter and commercial airlines not receiving federal funds did not have to comply with nondiscrimination standards of Section 504. Required that airlines should provide access to persons with disabilities, regardless of whether federal funds are used.

Civil Rights and Remedies Equalization Act of 1986
Overturned 1985 Supreme Court decision Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, which granted the state immunity from Section 504 federal law suits; provided that states may not be immune from a law suit in federal court for a violation of Section 504.

The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987
The 1984 Supreme Court ruling Grove City College v. Bell established that while receipt of federal funds for a single college program prohibited gender discrimination in the entire institution (according to Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972), the Title IX sanction of cutting off federal funds would only be applied to the specific program in question, not to any other programs at the school. By extension, the decision applied to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--all carried provisions about programs or activities receiving federal assistance. Civil Rights Restoration Act, passed over President Reagan's veto, restored all four non-discrimination statues (race, age, disability, gender) to their status prior to the Grove City College ruling. Meant that an entire institution was liable for the discriminatory practices of one program or activity.

School Board of Nassau County, Florida v. Arline, 1987
Concerned a school teacher fired solely because of her susceptibility to tuberculosis. Arline argued her dismissal violated the Rehabilitation Act. Supreme Court upheld that a person with the contagious disease of tuberculosis may be a "handicapped individual" as defined by the Rehabilitation Act, and therefore protected by the statutes nondiscriminatory employment provisions. Such an individual must be evaluated not by "fearful, reflexive reactions" to a class of persons, but on an individual basis to determine 1) whether one is able to do the job with or without a "reasonable accommodation," and 2) whether medically sound judgments indicate substantial risk and likelihood of transmission.

Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988
Required that nearly all telephones manufactured or imported into the United States had to be compatible for use with telecoil-equipped hearing aids. It did not require retrofitting of existing telephones.

Telecommunications Accessibility Enhancement Act of 1988
Mandated a proactive approach within the Federal Government to advancing accessibility to the federal telecommunications system by individuals with hearing or speech limitations.

The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988
Extended protections of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 to persons with disabilities; extended nondiscriminatory principles applied to the Federal Government and those receiving federal assistance to the entire economy. Enabled persons with disabilities to make modifications to premises; receive reasonable accommodations in rules and policies; and expect accessible entryways and common use areas. Permitted the exclusion of persons posing a "direct threat to the health or safety of another individual."

ADAPT v. Skinner, 1989
ADAPT challenged two components of existing regulations issued by the Department of Transportation: 1) that every bus need not be lift-equipped (local transit authorities could exercise their local option to provide accessible buses, paratransit, or a mixture); 2) that transit authorities did not need to spend any more than 3% of its budget on accessibility. Supreme Court upheld local option provisions, but ruled the 3% "safe harbor" cap was "arbitrary and capricious."

May, 1977
White House Conference on Handicapped Individuals proposes the creation of an agency to evaluate and coordinate federal disability programs

November, 1978
Creation of the National Council on the Handicapped.

October, 1982
President Ronald Reagan appoints new Council with Joe Dusenbury as Chairperson.

October, 1982 to August, 1983
Justin Dart holds public forums in all fifty states to develop NCD report.

August, 1983
Publication of National Policy for Persons with Disabilities. Proposal for comprehensive body of law protecting rights of persons with disabilities.

October, 1983
Sandra Parrino appointed NCD Chairperson.

February, 1984
Establishment of National Council on the Handicapped as an independent federal agency. Mandate to issue a report evaluating incentives and disincentives in federal programs and recommending changes.

December, 1984 to April, 1985
Lex Frieden, Bob Burgdorf, Ethel Briggs, Naomi Karp, Brenda Bratton join NCD staff.

April, 1985 to January, 1986
NCD prepares topic papers and final report for Toward Independence. Justin Dart holds a second set of public forums in every state.

February 1, 1986
Publication and distribution of Toward Independence. Number one recommendation: "a comprehensive law requiring equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities [and] prohibiting discrimination on the basis of handicap."

March, 1986
Publication of The ICD Survey of Disabled Americans. Two-thirds of Americans with disabilities unemployed; most want to work but cannot.

February, 1987
Robert Burgdorf completes draft of an equal opportunity law.

May, 1987
NCD commits to developing a legislative proposal for a comprehensive equal opportunity law.

November, 1987
NCD approves draft of Americans with Disabilities Act. Secures sponsorship of Senator Lowell Weicker and Congressman Tony Coelho. Solicits White House support.

November, 1987 to March, 1988
NCD, mediated by Senator Weicker, meets with disability community to discuss the ADA.

January, 1988
Publication and distribution of On the Threshold of Independence. Includes draft of Americans with Disabilities Act to solicit grassroots support.

February 9, 1988
Adoption of "donut-hole" approach to Sections 503 and 504 and exclusion of insurance.

April 28-29, 1988
ADA introduced in the Senate by Senator Weicker and in the House by Congressman Coelho.

April 28, 1988
Senator Lowell Weicker introduces ADA (S. 2345).

April 29, 1988
Congressman Tony Coelho introduces ADA (H.R. 4498).

