"Rewriting the Myths, Redefining the Realities"
The Colorado Quarterly sent the
following survey to all of Colorado’s Congressional candidates. We
received replies from Wayne Allard (R), running for reelection to the
Senate; Mike Feeley (D), running for U.S. Congress District 7; and
Mark Udall (D), running for reelection to U.S. Congressional District
2. The questions followed by each candidate’s responses follow.
1. Recently the Supreme Court has ruled in a number of cases brought
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These rulings have
favored the employer over the employee. In addition, legislation has
been introduced in Congress that substantially weakens the ADA’s
ability to guarantee accessibility to public accommodation. Would you
support legislation to clarify and strengthen the civil rights of persons with disabilities by strengthening the ADA?
Udall: I consider the ADA to be
one of our country’s fundamental civil rights laws. I do not think
it should be weakened, and am prepared to support efforts to make it
more effective.
Feeley: Yes. We should
make accommodations wherever possible so people with disabilities are
able to participate fully in our society and economy.
Allard: I support the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Congress passed the ADA in 1990 in
order
“to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the
elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.”
I believe it
is important to provide assistance for those who need it. If a person
is disabled he or she may require assistance in physical and cognitive
areas that others do not. Congress should keep this principle in mind
when considering legislation that supports the civil rights of
individuals with disabilities. Further, I believe disagreements
between employers and disabled employees can be worked out. Smart
employers will strive to accommodate the employees they hire, and
savvy disabled employees will ensure their valuable time is well spent
with an employer that cares about their needs.
2. The long-term care program under Medicaid has a built in bias in
favor of nursing home care. Legislation known as MiCassa has been
introduced to correct this imbalance. MiCassa allows persons with
disabilities, as well as older persons, to receive services in a
non-institutionalized setting. Will you support MiCassa?
Udall: I am a proud
co-sponsor of H.R. 3612, the MiCassa bill.
Feeley: Yes. A
non-institutional setting often provides a greater level of dignity
and independence and should be encouraged whenever possible. I
formerly served on the board of an independent living center in
Colorado and I know first hand how independent living can enhance an
individual’s quality of life.
Allard: I strongly
support independent living programs for those with disabilities. The
Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Support Act (MiCassa) would
require that states cover under Medicaid community-based attendant
services for certain individuals with disabilities who are Medicaid
recipients. MiCassa would provide individuals with disabilities the
dignity that comes from independent living. Currently the Senate
Committee on Finance is evaluating MiCassa to determine its fiscal and
other implications. If the bill passes, Medicaid beneficiaries would
be able to receive care in their homes rather than in nursing homes.
Congress should make every effort to ensure that federal services,
such as those in MiCassa, are cost effective and provide care that
helps, and not hurts, its beneficiaries. Federal studies show that
in-home care can cost substantially less than nursing home care.
Congress also must keep in mind that many patients desire to receive
care at home rather than in institutional settings.
3. During the next session of Congress, the Rehabilitation Act will be
reauthorized. Will you support maintaining the Rehabilitation
Administration Services in its current organizational location in the
Department of Education and
support efforts to better integrate employment services among
Vocational Rehabilitation, the Work Force Centers, and Centers of
Independent Living?
Udall: I support keeping the
Rehabilitation Services Administration in the Department of Education.
Moving the RSA to another location could result in decreased funding
for vocational training and rehabilitation programs. I support efforts
to better integrate vocational rehabilitation, work force centers, and
centers for independent living.
Feeley: I do not know
what alternatives are being considered. However, I will do all I can
to see that
the disabled community gets the services they deserve.
Allard: If given the privilege to serve again in the U.S.
Senate next year, I will have the opportunity
to support the reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act. Since 1920,
Congress has supported the Rehabilitation Act and Congress has
increased funding for Rehabilitation Act programs. Every year Congress
provides more than two billion
dollars for Rehabilitation Act programs.
Further, as Congress evaluates the Rehabilitation Act reauthorization,
I am confident that Congress will keep in mind the benefits of
maintaining the Rehabilitation Administration Services under the U.S.
Department of Education. Congress also
must keep in mind that integration and inclusion
are vital. Individuals with disabilities thrive when they work in
settings with typical individuals. In this light, Congress should
consider the inclusion and training benefits the Centers of
Independent Living, Vocational Rehabilitation and Work Force Centers
provide. I am confident Congress will
continue to support legislation to empower
individuals with disabilities and give them the opportunity to live
independently and with dignity.
4. The Supreme Court ruling in the Olmstead Case stated that services
must be provided in the most integrated setting consistent with the
individuals needs. Do you support making policy and funding changes
needed to fully implement Olmstead, especially with regard to
community based services for persons who are mentally ill and
developmentally disabled?
Udall: Generally, I support
proposals to fully implement Olmstead. Individuals should be able to
have access to community-based living. That is why I cosponsored and
voted for H.R. 1180, which provided access to community-based health
care and established a Ticket-to-Work and self-sufficiency program to
provide work opportunities for persons with disabilities.
