by Penny Reeder
I met with Sen. Tom Harkin immediately prior to the opening session of the ACB annual convention, where Harkin was slated to be the keynote speaker. I was a little nervous and out of breath, having lost my way in Des Moines’ skywalk system on the way over to the convention center, and having admired and respected the senator since he entered my consciousness about a dozen years ago because of his outspoken advocacy for people with disabilities. He put me at ease immediately, and during the course of our interview, with hordes of people and dogs and canes swirling and tapping and converging around us, he made me feel as if I was the most important person he had ever spoken with. I am grateful to him for granting me this opportunity to interview him, and ACB this opportunity to get to know one of the most effective advocates for disability rights in the U.S. Senate today.
Q: I know that your brother, whose disability influenced your own resolve to help people with disabilities, was deaf. I wonder, have you known people who are blind and visually impaired?
A: Well, I didn’t really know any blind people when I was growing up here in Iowa. It wasn’t until later on that I became acquainted with people who were blind. One of the first was an attorney from right here in Des Moines, John Wellman. I hope you’ll be able to meet him while you’re here, because he’s one of the really great trial attorneys here in Iowa. He’s a very capable individual.
Q: You have been instrumental in bringing about many of the special education laws which guarantee that children who are blind and visually impaired can expect a free, appropriate public education. What do you think the future holds for special education laws like IDEA? Can you comment on the proposed discipline amendments, and the general lack of support we perceive today for children in special education, sometimes from administrators, sometimes even from mainstream teachers who may have qualms about having a disabled child in their classrooms? Certainly there has never been enough funding for special education. How do you think we can tackle issues like these?
A: Well, first of all, even as we’re doing this interview, we’re making progress. Along with Senator Hagel (R-Neb.), I offered an amendment as we’re re-authorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which gets the federal government up to the point where we’re fully funding special ed.
Q: What chance do you think that amendment has for passage?
A: We got it passed in the Senate. Now we have to go to conference with the House, and we’re going to fight to keep it there. I think we have a reasonably good chance of keeping it there.
We’ve been hearing from all the sectors. We’ve heard from the disability community of course, and we’ve also heard from state governments who recognize that, if the federal government doesn’t step in and do something, then the funding for special ed. will fall on the property taxpayers. If the states can get more money from the federal government, then they won’t have any reason to say they can’t afford to provide adequate services any longer.
The discipline issue is always a tough one, but I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to reach some compromises on that issue. The one thing that I will dig my heels in on is to make sure that no kid can be summarily dismissed from a classroom just because a teacher doesn’t want him or her there.
We’re going to set up the laws to say explicitly that before a child can be removed from a classroom, there has to be a hearing with the IEP team, as there is today. And there have to be due process protections in place.
Secondly, I’ll never give up on the principle that specialized services cannot be ceased.
If a kid with a disability is truly disruptive, and that’s not a manifestation of the disability, and he or she is receiving all the services, and because of the behavior issues, the kid must be removed from the classroom for a while, the school system cannot cease providing those services.
On the other hand, a lot of times we find that kids act up because they really aren’t getting the support services they need, and we just can’t allow that to happen.
Q: Let’s switch topics a little bit and talk about the Americans with Disabilities Act. What do you think of the Casey Martin decision?
A: Of course I applaud it loudly! At seven to two, it was a very strong decision.
Think what this means for all people with disabilities! Some people may say, “Aw, it’s just a golf game...” But the essence of the decision was this: No longer will it be permissible to deny someone a reasonable accommodation simply because it’s “tradition,” or “That’s the way we always did it!”
Q: And, on the other side of the coin, can you talk about the Garrett decision?
A: Well, of course, the decision was disappointing. But, we have to remember, that was a narrow decision, and furthermore, it applies only to state governments. Besides that, it only applies to one’s ability to collect damages. So, while I wasn’t happy about the decision, it’s important to note that Garrett is a narrow decision.
