Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Kemp, I am sorry. I was late also and missed your statement, but I read it, and became very interested in the discussion you just had because I am a manufacturer still and have some employees back home.

I was thinking to myself-in fact, Peter and I both said-you were talking about the labor shortage that was going to come in the next century, where I come from, the labor shortage is already there. Unemployment rate has been under three percent for the last two years. We are doing everything we can to locate workers Listening to you talk, I was reminded of my plant in North Carolina. Back in the days when it was built, current laws and regulations on discrimination were not in place. The plant was built in very hilly country in western North Carolina and was built into the side of a hill.

Given the slope of the land, the office space and everything is away from the ground level. I was just sitting here thinking, I think I have discriminated ever since I built the place, but never knew I was doing it, because my office, where the employment possibilities are, is up maybe ten steps, through an airlock with double doors, and there is no way to get into that place if you are in a wheelchair.

Mr. KEMP. No back door?

Mr. BALLENGER. No back door. Surprisingly, we never thought about it.

Mr. KEMP. So, people that come to clean your office have to bring their machinery up those ten stairs——

Mr. BALLENGER. Yes.

Mr. KEMP. [continuing] and hurt their backs and other things like that? Of course, you work with compensation claims?

Mr. BALLENGER. The EEOC has had me before them several times, and so I understand what you are talking about.

[Laughter.]

Mr. BALLENGER. The fact that one of the positive things that may come out of this bill is the fact that some people really discriminated without even having the slightest idea that they were doing it. With a labor shortage in the future, employers may be more likely to hire the handicapped individuals. Because you know as well as I do that people in wheelchairs are much more dependable, they are more likely to show up every day, and they will do a better job.

In this particular example I mentioned, if the plant is already designed and built and there is no access for people with wheelchairs and the plant does not do any business with the Federal Government, were this bill law at the present time, would I be breaking the law?

Mr. KEMP. More than half of the disabled people don't need reasonable accommodations. There are the people that, you know, had cancer 30 years ago and are discriminated because of that cancer. So we really are just talking about less than half the people.

Now, it sounds like your plant would be good for most disabled people, except people in wheelchairs, and if it is not accessible, I can see circumstances where it would be an undue burden to make it accessible. I don't see why you would have to hire them.

Mr. BALLENGER. I was just handed a list. North Carolina has a law, for Handicapped Protection Act, and it is a list of things that

are necessary or not necessary-there are both sides of the coinat least in state law in North Carolina.

I was wondering-I don't know whether you have seen this or not before.

Mr. KEMP. No, no, but I have visited North Carolina quite a bit. It is quite a progressive state on disability issues.

Mr. BALLENGER. I wondered if it is possible you might look at that section of our law and get back to us as to where you think the pluses and minuses are and where we might clash as far as North Carolina law and the Federal law that we are about to pass may come.

Mr. KEMP. Yes, I think it is one of the states that this law really doesn't affect that much. Recently I took a vacation in Oregon, and that is an extraordinarily accessible state. They advertise that whitewater rafting was accessible to disabled people.

So, I decided to take them up on it, and they didn't blink an eye at me. It looked like they had done it a 1,000 times before. So, the bill is going to have an uneven effect across the country, and North Carolina, I think, is one of the states that is not going to be affected that much because it has had a very good record of accessibility. Mr. BARTLETT. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BALLENGER. Yes.

Mr. BARTLETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding because I was unclear on the answer to the original question. I want to make sure that I am clear and also it is clear on the record.

If an employer, such as Mr. Ballenger, large employer of a manufacturing plant, has an employment office where you intake prospective employees, as I understand it, this law would say that the employer would have to make that employment office accessible on a reasonable basis, reasonable accommodation, to prospective employees, including large numbers of people who would be in a wheelchair, because you don't know who wants to apply in a wheelchair as long as you are inaccessible because they don't apply.

Now, am I reading that right? This bill would say that he would have to make that, at least the employment office accessible?

Mr. KEMP. Yes, which is usually a very inexpensive accommodation. One thing that I have always found out, if people really want to hire disabled people, really want them to participate, the accommodations never cost much money.

If they don't want them, the accommodations go right through the ceiling. As a matter of fact, an example is at Duke University. The chapel there is accessible for a wheelchair and that ramp cost $1 million, and it is completely useless because it is made out of marble and it is as slippery as an ice rink.

Sears and Roebuck made their whole national headquarters accessible for $7,600 with TTY's, ramps, this and that and the other thing. It is hard to believe that they could do it for that cheap a price. But if a person wants disabled people, the accommodations really don't become a burden. If they don't, they always do.

I think that we have to realize that more than half the disabled people do not need accommodations. The ones that do-there have been two studies that show that most accommodations are very, very inexpensive.

Right now, with the labor shortage less than three percent, you probably are offering money to your employees if they could bring somebody to work that has a job. If you had disabled people down there, you might not have to-

Mr. BALLENGER. I can accept that, but being a person who has continuously refused to do business with the Federal Government because of the regulations you automatically get into because you do business, I would again ask the question that my fellow congressman asked: Would I be mandated by this law to do that? Mr. KEMP. Mandated to do-

Mr. BALLENGER. To make accessible at least the personnel section of my company for wheelchair people. I am just curious the way you interpret the law.

Mr. KEMP. It does seem to me that every company that I go to or corporation, I have no problem getting into it. You might have those three or four steps, but I bet that there is a lawn there that I could go across and hand my application in.

I think that, you know, talking about where your office is, I bet there is some way that persons can get in there with the machines that are needed to clean the office.

Mr. BALLENGER. Sure. I am not saying that I wouldn't do that, but the question is, would I be mandated by the law that I would have to do it?

