Rosa's Law

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that I am calling ``Rosa's Law.'' It began by listening to the people in my own State. It began when a mother told me a compelling story about her own daughter, her family's efforts to give her daughter an opportunity for an education and to be treated with respect and with dignity. And, at the same time, it began with the advocacy of not only she and her husband but of her entire family, including her 14 year old son, Nick, who testified at the Maryland General Assembly.

As a result of their effort, I am introducing Rosa's Law. But I want to tell you about the family. I want to tell you about the Marcellinos--two determined parents with four children: Nick, age 14; Madeleine, age 12; Gigi, age 10; and Rosa, age 8. I wish you could have been with me in my office as I met with them, as I met with the parents and talked with the family.

Last year, at a roundtable on special education, I met Nina Marcellino. She told me about her daughter Rosa and the fact that Rosa had been labeled at her school some years ago as ``mentally retarded'' and told me of the stigma, the pain, the anguish it caused both Nina and her husband, Rosa's brother and sisters as well as Rosa herself.

The mother and father reached out to the advocacy organization, the Arc, to see what could be done to change the law. They then reached out to a member of the Maryland General Assembly in our own Maryland Legislature--a wonderful representative named Ted Sophocleus.

Mr. Sophocleus introduced legislation in the Maryland General Assembly that would change the words ``mentally retarded'' and substitute that with the phrase ``an individual with an intellectual disability.''

That is why I stand on the Senate floor today to introduce, at the request of this family, legislation on behalf of this little girl and on behalf of all of the children of the United States of America who are labeled, stigmatized, and bear a burden the rest of their lives because of the language we use in the law books.

My law simply changes the phrase ``mentally retarded'' to an ``individual with an intellectual disability.'' We do it in health, education, and labor policy without in any way negatively impinging upon either the educational or other benefits to which these children are entitled.

When it came time to bring the bill before the General Assembly, the family was there. And who spoke up for Rosa? Well, her mom and dad had been speaking up for her. Her brother Nick and her sisters Madeleine and Gigi had been speaking up for her. This wonderful boy, Nick, at the time 13 testified before the general assembly and said:

What you call people is how you treat them.

``What you call people is how you treat them.'' What you call my sister is how you will treat her. If you believe she is ``retarded,'' it invites taunts, it invites stigmas, it invites bullying, and it also invites the slammed doors of not being treated with respect and dignity.

Nick's words were far more eloquent that day than mine are today. I want to salute Nick for standing up for his sister. But I think we need to stand up for all because in changing the language we believe it will be the start of new attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities. Hopefully, people will associate these new words with the very able and valuable people that go to school, work, play soccer, or live next door.

Eunice Shriver believed in this when she created the Special Olympics. She knew special needs children need special attention, but they can do very special things and look what she started.

This bill has gotten unanimous support in the Maryland legislative body. It passed in Annapolis. A few weeks before this bill swept through the General Assembly, I had the opportunity to talk to Rosa's mom, Nina. I promised her then that if that bill passed the Maryland Legislature, I would bring it to the floor of the Senate. Well, it passed unanimously, Governor O'Malley has signed it, and today I stand before you introducing the legislation.

It makes nominal changes to policy. It gets into Federal education, health, and labor law. It simply substitutes ``intellectual disability'' for ``mental retardation,'' ``individual with an intellectual disability'' for ``mentally retarded.''

This bill, as I can assure all who might be concerned, will not expand nor diminish services, rights, or educational opportunities. We vetted it with legal counsel. We reached out to the very wonderful advocacy groups in this field, and they concur that this legislation would be acceptable.

The Senate has changed terminology for this population before. In the 1960s, Congress passed legislation where we took--I am almost embarrassed to say our law once referred to boys and girls as ``feeble- minded.'' We thought we were being advanced when we changed it to ``mentally retarded.'' Now, 40 years later, let's take another big step and change it to ``intellectual disability.''

This bill makes language used in the Federal Government consistent. The President's Committee on Mental Retardation was changed by Executive order so it is now the Committee on Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities. The CDC uses ``intellectual disability.'' The World Health Organization uses ``intellectual disability.''

I have always said the best ideas come from the people. ``Rosa's Law'' is a perfect example of effective citizen advocacy--a family that pulled together for their own, and in pulling together they are pulling us all along to a new way of thinking.

