For Your Benefit
For Directors Only
Feed back/polls

NCIL

In an effort to inform our members of presidential candidates’ policy priorities with regard to the Disability Rights Movement, NCIL, ADAPT, The American Association of People with Disabilities and SABE (Self Advocates Becoming Empowered) have created questions that address the issues most important to our members. We asked candidates to respond to these questions with the intent of sharing candidates’ answers with the entire disability community.

In recent issues, we published excerpts of the responses we received from Obama, Clinton, Richardson, Edwards, and Dodd. Since that time, we have received a response from Senator Joe Biden, leaving only two Democrats officially running who have not yet responded: Representative Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel. We have thus far received no response from republican candidates! You can read the candidate responses in full at www.ncil.org in the VOTE 2008 section. Responses received after the printing of this article will be featured in a future edition of Independence Today and will be available on the NCIL website as soon as they are received.

Tell the Presidential Candidates Disability Rights Matter! Contact the Presidential candidates’ campaigns. Tell them that knowing where the candidates stand on disability rights is important to you. Ask them to have the candidates respond to the ADAPT / AAPD / NCIL / SABE questionnaire and to send responses to Anne Sommers at aapdanne@earthlink.net. If they say they have not yet received any of the information you reference, offer to provide them with a copy of the cover letter and the questions, and be prepared to fax, email, or mail it to them. You can find a list of candidates, the cover letter, and the list of questions at: www.ncil.org/VOTE2008.

Do you support ongoing Congressional efforts to ensure mental health parity in health insurance (S.558, H.R. 1367)?

Biden: I was a co-sponsor of the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act and I remain committed to the goals of the Act as a cosponsor of the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007 in this Congress. In addition, I have fought to make sure that Medicare patients pay the same co-payments and deductibles for a mental health issue as they would for a physical injury.

How would you address America’s increasing need for home and community-based long-term services and supports (such as personal assistance services, respite care, and other supports)?

Biden: I strongly believe that every individual living with a disability should have the opportunity to live independently as he or she chooses. I have consistently opposed the unjustified segregation of people into institutions. It is discrimination pure and simple. That’s why I am a cosponsor of the Community Choice Act of 2007 and have supported the precursor of this bill, the Medicaid Community Based Attendant Services and Supports Act (MiCASSA) since it was first introduced in the 107th Congress. The legislation would provide a variety of personal assistance services under the Medicaid program to enable disabled individuals to live at home rather than in institutions.

Our long term care system has a heavy institutional bias and 65 percent of Medicaid long term care dollars pay for institutional services, while the remaining 25 percent must cover all the community based waivers, optional programs, etc. The Community Choices Act requires states to provide equal access to community attendant services and supports for eligible individuals in need of long term services and supports. To help states phase in the community attendant benefit, an enhanced match rate will be available for community attendant services and supports for the next five years. In addition, the legislation provides financial assistance to states as they develop and enhance comprehensive statewide systems of long term services and supports to provide access to consumer-directed community-based services and supports in the most integrated setting appropriate.

While we must ensure that we do all we can to allow people to live as independently as possible, we also have to recognize the support people receive from their family members to enable them to live at home or in a community-based setting. Many family members devote a significant portion of their time to help their loved ones with many aspects of their daily living. We must do all we can to reduce the burden on family caregivers and that is one of the reasons why I cosponsored the Lifespan Respite Care Act in the last Congress. In order to realize the goals of this act, I would insist that it receive full funding during the budget process.

What would you do to increase the availability of affordable, accessible, integrated housing opportunities in the community for low and moderate income people with disabilities and their families?

Biden: A 2005 Urban Institute study showed that people with disabilities face discrimination in up to half of rental inquiries. Not only do they face discrimination but people with disabilities, especially those who rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, face tremendous financial barriers in their efforts to find safe, affordable and accessible housing across this nation. Too often, they are priced out of the housing market. We must expand affordable housing in this nation to address this shortage. That’s why I’ve supported programs like the Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) and tax credits for affordable housing development…

What steps would you take as President to ensure that voters with disabilities are able to vote privately and Independently, consistent with the requirements of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)?

