[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 21, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4382-H4387]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHILD MEDICATION SAFETY ACT OF 2003
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 1170) to protect children and their parents from being coerced
into administering psychotropic medication in order to attend school,
and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1170
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Child Medication Safety Act
of 2003''.
SEC. 2. REQUIRED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
(a) In General.--As a condition of receiving funds under
any program or activity administered by the Secretary of
Education, not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, each State shall develop and implement
policies and procedures prohibiting school personnel from
requiring a child to obtain a prescription for substances
covered by section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act
(21 U.S.C. 812(c)) as a condition of attending school or
receiving services.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall
be construed to create a Federal prohibition against teachers
and other school personnel consulting or sharing classroom-
based observations with parents or guardians regarding a
student's academic performance or behavior in the classroom
or school, or regarding the need for evaluation for special
education or related services under section 612(a)(3) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1412(a)(3)).
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Child.--The term ``child'' means any person within the
age limits for which the State provides free public
education.
(2) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
SEC. 4. GAO STUDY AND REVIEW.
(a) Review.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a review of--
(1) the variation among States in definitions of
psychotropic medication as used in regard to State
jurisdiction over public education;
(2) the prescription rates of medications used in public
schools to treat children diagnosed with attention deficit
disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other
disorders or illnesses;
(3) which medications used to treat such children in public
schools are listed under the Controlled Substances Act; and
(4) which medications used to treat such children in public
schools are not listed under the Controlled Substances Act,
including the properties and effects of any such medications
and whether such medications have been considered for listing
under the Controlled Substances Act.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall prepare and submit a report that contains the
results of the review under subsection (a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Burns) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).
General Leave
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 1170.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today we are considering H.R. 1170, the Child Medication Safety Act,
which will prevent school personnel from requiring a child to obtain a
prescription for a controlled substance in order to remain in the
classroom. I would first like to thank Chairman Boehner and Speaker
Hastert for their support of this legislation and Subcommittee Chairman
Castle for conducting an important hearing on this bipartisan bill.
In recent decades there has been a growing number of children
diagnosed with attention deficit disorder and attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder and then treated with medications such as
Ritalin and Adderall. When a licensed medical professional properly
diagnoses a child as needing these drugs, the administration of the
drugs may be entirely appropriate and very beneficial. While these
medications can be helpful, they also have the potential for serious
harm and abuse, especially for children who do not need these
medications. In many instances, school personnel freely offer diagnosis
for ADD and ADHD disorders and urge parents to obtain drug treatment
for the child.
Sometimes officials even attempt to force parents into choosing
between medicating their child and remaining in the classroom. This is
unconscionable. School personnel may have good intentions, but parents
should never be required to decide between their child's education and
keeping them off potentially harmful drugs. School personnel
[[Page H4383]]
should never presume to know the medication needs of a child. Only
medical doctors have the authority to determine if a prescription for a
medication is physically appropriate.
{time} 1115
The bill before us today, the Child Medication Safety Act of 2003, is
straightforward, sensible legislation that aims to remedy this problem
facing parents across the Nation. It requires States to establish
policies and procedures prohibiting school personnel from requiring a
child to take medication in order to attend school. This bill has been
carefully crafted to preserve communication between the school
personnel and the parent, but it also protects parents from being
coerced into placing their child on a drug in order to receive
educational services. Parents would no longer be forced into making
decisions about their child's health under duress from school
officials.
The language as amended in committee makes some important
clarifications to the bill. While the bill as introduced only included
drugs listed in schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, we
learned that there are replacement drugs for Ritalin and Adderall in
other schedules. For this reason and to answer concerns among the
mental health community, the list of covered drugs was expanded to
cover those listed in all five schedules of the Controlled Substances
Act.
The bill before the House today also includes an important
clarification to ensure that parents and teachers are able to have an
open dialogue about any academic or behavior-related needs of the
child. This legislation is intended only to prevent school personnel
from requiring children to be medicated. It is not intended to stifle
appropriate dialogue between parents and teachers. Teachers spend so
much time with the students and observe a wide variety of situations
and parents often ask their child's teachers to share their
observations about their child's behavior in school. We certainly do
not want to infringe on these important conversations. The Child
Medication Safety Act of 2003 makes clear that appropriate
conversations can still take place. This is an important change that
was brought to my attention by a number of my colleagues, and I would
like to particularly thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Kennedy), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for their help in this area.
