people being treated equally in any way or providing the opportunity for them to have access to mainstream society despite the Constitution saying, "all people are created equal." But, we know that they are not, because people do not live by that.

All people should be treated equally under the law. We are not saying that the strong and the swift shouldn't win the race; they should, but there are all kinds of races that people can win, and they can do it with different talents as you described.

What I think we need to talk about here is how do we overcome the narrow-minded thinking, the tunnel vision thinking, that exists in many places on this Hill and many places in our society. People just won't open their eyes to see that when they hire on people with disabilities give them an opportunity, and allow them to succeed, that we all succeed and benefit by it and because as citizens they become less of a liability to society.

There are so many cases in which we have been so shortsighted in government that when we hold forth to people opportunity to become what we call "self-sufficient or independent," we sometimes take away the very tools that they need to become self-sufficient and independent. This is done in the name of cost, without realizing that paying the cost now, in the long run brings us back dollars.

There have been other programs like Job Corps and the JPTA and a lot of the training programs that have brought back to us a $1.40, $1.75 for every dollar invested by the Federal Government. And yet, we can't get these short-sighted, penny-pinching people to see. What is it? What do we need to do?

Reverend JACKSON. Well, what we are looking at is a deficit in our character. We are looking at the impact of the sin or arrogance and contempt for other people. The only moral justification for looking down on someone is you are going to stop to pick them up.

We have been in this contradiction from the very founding of our country. After all, when the constitution was written, everybody was handicapped except White male landowners. Even White males who didn't own land couldn't vote. Their mothers and wives and daughters and aunts, White women couldn't vote.

African Americans were considered three-fifths human; just a little higher than animals, a little lower than people, three-fifths of the human beings in the constitution. Native Americans couldn't live. All of America was handicapped except the aristocracy. The struggle has been to open the aristocracy, those who taught democracy, but looking for a king.

This is a democracy; bottom up, people out. It will cost to build the necessary facilities to let people in. It will cost more to lock them out. It will cost us morally. It will cost us money as well.

Democracy does not guarantee success. It guarantees opportunity and we are talking about people's opportunity being denied based upon base of some physical situation and I say let's accommodate. I would say that we who would be blessed to walk upright, must behave upright and treat physically disabled people as if they were our mother or our father or our son or our daughter, and tragedy should not have to strike to the depths of our humanity to be touched and our humanity come alive.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Let me ask you just one last question. One of the things that we have to be constantly aware of here is what the political climate is in order to have success with any particular piece of legislation.

Even though it was tough back in the '60s during the civil rights marches and everything else and the demonstrations, there was enough political pressure and enough political sense that we did the right thing. Recently with the Supreme Court decision that had been made, I think we are going backwards.

Do you believe we have enough political sensitivity on the Hill here to really enfranchise these people?

Reverend JACKSON. Well, what we did in the '60s was when we sought judicial remedy and couldn't get it and sought legislative remedy and couldn't get it, we then hit the streets and so maybe, Congress can get a better view of physical disabled or different abled people, get up about a thousand up and down these halls in their chairs and about ten thousand coming down the highway and the drama of that might make up come alive.

I am convinced that if people cannot get legislative remedy, they must otherwise redrift their grievances through mass demonstrations. We will not allow this narrow view of America an opportunity to, in fact, roll back the clock and blow up the graves of the martyrs who made the new America possible.

So, whether we come in wheelchairs or combat without shoes, we will not as a nation go back; we must go forward, and I say affirming the humanity, the differently abled is the way of going forward. Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OWENS. The co-chairman and I did agree on an informal fiveminute rule for each member. Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I found myself in agreement with a good deal of what Reverend Jackson said and very much appreciate his testimony. I particularly agree with two items. One is that, in fact, if we pass legislation like this that empowers people to be able to control their own lives, there will be a cost savings to the Federal Government and that is true as we give people the chance to be independent to provide for their own employment, their own income, their own housing, their own transportation, that, in fact, would save the taxpayers substantial sums from the alternatives.