Mr. KEMP. Yes.

Mr. BALLENGER. Thank you.

Mr. BARTLETT. If the gentleman would further yield, and then when we get to my amendment which will apply this law to Congress, you will have to do the same thing in your congressional office, and it is about time.

Mr. BALLENGER. I agree with that a 100 percent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman OWENS. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kemp, I am sorry I missed your opening comment, and I guess I would like to start by not only congratulating you on your appointment, but thanking you and the administration for once again taking leadership on an issue that has cried out for leadership for many years.

I, at the risk of sounding partisan, or at least proud to have an administration that is willing to say there are issues that need to be dealt with finally and begin to deal with them, ADA being one of them, I am very pleased and proud to have that kind of leadership which calls the Congress to finally do something.

I was going to answer yes if you didn't, Cass. I see this bill as, in my mind, the biggest piece of legislation certainly since 94-142, and I am not a student of legislation.

I think we have to learn how to say there will be some disruption, and it is going to hurt a little, because if there wasn't and it didn't, then we aren't-either there isn't a problem, or we are doing everything right to begin with.

So, somehow we need to have an attitude, it seems to me, that understands that it is going to involve change, and change creates friction, and friction creates trouble sometimes, and that we are welcoming and anticipating that we are going to go through those times in trying to create a level playing field for all Americans.

I know you referred in your opening comments to the Senate version of the bill, S9-33. Would you be willing to cite just two or three of what you think are the important adjustments or points that they have reached in that bill that would commend it?

I know you have said that you think it would be a good starting point in the House. Unless you did that in greater detail than I got from the quick run-through of your testimony, could you give us three or four examples where you think the tone of that bill is an improvement in terms of developing a good starting place?

Because I see the bill we passed as a starting point. I don't see it as like the end of the job at all, any more than 94-142 is finished 15 years later. We are after a good, strong doable starting point, and I would be interested in just a little more comment on the Senate version of the bill.

Mr. KEMP. The most controversial part of the bill that was introduced on May 10th of this year, the ADA, was a public accommodation section, and there was give and take by both the administration, the disability community and the Senate on this section, and I think it is a fair compromise.

We have got to be able to get our hair cut, buy our clothes, get our food so we can eat, but this was by far the most controversial section. I think disabled people did compromise an awful lot in this area and on transportation and other things. From the bill that was introduced on May 10th, the thing we gave up were stronger remedies,

So I think it is an even tradeoff, and I think the disability community has gone about as far as it can go without really having a backlash.

I would like to explain, and I think your point was well taken, and maybe I was tending to minimize the disruption, that our society really was built for the mythical American. I think that the best book on disability is still Huxley's "Brave New World," which was written in 1933 as political satire. I think we went an extraordinary long ways to realize what he was talking about. I can remember in school that if you were left-handed, your left hand was tied behind your back, because it was easier to make machinery and scissors and other things for all right-handed people.

What the Disability Rights Movement is all about and what the Americans with Disabilities Act is forcing us to do is to start looking at the individuals, stop looking away from the mythical American. I think this Act is going to have a profound effect on older workers and allow them to work longer, because this is needed if our economy is to survive.

It is estimated in the year 2007 for every two workers, there are going to be two people getting Social Security, and one of those two workers is either going to be a disabled person or an older person. So, I think it will disrupt society, but, you know, it is needed to really start including people into society because of the great exclusion of people during the industrial mass production, assembly line businesses.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

Chairman OWENS. Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry to be late. I came at 9:30 and went back to my office, and you see what happens. You talk about disruption.

I have no specific questions. I certainly would like to compliment you, though, for all the fine work that you have been doing. I had the privilege to be with Chairman Owens and Representative Bartlett from Texas at a recent hearing in Houston, where I would imagine 500 or 600 persons showed up during the course of that hearing and we had a very thorough discussion.

Most of the issues were discussed. I was very impressed with the manner in which the hearing was organized. In fact, it was the best organized hearing that I have seen since becoming a Member of Congress. Although it has only been six months.

We do need disruption. As a matter of fact, we should have had people making representatives and senators feel uncomfortable by last year, when there was no action on the bills.

When I was younger, we used to disrupt a lot. We would block traffic and disrupt presidents of colleges who couldn't get into their offices, and I was thinking and mentioning it to Chairman Owens that maybe one day we've got to have a group of people blocking up some traffic or keeping folks from getting in so they can actually see and feel how it is to be singled out for no reason of their

own.

I'm just here to say I am strongly supportive of ADA, Jay Rochlin, and some of my long-time friends. Hopefully we can get this watered-down, what I considered weak version through the door since last year I understand we couldn't get it through the door, and once we get it through the door, perhaps we can strengthen it so it can be totally meaningful so that all people will have their civil rights. Thank you.

Mr. KEMP. Thank you.

Chairman OWENS. Thank you again, Mr. Commissioner. I appreciate your testimony.

Mr. KEMP. Okay. No more questions?

Chairman OWENS. Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Gunderson.

Mr. GUNDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kemp. I apologize for being late, but I have reviewed your statement.

One of the questions that everyone brings to our offices when they come and raise concerns is the definition of "reasonable accommodation" and "undue burden." Do you want to insert any comments for the record as to how you would articulate what constitutes "undue burden" or what constitutes "reasonable accommodation"?

Mr. KEMP. These are old terms. They have been around for a long time, and the courts have defined them. To determine what's an undue burden you take a number of factors into consideration. How big is the employer? What are his revenues? Does this benefit one person or does it benefit a whole lot of people? Does it benefit both non-disabled and able-bodied people?

A whole host of things are taken into consideration to determine whether it is an undue burden, and the courts, I think, have done a fairly good job in defining it.