I want to recognize the Marcellino family who is here with us in the gallery, and the namesake of the law, Rosa, whose picture is behind me, and she is also up there in the gallery today.

It was indeed an honor to represent this family. I believe in our country people have a right to be heard, and we listen. They have a right to be represented, which I have tried to do. Now let's try to change the law.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues. It is a pleasure to work with Senators Harkin and Enzi, the chair and ranking member of the HELP Committee. I have their wholehearted support in working together.

This is going to be a bipartisan bill. It is going to be a nonpartisan bill. We are going to check our party hats at the door and move ahead and tip our hats to these boys and girls. This bill is driven by passion for social justice and compassion for the human condition. We have done a lot to come out of the dark ages of institutionalization and exclusion when it comes to people with intellectual disabilities.

I urge my colleagues to join me in going a step further. Cosponsor the legislation I offer on a bipartisan basis. Help me pass the law and know that each and every one of us can make a difference. When we work together, we can make change. I look forward to working with my colleagues in moving this bill forward in our legislative process.

Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to join my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in introducing Rosa's law. I would like to thank her for her leadership and her commitment on this issue. Simply put, this legislation will make an important change in the words we use to refer to those with intellectual disabilities. It is a much needed change in the law that is fully deserving of our support.

For far too long we have used words like ``mental retardation'' in our Federal statutes to refer to those with intellectual disabilities. This has been unfortunate because when we use such a term we send a message throughout our society that someone ``is'' their disability, instead of someone like us who is facing a challenge in their life. Such a term creates the unwanted impression that growth is impossible and their disability will lock them into a certain lifestyle forever.

As an example, imagine a friend with cancer. When you refer to him or her you would probably say they have cancer, or are going through cancer treatment. You wouldn't say they ``are'' cancer like this term says that someone ``is'' their disability. It's a distinction that makes a big difference for anyone facing such a difficult period of their lives.

This is not a unique situation. Historically, this and other unfortunate terms have been used to refer to people with disabilities of all kinds for many years.

Prior to the 1960's, people who were viewed as having intellectual limitations were shunned from society and placed in institutions. The American dream of self-determination, independent living, and the pursuit of freedom and happiness was thought to be impossible for them to achieve. We let the limitations we helped to create with our words and our attitudes slowly take away their hopes and dreams for a better life and a brighter future.

We know now that words have meaning, sometimes far beyond what we intend. Therefore, we must be very careful about the way we describe the people we see every day, including those with disabilities, or those who are undergoing treatment for a variety of health issues. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not dropped this term from our laws and it still appears in the regulations and statutes that come before our legislative bodies and our courts.

With this legislation we are taking a giant step forward, as we acknowledge that times have changed and we live in a much different world. Clearly this term was not developed from malice. It came from a lack of understanding of what it was like to be labeled with such a term and then left virtually alone in the effort to overcome it.

Over the years, Congress has made it known that community living, educational opportunities that lead to success in the workplace, and equal opportunity without discrimination will be available to people who are living with intellectual limitations under appropriate Federal statutes.

That was a good start. Unfortunately, several key Federal disability statutes, including the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Developmental Disabilities Act, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, still use the outmoded term. It is time for Congress to be proactive and join the States of New Hampshire, Maryland, and my home State of Wyoming by ending the use of this pejorative term and replacing it with a more carefully chosen word.

To paraphrase a quote I have heard about cancer, a disability is a word, not a sentence. We have put that philosophy into practice over the years for other disabilities. It is time we adapted it to provide support to those living with intellectual disabilities as well.

Some will ask if we are being overly sensitive, or if we are just trying to make a change to be politically correct. The answer to that question is clearly ``no.''

It is no secret. When we put a ``label'' like that on someone we often find ourselves dealing with the label as if it is not a description of the challenges someone faces in their lives but a reflection of who that person really is. That puts them in a group with a label for a name and tells them that they are not worthy of being treated as an individual, with individual needs and interests.

I have heard from people with intellectual disabilities over the years. They have asked us to put an end to the use of that outdated term. Self-advocacy groups such as Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered and local People First Organizations as well as organizations such as the Arc of the United States, Special Olympics International, and others have already stopped using this archaic terminology and dropped the term from their agency names. The American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, has already voted to use the term ``Intellectual Disability'' in the next publication of their manual.

