race, you assume others have been locked out, and now you must prove intent.

That is one of the damaging aspects of these Supreme Court rulings. For example, if you had filed as a plaintiff, as a plaintiff of race or sex or disabled suit two months ago, it would have cost about $5 thousand. Now, it would cost about a $100 thousand, and you cannot recover fees for expert witnesses in the process.

If it is a class action, it would have cost $50 thousand; now it will cost $500 thousand to a million dollars which means that under these rulings is that civil rights then become more distant and more expensive and less likely.

We are very vulnerable as a nation based upon these recent decisions and so whether you are female or African American or Hispanic or physically differently abled a worker, we now find ourselves with another set of struggles and we must prove not only that we can raise the money for the suit, but prove intent which is much more difficult to prove.

Mr. GRANDY. The reason I raise this question is because when you are talking about anticipatory discrimination in housing, you have a case there and that has been reflected in some of our fair housing statutes, but I see two concepts that seem to be in vague contradiction to one another that may produce an unnecessary fury of lawsuits and hardships for the disabled in this bill.

Take a case where you have unintentional discrimination on one side, and undue hardship on the other side. For example, use the instance where a theater has taken a section of its auditorium to accommodate the handicapped-let's say they have earpieces for people who are hearing impaired; let's say they have wider aislesare they unintentionally discriminating because they have only adapted a portion of their theater or does the person who owns the theater have the claim under undue hardship to say, "If I take out more seats to make more spaces and to spend x amount of dollars, I will be forced to close this facility."

Do you see what I am saying? There are areas of ambiguity here that I think we want to get cleared up before this bill goes to the floor and I would like

Reverend JACKSON. I would certainly hope that in the more private sessions with the leaderships, the representatives of the physically differently abled communities and members of this Committee, those kinds of extremities will be ironed out.

My fear is that if the press has only the most extreme and the most negative, they will so dignity that until they will wipe out the means, people who were caught in the broad middle. So, where there may be ambiguity, let's have clarity and where there may be contradictions, let's iron them out and where there may be some confusion, then again, let us get clarity, but I would hope to think if we have the will to do the right thing, just the will to do the right thing, then we will do the right thing.

Mr. GRANDY. Well, let me just say, I concur with you totally on your quest for clarity because I think the greater the clarity, the more the good faith on both sides and I think that is what is going to drive this piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Reverend Jackson.

Chairman OWENS. Mr. Hoyer?

Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First let me say, I appreciate the observations made by Mr. Grandy, the gentleman from Iowa. There is, of course, language in the current, as I understand, Rehabilitation Act which deals with this and, of course, the language itself was an attempt to meet the problem that is raised by the gentleman from Iowa of a theater owner, et

cetera.

How much is enough, how much meets the burden, I think Reverend Jackson is correct. I think we will be able to work on those if we work in good faith and I think everybody will work on this matter with good faith. But, if we accommodate too much in the framework of the language of the bill, we will then articulate a right without a remedy, and I think that that is what we have to protect against.

Now, Reverend, let me ask you a question. You mentioned in your testimony-I am sure I know the answer, but dealing with public accommodations; restaurants, and hotels, obviously the bill goes further than that and it is my assumption that although you referenced those, you referenced them as examples.

Other, for instance, places of critical public accommodations: banks, savings and loan, cleaners, shoes repair stores, all sorts of accommodations which are critical for us to utilize in our daily lives are also included. I presume that you agree with the bill's incorporating and including those areas as well, although you referenced as, I think, solely examples, restaurants and hotels.

Reverend JACKSON. I do.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of other questions. I will be talking to Reverend Jackson and Donald Payne in the caucus on this and am very interested in hearing the following witnesses and I will pass on other questions.

