meaningful protections to individuals with disabilites, as well as assure the availabilty of this segment of the work force to employers, civil rights legislation must be comprehensive. It must address all of the barriers to the independence and integration of people with disabilities into American life. A break in any link in the chain that connects individuals with disabilities to the workplace or prevents them from functioning independently creates a barrier which many times cannot be bridged.

It makes little sense to protect an

individual from discrimination in employment if, for example, they have less than adequate accessible public transportation

services.

The President's Committee has conducted concensus meetings with leaders in business, government, rehabilitation, and disability rights in 45 communities over the last seven years. These meetings have enabled communities to, identify the major barriers to employment of people with disabilities, and to reach concensus on actions which can be taken to correct those barriers. Consistently, inaccessible transportation services has been identified as a major barrier, second only to discriminatory attitudes.

Mr. Chairman, just as business looks at the bottom line, so must we all. As I see it, the bottom line in passage of comprehensive civil rights legislation for people with

disabilities is:

For Business-

Access to a Qualified Labor Force and to a

Largely Untapped Group of Consumers

For Individuals with Disabilities-

Dignity, Pride, an Improved Quality of Life,

and Finally, Independence

For the Nation-

A Renewal of Our Committment to Equality For

All and a Contribution to the Human Spirit.

The President's Committee stands ready to assist

business in implementing the mandates of this comprehensive civil rights statute. Our guide for hiring people with disabilities, entitled Ready, Willing and Available, developed by our employer members and targeted to small businesses, is an example of the assistance we can offer. Other agencies and organizations, both public and private, are equally eager to share their expertise.

As our previous experience with bringing new classes of oppressed people into the social and economic mainstream of society has demonstrated, the returns to the nation will be bountiful.

Chairman OWENS. Thank you. Mr. Mark Donovan.

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to just comment that as a result of a timing issue, I have not presubmitted written testimony. What I would like to do is make some comments this morning and then submit that testimony after the fact, if I may.

I am Mark Donovan and I am with Marriott Corporation, have worked for Marriott for over 20 years at this point, and in the last five years have focused in general on creating employment opportunities for individuals who have any barrier to employment and, more specifically, on employment opportunities for individuals who may have a physical or mental barrier, individuals with disability. I am pleased to be here and I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to support the historic legislation that is under consideration. The issue of empowering people with disabilities to be fully contributing members of the work force in the work place is one that has been near and dear to my heart and, I might say, near and dear to Marriott's heart for some time.

I think as a result of that, Marriott is recognized as a leader in the whole issue of providing employment opportunity for people with disabilities, in being in the forefront of initiatives to enhance those opportunities.

I think it is critical to note why that is, because I think the general perception might be that that is an altruistic action on the part of Marriott, that somehow it has to do with charitable feeling and the like and I don't think anything could be further from the truth.

Clearly, Marriott has assumed a leadership position in this area because it makes good business sense for Marriott. It doesn't, in fact, cost us money to employ people with disabilities; it saves us money to employ people with disabilities. And I have been interested in some of the previous discussion of the whole accommodation issue because I think in many cases, the accommodation issue is overblown and wrongly placed as a disability issue.

Accommodation is not a disability issue. Accommodation is an employment issue, and, as such, should be seen as a cost of doing business, not as a cost of hiring people with disabilities.

Our life blood is our work force in Marriott Corporation as a service sector business, and what we have found is that it is only through accessing the widest possible diversity of individuals in that work force that we, in fact, can create the strongest work force possible.

So, in fact, in working with people with disabilities, we find that we do it as a business necessity, and not because it makes sense in terms of a charitable action.

I guess I would like to make an analogy to that situation with Marriott because, in a more general sense, I think this legislation is critical in terms of the fact that society as a whole is only as strong as the diversity that that society represents.

It is only when we can weave all the various unique experience and capability of the individuals in that society that we truly can be what we want to be as a society. And so from that standpoint, in my mind, there is no question about the importance of the legislation. There is no question about whether it ought to be enacted. I

think the only real question is, what can we do to help craft the legislation in such a way that it, in fact, is as effective as possible, once enacted, to meet its overall objectives.

What I would like to do is just make two or three comments as to issues that I feel might want to be considered as that crafting process takes place.

It seems to me, number one, it is critical that if what we are going to do is provide an active and effective piece of legislation, what we want to do is create a process and a system that includes and encourages cooperation rather than confrontation in the meeting of challenges and the settling of issues.

So, I would strongly encourage a means to include all parties to the issues involved, be those employers or individuals with disabilities or managers or community agencies in the solutions that need to be developed for those problems.

In my experience, that is the way that strong solutions are reached.

I think that related to that, the whole issue of where litigation fits into the process of remedying problems and finding solutions ought to be as a last resort measure, rather than a first resort alternative.

In my sense, litigation is an issue that creates wedges between people, rather than developing inclusion among all parties; and, in fact, while it may develop solutions, doesn't typically develop the best solution.

Second, I think that it is important, as we look to employers to recognize that in some cases there are supports that are appropriate and necessary to help employers, in fact, meet the intent and the spirit of the bill.

The savings to the Federal treasury, in terms of putting people with disabilities to work, have already documented. I would strongly encourage that there be a means to translate some of those savings into the kinds of supports that might be appropriate to employers, whether those be financial supports or technical assistance, or what have you, to assure that we make it as possible and as realistic as possible that they, in fact, meet the spirit of that bill. Thirdly, I would do everything possible within the language of the bill and within the stipulations of the bill to protect against the bill being used as a foundation for frivolous claims in terms of protection of individual rights and the like.

I think it is critical to recognize that anything that results in frivolous claims, in fact, takes away from the focus of the true intent of the bill which is to empower those individuals who need such empowerment to be contributing members and so, I think it is important to be careful about how language is crafted to avoid that wherever possible.

I would just like to reiterate again how pleased I am to be here, how important I do think this legislation is and not only as an end in itself, but, in fact, because in my view, I feel that the legislation is simply a stepping stone to a greater overall objective which is that ultimately this exact piece of legislation ought to belong in the past and we ought to be in a place where, in fact, we focus so naturally on the ability of the individual that the whole issue of disability, in fact, does become irrelevant.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mark Donovan follows:]