[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 140 (Tuesday, September 20, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5745-S5747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS--S. 1094
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to pursue a
unanimous consent request on something that is critical to families in
my home State of New Jersey, which has the highest rate of autism, but
is also critical to families across the country who have a loved one
who faces--in the spectrum of autism and other developmental issues--
the need to get the help, so their child, their loved one, can fulfill
their God-given capabilities.
Last Tuesday morning, a full week ago from today, I sent this bill
before the Senate for unanimous consent, and that unanimous consent was
cleared on the Democratic side, but it has not been cleared on the
Republican side,
[[Page S5746]]
which has prevented this bill from passing.
This legislation was reported out of the Senate Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee on September 7 without amendment and with
unanimous support, Republicans and Democrats together. This result, the
result of a bipartisan effort with Senator Enzi, who is the ranking
member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, is
vital to ensuring that the programs created under the landmark
Combating Autism Act of 2006 continue.
That bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush after
passing the Senate on a unanimous consent. This long history of
bipartisan support only adds to my confusion as to why there are
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are currently preventing
the bill from passing.
This legislation has unanimous support from Democrats and strong
bipartisan support throughout the Senate, including nine Republican
cosponsors.
Without Senate approval, the Combating Autism Act will sunset at the
end of next week, leaving countless families across our Nation without
the support they need in caring for their children with autism.
This bill provides an additional 3 years of guarantees simply in the
context of an authorization. Obviously, we would have to go through the
appropriations process and there would have to be debate and it would
be voted on the floor, but that authorization for 3 years at the fiscal
year 2011 appropriated levels for the programs for the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and
the Health Resources and Services Administration is vital to continuing
our efforts on diagnosing autism spectrum disorder, advancing
behavioral therapies to improve social abilities with those with
autism, providing families with education and support services to
better understand autism, and to coordinating Federal efforts on
researching autism.
I have worked closely with Senator Enzi, who has been a cochampion in
regard to this legislation and addressing all concerns. Since it
cleared the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee with full
bipartisan and unanimous support, I thought we had succeeded in
addressing those concerns. I have not been approached or heard a single
objection from any Republican as to why they might hold this bill, and
I have been open in my willingness to work with the other side in
addressing their policy concerns. Having not heard a single objection
to the merits of this legislation--which, by the way, is an exact
replica of what is being offered by the Republican majority in the
House--I have to assume this is for reasons other than policy.
We have had a week to bring this forward. It has caused incredible
uncertainty and unnecessary worry for the parents of children with
autism as they wait anxiously to learn if the government is going to
continue to reauthorize the very essence of the programs that have
helped their children be able to fulfill their God-given potential to
the maximum ability they can. I have met family after family who tell
me this legislation has made an enormous difference in their lives. So
I don't understand any reason, considering all the work that has been
done, considering the bipartisan support, considering the House
Republican majority is offering the same legislation, why we have not
been able to pursue this.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 163, S. 1094, the Combating Autism
Reauthorization Act; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening
action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and several
colleagues, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to commend my colleague for his
attention to this issue. Autism is a very difficult issue for many
families, and the incidence of autism in our country is growing. I am
thankful Congress, in its wisdom, a number of years ago, established
agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and the National
Institutes of Health, where we have scientists and physicians and many
others who are dedicating themselves to researching not just autism but
cures for many diseases.
I appreciate again my colleague bringing this up, but I am afraid
this is another example of political good intentions having many
unintended consequences. The lobby to support autism is definitely very
strong, and we appreciate that, but there are many diseases that
children and people throughout our country face. We have put experts in
place to determine where we can spend the money we allocate for medical
research, and we need to leave that to the experts.
We have seen unintended results when our government tries to pick
winners and losers. We tried to do it in the solar business 1 year or
so ago. There are many companies in the solar business, but we picked
one, and we didn't exactly know what we were doing. We gave $\1/2\
billion dollars to an effort that turned out not to be the best place
to send taxpayer money.