I have always believed that the law is a great teacher. That is why we need to join in this effort and express our support for the efforts of those with disabilities of all kinds to live to their full potential. We can do that by eliminating the use of negative archaic terms to refer to those with intellectual limitations. Such an action on our part starts with this bill that uses the term intellectual disability in laws that are in the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. This bill makes our intent clear throughout our Nation that this term will never again be used in Congress or in any Federal office.

When I came to the Senate 13 years ago, my staff and I met almost immediately to work on our mission statement. When it was completed, one of the most important clauses we had written was our commitment that we would treat others not as we would wish to be treated, but as they would wish to be treated. There is a difference.

Today, with the passage of this important legislation, we are reaching out to those with intellectual disabilities to assure them that their government will treat them as they would wish to be treated. By so doing, we will also be directing our staffs and the staffs of federal offices throughout the U.S. that the best way for them to refer to those with disabilities or to anyone who comes into their office is by the term they have carried with them throughout their lives--their name.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Small Business Intermediary Lending Pilot Program Act of 2009.

As a member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee I have been concerned about access to affordable financing for small businesses.

The need to help small businesses find flexible credit sources has become more urgent than ever during this economic and credit crisis. The problem is serious. I have heard from numerous small businesses from across Michigan facing serious financial difficulties. Too many creditworthy businesses are having trouble procuring a loan, getting their loans renewed, or are facing higher rates or are having their lines of credit withdrawn altogether. This is happening even when the business never missed a payment.

The difficulty of finding bank financing is both a symptom and a cause of our economic troubles. The crisis that nearly toppled our economy in late 2008 and early 2009 was largely the result of a shutdown in lending by banks worried that they would be overwhelmed by bad loans. And as the lack of available credit rippled through the economy, it hit more businesses, cost them more customers, forced them to lay off more workers, and slowed economic activity even more, making banks all the more reluctant to lend and setting off a downward spiral.

The search for solutions to these problems has been intense, and we have taken some steps in Congress to alleviate them, including acting to reduce Small Business Administration lending fees, increasing the dollar amount of those loans the government would guarantee, and offering short-term loans to businesses facing immediate financial hardship. But it hasn't been enough.

In May, I told members of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, on which I serve, of just one Michigan example of the problem: A small manufacturer based in the Thumb. The company's longtime bank lender told the company it could not renew the firm's 5-year loan, instead offering 90-day renewals at a much higher interest rate. The company, with 77 workers and 150 customers, sought a loan elsewhere, but other banks--28 of them--rejected its application. The company has an excellent payment history. That story can be repeated 100 times throughout the state.

With the steep decline in the availability of credit from conventional financial institutions, demand is increasing for community-based financial institutions, including Community Development Corporations, Microlenders, Community Development Financial Institutions and other non-profit lenders to fill the gap created by the reluctance of private financial institutions to provide capital to businesses. As demand on these non-profit institutions to fill the gap has increased, these institutions' sources of capital are also drying up.

To address this problem, I am introducing legislation to help get financing to those small businesses that are not being served by the conventional loan programs currently available through the Small Business Administration.

The Small Business Intermediary Lending Program that I am introducing today is a three-year pilot program which authorizes the SBA in each of the three years to make 20-year loans, on a competitive basis, to up to 20 non-profit lending intermediaries around the country, with a maximum amount of $3 million per loan. Under this proposal, intermediaries would use these SBA loans to capitalize revolving loan funds through which loans of up to $200,000 would be made to small businesses in need of flexible debt financing. In addition, these intermediaries would assist borrowers in leveraging the SBA funds to obtain additional capital from other sources. The intermediaries would also work closely with the small business to provide technical assistance during the life of the loan.

The program would be structured along the lines of the SBA's Microloan program and USDA's Intermediary Relending Program, both of which have demonstrated the success of using intermediary lenders to improve the flow of credit to small businesses that are unable to satisfy the underwriting requirements of a congenital bank.

The program is designed to fill the lending gap that exists between SBA's Microloan program that lends up to $35,000 and its 7(a) loan program that makes larger traditional loans to small businesses through participating banks. Many start-up and expanding small businesses may have graduated from the Microloan Program and need larger loans but cannot get 7(a) loans because they lack adequate collateral necessary for traditional loans. These small businesses may also still need technical assistance to help them succeed that would be provided by the intermediary lender under this bill.