This bill is not antischool, antiteacher, or antimedication. This
bill is pro-children and pro-parent. The Child Medication Safety Act of
2003 is essential to protecting both parents and children. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill that restores power to the parents.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
When I asked the Marin County superintendent of public schools what
she thought about H.R. 1170, she replied that it was a bill that would
affect the many to solve the possible problem of just a few, and I
think that describes it perfectly. Of course no one wants a school to
force parents to medicate their children. In fact, we would not stand
for that. But neither do we want teachers and other school personnel to
be afraid to talk to parents about children's behavior or to suggest
that a child should be evaluated by a medical health practitioner. That
is why we worked with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) to add a
provision to H.R. 1170 that specifically protects a teacher's right to
have these discussions with parents and to identify a child for
evaluation just as they can do now under IDEA. While I do think this
bill creates more paperwork than good public policy, I do understand
the gentleman from Georgia's (Mr. Burns) intentions, and I appreciate
his willingness to work with us.
This bill was unanimously voted out of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce, and I know of no objection to it passing under
suspension this morning.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the committee.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to
be here today to speak on behalf of the Child Medication Safety Act of
2003. I want to particularly commend the author of this bill, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns). He himself is a professional
educator and knows firsthand how significant that law can be. I have
the perspective of being the father of four children, and I know how
important this can be to their ability to do well in school. And it is
a big day for us. My ninth grader completes his final day today. I know
he is a happy creature at home on his way to the tenth grade.
Additionally, my wife is a teacher, and I am really proud of her
service. She just concluded her first grade class yesterday; so she is
out for the summer.
But as a parent and a spouse of a teacher, I appreciate this
legislation. The Child Medication Safety Act of 2003 requires States,
as a condition of receiving Federal education funds, to establish
policies and procedures prohibiting school personnel from requiring a
child to take a controlled substance in order to attend school. Parents
have felt pressured to place their child on drugs like Ritalin or
Adderall. These are potentially dangerous drugs and only licensed
medical practitioners should recommend these drugs and then carefully
monitor the child for harmful side effects. School districts and
teachers should not presume to know what medication a child needs or if
the child even needs medication. Only medical personnel have the
ability to determine if a prescription for a controlled substance is
appropriate for a child.
The input and advice from schools and teachers carry weight with most
parents. Parents should not be forced to decide between getting their
child into school and keeping their child off mind-altering drugs.
Parents are in the best position to determine what is best for the
child. After listening to licensed medical personnel, a parent is the
one who should determine whether their child should be medicated, not
school personnel. Schools should respect a parent's choice and not use
coercive measures that might be harmful to children merely to avoid
dealing with behavioral problems. Most importantly, the bill ensures
that there is open communication between the school personnel and
parents.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1170.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend both
sides for working out a good bill that passed unanimously from the
committee. I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), my
good friend and colleague, and his office for working very closely with
all of us in trying to ensure that we were able to address the needs of
families and children in school.
When I travel around my district in Rhode Island, I find school
teachers telling me that the biggest single problem they have is
addressing the emotional and social development of the kids in their
classrooms. These kids come to school often from broken families,
family violence, situations that none of us can even begin to imagine,
and to think that these children are going to learn and not be able to
shut out these things from their mind about what is going on at home is
just not being realistic. These kids need assistance, they need help,
and they need counseling. That is why I think we have done so well by
trying to ensure that there are more school counselors, but we still
need to do more.
In terms of the mental health part, I think this is an important part
of development. I think this bill does a lot to ensure that we do not
tie the hands of teachers and principals and administrators insofar as
their consulting with parents. In many respects teachers have a window
into what is going on in that child's life, and they are best equipped
to be able to talk to those parents and be able to consult with those
parents about what those children might need. Obviously, none of us
wants to see a situation where instead of getting these kids the
necessary emotional and social support, all they give to these kids is
medication. We do not need to do that, but we do need to
[[Page H4384]]
ensure that for those kids who do need medication who do have those
kinds of chemical imbalances that make it very difficult for them to
learn that they can get the needed support.