August 12, 1988
Vice President Bush commits to supporting a civil rights act for people with disabilities if elected president.

September 27, 1988
Joint Hearing: Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped and the House Subcommittee on Select Education.

October 24, 1988
Hearing: House Subcommittee on Select Education.

November 8, 1988
George Bush elected president; Senator Lowell Weicker defeated in reelection bid.

November, 1988
Senator Tom Harkin assumes role of ADA sponsor in the Senate; Senator Harkin and the disability community solicit Senator Edward Kennedy to take a lead ADA role to compensate for the loss of Senator Weicker.

November, 1988 to March, 1989
Senators Harkin and Kennedy work with Congressman Coelho, Senator Hatch, the disability community, the business community, and the Bush administration in developing a new version of the ADA.

January 19, 1989
President-elect Bush pledges to support an act similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

March 15, 1989
Senators Kennedy and Harkin complete draft of ADA.

May 9, 1989
Senator Tom Harkin and Congressman Tony Coelho jointly introduce ADA (S. 933 and H.R. 2273).

May 9, 1989
Hearing: Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

May 10, 1989
Hearing: Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

May 14, 1989
NCIL organizes march on the White House.

May 16, 1989
Hearing: Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

June 15, 1989
Congressman Tony Coelho resigns from the House of Representatives; Congressman Steny Hoyer assumes the role of managing the bill.

June 22, 1989
Hearing: Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh testifies for the Bush administration and commits to negotiations with the Senate to develop a compromise bill.

June 23 to July 31, 1989
Negotiations held between the Senate and the Bush administration.

July 18, 1989
Joint Hearing: House Subcommittees on Select Education and Employment Opportunities.

August 2, 1989
Mark-up: Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources; S. 933 reported to the Senate as amended.

President Bush endorses the ADA.

August 3, 1989
Hearing: House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.

August 28, 1989
Hearing: House Subcommittee on Select Education (Houston, Texas).

August 30, 1989
Committee report filed: Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

September 7, 1989
Senate floor deliberations; Senate passes S. 933, 76 to 8.

September 13, 1989
Joint Hearing: House Subcommittees on Select Education and Employment Opportunities.

September 20, 1989
Hearing: House Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.

September 26, 1989
Hearing: House Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.

September 27, 1989
Hearing: House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance.

September 28, 1989
Hearing: House Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials.

October 6, 1989
Hearing: Subcommittee on Select Education (Indianapolis, Indiana).

October 11, 1989
Hearing: Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.

October 12, 1989
Hearing: House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.
Mark-up: House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance; H.R. 2273 reported to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce as amended. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh reaffirms commitment of Bush administration to passing the ADA.

November 9, 1989
Mark-up: House Committee on Education and Labor.

November 14, 1989
Mark-up: House Committee on Education and Labor; H.R. 2273 reported to the House as amended.

February 22, 1990
Hearing: House Committee on Small Business.

March 1, 1990
Mark-up: House Subcommittee on Surface Transportation; H.R. 2273 reported to the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation as amended.

March 12, 1990
"Wheels of Justice" campaign sponsors march from White House to Capitol; scores of persons with disabilities climb the Capitol steps.

March 13, 1990
Participants in "Wheels of Justice" campaign demonstrate in the Capitol Rotunda, demanding for immediate passage of the ADA.

Mark-up: Committee on Energy and Commerce (House Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials discharged); H.R. 2273 reported to the House as amended.

April 3, 1990
Mark-up: Committee on Public Works and Transportation; H.R. 2273 reported to the House as amended.

April 25, 1990
Mark-up: House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights; H.R. 2273 reported to the House Committee on the Judiciary as amended.

May 1, 1990
Mark-up: House Committee on the Judiciary.

May 2, 1990
Mark-up: House Committee on the Judiciary; H.R. 2273 reported to the House as amended.

May 14, 1990
Committee report filed: House Committee on Public Works and Transportation.

May 15, 1990
Committee reports filed: House Committee on Education and Labor; House Committee on Energy and Commerce; House Committee on the Judiciary.

May 16, 1990
Committee report filed: House Committee on Rules; H.R. 2273 reported to the House as amended.

May 17, 1990
House floor deliberations.

May 22, 1990
House floor deliberations; House passes H.R. 2273, 403 to 20, substituting the text of H.R. 2273 for S. 933.

May 24, 1990
House requests a conference with the Senate; House appoints conferees.

June 6, 1990
Senate appoints conferees; Senate passes motion to instruct conferees to support the Chapman amendment.

June 25, 1990
Conference meeting held.

June 26, 1990
Conference report filed for consideration in the House and Senate.

July 11, 1990
Senate floor deliberations; Senate recommits conference report with an amendment and a motion to instruct conferees about Senate coverage.

July 12, 1990
Conference meeting held; Conference report filed. House floor deliberations; motion to recommit conference report fails; House passes conference report, 377 to 28.

July 13, 1990
Senate floor deliberations; Senate passes conference report, 91 to 6; final amended version of S. 933 submitted to President Bush for approval.