ment services in employment, education, transportation and housing. But neither Section 504 nor its companion measures in Title V were enacted or implemented without a struggle. In 1972 Senator Hubert Humphrey and Congressman Charles Vanik introduced a bill to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in order to prohibit discrimination on the basis of physical or mental handicap in federally assisted programs.

Introducing his bill, Senator Humphrey stated: "The time has come when we can no longer tolerate the invisibility of the handicapped in America. . . I am insisting that the civil rights of 40 million Americans now be affirmed and effectively guaranteed by Congress.

These people have the right to live, to work to the best of their ability-to know the dignity to which every human being is entitled. . . . Millions of young persons and adults who want to learn a trade, work like other people, and establish their self-worth through a paycheck are barred from our vocational training programs and from countless jobs they could perform well. And yet we have sufficient statistics clearly demonstrating the benefits to the national economy and the investment return of income tax revenues resulting from vocational rehabilitation and job placement for these citizens. Where is the cost-effectiveness in consigning them to public assistance or "terminal" care in an institution?"

Senator Humphrey's concerns were shared by key members of the House Committee on Labor and Education and the Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped who were considering reauthorization of the federal-state vocational program_through the Rehabilitation Act of 1972. A bipartisan group, including Senators Cranston, Javits, Randolph, Stafford and Williams and Congressmen Brademus and Quie, supported the application of civil rights policies to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities. Their staff members redrafted the legislative concept first proposed by Senator Humphrey and Congressman Vanik and added three other sections as Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1972. Title V required affirmative action in federal employment (Section 501); created the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board to enforce the 1968 Architectural Barriers Act (Section 502); required private companies doing business with the federal government to use affirmative action in employing and promoting qualified persons with disabilities (Section 503); and prohibited discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs receiving federal financial assistance (Section 504.)

The 1972 Rehabilitation Act was unanimously voted through Congress without discussion of Title V, but was pocket vetoed by President Nixon on October 27, 1972. The President justified his action on the basis of fiscal constraints and objections to certain administrative provisions of the Act. Demonstrations by people with disabilities, who were attending the annual conference of President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped, were a prelude to the self-advocacy that was critical to passage and implementation of this landmark civil rights legislation.

The Rehabilitation Act was reintroduced with Title V intact and passed overwhelmingly by the Congress. The President again vetoed it and his veto was narrowly sustained by a four vote margin in the Senate. On May 23, 1973 a revised version of the Rehabilitation Act was introduced into Congress. The revisions affected program and administrative provisions but did not change Title V. The Rehabilitation Act was finally signed into law on September 26, 1973.

Next, there were lengthy delays in developing regulations to implement the law. In June, 1975 disability advocates filed litigation in federal court, seeking a ruling that would force the Department of Health Education and Welfare, to issue regulations. (Cherry v. Matthews) The Court ruled that HEW was legally obligated to issue regulations, but declined to specify a date. During the Spring of 1976, the debate and discussion about the approach to and scope of the 504 regulations continued in senior staff offices of HEW. Disabled activists demonstrated in Secretary Matthews' office. A draft regulation was published in a notice of intent to publish proposed rules on May 17, 1976 to obtain public comment during the next_sixty days. By early January, 1977 the regulations were finalized. As President Carter took office and appointed Joseph Califano as HEW Secretary, the regulations were delayed once more for review. In early April three hundred people with disabilities staged a sit-in in the Secretary's office, while demonstrations were held at each of the ten HEW Regional Offices around the country. Finally, on April 28, 1977, nearly three years after Section 504 was enacted, model regulations were signed by Secre tary Califano and promulgated by the Department of Health Education and Welfare. Secretary Califano hailed the long awaited regulations, stating: "The 504 Regulation attacks the discrimination, the demeaning practices and the injustices that have afflicted the nation's handicapped citizens. It reflects the recognition of the Congress that most handicapped persons can lead proud and productive lives, de

spite their disabilities. It will usher in a new era of equality for handicapped individuals in which unfair barriers to self-sufficiency and decent treatment will begin to fall before the force of law."

After the 1978 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act mandated non-discrimination in programs directly operated by the federal government in addition to the state and local programs which were federally funded, the federal agencies slowly followed HEW and issued their own 504 regulation to mandate non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation. During the last two years, federal agencies have again begun to amend their 504 regulations. This time the federal 504 regulations follow the Department of Justice model regulations which include restrictive judicial interpretations of Section 504. That model limits the efforts which agencies and programs must make to accommodate disability-related needs of their employees with disabilities and as well as program efforts to serve consumers as well as program efforts to serve who have disabilities.