Secondly, it is an empowerment issue. It is an opportunity to write legislation that will empower people to be able to control their own lives. I do have a specific question on the legislation. As I said earlier, I think that we should go through the legislation line by line to determine that we pass exactly what we intend to pass, not creating unintended negative consequences and not changing something for the negative, but accomplishing the mission.

My question is on the section that deals with drug and alcohol abusers as defined in the current section code of Section 504 for persons with disabilities.

The legislation, Reverend Jackson, only provides one exception for an employer to be able to deny employment to someone who is a current abuser of alcohol or drugs-by an alcohol, liquor, or drug abuser, and that is, if that person would pose a direct, words of the bill, a direct threat to the property or safety of others in the work

place or in the program. My question is, in your judgment, should there be other exceptions, that is, should employers be able to deny employment to persons who are current abusers of alcohol or illegal drugs if, in fact, for other reasons, if the employer, for example, wants to maintain a drug free work place?

A classic example: Should a stockbrokerage house on Wall Street be able to make it a condition of employment that their stockbrokers not do cocaine on their lunch hour even though it is not going to impair their health or safety of others in the work place?

Reverend JACKSON. The victims of alcohol and drug abuse take focus away from people who, in fact, are drug free, who otherwise need grants, who otherwise need scholarships, who otherwise need opportunity, who otherwise need extra counseling.

I would hate to see the meat of this proposition be lost in the extremities of that situation. I take the position that those who are on coke, or crack or heroin, they need to get well. That is the first issue there and you know we decry now the growing impact of drugs.

We have not yet attempted to put a price tag to what it is going to cost to get people well and that becomes significant to me, but I would hope that the message that you raise that we would not-as I look at the people who are sitting here today, some of whom are deaf, some of whom are otherwise in wheelchairs who are ready to go right now and become Congress people and be senators and soon able to be vice president under this arrangement.

Let's focus on all these possibilities out here and not get caught up, it seems to me, Mr. Bartlett, on the extremities. I think in some of those situations, it is almost case by case. Some people who are really drug and alcohol abusers are not capable of working because they cannot stay awake long enough.

Mr. BARTLETT. Reverend Jackson, I am not sure I understand your response. It is in the bill. I mean, the bill says that an employer cannot maintain a drug-free work place unless it impairs the property or safety in the work place.

I agree with you. It is one case, it is an extreme case. I also concur that those drug and alcohol addicts should not be placed into the same categories as those with physical and mental impairments, but they are in the bill. That is the problem, so would you change the bill?

Reverend JACKSON. I assume that you and Mr. Owens and Mr. Martinez would deal with the ramifications-by the way, we are losing 360,000 thousand people a year to smoking cigarettes, more than they were losing to alcohol, and coke, crack and heroin combined and so that seems to me to be an issue kind onto itself and I would hope that we would not allow that issue and its debate to, in fact, water down the honest-to-God, the real needs of people who otherwise are looked upon in ways that are not right and not kind.

Let me say this to you, Mr. Chairman, in closing. Another reason why this cost efficient is important, many people have disabilities, impairments that start in the womb and early detection in their formative years can go through substantial correction.

If a woman has prenatal care for nine months, even a city like New York will cost less than a thousand dollars for nine months. Without prenatal care, a low-birth weight baby, and what could by

then become an impaired baby, cost up to $2 thousand a day, usually minimum 20 weeks in the hospital.

Add to that any other kind of physical complication, you are looking at maybe $3 thousand a day for 20 weeks and then maybe some adjustment for the rest of their lives. That prenatal care and that early detection and that support in people's formative years will, in fact, save us money and make us stronger and make us more productive.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that perhaps we can deal with this section of the law without debating it. I look forward to that and thank the Reverend for his testimony.

Reverend JACKSON. Thank you.

Chairman OWENS. Mr. Hayes?

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be very brief. I want to commend, though, my colleague, Payne, and my constituent, Reverend Jesse Jackson, for what has been excellent testimony. I do want to sound a word of warning.

