Mr. EDWARDS. We would welcome any specific language that you have in mind and we will give it very careful consideration. I only have a question or two for Mr. Lynch. Then I will yield to Mr. Sensenbrenner.

The Pennsylvania experience appears to be of great advantage to us in that you have a prior track record, isn't that correct, and generally speaking you think that the legislation that we have written here can work satisfactorily?

Mr. LYNCH. Well, sir, we feel that there is some clarification in the language that needs to be made. We have gone through an awful lot of the thought process that you are going through now in Pennsylvania and I think one of the beauties of our legislative process that we choose to take was to try to get as many of the groups such as theater owners, small businessmen, restaurant owners, multifamily housing managers involved in the legislative process early so they did for us what we are hoping to offer to you today, they offered us areas of concern that needed to be clarified. We felt that we had the bill pretty well ironed out by the time it did get to enactment. I think we may have had a few less fuzzy areas of terminology than you present have today.

Mr. EDWARDS. Does your full statement include all of your recommendations or do you have in mind sending us some more?

Mr. LYNCH. We have basically put it into our full statement. There are some elaborations that if we had the opportunity would probably be of benefit. I think just to further elaborate on some of them would show the rationale on why we picked things, for instance, to talk about, levels of renovation which I think_might better solve the problem here than the terminology which I think S. 933 talks about, alterations and then major structural alterations.

There are some problems with architectural terminology that would mislead architects, I am sure, if they read it. We found in the Pennsylvania experience-I felt one of my conclusions made to Senator Rhodes' task force in Pennsylvania was that I was able to show where architectural and construction terminology was applicable and would be better interpreted by those people who needed to know it, like building officials, architects, engineers and contractors.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.

Mr. Lynch, we welcome over the next few days, and perhaps even few weeks, any communication with our staff, minority and majority staff, so that we can work out any of these problems that we find mutually agreeable.

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lynch, I would like to pick up on what the chairman said, could you please send us a letter for inclusion into the record where you believe there is terminology in the Senate-passed bill which would be misleading to architects and also what type of language that you would recommend that would accomplish the same thing that the Senate authors wanted in the inclusion of that language and how we could write something differently that would tell architects what to do and accomplish the same thing as the Senate's intent.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Sensenbrenner, we would be pleased to do that. I am glad you are giving us the opportunity to do. We have the language and we would love to share our experience with it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I can tell you we would not know what to do on this subject so we need some direction from you.

Mr. LYNCH. You have it.

Mr. EDWARDS. I would suggest you might be a very good first professor at one of our great Pennsylvania universities. It is shocking that there are no courses on this subject.

Mr. LYNCH. Unbelievable.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, gentlemen.

Our final panel will be Ms. Jo Holzer, executive director of the Council for Disability Rights in Chicago. She has been involved in the disability movement for many years. After Ms. Holzer has testified, we will hear from Prof. Robert Burgdorf. I will introduce him in more detail at the proper time.

Because we have some problems with votes today, we are going to ask unanimous consent that both of your excellent statements be made part of the record in full and if you possibly can limit your remarks to about 10 minutes apiece.

Thank you.

Ms. Holzer.

STATEMENT OF JO HOLZER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS

MS. HOLZER. Thank you. My name is Jo Holzer and I am speaking to you today as an advocate for the rights of all people with disabilities and as a parent of a young adult with a physical disability. I began my volunteer activities in the disability rights movement in 1973 when, as the parent of a child with a disability, I was asked to be a founding member of Advocates for the Handicapped, in Chicago. A few years later I decided to devote all of my time to the cause of disability rights and in 1981 I was a cofounder of the Council for Disabilities Rights. I am its executive director. The council provides information and referral on disability-related requests; we provide training for parents, for consumers, or for professionals on disability-related topics including self-advocacy, disability awareness, disability rights and special education rights. Our monthly newsletter, CDR Reports, is sent out to nearly 40 States as well as several provinces in Canada. We have just begun the second year of a State-funded project for job preparation and placement.

Let me tell you why I became a full-time advocate for disability rights for all people with disabilities: My youngest daughter Margaret, who is 23 years old and a senior at University of Wisconsin at Whitewater, has a very rare condition called fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva or f.o.p. that she shares with approximately 70 other people in this country; it is an inborn biochemical error that affects their muscles, but has no negative impact on their intelligence.

Her condition was diagnosed when she was 3 weeks old. Very early in the grieving process, I realized that the only way I could ever really help our child was to help all people with disabilities;

that as a member of a tiny minority within a vast minority, she could never be heard, but that as a member of that larger minority, she could be heard and could also be benefited.

It was one of the very best decisions I have ever made. I am proud to be a disability rights advocate and to share in the pursuit of our common goal-independence with dignity and equal participation in all aspects of society.

Every parent tries to look ahead and help their children prepare for their futures. Our major concern for Margaret has always been her long-term future. Our hopes and expectations for Margaret are no different than for her two sisters.