And we’ll find ways perhaps to modify the ADA to minimize the negative ramifications.
Q: Would you open up the ADA for amendments?
A: No. But we’re going to have to make some changes in other laws to provide for people to sue state governments and get damages.
Q: We’re a little worried at ACB that the disability community in general hasn’t seemed to react to the Garrett decision. We don’t seem to have re-grouped to respond to the decision. Do you think that there’s something that the disabled community should be doing to bring everybody along?
A: People with disabilities need to help us figure out how to draft laws properly.
Q: Do you actually need more evidence of discrimination, as the court suggested as justification for their decision in the Garrett case?
A: We had all kinds of evidence! In our amicus brief that I filed with Sen. Dole, we gave them so many cases, we showed the hearing record from the hearings I had held when I was chairman back in the ‘80s, we had more than enough evidence on state discrimination!
The court just got hung up on this constitutional concept of separation, and I think there’s a way around it, and we’re going to work to try to find it.
Don’t forget about the Olmstead decision, which, in many ways, is the most encouraging decision concerning disability rights to come down from the court. The court said that you have to provide [services] first, i.e., that the money follows the person, and not the program.
Q: What do you see in terms of the future for people with disabilities? Do you think we’ll be able to overcome the opposition to equal access we continue to see every day in the media? Do you think we can solve our unemployment problems?
A: It’s not going to be easy. It never has been for people with disabilities. But we’ve come a long way in the last few years.
Today a child with a disability can hope and can dream, and can plan for a future! Our children have IDEA to back them up, and they have the ADA to back them up.
And we’re changing society. Buildings are changing; they’re more accessible — to everyone. People who are blind are now finding that our buildings today are easier to navigate around than they used to be.
Q: And when we start getting “Talking Signs” in important buildings like the Capitol?...
A: That’s going to happen!
And another thing that gives me hope is the new technologies. The new [assistive] technologies are going to enable people to do things they never even imagined before! For example, even a few years ago, the thought that a person who is blind could use a computer, that would have been unimaginable!
Q: My final question, as we get closer to that opening bell for tonight’s convention session, what about your future?
A: I’m up for re-election next year, and the Republicans are putting up a tough opponent here in Iowa, so I’ll have a tough re-election campaign. But I plan to run for re-election, and I plan to continue to expand horizons for people with disabilities.
I really want to tackle better job accommodations, and using technology to accomplish job accommodations.
Q: Technology is so expensive. That’s just about the first thing a potential employer will tell you.
A: We’re going to have to find ways of providing for tax credits and supports for employers so they don’t have that excuse to make for not hiring a person who needs the accommodations.
Another focus I will continue to have is on accessibility to voting. I have seen the technology, and it works. I have seen one voting machine that literally anyone can use! If you’re deaf, if you’re blind, if you can’t speak the language — anyone can use this machine!
So I want to push ahead on voting access. I don’t want to have a “mish-mash” of machines and systems; my dream would be that we have one [standard] machine for the whole country, and one set of voting laws that makes the process accessible for everybody, no matter what their disabilities, their abilities, or where they live.
At this point in our interview, we noticed that the crowds which had been converging at the doorway in front of us had diminished markedly. Reluctantly I stowed my tape recorder, and the senator and I went into the opening session of ACB’s 40th annual convention, he to the speakers’ platform at the front of the hall, I to a seat near the front so I would be sure not to miss any segment of this historic occasion.
When Harkin spoke to the assembled convention a few minutes later, he expanded on themes we had spoken about together a few minutes before. He held the convention alternately spellbound and on their feet with exuberant applause as he said, “I pledge to you that I will fight for the funding necessary to help every American who is blind to achieve independence.”
About the Mi Casa legislation, introduced once again in this session of Congress, “Money that comes through Medicaid should go directly to the individual who needs the health care.”
And, “We must never forget that prohibiting discrimination is not the same as ensuring equal opportunity. There is a great deal more to be done.”