Biden: I supported the Help America Vote Act, and as President would work to ensure its enforcement, including the requirements that enabled people to cast their ballot privately and required that every polling location be accessible for people with disabilities. The Help America Vote Act was a step in the right direction – but we need to do more to ensure that states are getting the resources they need to update voting technology. In addition, I have opposed photo-identification requirements because it can provide logistical difficulties for those people with disabilities who do not have driver’s licenses. I support collecting data that would assist in developing programs to make voting easier and more accessible to people with disabilities.

Of the existing members of the U.S. Supreme Court, which justices do you consider models for the kinds of federal judges you would appoint if elected president?

Biden: …The greatest barrier to full integration of individuals with disabilities into mainstream society is not the limitation of their individual disability. Rather, it is the physical and attitudinal barriers imposed by society. I believe that without the removal of these barriers, the rest of our efforts to assist the disabled will be of only moderate consequence. To reduce these barriers, I support extending civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities. In the 101st Congress, I cosponsored the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, extending the civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities. I believe this 1990 law was the most important expansion of civil rights since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To honor the anniversary of the legislation, I cosponsored a resolution in the 109th Congress commemorating the 15th anniversary of the legislation…

Pros: Senator Biden supports universal healthcare, HAVA, the Community Choice Act, IDEA, expanded access to affordable housing and transportation for all Americans, and ratification of the U.N. Convention on Disability. He opposes recent disability un-friendly Supreme Court nominations, lack of enforcement, oversight and funding of governmental agencies assigned to prevent civil rights violations, and the institutional bias. The disability community will note Senator Biden’s attempt to put forth a straightforward and practical plan to encourage states to shift Medicaid dollars away from institutions. Biden clearly knows our issues and took the time to answer our questions thoughtfully and respectfully. Senator Biden also showed his concern and support for disability rights issues by attending the Presidential Candidates’ Forum, sponsored by NCIL and other disability rights organizations nationwide.

Cons: After reviewing candidate responses from Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Richardson and now Biden, it is pleasing to know that many of the candidates have more than a cursory understanding and support for our issues and the Disability Rights Movement. While some candidates have clearly surpassed others, and Senator Biden’s responses were some of the best, the disability community is still waiting to see a candidate really step outside of the box and offer the real leadership on disability issues so sorely lacking in this Presidential race thus far.

ADA Restoration and the Road to Freedom Update

On Thursday, November 15^th, disability advocates joined the Road to Freedom Bus Tour to hear national and DC leaders talk about progress made under and restoration needed to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A large crowd met in the Dirksen Senate Office Building to view an exhibit of Disability Rights history and attend a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee hearing on the ADA Restoration Act of 2007, S. 1881, legislation that would that would restore vital civil right protections for children and adults with all types of disabilities. Much thanks to Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and his staff for his leadership on this critical civil rights issue!

Under the direction of Senator Harkin, the Senate HELP Committee heard testimony about a number of Supreme Court decisions that have significantly reduced the protections available to people with disabilities in employment settings. You can read witness testimony on the NCIL website at www.ncil.org by clicking on the ADA Restoration Action Hub. Witnesses included:

Long time disability rights leader John Kemp spoke of his personal experience with a significant disability and stated that disability discrimination is “un-American.”

Dick Thornburgh, Attorney General under Former President George H.W. Bush, like Senator Harkin, spoke of his role in the passage of the original ADA and what he understood Congress’ intent to be.

Steven Orr, a pharmacist with diabetes from South Dakota, spoke next. Mr. Orr detailed his experience of discrimination by his employer (Wal-Mart), who told him he was being fired because of his diabetes. Orr nonetheless lost his case when the Courts determined that he was not “disabled enough” for the ADA’s protections. Next, two law professors gave widely different assessments of the basic question of the day, “Does the ADA need to be revised?”