5. The Courts and Civil Rights for People With Disabilities.—Judicial interpretations of 504 have also restricted its scope. First there was the Davis case in 1979 in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a community college in North Carolina did not violate Section 504 when they refused to admit Ms. Frances Davis, who had a hearing impairment, to their nursing program. The Court reversed an appeals court decision which had ruled that Section 504 required her admission with accommodations to her disability. The Supreme Court left open to HEW the role of clarifying and interpreting the statutory mandate, and determining the meaning of the phrase "qualified handicapped person", and the regulatory provisions for "reasonable accommodation" of such an individual's disabilities. Next there was Conrail v. Darrone in 1984. In that case the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that employment protections of Section 504 are not limited to federally funded employment programs, but cover all federally assisted programs.

The Supreme Court's Grove City ruling, issued in 1984 on the very same day of the Conrail decision, restricted the interpretation of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which parallels the regulatory provisions used to enforce Section 504. That ruling limited civil rights requirements of Title IX for federally funded programs to the specific university program receiving federal funds. The Court held that Section 504 did not require a college or university to follow the non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies in non-federally funded programs simply because some students or a single program in the school received federal funds.

It took nearly four years for Congress to enact the Civil Rights Restoration Act and then to overrule the President's veto in order to reaffirm the intent of Congress that all operations and activities of an organization that receives federal funds be made accessible and operate on a non-discriminatory basis. Meanwhile the 1985 Supreme Court Ruling in Choate v. Alexander held that the state of Tennessee Medicaid program which limited the duration of hospital stays which would receive reimbursement, thereby making it more costly for people whose medical conditions required longer hospitalization did not violate Section 504. The ruling upheld the State Medicaid regulations as a valid exercise in cost containment which only incidentally affected the number of days of care received by people with disabilities.

6. Conclusion. We know the concepts and policies for laws to protect the civil rights of citizens with disabilities. The continuing struggles around Section 504 demonstrated just why it is necessary to enact and implement a very clear Congressional mandate endorsing a comprehensive policy that guarantees the civil rights of people with disabilities. No confusion, no obstacles, no backsliding should be permitted to block this legislation. We know that any law is not self enforcing and that continued efforts to educate and press for policy implementation and support will be necessary. But it's worth it. The community of people with disabilities is united in support of the Americans With Disabilities Act. We need the law and we need leadership with the courage and commitment to make the American Dream a reality for the 36 million people with disabilities who live in this great country. We need it

now.

Mr. OWENS. Thank you.

Commissioner Wood.

STATEMENT OF BARBARA JEAN WOOD, COMMISSIONER, MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION FOR THE DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING

Ms. WOOD. I should explain that I have a voice interpreter this morning with me. I would like to extend my warm welcome to all of you to Massachusetts. We at the Massachusetts Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing are a brand new agency that was set up 2 years and 3 months ago as a result of Governor Dukakis's recognition that a support system was necessary in order to make employment, housing, and transportation and a long list of community services accessible to deaf and hard of hearing persons.

To begin with, for people with hearing impairments, there are a total of 36 million persons with disabilities. Twenty-two million are people with a hearing loss. We are the second largest population of disabled persons. And our barrier, most obviously, is one of communication.

I am very aware that this act was a result of the work of the National Council of the Handicapped and the report that resulted in the idea for this piece of legislation. With some disappointment that I felt that the council didn't pay adequate attention to specifying issues related to communication accessibility. However, this bill did impress me. From time to time, it pointed out communication issues. And it really is the first piece of legislation in my 15 years' experience and involvement with disability issues to see that term, "communication accessibility." So, I found that quite thrilling and am in full and wholehearted support of this bill.

I would like to see more commitment, though, from the national council and from everyone to take a look at the issues of communications accessibility and how it can truly be enforced.

In the description of the bill, under section 8, the regulations, it mentions and calls on Architecture and Transportation Barrier Compliance Board to mandate minimum guidelines for accessibility of buildings, vehicles and so forth, especially for all Federal agencies listed therein.

In the past, there has been weak input in the area of communications accessibility. And this time, it is extremely important that it be included and the leadership being taken to understand that communication is not just the provision of interpreters such as we have this morning, but entails a wide range of communication accessibility devices to make Federal services accessible.

