out air conditioning. They do it in many countries in the world that are very hot. And the buses get there just as quickly as ours, get to their destination.

We very easily say that it might be too expensive to take people with disabilities anywhere. But we do not say that we are willing to give up our air conditioning to allow people with disabilities to get out of the back rooms and off of social welfare.

I think that tells you something, Mr. Congressman, about how we think of the equality and the humanity of people with disabilities.

Mr. PAYNE. I thank you very much for that statement. Again, thank you for all that you have done in this matter. I yield back my time.

Mr. MINETA. When we talk about these costs, I think figures can be bandied about. Just taking a very quick look at how much is being expended totally in this whole field of transportation or transit by all levels of government, I think you could probably get to about $15 billion or so being spent.

At the same time, even if we were to assume some of the figures that Mr. Shuster used here, and I believe he used the figure $150 million for capital costs of lifts and maintenance of those lifts with the life of the bus, $150 million. $150 million in the realm of a $15 billion environment involving all of transit, really, is not that much in terms of the proportion.

As you have just very eloquently stated, the cost of air conditioning of that fleet is so much more than the cost of the lift. So it is a matter of values. I think you have put a finger on the issue very, very clearly.

Mr. Dart, I would like to, again, thank you very much for your presence here—Mr. Duncan?

Mr. DUNCAN. I would just like to ask one other question. You mentioned the buses in foreign countries. I am just curious, are there any countries where they have the requirements that are in this Act such as the special lifts and the special bathrooms and so forth on the buses? I don't know. I just was curious. You mentioned the buses in other countries.

Mr. DART. Mr. Congressman, I must tell you that I don't know either. But there are many of my colleagues in the room who do know. It is my impression that buses of that nature do exists in foreign countries. But I am going to ask you to ask that question to somebody who can give you a really accurate answer.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MINETA. Thank you very much, again, Mr. Dart. We appreciate your being here, and especially thank you for your work as Chair of this Task Force. The results of your efforts are well-known and have been embodied, I can see, in the ADA bill. Thank you very, very much.

At this time, we will take a break and come back at 2:15.

[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 2:15 that same day.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. MINETA. The Subcommittee will please come to order. I would like to call forward our next panel made up of Larry Roffee, Executive Director of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board; Jim Raggio, the General Counsel; and Dennis Cannon, the Accessibility Specialist of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

TESTIMONY OF LARRY ROFFEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD, ACCOMPANIED BY JIM RAGGIO, THE GENERAL COUNSEL, AND DENNIS CANNON, THE ACCESSIBILITY SPECIALIST OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Roffee, we have your statement and it will be made a part of the record. If you would go ahead and proceed in your own fashion.

Mr. ROFFEE. On behalf of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, we are happy to be here. As you noted, with me we have Mr. Jim Raggio, our general counsel, and Dennis Cannon, an accessibility specialist, specializing in the transportation area.

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, or the Access Board as we are more commonly known, was established by Congress sixteen years ago to insure that buildings are designed, constructed, altered or leased with Federal funds are readily accessible to, and usable by, people with disabilities.

The Access Board had been responsible for developing and refining, through active research programs, the Minimum Guidelines and Requirements for Accessible Design. These guidelines represent the state of the art in creating an environment usable by all people and serve as a model for the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standard. Those standards are used to implement the Architectural Barriers Act of 1986 and are also used in the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973. They apply to post offices, government buildings and Federally financed housing and transit facilities across the country.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speed things up; if we can have the written statement put in the record, I will just summarize quickly.

The Access Board has studied many and various architectural, transportation, communication and attitudinal barriers which limit the full participation of citizens with disabilities in our society, and have published a series of technical papers and staff reports on how to eliminate these barriers; for example, Lifts and Wheel Chair Securement gives guidance on providing access to buses and paratransit vehicles; Aircraft Stowage Procedures for Battery-powered Wheel chairs explains how to stow power wheel chairs on aircrafts in accordance with the hazardous materials regulations; and Transit Facility Design for Persons with Visual Impairment gives guidance to transit facility designers and operators on making transit systems usable by person with visual impairments.

Through these and other activities, tne Access Board has become a natural resource and center of expertise on accessibility for persons with disabilities.

The Access Board, along with the President and the rest of the Administration wholeheartedly support the broad goals of the Americans With Disabilities Act. This legislation would extend basic civil-rights guarantees to over 36 million Americans with disabilities and eliminate discriminatory barriers in public accommodations, place of employment, public transportation and telecommunications.

The legislation would significantly promote independence, freedom of choice and the productive involvement in the social and economic mainstream for our nation's disabled citizens. Through conducting public forums around the country and sponsoring research projects and studies, the Access Board has gathered extensive information about the extent and effects of discriminatory barriers experienced by people with disabilities and public accommodations and transportation.

The Access Board has carefully analyzed the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act which have passed the Senate, and believes that they provide a comprehensive solution to removing these barriers.

As we have seen, the public transit industry has expressed some technical and financial concerns about the act's provisions. To accommodate those concerns, some amendments have been incorporated in the Senate-passed version of the act which we would like, now, to discuss. The Administration endorses the Senate approach which includes a narrow, temporary exception to the lift requirement for new buses in the cases where a public transit agency can demonstrate that manufacturers are unable to supply lifts for the new buses.

The Access Board maintains extensive files on lift manufacturers and their products. There are, now, several qualified lift manufacturers. With the passage of this act, we believe that American industry will respond to the increased demand for the lifts and that exceptions will be unnecessary.