Camille Olson, Loyola Professor representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, claimed that the court cases under discussion were red herrings, cases where plaintiffs had simply not made a strong enough case or lacked sufficient legal counsel, and that the protections of the ADA are strong enough as they are. While noting all the progress in the workplace to date on account of the ADA, Ms. Olson claimed that the ADA Restoration Act of 2007 is not a suitable solution to address concerns, arguing that the legislation included too many people with all varieties and severities of impairments in its protections, including, in her mind, people with a simple case of the sniffles. She stated that case history has relied heavily on the idea of a person with a disability being defined by impairment in a “significant life activity”. When posed the question by Senator Tom Harkin: Who do you propose conduct these assessments? Ms. Olson had no answer.

Georgetown Law Professor Chai Feldblum seized this opportunity to redirect the debate to the subject of the hearing: the Congressional intent of the ADA when passed in 1990. Having worked on the original law, Dr. Feldblum testified, along with Senator Harkin, that indeed, the ADA was meant to cover all people with disabilities, regardless of a functional assessment and that the ADA addresses discrimination based on disability, especially in cases in which a false assumption based on prejudice is the root of the discrimination. In this understanding of the ADA, actual severity of disability is of no consequence. She made the argument that everyone should be covered under the ADA to ensure that everyone is protected from disability-based discrimination, and this sentiment seemed to resound with Senator Harkin, the congressional aides present, and the audience itself, which was heavily comprised of people with disabilities and almost overflowed the hearing room. Dr. Feldblum provided the audience with the sense that our civil rights issues could indeed stand up to the powerful lobbyists who oppose restoration of the congressional intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act, despite their seemingly bottomless financial resources and commitment to defending cost-saving bigotry, which allows them to employ high-priced attorneys to confound and misrepresent issues before Congress.

TAKE ACTION: Urge Your Senators to Co-Sponsor the ADA Restoration Act!

Call your Senators, especially those from the HELP Committee, TODAY and urge them to co-sponsor the ADA Restoration Act (S. 1881). It’s important that this bill show bipartisan support, like the original ADA did, so please help with outreach to the Republican Members of the HELP Committee in particular. Because Harkin cares so much about this legislation, some Democratic Senators are waiting to sign onto the bill until some Republican support can be mustered.

To identify your state’s Senators, visit www.senate.gov or call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. A list of the Senate HELP Committee Members is provided below. Some may have already signed on as cosponsors. If you call and discover this, simply thank them for their co-sponsorship and support! Currently, only Senators Kennedy (MA) and Specter (PA) are listed as co-sponsors of the Senate bill.

Senate HELP Committee Members:

Republicans: Michael B. Enzi (WY), Ranking Member

Judd Gregg (NH), Lamar Alexander (TN), Richard Burr (NC), Johnny Isakson (GA), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Orrin G. Hatch (UT), Pat Roberts (KS), Wayne Allard (CO), Tom Coburn (OK)

Democrats: Edward M. Kennedy (MA), Chair, Tom Harkin (IA), Original Sponsor

Christopher J. Dodd (CT), Barbara A. Mikulski (MD), Jeff Bingaman (NM), Patty Murray (WA), Jack Reed (RI), Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), Barack Obama (IL), Sherrod Brown (OH)

Once you have contacted your Senators, please contact Deb Cotter, Policy Analyst, at deb@ncil.org (please put “ADA Restoration Advocate” in the subject line) or (202) 207-0334, ext. 1008, and let her know the response you received. We are keeping track of cosponsors and need to know what Congressional staffers are telling their constituents.

Individual NCIL Members who are interested in this civil rights issue are encouraged to consider joining our ADA/Civil Rights Task Force by contacting Mark Derry by email: adamarkd@aol.com or phone: (304) 296-3510. Nothing about us without us!

