The other witness representing the disabled community, the witness I sought, is from the key organization that actually worked on the guidelines, the organization that sought a solution between the involved parties. Ninety-nine percent of its members are veterans who depend on wheelchairs as part of their daily life. The Paralyzed Veterans of America is not an organization representing organizations. Its membership is comprised of men and women who · sacrificed greatly for their country. The organization put aside notions of political correctness in making its decision to sit down and work something out. It put the interests of its members at the forefront of its agenda. It succeeded in its effort, and I look forward to listening to and questioning both witnesses. Another witness here at my request also is a good friend of mine. I worked with him, Mr. Chairman, for many years, and I know you know him very well. His name is Robert Coakley. Bob Coakley was a key staff person working under the very capable leadership of another very good friend of mine, Senator Lawton Chiles, who was very much interested and served on a procurement commission along with me and was responsible for drafting management reform legislation for the Paperwork Reduction Act to the Chief Financial Officers Act. I hope that each and every member of the committee will have a chance to be here and hear Bob's remarks. I know of no person in Washington more knowledgeable about the processes we will discuss today than Mr. Coakley. Mr. MacRae, it is also a pleasure to see you here today, and I consider you one of the proud fathers of the organization you lead, and I want you to know that I think you and your people are doing outstanding work against some formidable obstacles thrown up by the Congress and some of the groups inside the beltway who call themselves consumer advocates. I only wish OIRA had an authorization. In fact, Mr. Chairman, on the subject of OIRA and its lack of authorization, it is my intention to introduce, either today or tomorrow, legislation that could end altogether this debate on the Competitiveness Council. I will introduce the Regulatory Accountability Act, which will put Executive Order 12291 in statute, which will put the Graham memo outlining reasonable disclosure requirements in statute, and which will reauthorize OIRA in a responsible way. I urge you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of the committee to join me in getting this legislation enacted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ENGLISH [presiding]. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Kyl. Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to associate myself with Mr. Horton's remarks. I, too, strongly support the work of the Competitiveness Council, and I have serious reservations about the hearing today. The committee briefing memo sent by the chairman and, more importantly, the committee press release that has been issued repeatedly casts the Council as secretly meeting with the home builders in an attempt to weaken the HUD guidelines that are the alleged focus of this meeting. The truth is that the meetings that were referenced were with the home builders and other representatives of the coalition mentioned by Mr. Horton-Mr. Chairman, in order that some measure of accuracy be added to this hearing, I think these organizations need to be defined. And so, for the record, without defining them, I would like to read the list of organizations that were represented in these discussions, and I hope that the committee will note that the home builders is only one of many such organizations. I will just read these into the record, and that will be the end of my statement, Mr. Chairman. The other groups represented in these meetings were the National Coordinating Council on Spinal Cord Injury, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the American Association of Spinal Cord Injury Nurses, the American Association of Spinal Cord Injury Psychologists and Social Workers, the American Paralysis Association, the American Paraplegia Society, the American Spinal Injury Association, the Foundation for Spinal Cord Injury Prevention, a group called Help Them Walk Again, the Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, Inc. Paralyzed Veterans of America, Shake A Leg, Inc., Stifle Paralysis Research Foundation, the Daniel Heman Fund for Spinal Cord Research, Inc., the Miami Project, the National Leased Housing Association, the National Multi-Housing Council, National Organization on Disability, the American Institute of Architects, American Resort and Residential Development Association, the American Society of Landscape Architects, the Apartment and Office Building Association, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Bridge Housing Corp., Marriott, Mortgage Bankers Association, National Apartment Association, National Assisted Housing Management Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, National Association of Senior Living Industries, and the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards. So, as you see, Mr. Chairman, this was much more than just a meeting with the home builders. It was a meeting with an entire group that had an interest in these regulations. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a letter from the Paralyzed Veterans of America, a letter to the editor of the Washington Post which was not printed, which makes clear their position in support of the Vice President's Council on Competitiveness' activities with regard to these particular HUD regulations. [The letter follows:] I read with interest your newspaper's article on Vice President Dan Quayle, specifically the Long before the Council took action, PVA, along with several other disability related organizations, worked diligently with representatives of the housing industry to clarify vague regulatory requirements. Of particular concern to PVA were loopholes that would have allowed broad exemptions in new multi family housing. In addition, other regulatory requirements would have resulted in significant cost increases, further aggravating the housing crises for persons with disabilities. Fortunately, the President's Council on Competitiveness, as well as OMB, recognized the objective studies conducted principally by licensed architects from PVA's Architecture and Barrier Free Design Program. Thanks to Vice President Quayle and his able staff, virtually every new multi family housing will contain significant numbers of accessible dwelling units within reasonable costs envisioned by Congress. Sincerely, Vector I m Day De Victor S. McCoy, Sr. 801 Eighteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) USA-1300 Fax: (202) 785-4452 Mr. ENGLISH. Do I understand correctly that all the groups that the gentleman read off met with the Council? Is that correct? Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, they were not all physically present in the meeting, but they were represented by the representatives who were in the meetings. Mr. ENGLISH. How many did have their representatives there, their own representatives? Mr. KYL. I think that question would be best addressed to the witnesses. I am not personally aware. Mr. ENGLISH. So you are not sure if any of them, then, met with the Council. Is that right? Mr. KYL. Some of them did, but I don't know precisely which ones, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ENGLISH. I see. Thank you. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays. Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say that I am going to be here for part of the hearing, and I have a very open mind about this issue, but conceptually I believe in the concept of the Competitiveness Council as long as it abides by all the rules and regulations that it needs to abide by, so I look forward to the hearing, at least that part that I can attend. Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you very much. I appreciate the statements from members. Let me say that I, too, share the goals, I think, many of the goals of the Competitiveness Council as far as reducing unnecessary rules and regulations, and I think that that is something that, hopefully, we all could support, but like anything else, I think there is a question of balance. There is the question of whether we are seeing an effort being put forth to eliminate and reduce unnecessary rules and regulations or whether it is simply an assault on the intent of the law. I would hope that in these areas we would see members on both sides of the aisle stand up in support of the intent of the law, in opposition to any kind of effort to undercut the intent of the law, regardless of how we feel about it. I think that is the real question that we have before us is whether the Competitiveness Council is, in fact, carrying out an aim that we all would, I think, applaud, or whether, in fact, it is an effort to undercut the intent of Congress. Hopefully, we will, with today's witnesses, get some indication as to what direction the Competitiveness Council is moving in. Our first witness today is Mr. G. William Mitchell, who is the director of policy for the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems. Mr. Mitchell, we want to welcome you here today. STATEMENT OF G. WILLIAM MITCHELL, DIRECTOR OF POLICY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEMS Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do thank you for being invited to testify here. I represent the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems, which is a membership association of the protection and advocacy systems which are State run, federally mandated systems to protect and advocate for the rights of people with disabilities. There are two specific systems that are nationwide: Protection and advocacy for persons with developmental disabilities, and protection and advocacy for individuals with mental illness. In addition, there is a third protection and advocacy system which has not been funded nationwide, but last year 11 State-level agencies were funded to provide protection and advocacy for individuals who are recipients of independent living services. Finally, we also include in our membership client assistance programs which provide information and assistance to clients of rehabilitation services. All of these are State run agencies using Federal funding along with sometimes funding provided by the State. I am here at the request of the committee for the purpose of reviewing the two versions of the final accessibility guidelines developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Fair Housing Amendments Act. I am here specifically at the request of the committee and was contacted by the committee for that purpose. I wanted to be clear, to reiterate, as I did to the staff of the committee at that time, that I am not an architect and never pretended to be an architectural specialist. Instead, my familiarity is based on a long-term involvement in the development of the new construction provisions of the Fair Housing Amendments Act and also in the advocacy community to try to see that the act was implemented fully. I want to just briefly also mention that I am a member of the housing task force of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, which is a consortium of over 70 national organizations representing individuals with disabilities directly and some representing groups which provide services to persons with disabilities. Many of those organizations signed on to comments to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which I will discuss more as we go along in the process. I want to review the process by which the fair housing guidelines were developed just for a moment here to try to put into context what happened at the end of the process there. The Fair Housing Act was a milestone for people with disabilities in terms of recognizing that the rights to be free from discrimination extended beyond the sectors of publicly funded agencies and publicly funded organizations and, in fact, recognized that people with disabilities were full citizens of the United States, and it was a precursor to the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act and an important precedent in that. As part of this, one of the things that Congress understood was that for those of us who use wheelchairs and have other mobility impairments, an important part of nondiscrimination does involve some changes in the way structures are constructed, that, in fact, at this point in time we may not be able to do much in terms of the structures that are already on the ground, but that we could make reasonable changes in the way multifamily housing was constructed and not add significantly to the burden of cost to builders while providing a much greater degree of accessibility of housing for people with disabilities. |