I think overall the biggest challenge that we have in this area is
ending the stigma of mental health. Somehow, having any kind of range
of mental illness is a stigma. I myself suffer from depression. I take
medications for it. It is nothing I feel ashamed of. I also have
asthma. I take medications for that. And yet in this country we still
have this pervasive view that somehow if one has kind of an emotional
problem that that is their problem, that is of their own making, that
it is not some part of their brain chemistry. Just as diabetes or
asthma or any other chronic disease would not be their fault, neither
is any mental illness.
So that is why I think this bill is important in that it does not
stigmatize those families and children that may be suffering from
emotional and social challenges. So with that I ask for support for
this legislation and commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey) for her good work.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a professional in the health
care field.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Burns) for putting together this legislation which actually is
extremely important. I know I have seen in my own practice as a
psychologist the importance of helping to make sure that children get
to the right professionals and that there is not coercion or threat
that goes to the families.
I want to take a few moments, first of all, to lay out with regard to
this bill the issues involved with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, an often misunderstood and often maligned diagnosis that
because of that lends itself to prejudicial comments as certainly the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) was also alluding to.
Attention deficit disorder has a number of diagnostic criteria which
are laid out in what is called the ``Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual.'' They include categories of inattention, hyperactivity and
impulsiveness. Because psychiatric and psychological symptoms are
described in behavioral terms they oftentimes seem vague and only
behavioral. For example, under the inattention category, it might mean
a person who fails to give close attention to details or has difficulty
sustaining attention in tasks or often does not seem to listen when
spoken to directly or does not follow through on instructions to finish
school work, et cetera; often has difficulty organizing tasks and
activities or avoids or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require
sustained mental effort.
When one just hears some of those symptoms, one may think that those
could cover a wide range of behaviors that may not necessarily reach a
diagnosis that requires medication, and there is something to that.
That is why it is so very important when there is a concern raised
about a child's symptom picture perhaps fitting the diagnosis of
attention deficit disorder that that child be thoroughly evaluated by
perhaps a team of professionals psychiatrists, psychologists, people
who are trained to do this, but not simply referred on the basis of
this child is difficult in the classroom.
And let me lay out why. In terms of attention behaviors, we look upon
this as a primary, secondary, and tertiary diagnosis. A primary
attention deficit disorder is one where a child actually has the
symptom pictures of attention disorder related to the biological and in
some cases some inherited factors for that, but it is pretty clearly in
that category. They meet the diagnostic criteria.
Secondary attention deficit disorder is when the child may have the
same problems with concentration and attention and getting their work
done, but it is secondary to some other problems. For example, a child
may have an anxiety disorder. They may be suffering from depression.
They may have sensory problems. I have known children who were referred
to me for attention disorder only to find out they needed glasses or
they had a subtle hearing loss. They may be having social problems,
cultural problems, as they are moving from one school district to
another and have a great deal of difficulty. They may have speech and
communication problems where they have trouble understanding the
teacher. And yet those children's symptom picture can look similar.
They are not paying attention, not concentrating, they are not getting
their work done, they are agitated and hyperactive. It is important
that those other problems are diagnosed clearly and those are treated
and those are not the children who should be given medication.
A third type is a tertiary problem, and this is not the problem with
the child so much as it is a problem with expectations. That is, people
may expect a pre-school child to sit still. People may expect a
teenager to concentrate and not daydream. We know anybody with any
rudimentary knowledge of having children knows that those are not
realistic expectations, and yet there are those sometimes who feel that
children who are out of sync with their expectations will somehow
require medication, and that is inappropriate.
These diagnostic criteria, I should also add, in the testimony that
was given to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, there were
some who raised the question of whether or not this was biological. I
draw some attention to some research that was done, I believe, in 1990
where they did Positron Emission Tomography. That is, they could look
at the activity in the brains of people who were identified with
attention disorder and those who were not and found in those who had a
diagnosis of attention disorder, their brain activity was somewhat
lower.
That is not to mean that they had brain damage. It simply meant by
looking at levels of brain activity, they found that those parts of the
brain that generally control impulses and thought, that is, the frontal
lobe, et cetera, were not as active as those in people who did not have
attention disorder. That lent a great deal to the science of
understanding attention disorder because all along before that we
thought that the brains were overstimulated and it may actually be they
were undercontrolled in some regions.