CIL Briefs Policy Staff on Rehab Act Reauthorization, Meets with RSA

On October 15^th, NCIL President Kelly Buckland, Rehabilitation Act Subcommittee Chair Jeff Hughes, and Policy Analyst Deb Cotter held a Congressional Briefing on the reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act for House Education and Labor Committee staff. Deb described IL philosophy and the role of CILs in communities across the country. Kelly and Jeff spoke about the history of the Independent Living Movement and the urgent need to reauthorize the Rehab Act. They reviewed NCIL’s Position Paper, fielding questions on several issues, and outlining NCIL’s recommendations. These materials, including the Position Paper are available on the newly created NCIL Rehabilitation Act Action Hub: www.ncil.org/news/RehabReauthorizationActionHub.html.

The following day, the same team met for nearly three hours with Tom Kelley, Director of the Independent Living Program, David Esquith, Director of the State Monitoring and Program Improvement Division, Sean Barrett, and Felipe Lulli of the Independent Living Unit at the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA). We raised many of the concerns that NCIL members expressed in recent months as part of the Statewide Independent Living Council (SILC) survey.

David and Tom outlined the development of RSA’s movement toward a centralized reviewing process of State Plans for Independent Living (SPILs) and State Plans for Vocational Rehabilitation and Supported Employment since the closure of the Department of Education’s Regional Offices. Both noted that by review of the plans “under one roof” has produced better coordination and consistency among the plans.

Monitoring Division’s Organizational Structure:

David discussed RSA’s reorganization of its monitoring efforts: The State Monitoring and Program Improvement Division (SMPID) is divided into several units: Independent Living (IL), Vocational Rehabilitation (VR), Independent Living for Older Individuals who are Blind (Older Blind Program), Technical Assistance (TA), Data Collection and Analysis, and Fiscal. Of their 40 staff, one staff member from each unit is assigned to work with their respective stakeholder group. RSA formed State Teams, which includes staff member from each of these units. So each state has an IL staff contact, VR staff contact, etc., and other Team members can cover if someone is out of the office. Each Team works collaboratively looking at state programming to ensure high standards for monitoring. David stressed that it is incumbent on RSA to articulate (to Congress and others) the work that they’re doing and ensure that RSA programs are working effectively in compliance with current statute and regulations.

SILC Survey Results Provided & NCIL Questions to Be Answered in Writing:

Jeff and Kelly discussed NCIL members’ anger and frustration with the SPIL review process, including the lack of written information and directions for SILCs and CILs.

Jeff reviewed a summary of the SILC survey results. David suggested creating a Work Group of RSA staff and NCIL members to review the SPIL approval process, interpretations of the law, and how to better educate the IL community about the approval process, among other things. Jeff asked a series of questions that Rehab Act Subcommittee members and NCIL members developed in preparation for the meeting. David, Tom, and Sean discussed these with us and agreed to provide written responses to NCIL. Below is an abbreviated version of the questions and answers discussed:

Q: Where does the Act or the Regulations limit the SILCs duties to those identified in Sec. 705 (c)?

A: Similar language in the law under the State Rehabilitation Councils includes: “but not limited to” before the list of duties. The language in Sec. 705 simply lists the duties of the SILC without “but not limited to.” Therefore RSA’s Office of General Counsel, which interprets laws for RSA when issues arise, has read this exclusion to mean that the SILCs are limited to these five duties.

Q: How do SILCs obtain funds from other public and private sources if they aren’t allowed to do resource development?

A: SILCs can accept money from other entities; they just cannot use Federal money to fundraise. Anyone can make an unsolicited donation. (When asked how anyone would know about the opportunity to donate, RSA staff was unresponsive and reiterated that SILC have five duties, the most important of which is implementation of the State Plan for Independent Living and monitoring the CILs.)

Q: How can SILCs secure these funds if they are not able to conduct resource development activities?

A: Same response.

Q: If resource development is not permitted, why is there guidance on how program income should be handled?

A: Because they get program funding under Part B and/or Part C.

