nity objected to that. I think this is a very low cut, a very low, modest standard.

I don't see how anybody could object to doing what is easy to do. I think that is the minimum that a Federal statute trying to require equality of access ought to require.

Mr. EDWARDS. Ms. Holzer, are these terms so loose that only judicial decisions will finally interpret them, or do you think that they are definable accurately enough so that this law can work without unnecessarily litigation?

Ms. HOLZER. It seems to me from the Senate report there is a tremendous amount of explanation of these terms. I think anyone who is active in the disability community is familiar with some of these terms from past usage and other references.

I am the daughter of a small businessman. I think perhaps that it is a natural reaction to an unknown. If somehow they could educate themselves more on the issues and the particulars, they would not feel so threatened.

I would like to comment on the need for spontaneity in a lifestyle. I think the request to have a person with a disability call ahead for anything is really unreasonable on the part of a provider of services. That really kills any kind of spontaneity that everyone else enjoys.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. That is very helpful.

Professor Burgdorf, some persons with disabilities have expressed a concern that ADA will force them into using separate or different programs that were designed to accommodate disabled persons. Should persons with disabilities be allowed to choose a regular program? What safeguards are there in the bill for that?

Mr. BURGDORF. Fortunately, that is one that was thought about not even for the first time in this bill, but under existing section 504 regulations. A provision was specifically incorporated into ADA to address that. Section 302(b)(1)(c) of the bill says that "notwithstanding the existence of separate or different programs or activities provided in accordance with this section, an individual with a disability shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in such programs or activities that are not separate or different."

That is a very important and very clear provision. People, for example, who have a visual impairment do not want to be told they have to go only on the trail for visually impaired people. They would like to go with their friends and go on the same trail that anybody else goes on.

I think this is fairly covered in the legislation.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.

The committee might have more questions to ask you expert witnesses, but we must move along. We thank you very, very much for your testimony today. It has been very useful to us.

The subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

I want to thank you for your testimony before the Subcommittee on
Civil and Constitutional Rights concerning the Americans with
Disabilities Act, H.R. 2273. Your knowledge of the bill, as
well as your command of the other civil rights laws, is extremely
helpful to the Subcommittee.

I do have some additional questions concerning this bill, and
would appreciate your help in answering them for me. If you
could respond in writing to the attached questions by August 18,
1989, it would be quite useful to me.

Thank you for your help with this valuable legislation.

GENERAL

1.

Why does neither the Section 101(b) "Defenses," nor the Section 202(b)(2), "Denial of equal employment opportunities," provision contain an "undue hardship" defense? What defenses are there to these provisions?

2.

How are employee benefits treated under this bill?
Would an employer be able to continue insurance
coverage with a carrier that excluded preexisting
conditions?

3.

In the employment context, do you view the ADA as, in effect, simply extending 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to employers not now covered by that provision or are we even broadening coverage for the disabled? If we are broadening the coverage, can you please explain what the specific differences are? If not, why not just extend 504 and add no further language?

4.

Is this bill going to mandate quotas for the disabled
if they are underrepresented? If not, how will the
Title VII regulations, policies and court decisions
concerning "effects" be changed to insure this does not
occur? If not, would you be willing to put a specific
exemption in the bill to prevent quotas from being
required?

Doesn't the broad definition of disability in the ADA in effect repeal the provision in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 922(g) prohibiting a person who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution" from receiving or possessing a firearm?

TITLE I

1.

Section 101(a)(5) prohibits an employer from "aiding or perpetuating discrimination by providing significant assistance to the agency, organization or individual that discriminates."

"What is significant assistance"

a bank loan? A purchase agreement for goods? International trade contract? (Example: If Boeing holds contracts on all the Japanese airlines, which foreign companies are obviously not in compliance with ADA, would Boeing be open for suit under Section 101(a)(1) (E) by providing significant assistance to an organization that discriminates?)

2.

How do you see Title I interacting with Title II and the other Titles? Don't you see some potential for confusion here? Why not put the provisions in the appropriate Title to which they relate, even if some redundancy is necessary?

3.

4.

5.

3

Please explain the purpose and coverage of 101(a) (5)
which would prohibit discrimination based on "associa-
tion". Is this concept in the 504 regulations?

If

would it be applied and interpreted?

not, please tell me from where it was derived and how
Is there a body

of case law interpreting such a concept?

If so, please

give citations to appropriate cases.

What exactly is the purpose of Section 101(b) (2) (A) and (B)?
How would this wording affect the current definition of
"handicapped" in the Fair Housing Act amendments?

Under 101(b)(2)(A), who defines "alcoholic" or "drug
abuser"? By the way that is worded, it appears that
it is o.k. for an individual to use drugs as long as
they do not pose a direct threat to property or safety
of others? If that is the case, wouldn't you say that
totally contradicts the drug free workplace concept?

6.

Again, with respect to the drug abuser exemption, what
relationship will this section have with the current
drug testing programs that are being instituted in many
of the agencies. For instance, if an individual came
back with a negative drug test or a drug test that
indicated he had been using drugs, is there any way