This of course also lends credence to why sometimes one may use
medication. The medications used, such as Ritalin or Adderall or
Dexedrine, are stimulant medications; and we for many years wondered
about this paradoxical effect of why would you give a stimulant
medication to actually slow someone down. And the point is that it
appears to stimulate those portions of the brain. Basically, sometimes
a layman can understand that if they feel tired and groggy and
overwhelmed and they are having trouble staying alert and staying
focused, sometimes a person, as they are driving down the road, will be
overactive.
{time} 1130
But the point is this: What I am trying to lay out here is the
complexity of this.
Let me end with this one anecdote. When I was practicing as a
psychologist, I received a call to evaluate a child, and did so. Then,
calling back to the school district, said this child does not appear to
have primary attention disorder. I think there were some other issues
here, but not that.
I was told then by the referring source in the school district, put
this child on Ritalin, or we will never refer another child to your
practice again. I challenged that person on that immediately and said I
need to go by what I believe an appropriate diagnostic criteria is and
suggested they withdraw that threat.
But that is the very reason why we need legislation like this, to say
this is not something that should be done to control children. This
should be something that is done to help do the best thing in the
child's best interest with the best people involved using the
appropriate diagnostic criteria.
This is a positive thing for children and ultimately a positive thing
for families, and I certainly implore my colleagues vote yes on this
bill.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Davis).
(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me time.
[[Page H4385]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1170 on very simple grounds:
It is a solution without a problem. The bill is based on the assumption
that a substantial number of educators require students to take
medication in order to attend school.
At a hearing 2 weeks ago, I asked all of the witnesses if they had
any statistical evidence of the frequency with which this happens. Mr.
Speaker, not a single one did. All they offered were anecdotes, often
anonymous ones. I believe it is irresponsible to rush to legislative
judgment without facts; and, indeed, I am requesting that the
Government Accounting Office report, based on its ongoing research,
whether there are verified instances of this being a cause for due
process hearings.
Let us be clear: If parents believe that a school has pressured them
to seek a medical evaluation for their child due to the child's
behavior, and if a physician evaluates the child and prescribes
appropriate medication, and if the parent nonetheless does not want to
give the medication to the child, there may be a conflict about the
child's placement in a regular classroom. Should that happen, the
parent has clear due process rights to seek an evaluation through the
special education process whether or not the child will ultimately
qualify for special education services. If the parent is dissatisfied
with those results, an appeal to a due process hearing officer is
available.
Please note: Teachers educate. They cannot medicate; and physicians,
as we know, must do that.
What happens in real life if a parent is unhappy with a school's
placement of their child? As a former school board member, I can tell
you that they pick up the phone and they call their school board
representative. And that is exactly what they should do. Where a
problem may indeed exist, the problem needs to be addressed
specifically with the involved personnel and known circumstances.
Are there bad apples in the world of education who may have put
inappropriate pressure on a parent to seek a pharmaceutical solution to
a behavior problem? Well, yes, there possibly are. Bad apples do exist.
But if we think of every one of tens of thousands of schools in our
country as having a barrel of apples, the teachers of our children, is
it fair to castigate all of those barrels of apples as being rotten
because across the country there is one bad apple in a barrel here or
there? I think we discredit the tens of thousands of wonderful teachers
in our country when we legislate based on this false assumption.
But I want to thank, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Burns) for having accepted changes to his original bill that mitigate
the most alarming issue contained in the original language. He has
accepted a provision that clearly states that it is the right and
responsibility of teachers to counsel parents about the educational,
physical and emotional attributes of their child as compared to the
norm of children and to recommend professional evaluation, if
warranted.
If a child is having trouble seeing the blackboard, the teacher must
advise the parent to seek professional help. Teachers cannot prescribe
glasses, but they certainly must identify the need. It is the same if a
child with diabetes or asthma is having trouble regulating the
medications he takes, and this affects the child's ability to learn. It
is the same if the child's mental health needs require evaluation so
that that child and the class can function beneficially.
The reason that this section is so important is that it appeared that
the measure as originally proposed had provided an opportunity for
groups who openly oppose all mental health evaluation to seek to affect
the teacher-parent counseling relationship by chilling the teacher's
right to speak of these matters to parents.
