[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.

                          ____________________