But two things changed Mr. Lanier's outlook, his attitude, and his opinion. One was the death of Mickey Leland, the Congressman from Houston, Texas. The other was the Americans With Disabilities Act and the phrasing and the presentation of the concept in terms of basic rights and the fact that rights are there to guarantee people opportunities.

So, this hard-boiled businessman came in and was really expected to testify on the other side. But he came in with the following testimony. It is not very long, so I am going to read it all. He did elaborate on it, but you will get some idea of what an about face this was.

Mr. Lanier stated: "the board of directors of the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas which is Houston Metro, formally voted to outfit its new buses, vans, and mini-buses with wheelchair lifts commencing with the first purchases of 300 full-sized buses, 60 per year for five years, 51 mini-buses and 35 micro-buses. This board action supplements a door to door pickup service which is presently funded with $5,894,000 of annual expenditure. And incidentally, that is well above the level of most other comparable cities.

The wheelchair lifts were added not because we believed them to be the most cost effective, but because we believe them to be right. The consoling issue as I see it is an attempt to afford all of our citizens the right to fully participate in the economic and political process.

The analogy that comes to mind is the old contention that minorities should be segregated under the separate but equal doctrine. I do not subscribe to that but subscribe to the notion that, as best we can, we should afford all of our citizens the right of full participation.

Houston Metro's decision is a small step in that direction, a step we are comfortable with because it is soundly based in American values and overall economic health.

Many argue that allowing full participation takes people off of the welfare rolls and makes them into tax paying citizens. That is all true. But I think there is a larger value. Had U.S. Congressman, Mickey Leland lived earlier in my lifetime, he would never have been permitted his full participation.

But as society became more inclusive, it is not just he, but us all who benefited from his larger than life contributions. Who knows what outstanding contribution lies dormant within some handicapped person. That contribution teetering on the brink of whether he or she is allowed full participation in our society?

The mobility provided by a wheelchair-equipped bus fleet is an important element of full participation in our society."

And, he closed by quoting excerpts from Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. "Full many a flower is born to blush unseen, and waste its sweetness on the desert air. Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest, some Cromwell, guiltless of his country's blood. Here rests his head upon the lap of earth a youth, to fortune and to fame unknown."

Mr. Lanier was quite moved by his own conversion and he moved everybody in the audience. But I close with this to say that the obstacle is not the cost. The obstacle is the attitude. The obstacle is

the vision and compassion and overall understanding of the people in charge in terms of what is necessary to guarantee full opportunity to every American.

Thank you very much for being with us today.

[Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

TESTIMONY

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Steve Beebe and I am the Deputy Director of Government Relations for the Indiana Health Care Association (IHCA). IHCA is the trade association representing approximately 460 proprietary, not-for-profit, and hospital based long term care facilities throughout the state of Indiana. However, I am presenting this

testimony today on behalf of the American Health Care

Association which is the national long term care trade association representing nearly 10,000 nursing facilities and 1.5 million residents nationwide.

The objectives of the Americans with Disabilities Act are laudable, and we support them. Certainly, no otherwise qualified person should be denied employment opportunities because of a disability. The cost to our economy of that lost productivity is far too high to be tolerated.

We and other businesses do, however, have several specific concerns that need to be addressed before the House finally passes this legislation. Some of these concerns are shared by industry generally, while others are unique to the health care industry. I would like to focus my remarks on this latter area.

The first area of special concern to our industry is Title One's overall scope. We, as an industry, firmly believe that qualified handicapped individuals should be hired on a

Page 2

non-discriminatory basis.

However, we ask that Congress

seriously take into account the unique circumstances of the health care industry. Our residents, our customers, if you will, are by definition - handicapped. They are either the frail elderly (20 percent of our patients are over the age of 80), the victims of strokes, severe arthritis, diabetes or other disorders which make them either wheel chair bound or in need of other assistance in walking, feeding and bathing themselves or they are suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

they may have a combination of disabilities.

In some cases,

These factors require that facilities have particularly high standards when they decide whom to hire as a nurse, or nurses' aides. Therefore, accommodations that might be reasonable in other employment contexts, such as in a department store or restaurant, may well pose unacceptable risks to the health and safety of our residents.

We do not feel that the current language in the Senate passed version of this bill will provide sufficient protection for health care providers or our residents. (see attached suggested amendments) There should be a statutory presumption that job requirements imposed by such employers are job related. we already, by definition, provide services to those who are disabled, there should be a presumption that we, as the providers, have acted in good faith in setting employment

Because