Even before the severe economic downturn and resulting credit crunch, 7(a) lenders were not making the sorts of midsize loans the Intermediary Lending Program seeks to make. In fact, several years ago a representative for the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders, the 7(a) lenders' trade association, told a Small Business and Entrepreneurial Committee roundtable that 7(a) lenders are not making these midsized loans because they are not cost effective, and that the Intermediary Lending Program would fill an important niche not being filled by any existing SBA program.

We have been taking some important steps to encourage banks to lend to businesses, with varying degrees of success. Clearly more needs to be done to get credit into the hands of the small businesses that are going to create the jobs necessary to lead us out of this economic downturn. The Intermediary Lending Program I am introducing today proposes a way to get financing into the hands of those viable businesses that conventional banks are currently not lending to so that they can hire employees and grow their businesses. I urge its swift enactment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to speak about the passage of a bill that is a top priority for the disability community--Rosa's Law. As always, I have greatly appreciated the opportunity to work with Senator Mikulski on this bill. I would like to thank her for her leadership and her commitment to this issue.

The bill is simple in nature but profound in what it will do when it is enacted. Rosa's Law will change the phrase ``mentally retarded'' to ``an individual with an intellectual disability'' in all of the laws that fall

under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, without negatively impinging or expanding upon the rights, services, benefits, or educational opportunities that people with this diagnosis are entitled to. It will make a greatly needed change that should have been made well before today.

Some people will ask why this bill is so important and why it is needed. They will wonder if Congress has more important work to do than to change a few words in our laws for the sake of being politically correct. In response, I would share what Rosa's brother Nick said to the Maryland General Assembly. ``What you call people is how you treat them. What you call my sister is how you will treat her. If you believe she's `retarded' it invites taunting, stigma. It invites bullying and it also invites the slammed doors of being treated with respect and dignity.''

For far too long we have used hurtful words like ``mental retardation'' or ``MR'' in our Federal statutes to refer to those who are living with intellectual disabilities. While the way people feel is important, the way people are treated is equally important. When words such as ``MR'' are used to describe a person, it dehumanizes them, and as Nick said, it leads to a situation in which some people are not treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

This is not the first time Congress has taken similar action. Our laws once referred to people with intellectual disabilities with terms like ``feeble minded'' and other language that I cannot bear to say. Back then we thought that was the appropriate language to use until we switched to using the term ``MR.'' Forty years later, we are taking another big step and replacing ``MR'' with ``intellectual disability.''

This change is already taking place across the country with organizations like the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities which dropped the term ``MR'' from its name. Likewise, The Arc of the United States has stopped using this archaic terminology and dropped the term from their agency name. The American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, has already voted to use the term ``Intellectual Disability'' in the next publication of their manual. Internationally, the World Health Organization uses the term ``intellectual disability.''

This bill will start the process of change in the Federal Government and make such terminology consistent. The President's Committee on Mental Retardation was changed by executive order so it is now the Committee on Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also uses the term ``intellectual disability.'' After the House passes this bill it will become law and begin a chain of events that I hope will lead to the Finance Committee's action on this matter so we can see similar changes in Medicaid and Social Security programs.

In 1963, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ``I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.'' That same concept rings true for people with intellectual disabilities--that they will also be judged by who they are and not by a label that has been forced upon them. That's the beauty and simplicity of this bill--and why it is so important.

Finally, there are a number of people I would like to thank for their assistance with passing this bill out of the Senate. First, on my staff I would like to thank Frank Macchiarola, HELP Committee staff director, Greg Dean, HELP Committee general counsel, Beth Buehlmann, education office staff director, and Aaron Bishop, professional staff member on disability policy for their determination and hard work on this bill. I always say that I have the best staff in Congress and I couldn't have done it without them. I would also like to thank Mario Cardona with Senator Mikulski's office and Lee Perselay and Michael Gamel-McCormick, with Senator Harkin's office, for their leadership and effort to get this bill through the Senate, and for working with us in a true bipartisan fashion. I would also like to thank Pattie DeLoatche and Karen LaMontagne from Senator Hatch's office, Karen McCarthy from Senator Murkowski's office, and David Cleary from Senator Alexander's office for their assistance with putting this bill together, Liz King with Legislative Counsel for drafting the bill, and Cassandra Foley from the Congressional Research Service for her work.

