responded that "each industry, and indeed each separate business, may be unique in the type of accommodation employers are able to provide without significant difficulty or expense." Senator Harkin later stated that "[c]onstruction is unlike manufacturing, and most other types of industries, in that an employer is usually confronted with monitoring multiple worksites at remote locations.... AGC appreciates this effort to clarify the vague terms in the proposed legislation, but believes that the House of Representatives must do more. The statutory language still invites case-by-case determinations, on specific facts, and without objective guidance. CONCLUSION In closing, AGC would like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to express these views. AGC strongly supports the cause of the many disabled Americans who simply seek their rightful place in the American workplace. AGC believes that all citizens should be, and are committed to, equal opportunity for all in our society, and in every respect. With that said, AGC urges the subcommittee to exercise the utmost care in the drafting of this legislation to ensure that, unlike recent legislation enacted by Congress, extended debate and corrective legislation does not ..become necessary later to correct mistakes that maximum care can now avoid. OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE BARTLETT BEFORE THE JOINT HEARING OF THE AND SELECT EDUCATION Mr. Chairman, many of us witnessed the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in the Senate last Thursday. It was an historic moment for all of us fully committed to furthering the independence of and opportunities available to individuals with disabilities. The Senate passed bill was the result of intense negotiations among the disability community, the civil rights community, Democrats, Republicans, the President, and business groups. These negotiations were long, were difficult - but I believe all parties negotiated in good faith, never loosing sight of or disagreeing on the bill's intent full civil rights for people with disabilities. - The enthusiasm, the pride, and the expectations among our friends with disabilities are at very high levels, and justifiablely so. Now is our opportunity to demonstrate our commitment and support, in concrete, not rhetorical terms. House Democrats and Republicans should join together and introduce S.933 as passed by the Senate. Each Committee of jurisdiction should use that bill as its legislative vehicle for moving to the House floor. Such a gesture would make substantive and procedural sense, and reduce the possibility of untimely delays during consideration of the ADA by the House. Many of the most difficult issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of all key players. Do we have the time or the right to reopen these problem areas by working from the House bill as introduced? I think not. If we work from S.933 as passed by the Senate, it will become apparent that the remaining issues are those that require clarification or refinement, much of which can be done by example. Let me give three illustrations. First, do we need to allow the possibility a defendant being sued under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and State statutes, simultaneously or sequentially, with the same set of facts? I think not, we could add a preemption provision which makes legal sense and common sense. Second, to clarify the meaning of "undue hardship", should we allow it to be measured on a per site basis? I think that's reasonable. Third, can we clarify defenses, burden of proof, and the role of good faith, so that legal sanctions can be swiftly and fairly applied? I know we can. As we proceed this morning I urge the witnesses to use the ADA as passed by the Senate as their frame of reference. We need to know what more there is to do, not to undo. - It is now our opportunity to make a contribution to a recent historical event - let's add to it, not detract from it by revisiting challenges that have been met and overcome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1018T CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. R. 2273 To establish a clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability. I IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAY 9, 1989 Mr. COELHO (for himself, Mr. FISH, Mr. HAWKINS, Mr. CONTE, Mr. Owens of New York, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ATKINS, Mr. BEILENSON, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BORSKI, Mr. Bosco, Mrs. BOXEE, Mr. CAMPBELL of California, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CROCKETT, Mr. DE LUGO, Mr. DONNELLY, Mr. DWYER of New Jersey, Mr. DYMALLY, Mr. EDWARDS