Elizabeth A. Connelly Act

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of S. 2781, Rosa's Law, and I certainly want to thank the majority and all of those involved in this important legislation for bringing it to the floor for final passage.

This legislation is really very simple, but very important. It simply modifies specific terms used in Federal law and instead of referring to the people as mentally retarded individuals, it refers to them basically as individuals with developmental disabilities.

It will affect the Social Security Act, the Public Health Service Act, and a lot of other Federal laws. I think it certainly is a step in the right direction, and I would urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2781, Rosa's Law, and I would like to thank the Majority for finally bringing this legislation to the floor of the House for final passage.

Rosa's Law follows previous Congressional action to modify the specific terms used in Federal law to refer to individuals, or broad categories of individuals, when earlier terminology became outdated, offensive, or otherwise inappropriate.

I would like to note that our former colleague, Nathan Deal of Georgia, actually offered an amendment during the Energy and Commerce Committee's consideration of the ObamaCare legislation back in July of last year that would have changed references in Federal law to mentally retarded individual to references to an individual with an developmental disability, but unfortunately, Congressman Deal's amendment was not accepted by the Majority, which prevented it from being included in the House-passed version of the health reform legislation.

However, by bringing this legislation to the floor today, the Majority can atone for their past mistake, and finally correct this glaring problem.

And speaking of health reform, I would also like to note that today is the 6-month anniversary of the Democrats' ObamaCare package being signed into law, and just as Republicans, independents, and a few brave Democrats predicted, insurance premiums are rising and people are losing their current health insurance coverage as a direct result of the flawed provisions in that legislation.

Reports of problems in ObamaCare abound, but has this Congress held a hearing on its implementation? No. In fact, the Subcommittee on Health--on which I serve--has held 15 hearings since the passage of ObamaCare, but we have not dealt with the most radical change to America's health care system in generations.

As all of us have noticed lately, people back home are experiencing the unhappy reality of the Federal Government's health care takeover. And as many news reports indicate, many people seem to prefer a Congressional Majority that wants to get the truth from the Obama Administration about what's gone wrong. I know the seniors in my district are completely clear about their desire to have us look into the Administration's plans to cut $575 billion from Medicare. They also want to know about statements by the Chief Actuary of Medicare that providers ``could find it difficult to remain profitable'' and might ``end their participation in the program.''

And any American concerned about the disastrous spending policies of this Administration and the current Majority would want oversight over recent revelations that after passage of ObamaCare, health care spending is projected to increase more than the Obama Administration had projected before passage of this deeply flawed legislation.

During the run-up to passage, miracles were promised day in and day out. Seniors were told the law would strengthen Medicare, only to see reductions to the program spent on new entitlements. Everyone was told the cost curve would be bent down, only to see the Administration's own actuaries report it will continue to go up.

Families were told that if they liked their current coverage they could keep it, only to learn that the law encourages employers to drop coverage, that health insurers will pass along increased costs through increased premiums, and that every plan will be subject to a host of costly new Federal rules and restrictions.

Where is the oversight? Where are the hearings? As the election nears, I would like

to note that the American people seem to want a new kind of Congress, one that is willing to find its mistakes and to fix them.

With that, I will urge my colleagues to support the bill before us today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to champion the House companion of S. 2781, H.R. 4544, the Elizabeth A. Connelly Act, so I rise today in strong support of S. 2781. I thank Mr. Pallone for his leadership on the subcommittee. And Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership in this body, and especially as chairman on the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus, and the work that you do there.

This bill will replace the term ``mental retardation'' with the term ``intellectual disability'' throughout the United States Code. Now, in July of this year, just recently, New York Governor David Paterson signed similar legislation into law, joining 48 other States that have dropped the ``R'' word. Over 70 Democrats and Republicans have cosponsored my bill and agreed that the time has finally come to put an end to discrimination against individuals with intellectual disabilities.

Every day, millions of children and adults have difficulty with tasks such as problem solving, decision-making, and communications because of intellectual disabilities. These Americans are often ridiculed, ignored, or even abused by their peers. Sometimes they are referred to publicly by insulting terms and treated as second class citizens. In particular, the term ``mental retardation'' has acquired a distinctly pejorative meaning, and is used intentionally and unintentionally to deride and humiliate many of our citizens.

H.R. 4544 is aptly named for a great woman from my home State of New York, the Honorable Elizabeth A. Connelly. Mrs. Connelly was elected to the New York State Assembly in 1973 as the first woman from my district of Staten Island to be elected to public office. When she retired in 2000, she became New York's longest serving female legislator.

Throughout her career, she was a staunch advocate and champion for individuals with intellectual and other developmental disabilities. She was instrumental in securing funds for mental health programs and creating the New York State Commission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled, led the charge to close the notorious Willowbrook State School, and led this Nation from warehousing individuals into providing group home settings.

Assemblywoman Connelly was known throughout the community for working with parents, advocates, and government officials to make New York a leader in providing high quality services and programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities. She is known as the guardian angel of the mentally disabled. She was not only a pioneer of her time and one of New York's greatest disability advocates, but she was my mentor. I was privileged to work as Ms. Connelly's staff member and counsel for many years. It is her personal commitment and leadership that has inspired me to also become an advocate for these important issues. Sadly, we lost her all too prematurely a few years ago, but we honor her and her husband Robert and her family with this bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, I cast my vote and urge my colleagues to do so as well in honor of Assemblywoman Connelly. I know she would be very proud to see the United States carrying out her lifelong mission by passing

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Rosa's Law, which will replace all references of ``mental retardation'' with the term ``intellectual disability'' throughout the U.S. Code.

I would like to first thank my colleague from New York, Representative Mike McMahon, who has been a passionate champion of ending discrimination against individuals with intellectual disabilities and lifting the stigma associated with the outdated and outmoded classification of an entire population.

At the turn of the last century, the prevailing sentiment in our society was that those with cognitive impairments or behavioral limitations should be institutionalized--excluded from mainstream society and locked away as wards of the state. In Federal statute, they were referred to as ``feeble-minded.'' Of course, we have come a long way since then.

With passage of laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, we have taken great strides to ensure that people with intellectual disabilities are afforded equal opportunities in schools and workplaces free from discrimination, as well as supports for independent living. We have broken down many of the exclusionary policies that relegated these individuals to being treated as second-class citizens.

However, the U.S. Federal Code still contains antiquated references to ``mental retardation'' that no longer reflect our collective values. This terminology has acquired a distinctly pejorative meaning and perpetuates the stigma that people with intellectual disabilities are somehow inferior to others. That couldn't be farther from the truth.

It is time we follow in the steps of entities like the World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. We must update the Federal Code to reflect our true intent and evolved beliefs that individuals with disabilities deserve the same respect and opportunities as any other human being. By fostering an environment of inclusion and empowerment, we can provide the means for every individual to fulfill his or her potential.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2781) to change references in Federal law to mental retardation to references to an intellectual disability, and to change references to a mentally retarded individual to references to an individual with an intellectual disability.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon), who is the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.