Chairman OWENS. Thank you. I appreciate your patience, Reverend Jackson. We just have two more members. I know you have a time problem, but, Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. I will be brief given the time constraints. Reverend Jackson, I want to thank you for being here and joining others and thank you for your presence. As a co-sponsor of this bill, I wanted to have an opportunity to clarify what I mean by "getting it right.' One is that we produce a bill that passes this Congress in this session and two, that we produce a bill that delivers the dream and is not found wanting one, two, or five years down the road.

I appreciate very much what I think I have heard you say today. Sometimes you confound us, those of us with poor understanding because we ask you what we think is a good rational question and you tell us a story back and you have to listen to the story to get the answer.

As I have listened, what I have heard you say is "use your common sense; don't get sidetracked; understand where the gains are and lock them in; look for the extreme cases and solve them if you can, if you can't put them aside and work on them next year. Use your heads." Have I got it? I am just a simple kid from Ver

mont.

Reverend JACKSON. Use your heads and use your hearts. We might call it "common sense." The broad base of people may be deaf, and then today's technology is getting to be accommodated.

The broad base may be on a wheelchair and need an access, but all of these persons have the will to study, to learn, to work, to be productive.

There may be some very extreme cases and somehow we must have the judgment to put them in extreme category, but in the meantime, do not hold up the broad flow of Americans who are locked out and then looked down upon in negative and unkind ways because we have not affirmed their humanity.

To me, if nothing else comes out of this but an affirmation of the dignity of people, this affirmative dignity, the long ways beyond what we are now.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Mfume and then Mr. Jontz-I didn't see you come back.

Mr. MFUME. Thank you very much. I want to preface my remarks by commending both you and Congressman Martinez for convening this joint hearing. It goes without saying that those of us here, both on this panel and those in the audience, obviously understand and believe in the merits of this.

You have brought a special sensitivity to it in this Congress and I commend you for that. I think it is fair to say that all of my colleagues appreciate it.

Reverend Jackson, as a co-sponsor of this legislation, it is particularly a good feeling for me to see you at the forefront of this and to point out that you just didn't get there yesterday, that has been a priority for you for a number of years, that you kept it on the national agenda when we were concerned with others things and that your presence here today is just an affirmation of a long going commitment that you brought to this issue.

I would also say that it is through the simple eloquence of your example that the inspiration that many of those in this room with disabilities feel, perhaps, can be kindled and those of us with disabilities who are unaware of them so that we understand that we have a special sort of rendering and a special mission, as you indicated earlier, to affirm the dignity and the worth of all human beings.

One of the saddest things I witnessed is to argue on behalf of the disabled in this nation and to hear people tell me that it is not important, only to find out a month or year or ten years later, that through a twist of fate that they themselves have become or developed a disability or someone in their family and then they become sensitive to this issue.

It reminds me of the man who lived to be a hundred who 99 years sinned without remorse and in the 100th year decided to be born again. While we rejoiced in his salvation, we agonized at the loss opportunity of those 99 years.

Congressman Hayes raised a very important point. Unfortunately, with a great deal of sadness, it is true that this issue is not a priority before this Congress and that those of us who have worked long and hard and who have supported the efforts of Congressman Owens on this year after year, really have to make it one.

That is why it is so very important that you yourself are here, that Congressman Payne has decided to speak on behalf of the caucus, that other members of the body who have an understand

ing of what we must do, must move beyond point "a" to point "b" and I would simply urge, Mr. Chairman, that you make a special commitment along with the chairman of the Democratic caucus, Mr. Hoyer, who has indicated through his presence today and his statement, a very strong willingness to bring this before the Congress of the United States "this" year and to make it a priority in this session. We must move ahead and do that and rededicate and pledge ourselves to doing that so that it doesn't get lost in the shuffle that takes place around here in November when everybody wants to leave while people who really want their dignity affirmed by this body and this nation have to suffer under the strange and twisted way that we do business sometimes.

So, I again, want to thank you, Reverend, for appearing here and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing.

Reverend JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, the matters that he raises of the Congress' priorities dealing with ethics and corruption and priorities and bailout, non-created by physically different abled people. There is a HUD scandal of $2 billion plus the cutback on this budget; it was created by the morally disabled who walked upright.