Autism research will continue, and I think that is something we need
to make very clear. The people we have put in charge of doing medical
research will continue to do that medical research. The Congress does
not have to decide how much we are going to spend on all the different
diseases that affect Americans. There are many children facing diseases
we don't understand, and they do not have the lobby many other diseases
have. We cannot, from a political perspective, in an attempt to
demonstrate our compassion, try to direct all the scientific and
medical research from the floor of the Congress.
So I wish to make it clear that all of us who object support autism
research. We will continue to try to make sure the funding for medical
research is there. But it makes absolutely no sense for us, from where
we sit, to try to play scientists and physicians and to know where the
best outcomes will be and where we get the most for our money. If we
are going to do that, we might as well decide what kind of medical
equipment is going to be used or what kind of drugs are going to be
used, and we certainly don't have that capability.
I am very thankful Dr. Coburn has taken up this issue for years and
urged us to leave the decisions for medical research in the hands of
those who understand it. Our job, as a Congress, is to continue to
appropriate the money, which we will, for medical research. Autism
research will continue, as well as research for many other diseases.
Hopefully, we can make sure that funding is there because many families
are suffering and we need to make sure we do our part in the research
area.
So I welcome my colleagues in the majority bringing this bill to the
floor for debate. We certainly are not blocking debate on this issue.
But passing something such as this, without any debate and without any
open vote, is not what Congress should be doing right now.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the recognition, and
I wish to recognize the good work my colleague, the Senator from New
Jersey, has done on this issue.
I have been in the Senate a little over 6 years and I was cajoled
into allowing this to pass the last time it passed. I have blocked
every other disease-specific piece of legislation, and there is a
reason for that. Both the last Director of the NIH and the current one
caution against us being specific in what we demand them to do. There
is a reason for that. Our science is changing enormously--enormously.
We are now at the molecular level, at the genetic level, and at the
immune level of thousands of diseases. What we research in diabetes now
has prevalence for neurosciences. What we research in neurosciences now
has prevalence for tons of other diseases. Dr. Zerhouni has said:
Please don't do this.
I am known in this body to be a stickler on spending, but if there
were two areas I would increase spending in our budget it would be to
the NIH and to the National Science Foundation--both of them--and I
recently reported out a report that was somewhat critical of some of
the spending on the National Science Foundation. We can do
[[Page S5747]]
everything better. But the important aspect is no one who is opposing
the reauthorization of this bill right now is opposed to autism
research or the ideas behind it. What we are opposed to is tying the
hands of the researchers and the Directors at NIH and telling them what
they should do and how they should do it.
I would also dispute the fact the money will go away. The CR we are
going to consider this week will continue this funding at the level it
is until November 18, which gives us plenty of time to work with
Senator Menendez to work out some of our problems with this piece of
legislation. So we come to this debate in good faith. We recognize the
emotional ties associated with such a devastating disease. As an
obstetrician and pediatrician, I have diagnosed it. I have treated it.
I have sat with the families as they have suffered through the
consequences of this disease. I don't take it lightly. But I also don't
take lightly our inability to make the clear choices and ratchet around
the moneys for the NIH.
What we should do is say: NIH, here is your money. Go where the
science helps the most people in the quickest way and where the science
leads us. At a time when our country is desperate to get our fiscal
house in order, what we want is the most efficient NIH. What we want is
nonduplicative grants at the NIH. What we want is no fraud in the
grants associated with autism, which have been published and which
people are now in jail for. We want that eliminated. We want the
oversight on the NIH to be across the board in every area. Are they
doing what we are asking them to do to spend the money wisely and what
the science would tell them to do, not what any one particular interest
group would tell them to do?
So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of S. 1094, the Combating Autism Reauthorization Act, and
that my amendment at the desk related to requiring the Secretary of HHS
to identify and consolidate duplicative and overlapping autism funding
throughout the Federal Government be agreed to, the bill, as amended,
be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon
the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements
related to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. I understand that. My commitment is to work with the
Senator from New Jersey to try to solve this problem before any funding
would change, and I don't think it is going to change.