of California, Mr. FAZIO, Mr. FEIGHAN, Mr. FRANK, Mr. FROST, Mr. FUSTER, Mr. GEJDENSON, Mr. GORDON, Mr. HAYES of Illinois, Mr. HOYER, Mr. HUTTO, Mr. JACOBS, Mr. Jontz, Mr. KASTENMEIER, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. LEVIN of Michigan, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. MANTON, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. McCLOSKEY, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. McHUGH, Mr. MFUME, Mr. MILLER of California, Mr. MINETA, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. Pallone, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. RICHARDSON, Mr. ROWLAND of Connecticut, Ms. SCHNEIDER, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. SMITH of Vermont, Mr. SOLARZ, Mr. Studds, Mr. TRAXLER, Mr. UDALL, Mr. VENTO, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. WEISS, Mr. WISE, Mr. WOLPE, Mr. FLORIO, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. ROYBAL, Mr. MORRISON of Connecticut, Mr. BROWN of California, Mr. DELLUMS, Mr. SABO, Mr. ESPY, Mr. DIXON, Mr. MILLER of Washington, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. FOGLIETTA, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. GARCIA, Mrs. SAIKI, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. MavBOULES, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. KILDEE, and Mrs. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, Public Works and Transportation, and the Judiciary AUGUST 29, 1989 Additional sponsors: Mr. Towns, Mrs. KENNELLY, Mr. GRAY, Mr. WHEAT, Mr. GEPHARDT, Mr. LEVINE of California, Mr. FORD of Tennessee, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. MoAKLEY, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. ROBINSON, Mr. SAWYER, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. BRENNAN, Mr. Downey, Mr. Guarini, Mr. YATES, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. LEHMAN of Florida, Mr. FRENZEL, Mrs. UNSOELD, Mr. BRYANT, Mr. BOEHLEET, Mr. OWENS of Utah, Mr. DICKS, Mr. MACHTLEY, Mrs. SCHROEDER, Mr. BONIOE, Mr. CARPER, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. LEHMAN of California, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. COYNE, Mr. Walgren, Mr. HORTON, Mr. KOLTEE, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BILBBAY, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. AUCOIN, Mr. FAUNTROY, Mr. Mrazek, Mr. 2 FORD of Michigan, Mr. STOKES, Mrs. BOGGS, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. BUSTAMANTE, Mr. HALL of Ohio, Mr. DORGAN of North Dakota, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. WALSH, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. POSHARD, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. ROE, Mr. DERRICK, Mr. JONES of Georgia, Mr. SAVAGE, Mr. Bates, Mr. HERTEL, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. RAVENEL, Mr. Traficant, Ms. Oakab, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. WaTKINS, Mr. FASCELL, Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey, Mr. RIDGE, Mr. SIKORSKI, Mr. STARK, Mr. TORRES, Mr. HUGHES, Mrs. BYRON, Mr. SMITH of Florida, Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER, Mr. WILSON, Mr. LELAND, Ms. SLAUGHTER of New York, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. EVANS, Mr. DARDEN, Mr. SKAGGS, Mr. Yatron, Mr. Sangmeister, Mr. JENKINS, Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, Mr. GREEN, Mr. DYSON, Mr. CLEMENT, Mr. SLATTERY, Mr. Kostmayer, Mr. Nowak, Mr. SCHEUER, Mr. CARE, Mr. HAMILTON, Mr. McMILLEN of Maryland, Mr. SWIFT, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. HUBBARD, Mr. COLEMAN of Texas, Mr. CHAPMAN, Mr. ECKART, Mr. REGULA, Ms. LONG, Mr. Early, Mr. ROSE, Mr. TALLON, Mr. BEVILL, Mrs. LOWEY of New York, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. NEAL of North Carolina, Mr. SHARP, Mr. CAMPBELL of Colorado, Mr. HOAGLAND, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. ANNUNZIO, Mr. Aspin, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. GLICKMAN, Mr. PERKINS, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. WEBER, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. RoWLAND of Georgia, Mr. PRICE, Mr. GUNDEESON, Mr. STAGGERS, and Mr. PORTER 1 A BILL To establish a clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 4 (a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the 5 "Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989". 6 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.-The table of contents is as 7 follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 2. Findings and purposes. Sec. 3. Definitions. TITLE I-GENERAL PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION Sec. 101. Forms of discrimination prohibited. HR 2273 8C |