While the measure before us today contains some mitigating language,
what is so alarming is that when the Individuals with Disabilities in
Education Act came before the committee, this bill's original language
was offered without notification and was voice-voted without the
benefit of hearings or study. It is thus part of the House-passed IDEA
bill; and it is critical that, should that language be included in the
conference bill, that the mitigating paragraph contained in today's
separate bill be included in that language as well.
Although today's bill has been improved, I would still ask Members as
legislators to consider the process of this legislation. I believe that
legislation should be based on the documented existence of a problem,
not on hearsay and innuendo; and I believe that all of the wonderful,
caring teachers in our country should be celebrated for their
compassion for children's needs and not tarnished by the stated
assumption of this measure.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) on
this legislation, H.R. 1170, and would like to encourage strongly all
of our colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the Child Medication Safety Act of 2003 requires States,
as a condition of receiving Federal education funds, to establish
policies and procedures prohibiting school personnel from requiring a
child to take a controlled substance in order to attend school. I could
not agree with that more.
The problem is, parents feel the pressure from school officials to
put their child on drugs like Ritalin or Adderall. Basically, these can
be potentially dangerous drugs, and the underlying part here is that
only licensed medical practitioners should recommend these drugs and
then carefully be able to monitor the child for harmful side effects.
The very idea that the pressure can be brought to bear on a parent to
force them to put a child on any of these drugs, and particularly
Adderall and Ritalin, just goes against the principles of good common
sense.
School districts and teachers ought not to presume to know
medications that a child needs. If a child in fact needs medication,
only medical personnel have the ability to determine that.
I am very pleased that this bill will hopefully begin to rein in some
of the consequences of leaving it up simply to the school to determine
if a child needs to be put on a medication and, more importantly, to
put the pressure on the parents. This does not keep the school
officials and the parents from having good conversations about a child.
Obviously, we all want that. I am absolutely satisfied that the bill
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) does not keep that
from happening.
Mr. Speaker, let us support this common sense legislation and move
on.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1170,
the Child Medication Safety Act, and commend the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Burns) for taking the initiative to introduce this resolution.
I also would like to most directly associate my remarks with those of
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), who made what I think
to be some real points relative to medication, the utilization of it,
and really the relationship of the whole question of mental health.
Mr. Speaker, there are several studies over the last decade pointing
out the fact that prescription drug abuse is on the rise in America. In
1999, an estimated 4 million people, 2 percent of the population, aged
12 and older were currently using certain prescription drugs
nonmedically. The data from the National Institute on Drug Abuse
demonstrates that the most dramatic increase in new users of
prescription drugs for nonmedical purposes occurs in the ages 12 to 17
and 18 to 25. This resolution will hopefully help this growing problem
of addiction by giving parents a voice in whether their child should be
medicated or not without the consequence of having their child removed
from school.
Teachers and other school personnel will still be able to recommend
to parents if they feel there is a medical problem with the child, be
it a need for a hearing or vision test, or if there is concern that
maybe the child should be seen by a physician for diabetes, epilepsy or
attention deficit disorder.
Of course, our teachers and school personnel are with our children
for a
[[Page H4386]]
longer period of time during the day and, of course, many may witness
problems that parents may not see before or after school. But no parent
or child should be forced to use prescription drugs to obtain an
education. There is still something called patients' rights, parents'
rights, children's rights; and certainly the parents of children should
have the right to determine when and if their children should be
medicated or not.
I think this legislation provides the opportunity for the kind of
interaction between parents and teachers so that parents get the best
information. They then can make a determination, and jointly the
child's education can always be the first order of concern.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is an excellent piece of legislation.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the remarks we have heard on the
floor today. I said before when the subject of Ritalin come up, I
raised four children, and I am absolutely certain that Ritalin or some
other psychotropic drug would have been suggested for each and every
one of them sometime during their school career. In fact, when I was a
kid, my grandfather used to offer to pay me 5 cents for every minute
that I could sit still. Well, I never earned a nickel. So my kids came
with this hyperactive behavior through the genes, and we all learned
through behavior modification and through growing up that, indeed,
moving around all the time was not going to get us anywhere. So they
learned to be calm, before I did, actually.
But that is why I have concerns about blurring the line between the
behavior of an active, high-spirited child and a child with a
disability.
This is not to suggest, however, that attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, ADHD, is not a very real disability for many children. ADHD
robs so many children and their parents of the pleasures of childhood
and family. The children are labeled as ``bad'' for things that they
actually cannot control. The parents find themselves frustrated and
often angry at their child.