Next, the bill would not have been a success without the work of so many families and groups. We all need to thank Rosa Marcellino, her brother Nick and the entire Marcellino family for their strength, determination, and willingness to lead, teach and for not being afraid to voice their opinion and say that this just hasn't been right.

While this bill may not change the whole world, it will make the world a little better, more hospitable place for us and for the entire disability community.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Johnson.

We have worked very well to accommodate the requests of our colleagues to the extent we could. We will have the first vote on his amendment. I am going to support Senator Johnson's amendment on homeless veterans. Secretary Gates and Secretary Shinseki are at this very moment practically working on a way to better accommodate veterans who are homeless. It is not right for there ever to be a homeless veteran in our country because every one of them has done so much to protect our freedom.

We do have $500 million in the bill. This would take $50 million that the Department says they do not need for other housing assistance for veterans and put it into the homeless sector so there can be a concerted effort to build facilities that would give care, as well as shelter, to these veterans. I support that.

I hope in conference we will be able to consolidate all of this into a program that will meet the needs of our veterans.

It has been great working on this bill. I am very pleased we could do it today rather than last week when so many of us in the Senate were at Fort Hood trying to show the great respect and sympathy for the community at Fort Hood and for all of our armed services, which meant we had to delay the bill from last Tuesday to this Tuesday. I think that was the right thing to do. I thank my colleague.

I thank our great staffs who worked all this week to clear amendments. To the extent we could, I think we have certainly accommodated our other colleagues in the Senate for their priorities.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to ask the Senator if we could voice vote Senator Cochran before we take up the record vote we will take on Senator Johnson's amendment.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, to comply with rule XLIV, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Senator Cochran in relation to his amendment.

I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we are working on the managers' package, and probably in the next 15 minutes we will clear what has been cleared for the managers' package. There are a couple of people working with objections. But by 12:15, we will clear the managers' package so that following that, in accordance with the previous unanimous consent agreement, at 2:15 we will vote on the Inhofe amendment, after which we will then vote on final passage. So we will have two votes starting at 2:15, and the second vote will be the final vote on Veterans Affairs-Military Construction.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have no objections to those amendments. I want to clarify that for amendment No. 2775, the modifications are at the desk. The same goes for amendment No. 2783; am I correct?

Again, I have no objection.

The amendments (No. 2775, as modified; No. 2777; and No. 2783, as modified) were agreed to, as follows:

Amendment No. 2775, As Modified

(Purpose: To require a study on the capacity of the Department of

Veterans Affairs to address combat stress in women veterans)

At the end of title II, add the following:

Sec. 229. (a) Study on Capacity of Department of Veterans

Affairs To Address Combat Stress in Women Veterans.--The

Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs shall

carry out a study to assess the capacity of the Department of

Veterans Affairs to address combat stress in women veterans.

(b) Elements.--In carrying out the study required by

subsection (a), the Inspector General shall consider the

following:

(1) Whether women veterans are properly evaluated by the

Department for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),

military-related sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury (TBI),

and other combat-related conditions.

(2) Whether women veterans with combat stress are being

properly adjudicated as service-connected disabled by the

Department for purposes of veterans disability benefits for

combat stress.

(3) Whether the Veterans Benefits Administration has

developed and disseminated to personnel who adjudicate

disability claims reference materials that thoroughly and

effectively address the management of claims of women

veterans involving military-related sexual trauma.

(4) The feasability and advisability of requiring training

and testing on military-related sexual trauma matters as part

of a certification of Veterans Benefits Administration

personnel who adjudicate disability claims involving post-

traumatic stress disorder.

(5) Such other matters as the Inspector General considers

appropriate.

(c) Reports.--

(1) Interim report.--Not later than 180 days after the date

of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General shall

submit to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and to the

appropriate committees of Congress, a report setting forth

the plan of the Inspector General for the study required by

subsection (a), together with such interim findings as the

Inspector General has made as of the date of the report as a

result of the study.

(2) Final report.--Not later than one year after the date

of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General shall

submit to the Secretary, and Congress, then the Secretary

shall make recommendations for legislative or administrative

action.

(3) Appropriate committees of congress defined.--In this

subsection, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''

means--

(A) the Committees on Appropriations and Veterans' Affairs

of the Senate; and

(B) the Committees on Appropriations and Veterans' Affairs

of the House of Representatives.