Date: 1990-05-22
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois . There are three main reasons why I cannot support this weakening amendment. First. the amendment represents a step backward for disabled Americans. When Congress passed the Rehabilitation Act 17 years ago. the law prohibited discrimination against disabled individuals by entities receiving Federal financial assistance. Under current regulations. commuter railroads that decide to purchase new rail passenger cars must buy accessible cars. The provision the Committee on Energy and Commerce adopted. which is in the bill before us. specifically requires commuter railroads to buy new cars that are accessible. in addition to complying with the one car per train rule. The amendment being offered thus represents an unequivocal retreat from years of established statutory and regulatory law governing commuter railroads. Second. this amendment is not supported by the administration or the disability community. The Energy and Commerce Committee spent many hours with representatives of the disabled community in considering the proper scope of provisions governing accessibility for Amtrak and commuter railroads. These lengthy and intensive negotiations and discussions produced a set of mutually agreeable provisions which will improve accessibility for the disabled on Amtrak and commuter railroads. taking into consideration the financial and operating realities of these transportation providers. We should not undo the agreement which our committee reached with the disability community and the administration after extensive and sensitive deliberation. Third. this amendment sets accessibility requirements for commuter railroads at the lowest common denominator. Most commuter railroads and Amtrak already have made good faith efforts to comply with existing laws and regulations governing accessibility. If we adopt this amendment today. we will be lowering standards which all commuter railroads must comply with in planning for the future. The amendment thus runs contrary to the key tenets of this landmark legislationthat we should strive to plan. design. and engineer accessibility into our basic services and operations and that we should eliminate the counterproductive mindset that accessibility means special. inordinate. or superfluous changes to accommodate the basic needs of disabled Americans. The amendment also encourages segregation instead of integration. Under the amendment. all disabled riders will be forced to ride in one designated car. thereby creating a cattle car environment. This is directly at odds with the primary goal of this legislation. I also have reservations about the meaning of the amendment. What does "actual continuing demand" mean? Who will make that determination? What is the effective date of the amendment? How does the amendment apply to accessibility requirements other than for mobility impaired individuals? What does "additional services" mean? In conclusion. Mr Chairman. the bill before us sets clear. enforceable. and fair provisions for Amtrak and commuter railroads. which were negotiated by our committee. the disability community. and the administration. Adoption of this amendment will only serve to muddy the waters and will undercut the purposes of the legislation. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary amendment. Mr Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.