However, the growing increase in the manufacture and prescription of
psychotropic drugs, like Ritalin, is a cause for concern. The decision
to treat a child with any drug, but certainly a stimulant, should be
made very, very carefully and only after comprehensive evaluation and
diagnosis. It is crucial that parents be very well informed about these
drugs, both the possible successes of the drug and the possible side
effects of a drug, if it is being considered for their child.
It goes without saying, parents must have the final word in deciding
whether or not their child takes any psychotropic drug.
{time} 1145
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have been part of these negotiations
with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) and with the other side of
the aisle in our committee so we could come up with a bill that we
totally support and feel will be good for the child, for the parent,
and for the education system for that child.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
for working closely with us on this bill. I appreciate the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey), and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), in
particular, for their contributions to this important legislation.
I also would like to thank the Speaker of the House, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), for his support and guidance in this
effort and also the leadership as we sought to bring this bill to the
floor this day.
This is a straightforward, sensible bill. It just makes common sense.
It is a bipartisan bill that has been worked out to ensure the
appropriate and effective protection of our children. This bill
protects children. It puts the power back in the hands of the parents
so they can make an informed choice in the best interests of their
family. It ensures that teachers and administrators are involved in the
decision process, actively involved in the child's development.
In conversations with the National Association of Education, they in
their review saw no problems and are supportive of this legislation.
The most important thing about this bill is it protects children and
it keeps them from being inappropriately medicated. This bill is not
antischool or antiteacher; it is not antimedication. There are
appropriate and reasonable ways in which we should use medication in
the best interests of our children. But this bill is prochild, it is
prohealth, it is proparents. It ensures that America's children are
protected.
Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation, it is reasonable legislation,
and it is legislation that is good for America. I urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 1170.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1170, the
Child Medication Safety Act, which prohibits school personnel from
requiring a child be medicated in order to receive an education and
stay in the classroom.
There have been reports that schools have forced parents to put their
children on medication, such as Ritalin, in order to allow them to
continue attending school. Some have gone so far as to keep children
out of the classroom until the parents relent and agree to put their
kids on these drugs. In one specific case, a child was removed from
their home because the parents refused to put them on medication as
mandated by the school. This is outrageous. School personnel should
never presume to know the medication needs of a child. Only medical
doctors have the ability to determine if a prescription for a
psychotropic drug is appropriate for a child.
As a former school teacher, I am sympathetic to need to have order in
a classroom with as few disruptions as possible. However, it has been
my experience that kids will be kids and there will always be children
in the classroom who are overactive or inattentive.
It's important to note that nothing in this legislation prevents a
school or school personnel from recommending a parent seek medical
review of their child's physical or mental health. This legislation
just keeps them from requiring medication in order to receive education
services. The prescribing of medication should be left to parents and
medical professionals not school officials.
Psychotropic drugs are serious medications and have an altering
effect on the mind. These drugs have potential for serious harm,
addiction and abuse that is why they are listed on Schedule II and IV
of the Controlled Substances Act. Therefore, it is critical that they
only be prescribed by licensed medical practitioners who have seen the
child and made a medical evaluation to determine a diagnosis and the
proper needs of a child.
H.R. 1170, the Child Medication Safety Act, is important legislation
that protects children and parents. I would like to thank Congressman
Burns and Chairman Boehner for their hard work on this bill. I strongly
support their efforts to move this legislation forward.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, no parent should feel forced to put
their child on a psychotropic drug like Ritalin or Adderall. But that
is just what is happening every day in schools across America.
Currently, teachers can coerce parents by demanding that their child be
medicated to attend their class.
This is wrong. Parents should not feel pressured to make a choice for
their child because a teacher or school administator--individuals who
do not have a medical background to make these suggestions--tells them
their child must be medicated. That is why House Resolution 1170, the
Child Medication Safety Act of 2003, is such an important piece of
legislation. It gives parents the ultimate power in deciding whether or
not their child should be on medication.
This bill requires states that receive Federal education funds to
establish policies and procedures that prohibit school officials and
teachers from requiring a child to be on a psychotropic drug to attend
school.