I strongly recommend the inclusion of these Federal agencies, including education to these and health and welfare in order to do a better job in developing these guidelines and regulations in the area of communications.

I can share through written testimony the rest of my ideas with you, but I am in full support of what the Governor testified and my fellow commissioners have and will testify. The weaknesses have not been legislative. It has been administrative. And there is a strong need to have a recognition for the importance of support services to make us independent in all of the areas listed in the bill. Thank you so much.

Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Crawford.

spite their disabilities. It will usher in a new era of equality for viduals in which unfair barriers to self-sufficiency and dece.. to fall before the force of law."

After the 1978 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act ma tion in programs directly operated by the federal govern. state and local programs which were federally funded, the for. followed HEW and issued their own 504 regulation to mandate and reasonable accommodation. During the last two years, again begun to amend their 504 regulations. This time th follow the Department of Justice model regulations which icial interpretations of Section 504. That model limits the effort programs must make to accommodate disability-related nee with disabilities and as well as program efforts to serve c. gram efforts to serve who have disabilities.

5. The Courts and Civil Rights for People With Disabilitie tions of 504 have also restricted its scope. First there was the which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a community. did not violate Section 504 when they refused to admit M a hearing impairment, to their nursing program. The Court · court decision which had ruled that Section 504 required her ede modations to her disability. The Supreme Court left open to HE ing and interpreting the statutory mandate, and determining phrase "qualified handicapped person", and the regulatory pro ble accommodation" of such an individual's disabilities. Next Darrone in 1984. In that case the Supreme Court unanimously ment protections of Section 504 are not limited to federally fu grams, but cover all federally assisted programs.

The Supreme Court's Grove City ruling, issued in 1984 an the Conrail decision, restricted the interpretation of Title IX which parallels the regulatory provisions used to enforce S limited civil rights requirements of Title IX for federally f specific university program receiving federal funds. The Co did not require a college or university to follow the non-dis ble accommodation policies in non-federally funded progre students or a single program in the school received federal

It took nearly four years for Congress to enact the C and then to overrule the President's veto in order to reali that all operations and activities of an organization that made accessible and operate on a non-discriminatory b preme Court Ruling in Choate v. Alexander held that aid program which limited the duration of hospital stav bursement, thereby making it more costly for people quired longer hospitalization did not violate Section State Medicaid regulations as a valid exercise in co dentally affected the number of days of care received 6. Conclusion.-We know the concepts and polle rights of citizens with disabilities. The continuing onstrated just why it is necessary to enact and im al mandate endorsing a comprehensive policy people with disabilities. No confusion, no obstacl ted to block this legislation. We know that continued efforts to educate and press for poli necessary. But it's worth it. The community support of the Americans With Disabilities ership with the courage and coment t the 36 million people with

I ask, happens to the disabled persons, centuries have been isolated, put in cages in to be shown as separate from the rest of

who were, again, put into slavery and into , and lesbians who were crucified because of

would ask finally, is there between the classes discriminated against in their pain with abled society? For far too long and for far too led people have felt the pain of discriminaparate, as being looked at as different, as as lessor.

to the disabled community. There are women, there are people who have different pracnditions in life unfortunately who have been lessor than others; but these folks have felt the Wenbled people feel today.

one last statement that I could make, and I at have much time, it is that I personally have tion, the isolation, the sense of helplessness and ility to relate to other people because they have

ling and I would hope that this moment, at least rast in this Congress and at least in this country, winds of discrimination that as I said in the begin

across the centuries against people whose only to try and make it and make it with others. That at ent in our time we can in fact have a society in ork with others toward the common good.

and I appreciate this opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Mr. Crawford. Excellent timing. [Laugh

er McCarthy.

| EMENT OF MARY MCCARTHY, COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL RETARDATION

THY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very me is Mary McCarthy. I have the distinct privilege to morning in my capacity as Commissioner of the Massapartment of Mental Retardation.

Massachusetts are grateful to you and to your committee tstanding work that you have done on this issue and parr. to Congressman Atkins and Congressman Moakley for rongstanding staunch advocacy for the rights of people with abilities.

and exciting that this hearing is being held in hundred and forty years ago, this Commonovernment to acknowledge people with dissh services to enable those individuals to ential.

st State in the Nation to have a special eduState in the Nation to develop a bureau of to assist individuals with disabil