THE NEW YORK TIMES, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 Blank Check for the Disabled? With surprisingły narrow public scrutiny, Congress is moving swiftly to extend broad civil rights protection to the nation's 48 million disabled citi it is laudable: to bring the mainstream of American | in vague; not even its o are able to calculate its benfits and cost costs could be ma ental. The proposal quires patient, unBEBOČÍ abled ety. I amination bill was unanimously awaits bearings, in four separate House much this would cost the companies. The bus companies are angry. Most business because the bill's language is so vagus. It says that existing facilities must make only "readily achiev able” changes that won't involve "burdensome pense.” Yet what de these words mean in practice? Obviously, no bill can give precise instruct thousands of individual business But several tatas already have laws on the books that provide business more useful guidance. the Senate stor Tom Harkin, lown Democrat, arg costs do not provide a basis for exemption basic principles in a civil rights statut Mr. Harkin has a hearing-impaired brother quadriplegic nephew. He's fought honorably for the bill, and has already made compromises. He also points out that the Federal Government now spends nearty $80 billion a year on benefits for disabled-a sum that could shrink if the dis abled had easier access to jobs and could from welfare rolls to tax rolla. The Census Bureau reported last month that less than 25 percent of all disabled men and only 13 percent of disabled en held full-time jobs. And the earnings of who do work average only two-thirds that of all workers. Predictions about the bill's projected benefits are obviously speculative. Worse, nobody has even tried to speculata about its costs. But it shouldn't be Impossible to provide estimates. The Office of Management and Budget has done so before in tough instances, like the costs of air bags. Congress and the Administration now have a similar responsibility to stand back, to weigh, to calculata. No one wishes to stint on helping the disabled. It requires little legislative skill, however, to write blank checks for worthy causes with other men are simply fretful and confused. That's partly ・ people's money. It Sounds Great, but What's It Mean? Congress is writing bills that few people-least of all, its Members-understand or can explain. The latest example is the 1989 Americans with Disabilities Act, which the Senate passed by a 76-8 vote on Sept. 7 and which the House is expected to approve before lawmakers complete business this year. The bill is well-intended, addresses a legitimate and serious national problem and sets goals with which few people can disagree. But its broad prescriptions are 30 ambiguous and potentially overreaching that federal judges quite likely will struggle for years to define what the law means and how to enforce it. The problem is not unique to the disabilities bill, which is this year's top priority of the civil rights lobby. Nor is vague or sloppy draftsmanship confined to one party, one chamber or one set of issues. In the month since enactment of the savings and loan bailout bill, for example, federal officials charged with enforcing that law have disagreed over the intent of key sections. A reason for the modest press and public reaction to the child care bill passed by the Senate in June has been that few persons can decipher its wide-ranging provisions. And Congress lately has been torn by constituent unhappiness over last year's law expanding medicare coverage for catastrophic illnesses; one cause evidently has been that few beneficiaries understood the law's scope or what it would cost them. In seeking to bar discrimination against disabled Americans-and there are as many as 43 million, it's estimated-backers of the bill have assembled a powerful coalition. The enthusiasts include President Bush, who has had a long-standing interest in the disabled: Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole, R-Kan., whose crippling wartime injury led to his creation of a foundation to help the disabled: Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee chairman Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., whose family has long supported related causes; and former House Majority Whip Tony Coelho, D-Calif., an epileptic who has continued his advocacy of these issues since resigning his post in June. After Kennedy's panel unanimously approved the bill on Aug. 2, staff aides 2276 NATIONAL JOURNAL 9/16/39 CONGRESSIONAL CONG CHRONICLE By Richard E. Cohen spent several weeks drafting a revised version. The committee formally filed its report with the Senate on Aug. 30, while most Senators and their aides were completing their August vacation. Once they ended their recess on Sept. 6, few Senators spent much time reviewing the measure. Senate debate of the bill, which lasted most of an afternoon and evening, addressed several questions some of them esoteric. Conservatives, for example, made sure that its protections do not cover such groups as drug users, pedophiliacs, transvestites and kleptomaniacs. Charles E. Grassley, R-lowa, despite reservations by the bull's sponsors, won approval of an amendment extending the bill's coverage to Congress but not to the rest of the federal government. (State and local governments are covered, however.) And intercity bus companies, which say the law will cost them at least $200 million, won a year's extension before having to