[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12448-12454]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 12449]]

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 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

[[Page 12450]]

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 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

[[Page 12451]]

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. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me time.
  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.

[[Page 12452]]

  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 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

[[Page 12453]]

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 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.

[[Page 12454]]



                          ____________________