HR-3420-119
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Sponsored by Pete Sessions (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would replace the terms "mentally retarded" and "mental retardation" throughout numerous federal statutes—including provisions of the Social Security Act, the National Housing Act, Title 18 and Title 10 of the U.S. Code, and the Affordable Care Act—with "intellectual disability" or "individuals with intellectual disabilities." It would also require federal agencies to update related regulations and clarify that these are terminology changes only, not changes to program eligibility, coverage, or rights, and states would not be required to change their own laws.
Who benefits
Individuals with intellectual disabilities and their families, who would see outdated and stigmatizing terminology removed from federal statutes; disability advocacy organizations that have long sought this terminology change; agencies and legal drafters who benefit from updated, consistent language across the U.S. Code.
Who is hurt
No group is substantively harmed, since the bill explicitly preserves existing eligibility, rights, and program definitions. Federal agencies would bear modest administrative costs to update regulations and printed materials to reflect the new terminology.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that "mental retardation" is an outdated and stigmatizing term that has already been removed from clinical and educational usage under laws like Rosa's Law (2010), and that federal statutes should reflect modern, respectful terminology consistent with how agencies and professionals actually refer to intellectual disabilities. They contend the bill makes no substantive policy change, only correcting language while preserving all existing rights and benefits.
Opponents argue
Opponents, to the extent any exist, might argue that revising dozens of statutory provisions creates administrative burden and potential for drafting errors or unintended legal ambiguity if courts interpret the new terms differently than the old ones, despite the bill's rule of construction. They might also contend that congressional floor time and resources could be directed toward substantive policy changes for individuals with intellectual disabilities rather than terminology alone.
Constitutional context
This bill raises no constitutional question beyond Congress's Article I authority to legislate on the subjects covered by the amended statutes, since it is a terminology substitution that does not alter program structure, funding conditions, or individual rights.
Checks and balances
Congress amends the statutory text directly; federal agencies implement conforming regulatory changes, with no new authority shifted to the executive or judiciary.
Historical precedent
Rosa's Law (2010) similarly replaced "mental retardation" with "intellectual disability" across federal education and health statutes, establishing a direct precedent for this bill's approach.