Feeley: Yes
Allard: In the Olmstead case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title
II of the ADA requires that states place individuals with mental
disabilities in community settings rather than institutions when the
state’s treatment professionals have determined that community
placement is appropriate, that community placement is not opposed by
the individual with a disability, and that the placement can be
reasonably accommodated. I support the ADA and the ruling of the
Supreme Court. In addition, Congress should clarify unclear
legislative language in the ADA, keeping in mind the Olmstead ruling.
At the same time, Congress also must consider the fiscal imposition
that clarification could place on states to provide community-based
services for mental health patients. I am confident an agreement can
be achieved in Congress that allows opportunities for community-based
care and that provides fiscal discipline.
5A. Persons with disabilities benefit enormously from public transit.
The reauthorization of the Transportation Efficiency Act (TEA 21) will
occur this session. Will you support a greater federal investment for
all community and public transportation programs?
Udall: I have been a consistent
supporter of greater investment for community and public
transportation programs, and I will continue to support them if
re-elected.
Feeley: Yes. It is good for the
disabled community and good for the environment.
Allard: Transit provides an
important service for
a community. Whether citizens rely upon transit
as a primary or alternative means of transportation, it can offer many
benefits. I supported TEA 21, which contained significant transit
funding increases. Based on the tremendous demand for transit dollars
over the last five years it is safe to assume that the transit
investment will grow under reauthorization. I strongly support a
result-oriented approach that invests taxpayer dollars in the most
effective and efficient programs. Unsuccessful
programs should be reformed.
5B. Changes also need to be made in the allocation of the TEA 21
funds. Bus trips make up the majority of daily public transportation,
and ought to receive more federal capital investment. Currently,
federal capital grants are dispersed at 40 percent new rail starts; 40
percent rail modernization; and 20 percent buses and bus facilities.
Will you support a change of that formula making it more equitable,
for example a one-third, one-third, one-third split?
Udall: Yes, I will support a
change in the way TEA 21 funds are allocated to better reflect the
percentage of use of buses and bus facilities.
Feeley: I am undecided.
Allard: The current 40-40-20
distribution of money between rail new starts, rail modernization, and
buses is a point of great interest for me as part of reauthorization.
The Senate Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, of which I am
the Ranking Member, has been holding a series of hearings on TEA 21
reauthorization. At a number of these hearings I have made inquiries
of witnesses as to their views on the current funding split. I am
confident that during reauthorization we can find a funding
distribution that balances the higher costs of rail projects with the
greater utilization of buses.
5C. Public transportation for persons with disabilities in small urban
and rural areas is woefully inadequate. Would you support doing away
with the current formula of 84 percent of all formula funds going to
large-urban areas of more than 200,000 in population; 10 percent going
to small-urban areas of between 50,000 and 200,000 populations and 6
percent going to rural areas of less than 50,000 population and
recommend a new formula that would more favorably represent small
urban and rural providers (e.g. 60 urban/20 small-urban/20 rural)?
Udall: No.
Feeley: Need more information
before making a decision.
Allard: Although some may consider transit in rural areas an oxymoron,
rural citizens have a significant need for transit services. Elderly,
disabled, ill, or low-income residents may depend on transit services
for basic needs such as attending medical appointments. During
reauthorization of ISTEA I supported more money for rural areas, and I
have recently cosponsored legislation that would provide significant
additional funding for rural transit programs. I am hopeful that
during reauthorization Congress will work to find an equitable
distribution, while giving all areas more resources.
6. Accessible, affordable housing is key to establishing an
independent life style for persons with disabilities. Will you support
expanding the supply for accessible, affordable housing? How do you
think we can do this?
Udall: Yes. I cosponsored H.R. 425
and H.R. 2349, which would increase the supply of affordable housing
available to persons with disabilities. These bills promote the
preservation of affordable housing units by providing matching grants
to States and fills the growing gap in the nation’s ability to build
affordable housing. Feeley: No response.
Allard: I believe that providing
accessible and affordable housing is a partnership between the
federal, state, and local governments. Although the federal government
may be able to help provide resources, the state and local governments
are in the best position to understand the needs of their particular
citizens. Accordingly, I have supported housing policies that minimize
federal bureaucracy in favor of greater local control. I have also
supported increases for the low-income housing tax credit program,
which has been the largest producer of affordable rental housing in
America.
I have also worked to promote homeownership. In particular, I have
been working closely with Secretary Martinez of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to enact the American Dream Downpayment
Fund. This program would provide $200 million in grants to state and
local governments for down payment assistance for low-income and
first-time homebuyers. Down payments are one of the biggest barriers
to homeownership, and my bill will allow 40,000 families to become new
homeowners.
Copyright 2002 A&H Publishing Corporation