install wheel. chair lifts and special toilet facilities on their vehicles. Fundamental issues were barely addressed or explained by the committee. The bill, for example, would require that existing facilities in public accom modations be made accessible to the disabled if such steps would be "readily achievable." According to Ken.edy, that means "easily accomplishable and not involving much difculty or expense." Another provision would bar an employer from discriminating agyinst a job applicant who is disabled. The bill would require firms to make "reasonable accommodations” for disabled employees, unless that obligation would place an “undue hardship" on a business. Asked during the debate whether this would require a firm to provide a full-time reader for a new employee who is blind. Tom Harkin, D-lows, who chairs the Labor-Subcommittee on the Handicapped, said: "If it is IBM, perhaps that is not a big deal. But if it is a small pharmacy, ...that's a different story." The bill's standards appear more sweeping than those in earlier civil rights statutes or in laws protecting the disabled. And, although the bill would exempt businesses with 15 or fewer workers from its provisions on employment, it has drawn opposition from small-business groups. But the measure has moved so quickly that lobbyists have had little time to mobilize their members. "I am concerned about what I think may put some people out of business,” said Senate Small Business Committee chairman Dale Bumpers, D-Ark, who raised questions about the bill but voted for it. The limited opposition to the bill can be explained partly by its label as a civil rights measure. By contrast, when Bumpers raised comparable questions last year about a worker protection bill backed chiefly by organized labor, the fact that the bull had a union label was enough for Republicans and southern Democrats to stop the bill in its tracks. But few lawmakers want to oppose a bill that seemingly has the appeal of apple pie and bears little cost to the federal government. "The problem was the lack of professional examination of issues at the staff level," said Robert M. Guttman, who was the chief aide for Dan Quayle both at the Labor Committee and in the Vice President's office. "The bill resulted more from the political forces all pointing in one direction." Even though sponsors did little to hype their victory-which they attained with greased lightning speedpassage of the bull bolsters this year's slim legislative record. It also sends a symbolic message that restores some of the faded bipartisanship Bush has urged. But the glow may fade if the proposal proves to be an empty vessel or raises endless questions. O I am writing to express the views of the American Dental The Association finds commendable this legislation to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. At the same time, we urge the Committees to examine the language throughout for the purpose of improving the specificity of its several sections. By so doing, we believe the bill will serve the intent of the Congress and will avoid the confusions, misunderstandings and litigious results that have been predicted in the general and business media. - We note the efforts in this regard in the Senate, particularly the amendment addressing the concept of the separate benefit in public accommodations. This is a matter of critical concern to the dental profession, inasmuch as, traditionally, certain dental patients with disabilities persons suffering from diseases of the central nervous system are a prominent example are treated by certain dentists with experience and demonstrated capability in the management of these patients. From our reading of the amended Senate bill, the separate benefit provision would allow for this quite effective approach to dental care to continue. - Further, we appreciate the difficulty of adequately defining the operative terms in the legislation. We urge the Committee, nevertheless, to address itself to this task, so that the obligations of all proprietors of public accommodations will be readily understood. In our opinion, the discussion in Senate Committee Report 101-116 of the meaning of "readily achievable," for example, might be included in Section 3 of H.R. 2273. October 24, 1989 Finally, the Association recommends that the bill be amended to specifically prohibit discrimination against individuals in all stages of HIV infection. We believe such amendment would respond directly and unambiguously to the recommendations of the Presidential Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic in this regard. We request that this letter be included in the official record of the Committee's hearings on H.R. 2273. Sincerely, Roy studde Roy S. Bredder Director RSB: mw I recently discussed with Ms. Colleen Kiko, Minority Counsel for the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, my concerns about the Americans with Disabilities Act (H.R. 2273). suggested that I submit to you a statement expressing my concerns. She I am a disabled individual who is opposed to the Act. Although I am employed by the U.S. Department of Education, my views are my own and do not reflect the views of this agency or the Federal government in any way. In addition, my opinions were not formed as a result of working in the Department. I would Enclosed is my written statement. appreciate it being included in the Hearing Record. Thank you for considering my views. Sincerely, Kathy Hogancamp Kathy J. Hogancamp 484-4575 (h) Enclosure |