Consistent with the Senate-passed version of the act, the Administration also recommends that if the provision of paratransit services would impose an undue financial burden on a public transit agency, such services should be required only to the extent that they would not impose an undue financial burden.

The Access Board believes that a flexible approach should be used for determining what constitutes an undue financial burden and that it should take into account such factors as population, service area size and characteristics, current level of paratransit service and interim degree of fixed-route accessible services.

As fixed-route services are substantially achieved, the use of paratransit services will then shift to a feeder distributor system which would be more cost-effective than alternative services presently provided. The over-the-road bus industry has also expressed concerns about the Act's provisions based upon a lift which costs about $35,000 and takes up one luggage bay and seven seats. There are other lifts which cost between $7,000 and $10,000 and displace no luggage space and only two seats.

The act, as passed by the Senate, would require the Office of Technology Assessment to conduct a study of the most cost-effective means for making over-the-road buses accessible and extending the period of compliance to seven years for small providers and six years for other providers, with the possibility of an additional year extension based upon review of the study.

The Access Board would be involved in reviewing and comments upon the study. We believe that this study will provide a firm basis for establishing minimum guidelines and requirements for access to such vehicles.

Finally, there is a technical assistance provision in the act as passed by the Senate which we would especially recommend to you. The provision would require the attorney general, in consultation with the Access Board and certain other federal agencies, to develop a plan to assist entities covered by the act to understand their responsibilities and to provide information and technical assistance on cost-effective means for achieving compliance with the Act.

The Access Board currently has an extensive technical assistance program and believes that such a program is important to help public agencies and private businesses fully understand the responsibilities under the act and how to achieve compliance.

The Access Board and other federal agencies have developed long and varied experience in cost-effective approaches for applying the principles of readily-accessible and reasonable accommodation which are embodied in the act. By making this expertise available to all who must comply with the act, we can hasten its implementation, we can prevent unnecessary litigation, and, I think most importantly, we can avoid the unnecessary costs to those entities covered by the act. We strongly urge the House and this Committee to include a technical provision in the act.

The Access Board looks forward to working with Congress, the administration and other federal agencies in crafting and implementing a workable law that will insure the full protection and guarantees of civil rights and an accessible environment for Americans with disabilities.

If there are any questions from you, sir, we would be glad to answer them.

Mr. MINETA. Before I get into the questions, let me recess so that we can respond to the call of the House for a vote, and convene in about fifteen minutes.

[Recess from 2:35 p.m. to 2:55 p.m.]

Mr. MINETA. The Subcommittee will please come to order. Mr. Roffee, thank you very much for your testimony. We are pleased to have good friends here on the panel and especially, to see my good friend, Dennis Cannon, before the Subcommittee.

Mr. Roffee, how will the functions and responsibilities of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board differ from what they are today under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Mr. ROFFEE. Sir, under the ADA, we would be required to update and enhance and revise the MGRAD publication, the Minimum Guidelines and Requirements for Accessible Design, to include standards for rolling stock. We would also have a much larger role as bill has passed the Senate providing technical assistance and, I

think, see a significant increase in the number of requests for technical assistance coming into our office. I would also imagine that our current caseload of complaints under the Architectural Barriers Act would probably decrease.

Mr. MINETA. I am wondering, is there a current design criteria that the Access Board has for transit bus and rail facilities?

Mr. ROFFEE. May I turn the microphone over to Dennis.

Mr. CANNON. We don't have, as yet, any specific guidelines for those vehicles and what-not because we have not, heretofore, had the authority to define those kinds of things. The ADA would give us that authority for the first time.

However, those requirements are not new. They were embodied, in many respects, in the 1979 DOT regulation which I helped draft when it was written in '79. There have been subsequent studies as well. The Urban Mass Transportation Administration sponsored an industry panel in 1968 to come up with guidelines, advisory guidelines, for lifts, ramps and wheel chair securements. Our intention would be to borrow from those very heavily in writing the minimum guidelines.

In essence, we also have some previous studies that have to do with the accessibility of things like platforms. We are developing advisory guidance at this time on a number of issues that we would anticipate to be able to translate into minimum guidelines and requirements.

So we don't see that as a major contractual or study obligation. Our role would be to define the envelope, if you will, into which the DOT standards would fit. The DOT standards would be more explicit. Ours would provide the guidance for setting the upper and lower limits for a variety of things.

Mr. MINETA. Do I understand that under the ADA, design standards would now extend to privately-operated facilities where, up to this point, that has not been covered.

Mr. CANNON. At the present time, the minimum guidelines only cover things which are Federally financed and Federally funded. What would change is not so much the technical provisions of those, but the scope of coverage. And we have with the Uniform Federal Accessibility standard, for example-

Mr. MINETA. Could you explain scope of coverage a little more, then?

Mr. CANNON. The current Architectural Barriers Act, which we enforce the standards for, sets forth facilities in buildings which are designed, altered, constructed or leased with Federal financial assistance. That covers a very broad range of things and types of facilities.

What would change under the Americans With Disabilities Act is that those same standards, or similar ones, would now apply to privately-operated and privately-built motels and so forth, or transit facilities, or transit vehicles which are not currently covered under the standards. We don't believe that the technical requirements would be substantially different.

What it would do is extend the coverage beyond the very limited coverage that is currently under the Architectural Barriers Act.

Mr. MINETA. As an example, if a hotel had been built under a UDAG grant, there were standards being applied. Now those same