Q: How do SILCs address the purpose of Title VII if they cannot advocate?

A: SILCs are not supposed to advocate, CILs are. If a SILC needs advocacy done, one of the CILs can conduct this advocacy. SILCs are limited to five duties.

Q: Where in the Act or Regulations does it specifically state that only the statutory requirements are included in the resource plan and that they must be paid directly by the DSU?

A: The Regulations make clear that distribution of funds is a non-delegable duty – the Designated State Unit (DSU) is the only entity that can distribute funds.

Q: Where in the law or regulations are the DSUs prohibited from subcontracting with the State’s SILC?

A: Just because something isn’t written in the law, doesn’t mean that we can do it.

Q: Why are some states not required to allocate 110 funds to the Statewide Independent Living Councils (SILCs)?

A: This should be discussed and resolved during development of the state plan. Although the DSU can pay for staff of the SILC, as long as there is no conflict of interest, the DSU is not supposed to.

Q: Why are SILCs being told that they cannot hold public hearings?

A: This should not be the case; the law clearly prescribes that SILCs shall hold public hearings.

Other Issues

David stressed RSA’s goals of making this monitoring process and all RSA activities transparent and encourages an open dialogue with the IL community. Within a year, RSA hopes to have 704 Report data available online for public review (excluding confidential data). Sean asked if NCIL would ask members to participate in beta testing of the online database to ensure accessibility and ease of use for researchers.

Jeff and Kelly raised concerns about specific incidents in several states that needed to be addressed. RSA said they would check into these issues and get back to us.

NCIL supports several reformations to the Rehabilitation Act, which funds CILs and SILCs, including:

Carryover - Would allow centers to carry over Part C funds not spent during the first year into a second year. Chairperson of the SILC – In the 109th Congress, both the Senate and House bills confirmed that the Council shall select a chairperson from among the voting membership of the State Independent Living Council (SILC). An exception for governors who lack veto authority was removed from S. 1021. Grandfathered Centers - Centers that receive Part C funding would not need to re-compete for their grants if they received one prior to the first year of the reauthorization. Centers receiving Part C funds would be grandfathered into the system if they received funds “the previous year” (assuming they met the standards and assurances). Funding Formula Change – S. 1021 included legislation championed by

Senator Bruce Bennett and Representative Michael Simpson that would enable every new Part C dollar to be shared among all of the states and territories. States with the largest populations would always receive more funding proportionally. Fifth Core Service - A fifth core service would be added to transition people from nursing homes into the community and from schools into independent living and employment. Although NCIL is concerned that additional resources are needed to provide these services, it is generally agreed that most centers are already providing them. The additional service will also be addressed in the State Plan for Independent Living and in the Standards for CILs. SILC Protections - There are several clarifications regarding SILC activities that were included in S. 1021 and should be included in the reauthorization: Provide advice and assistance to the designated state unit regarding the performance of its responsibilities under this title; Facilitate the improvement and coordination of services provided to individuals with disabilities by centers for independent living, the designated State unit, other government agencies, and community organizations; Conduct resource development activities to obtain funding from public and private resources to support the activities described in this subsection or to support the provision of independent living services by centers for independent living, and; Perform such other functions, consistent with the purpose of this chapter and comparable to other functions described in this subsection, as the Council determines to be appropriate.

For more information, contact Deb Cotter, Policy Analyst, NCIL at 202/207-0334 (V); 202/207-0340 (TTY), or Deb@ncil.org.

Editor’s Note: Senator Joseph Biden, D-Del., abandoned his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

ILUSA.Com

ABOUT US: Contact Information Editorial Team Terms Contributors Submissions

ADERTISING: Opportunities Classified Informercial' Underwriters

ARCHIVES: Archived Issues Cover Stories Features

MARKET PLACEAdvertisers Products Services Subscriptions

MISCELANEOUS: More News Links'Feedback Polls

SEARCH: Web site Internet',Donate