[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 126 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H9787-H9788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CORRECTING ENROLLMENT OF S. 1809, DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ASSISTANCE 
                     AND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT OF 1999

  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 133) to 
correct the enrollment of S. 1809, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not 
object, but I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) so he 
might explain the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland 
for his leadership on this particular bill, as he is a leader on many 
bills of interest to Americans who are concerned about empowering those 
among us who are disabled.
  This takes up, which we just passed, actually, S. 1809, which is the 
Senate-passed Developmental Disabilities Act reauthorization, with a 
correcting enrollment, which we are doing right now.
  It maintains the language that the gentleman and I have worked 
through in the House-passed version, basic reauthorization.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
his explanation, and I thank him for his work on this. I certainly want 
to say to our friends in the Senate, Senator Jeffords and Senator 
Harkin and others who have worked on this legislation, that we are very 
pleased that it is here. We are pleased that, with the gentleman from 
New York, we were able to get agreement on the unanimous consent. I 
rise in very strong support of the passage of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here to discuss a landmark piece of 
legislation that will improve the lives of over four million 
individuals with developmental disabilities--The Reauthorization of the 
Developmental Disabilities Act.
  The road to passing The Reauthorization of the Developmental 
Disabilities Act has been long and tortuous.
  The Reauthorization of the Developmental Disabilities Act was passed 
originally by the Senate around the same time this month, last year. We 
had some problems moving it here in the House, but were finally 
successful in passing a House version in July during the 10th 
anniversary celebration of The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).
  As the lead sponsor of the ADA 10 years ago, I was especially pleased 
to be able to work on another important piece of disability legislation 
while celebrating the passage of civil rights for people with 
disabilities.
  Today we are here to pass a joint resolution that incorporates 
technical changes we made here in the House and re-pass the Senate's 
version.
  This bill originated in the Senate, and out of respect for the hard 
work of Senators Jeffords, Kennedy and Harkin, we would like to send 
the original Senate bill to the President to sign.
  The DD Act has not been substantially reauthorized since 1994, and is 
in need of some updating. Just as our technology and science evolves 
every day, so do the strategies for reaching, engaging, and assisting 
individuals with developmental disabilities.
  Individuals with developmental disabilities often have multiple, 
evolving, life long needs that require interaction with agencies and 
organizations that offer specialized assistance as well as interaction 
with generic services in their communities.
  The DD Act seeks to provide a voice for those with developmental 
disabilities, those with mental retardation, autism, cerebral palsy and 
epilepsy, as they navigate through the complicated system of public 
services, policies and organizations that we currently have in place.
  The DD Act seeks to provide families with the knowledge and tools 
they need to help individuals with developmental disabilities become 
integrated and included in their communities, to foster true 
independence of those with developmental disabilities and protect 
themselves from abuse and neglect.
  Mr. Chairman, as we stand here today, ready to pass the final version 
of the Developmental Disabilities Act, I think it is appropriate to 
acknowledge and remind all of my colleagues of the battle that people 
with disabilities have fought in order to obtain basic civil rights.
  It is appropriate that the House passed the first version of this 
bill on the 10th anniversary of the ADA, and today as we pass this 
final version of the Developmental Disabilities Act, the Supreme Court 
is hearing a case that may significantly alter the civil rights 
protections granted in the ADA.
  Today the court is hearing oral arguments to review whether Congress 
had the authority to abrogate State immunity and enforce the ADA's 
antidiscrimination protections against State governments.
  A negative ruling from the Supreme Court could call into question 
altogether the constitutionality of title II of the ADA, as well as 
other disability rights statutes.
  As someone who was there during the debates on the ADA, these 
questions aren't hard to answer. There was a great deal of 
discrimination going on at the State level--people with disabilities 
were segregated into institutions; children were discriminated against 
in public school; public transportation didn't accommodate wheelchairs; 
and there was a history of section 504 litigation that proved 
discrimination was happening at the State level. The Bush 
administration's own national council on disability documented the 
discrimination in its report to Congress.

[[Page H9788]]

  We can't let the court turn back the clock on disability rights in 
the same year that we are celebrating the anniversary of these 
important protections.
  The ADA allowed us to tear down the wall of exclusion and pour a 
strong foundation for the house of equality. But that house--in which 
Americans are judged by their ability and not their disability--is 
still being built.
  The promise remains unfulfilled, but still is within reach.
  I urge my colleagues to support the reauthorization of the 
Developmental Disabilities Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:

                            S. Con. Res. 133

       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That the Secretary of the Senate, in the 
     enrollment of the bill (S. 1809) to improve service systems 
     for individuals with developmental disabilities, and for 
     other purposes, shall make the following corrections:
       (1) Strike ``1999'' each place it appears (other than in 
     section 101(a)(2)) and insert ``2000''.
       (2) In section 101(a)(2), strike ``are'' and insert 
     ``were''.
       (3) In section 104(a)--
       (A) in paragraphs (1), (3)(C), and (4), strike ``2000'' 
     each place it appears and insert ``2001''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4), strike ``fiscal year 2001'' and 
     insert ``fiscal year 2002''.
       (4) In section 124(c)(4)(B)(i), strike ``2001'' and insert 
     ``2002''.
       (5) In section 125(c)--
       (A) in paragraph (5)(H), strike ``assess'' and insert 
     ``access''; and
       (B) in paragraph (7), strike ``2001'' and insert ``2002''.
       (6) In section 129(a)--
       (A) strike ``fiscal year 2000'' and insert ``fiscal year 
     2001''; and
       (B) strike ``fiscal years 2001 through 2006'' and insert 
     ``fiscal years 2002 through 2007''.
       (7) Is section 144(e), strike ``2001'' and insert ``2002''.
       (8) In section 145--
       (A) strike ``fiscal year 2000'' and insert ``fiscal year 
     2001''; and
       (B) strike ``fiscal years 2001 through 2006'' and insert 
     ``fiscal years 2002 through 2007''.
       (9) In section 156--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (i) strike ``fiscal year 2000'' and insert ``fiscal year 
     2001''; and
       (ii) strike ``fiscal years 2001 through 2006'' and insert 
     ``fiscal years 2002 through 2007''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), strike ``2000'' each place it 
     appears and insert ``2001''.
       (10) In section 163--
       (A) strike ``fiscal year 2000'' and insert ``fiscal year 
     2001''; and
       (B) strike ``fiscal years 2001 through 2006'' and insert 
     ``fiscal years 2002 through 2007''.
       (11) In section 212, strike ``2000 through 2006'' and 
     insert ``2001 through 2007''.
       (12) In section 305--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) strike ``fiscal year 2000'' and insert ``fiscal year 
     2001''; and
       (ii) strike ``fiscal years 2001 through 2006'' and insert 
     ``fiscal years 2002 through 2007''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) strike ``fiscal year 2000'' and insert ``fiscal year 
     2001''; and
       (ii) strike ``fiscal years 2001 and 2002'' and insert 
     ``fiscal years 2002 and 2003''.

  The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________