The general public, as well as many professionals, do not, however, share our high expectations for most people with disabilities. As she grew up, we all constantly encountered the "great myth," that people with disabilities are not quite human, that they cannot function adequately or appropriately by themselves, and more or less learned to live with it, mostly by ignoring it. Her friends, however, who only encountered the attitude when with Margaret, were often angered by the general public attitude toward her.

Through the years Margaret has been the object of discrimination in many ways and venues, but perhaps the most despised have been the low-even absent-expectations of some of her teachers, the very people society has charged with the development of our children. Too often her presence was simply tolerated because the law required that she be served.

I do not mean to condemn the teaching profession for poor attitudes, but their attitudes toward students have been proven to be vital to the success of their students. They are reflective of society at large, but have a far more serious impact on children. Many teachers simply told me not to worry about her, that she was very smart and "got everything." They failed to understand that we were at odds with their stereotypical thinking, that we had great expectations for all of our children.

The inevitable result of these side effects of mainstreaming, the downside, was a perfectly dismal performance her first 2 years at the university. Now that she understands these dynamics herself, she is doing well and fully expects to graduate this June.

Margaret is among the earliest graduates to have benefited from Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which became effective when she was in grade school. Soon she will be seeking employment and she expects to find access and accommodation in the adult world at least to the degree that she has experienced it during her education.

Millions of children with disabilities have benefited directly from the services, therapies and transportation provided to them and their families by Public Law 94-142. These kids have been integrated into the school with their nondisabled peers, as the act intended; they will, of course, expect to be integrated into the community and the adult world in the same nondiscriminatory manner.

Now they expect to become employed, to work as hard as everyone else, to benefit from being employed, and to pursue their own independent lifestyle-just as you and I do—in the community.

As her parents, we also have the same expectations, that with her good talents and skills, she will be able to find and keep a good job and enjoy all that her community has to offer.

However, barriers do exist. There is enormous need for barrierfree public accommodations. These are the barriers that impact most heavily on the family unit and prevent families from participating in normal public events, civic activities, voting, community affairs, and other regular activities like shopping, movies, entertainment, and sports.

Our family has fared better than most in many ways because we live in a State with strong laws on the books. Margaret was able to get a summer job when she was 16; she was well-accommodated on the job. Many businesses, both small and large, have made these simple infrequent accommodations without going bankrupt. In addition, many public accommodations have removed architectural barriers without great cost. As an advocate, however, I am aware that in too many other States, families do not share our experiences. The ADA would cure this inequity for families across the country.

Margaret has been extremely fortunate in many, many ways, not the least of which is her father's financial success. But our family is by no means typical. According to "Toward Independence," the Census Bureau reports that a household/family that includes a person with a disability is twice as likely to fall at or below the poverty level as a household/family without a person with a disability.

Margaret has been fortunate to survive. Although the condition itself is nonfatal, its complications often are. Margaret is fortunate to have a superior intelligence and excellent communications skills, both written and oral. Margaret is fortunate to have grown up in a stable family unit with siblings and two parents.

Indeed, Margaret is uniquely fortunate to have been born with so many advantages, with or without the disability. Even so, she still must endure the physical and attitudinal barriers of our society. She may always be stared at, rebuffed, ignored, and otherwise mistreated by the general public. We cannot legislate good manners or sensitivity to others, but we can ensure that she and all other people with disabilities are given equal treatment and the opportunity to participate in the workday world.

On behalf of all parents, I implore you to consider the future of our children: Give them an equal chance to succeed; remove those barriers to their success.

On behalf of my daughter and all those individuals with disabilities who do not have her advantages, I urge you to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1989, so that they may each have a better chance to achieve equal participation in society and independence with dignity.

Thank you for this opportunity to present these views on behalf of our community who seek their own empowerment, their equal opportunity to participate, their own place in the sun, to contribute to a better future for all of us.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. That is very helpful testimony. We do appreciate it.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Holzer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JO HOLZER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL FOR Disability

RIGHTS

My name is Jo Holzer and I am speaking to you today as an advocate for the rights of all people with disabilities and as a parent of a young adult with a physical disability. I began my

volunteer activities in the disability rights movement in 1973 when, as the parent of a child with a disability, I was asked to be a founding member of Advocates for the Handicapped, in Chicago. A few years later I decided to devote all of my time to the cause of disability rights and in 1981 I was a co-founder of the Council for Disability Rights; I am its Executive Director.

The Council provides information and referral on disabilityrelated requests; we provide training for parents, for consumers, or for professionals on disability-related topics including selfadvocacy, disability awareness, disability rights, special education rights, etc. Our monthly newsletter, CDR Reports, is sent out to nearly forty states as well as several provinces in Canada. We have just begun the second year of a state-funded project for job preparation and placement.

Let me tell you why I became a full-time advocate for. disability rights for all people with disabilities: my youngest daughter Margaret, who is 23 years old and a senior at University