This distinctly is not one of the legislative priorities before the 101st Congress unless we make it that. It appears to me that much more interest is going to be focused in the direction of trying to undue the recent Supreme Court decision in relation to desecration of the flag which I am opposed to too, but this is high on the legislative agenda as you might understand and the press is helping to mode it in that direction.

The other thing that tends to take priority, as you might have noticed yesterday, that the stealth bomber got, I think, ten thousand feet into the air, so we have to justify spending that if we do. Reverend JACKSON. Batmobile.

Mr. HAYES. Batmobile, at $500 million for that kind of thing and then, I think, our chairman here, Owens, has mentioned another thing. We caught up in what could become a legislative quagmire over jurisdiction at which subcommittee has jurisdiction over this piece of legislation.

I raise these kinds of things only to indicate, as you said, Reverend Jackson, we have to develop sensitivity to this issue. It is not known, not among many of our colleagues in Congress and I would hope that we understand that what you suggested that we had to do in the '60s as a course of action to develop the kind of interest and attention to this kind of necessity for this kind of legislative issue by marching if necessary, doing whatever is necessary to make it a priority of this Congress.

I just want to close by saying that as we spread democracy abroad, and spend so much time talking about the right to life. versus choice, we had better understand that people with handicaps who are already here, certainly have a right to life and some of the millions that we spend abroad could very well be used in this country to support this kind of legislation.

I just wanted to close with that statement.
Chairman OWENS. Mr. Grandy?

Mr. GRANDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Reverend Jackson, let me just say that I find myself in complete concurrence with my colleague from Chicago. I think that this Congress is better served by discussing, debating, and implementing this piece of legislation than tearing ourselves apart over an issue such as flag burning and

things of that nature, because I think this will have an immediate and lasting dividend whereas the other may merely just subdivide into other forms of debate.

Because I would like to see this legislation put on a fast track and I would like to see the consensus formed over the method as well as the intent, I would like to hear your definitions of two areas of concern under the general title of discrimination that have given some some pause over this legislation.

One is anticipatory discrimination; the other is unintentional discrimination. Categories of unclarity that are causing particularly people in the business community to wonder what this means, how they are subject to litigation, how these can be clarified. Could you give this Committee your definition of those two?

Reverend JACKSON. Well, I suppose a bill of particulars shouldn't be drawn up. Now, here is what I mean. I remember when we were marching for the right to vote in Selma, and we were challenged by the Congress to write the bill explaining how it works.

We were doing the marching and taking the risk; we thought the Congress could at least write up the bill of particulars. In a sense that there are things you can anticipate. We know that we need riding ramps for public transportation; you can anticipate that, that the people need access to buildings for work or living. We can anticipate that.

The schools need to accommodate this reality. We can anticipate that, so that they are given a number of needs that we know must be served based upon diverse categories of different abilities and needs that people have and if you, in fact, build a new building and are not taking this into account, you structure people out.

It seems to me you then are moving into murky water, given what the law would, in fact, represent. I would think that would be in the realms of one might call anticipation. I also think that anticipation should not be so negative. For example, we may have given more access for fewer dropouts among the differently able.

We might have far less, far fewer people who will engage in crack and cocaine and killing people. We may, in fact, have more mileage out of people who otherwise are not distracted by the coke, the crack, the killing. I said that because that is the number one threat that lies on our streets today and so there may be a factor of dedication, if you will, the laws of compensation here that is greater than we have ever even discussed.

I think it should not just be anticipation in the negative, but also anticipation in the productive and anticipation in the positive. What was the other point?

Mr. GRANDY. Unintentional discrimination which is also covered by this legislation.

Reverend JACKSON. Well, that is the murky one, you know, where if you now file a suit based upon discrimination, you cannot just deal with the fact, you must prove intent which requires heart surgery which is illegal.

That is a very tricky business proving intent. You go to a situation where you have all physically abled people and no differently abled people there, the effect is that directly or indirectly, they have been locked out. If you go there and it is all male, all one