I would also note for my colleagues that last year we had over $450
billion appropriated by the appropriators that was not authorized for
anything. There were no authorizations at all. So this money isn't
going to go away. There is no hurry. There is no tragedy. We can
continue, and we can work as colleagues to try to solve our problems as
well as meet the demands the Senator from New Jersey thinks must be
met.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. First of all, I appreciate my colleague's offer and
certainly we will take him up on it--to have a discussion to see if we
can come to a common understanding because the issue is far more
important than anyone's ideological views. I look forward to working
with him and others who are concerned.
Let me say, however, there are some inconsistencies. If you do not
believe there should be a disease-specific reauthorization, then the CR
does exactly that. It will be for a more limited time, but it will, in
fact, reauthorize this bill but only to November 18. So whether that
debate is about reauthorizing a disease-specific allocation, which is
what I was trying to accomplish, or whether in the CR, I assume it will
be the thinking of my colleagues to object to the CR on the basis it
has a disease-specific reauthorization for a much smaller period of
time, until November 18. I am not quite sure how that logic follows at
the end of the day.
Secondly, I think it is rather cruel to use an analogy that talks
about loan guarantees to some energy entity and talking about autism
and families. When I hear the word ``lobby,'' that, of course, creates
a pejorative description. What is the lobby here? The lobby here is
parents--American citizens, husbands and wives, taxpayers who advocate
for their children before their representatives. I thought, in a
representative democracy, citizens have the right to go to their
elected representatives and advocate for a point of view--even if,
admittedly, that point of view is on behalf of the welfare of their
child.
So I have a problem when I hear, in this context, the word ``lobby,''
as if it is a negative when a universe of parents in our country who
pay taxes are simply trying to accomplish getting their government's
attention on a disease that afflicts their children and their ability
to function in this society to the maximum potential their God-given
abilities give them. I don't care about listening to a lobby. The last
time I checked, this is what democracy is all about.
Finally, I would simply say there is no guarantee--I know my
colleague suggested there is a guarantee--that research into autism
will continue. There is no guarantee of that. There is no guarantee of
that. The reason why I objected to the other unanimous consent by my
colleague from Oklahoma is because, in fact, we have a set of
circumstances, if we read that unanimous consent request, where there
would be a diminution of funds at the end of the day. So we either
believe in a disease-specific reauthorization, which to some degree
would be allowed, but then we take away all the funds.
The whole reason this legislation came to being was to coordinate the
very efforts of the Federal Government together to, in essence, meet
the challenge of autism.
Even when we listen to debate on disease-specific legislation and the
opposition to disease-specific legislation, I would emphasize that
while the name would suggest this is only about autism, this improves
services for children with many different developmental disorders and
conditions--from autism, yes, but Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, spina
bifida, intellectual disabilities, and epilepsy.
So it is a program that involves a number of efforts, broadly based,
to prevent and detect and improve the health infrastructure for all
children who might face any of these developmental disabilities, not
just autism.
Every year this program trains thousands of professionals to better
care for individuals with a broad range of developmental disabilities,
including but not limited to autism spectrum disorders. Given the long
waiting lists that families often endure to receive diagnostic and
treatment services, these programs are essential in addressing an
urgent national health need.
So, Mr. President, I don't quite understand the opposition. It
boggles my mind. They are against disease-specific legislation even
though this has passed by voice vote in the past? Even though this
passed unanimously out of the committee? Even though a disease-specific
provision will be in the CR, which I assume they would oppose if they
don't want legislation to move forward? Then they tell families they
are lobbyists, and they have no right to lobby, that we shouldn't
listen to their voices? Then they say there will be--don't worry, there
will be money for research, when there is no guarantee? That is cruel,
in my view, and there is no reason for it.
I would only hope we can have a change of heart so we can have
families who have an incredible challenge and who love their children
and want to do everything they can to help them fulfill the maximum of
their potential to be able to do so. That is what we have done for
several years now under this legislation.
My God, if we can't get things like this passed, I don't know where
we are headed in the Senate. But I hope for a better day, and I am
going to continue and insist until we achieve this.
I yield the floor.
____________________