There is a $200 billion S&L bailout. It was not created by the people in wheelchairs or people who were deaf. If there is this flying batmobile without a mission and a heavy price tag, that was not created by the people who are differently able, who may in wheelchairs or have some other motor transportation, so they should not bear the burden of the collapse and ethics and corruption and misplaced priorities.

It seems to me that one redeeming feature of this Congress could be to assert. We might say that Congress could not stop the Supreme Court for making these decisions, to set back our rights for workers, women and historical minorities, but the Congress cannot say the Supreme Court is stopping this legislation.

It ought to affirm this legislation while it wants-fighting for civil rights restoration for the rights that have been lost during the session of this past court.

Chairman OWENS. One last question. Mr. Jontz just returned.

Mr. JONTZ. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. Both witnesses have very eloquent statements and have been very generous with their time and I want to thank them.

Chairman OWENS. Again, I want to thank you, Reverend Jackson, for taking time out of your busy schedule to help us launch this very important bill.

Our next panel of witnesses consist of Mr. Justin Dart, Jr.; Ms. Sandra Parrino; Brother Philip Nelan and Mr. Joseph Rauh. I neglected to say before that we welcome the submission of any additional answers or statements in reply to the questions by Reverend Jackson in the future and we will hold the record open for such

submissions.

Mr. Joseph Rauh, from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, has a time problem and for that reason we are going to let Mr. Rauh begin and ask that he accept written questions at a later date since he won't have the time to stay for questions from the members of the Committee.

You may begin, Mr. Rauh.

STATEMENTS OF MR. JOSEPH RAUH, LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS; JUSTIN DART, JR., CHAIRMAN, TASK FORCE ON THE RIGHTS AND EMPOWERMENT OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES; MS. SANDRA PARRINO, CHAIRWOMAN, NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY; AND BROTHER PHILIP NELAN, DIRECTOR, HANDICAPPED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM, NATIONAL RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION

Mr. RAUH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you are very kind to accommodate my time problem.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittees, my name is Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. I am the Counsel to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a coalition of 180 national organizations representing minorities, women, persons with disabilities, older Americans, labor, religious groups, and minority businesses and professionals. On behalf of the Conference, I want to do two things: thank you for allowing us the opportunity to testify today and tell you that we have never had such unanimity on issues as we have today behind this most important bill and if it doesn't have a priority in Congress is wrong not the bill.

Now, let me just say a word from the heart. I have been in the civil rights movement for going on half a century and the thing that has mattered the most to me is the ripple effect of the civil rights movement.

What we did was to turn the law upside down for Blacks. We turned it from segregation and discrimination to barring segregation and discrimination, but the wonderful thing that happened in America was the ripple effect of that.

You can go back to 1941 when President Roosevelt signed the first executive order against discrimination. That was an order that was caused by Blacks. A. Philip Randolph threatened to march on Washington, but looks at its ripple effect. President Roosevelt realized that polls were being discriminated against.

That is where you got discrimination barred against national origin. Then what happened in '64 in Title VII. That was just to be race, color, or creed and the sex discrimination was added in '64. Then in '75, the Voting Rights Act was broadened to include Hispanics; 504 for disabled people is a direct copy of Title Six of the '64 law.

The great thing about the civil rights revolution for Blacks is that it hasn't been limited that way, that it has created America where all is discrimination. This is one of the final acts in building a country where there is no discrimination, where all people who have wrongful discriminations are going to be protected and we say in the Leadership Conference, we want this bill.

We started out as a bill really to help Blacks. It started back in 1950, but now almost forty years later, the effect of that has been felt all over the United States. We have got one last job to do and that is the priority here.

The ADA which extends civil rights protections to 30 to 43 million Americans with disabilities is a historic measure. It is a 25th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act and this bill will help complete the job. The ADA embodies the principals of non-discrimination and equal opportunity which our country embraced in 1964.