Of course, parents often seek the advice and input of their child's
teacher. But this bill calls for open communication between parents and
teachers. Once a teacher or other school official meets with the parent
and makes a suggestion that medication may be needed for a child to
learn in the best way possible, the parent can then go to their family
doctor to discuss both the risks and the benefits of these psychotropic
drugs and make the choice themselves after weighing all of the options.
Parents are the only ones who should make the ultimate decision
whether their child needs to be on medication. They should never be
told that their child cannot attend school without being on a drug like
Ritalin. H.R. 1170 gives the power to the parent when it comes to these
choices.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1170, the
Child Medication
[[Page H4387]]
Safety Act, which will prevent school personnel from requiring a child
to obtain a prescription for a medication in order to remain in the
classroom.
I would first like to thank my colleague from Georgia, Representative
Max Burns, for his leadership in introducing this legislation to
address this significant issue. I would also like to thank Lynn Woolsey
for her help to improve this legislation. I am please to support this
bipartisan legislation and am thankful for their efforts.
We have heard from numerous parents and grandparents that have been
coerced or pressured by school districts into placing their child on
medication in order for the child to attend school or receive services.
I recognize the difficulty that children with attention or behavior
problems bring to school, but no one should react by automatically
assuming that the child should be on drugs. And certainly an individual
without a medical license should not presume to understand the severity
of a problem and simply assume that the child would be better off with
drugs.
I'm sure that in these situations school personnel think they are
doing the child, and the parents, a favor. But they are not. Instead
they create new problems, unintended problems, and add to the culture
where a pill should magically solve all of the child's problems. Worse,
the quick fix of a pill fails to account for the potentially harmful
effects of these drugs when not properly administered.
The diagnosis of a disability or emotional or behavioral problem
requires the careful examination and discussion with a licensed medical
practitioner. This bill protects that dialogue and ensures that parents
are not forced to decide between their own preferences and a school
official who is acting inappropriately.
I think it is also important to point out that we have provided
strong safeguards to protect appropriate communication between the
parent and the teacher. Teachers will still be able to share their
observations with parents about the child's behavior in the classroom
and the school. Teachers and parents will still be able to discuss the
child's academic performance. This bill does not stifle appropriate
communication.
This bill has the clear and simple goal of preventing school
officials from requiring children to be medicated with a controlled
substance in order to attend school. This is a goal we can and should
all support.
H.R. 1170 is an important bill that will provide security and comfort
to both teachers and parents to ensure that our children are protected.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for
the ``Child Medication Safety Act of 2003 (H.R. 1170),'' which would
prohibit the required administration of psychotropic medications in
order for children to attend school.
Like many Members, I believe that our children are our future. We
need to do our best to protect and improve the health and well-being of
our Nation's children, including protecting them from medications that
can potentially harm them.
While I was the Chairman of the Full Committee on Government Reform,
I held a hearing on September 26, 2002, to examine allegations that too
many children are being medicated for Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) at increasingly
younger ages, and to discuss the health implications of these drugs.
Our investigation found that disorders, such as ADD and ADHD, are
diagnosed by a checklist of behaviors, not medical science. According
to the National Institutes of Health, the behaviors, or ``symptoms''
used to diagnose these disorders are inattention, hyperactivity, and
impulsivity. Based on these descriptions, almost every child in the
United States would be considered afflicted, and under current law, be
required to take psychotropic medication to attend school.
Ritalin is perhaps the most prescribed psychotropic drug used to
control children with behavioral problems. It is estimated that four to
six million children are taking this drug daily in the United States, a
500 percent increase since 1990.
Ritalin is classified as a Schedule II stimulant. This means that it
has met three criteria: (1) it has a high potential for abuse; (2) it
has a currently accepted medical use in the treatment; and (3) it is
shown that abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical
dependence. According to research published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association, Ritalin was shown to be a more potent
transport inhibitor than cocaine. In addition, the chronic use of
Ritalin can lead to: aggression, agitation, disruption of food intake,
weight loss, and even death.
Schools should not be able to force parents to administer these
psychotropic drugs to their children--not only are these disorders
diagnosed without physiological testing, but they can also lead these
children to further drug-use and dependence, or even the worst of all
scenarios . . . death.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1170 would protect our children from being required
by schools to become subject to psychotropic medications that can lead
to detrimental health effects as well as drug addiction based on
unscientific diagnoses. I urge continued support from my colleagues on
this important legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1170, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________