[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26003-26005]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  CHILD MEDICATION SAFETY ACT OF 2005

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 1790) to protect children and their parents from being coerced 
into administering a controlled substance or a psychotropic drug in 
order to attend school, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1790

       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 2005''.

     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 
Minnesota (Mr. Kline) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).


                             General Leave

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 1790.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1790, the Child 
Medication Safety Act. This common sense legislation will prevent 
school personnel from forcing parents to medicate their children 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 staff members from my office and 
the Education Committee for their hard work on this bipartisan bill.
  In recent decades, a growing number of children have been diagnosed 
with attention deficit disorder, ADD, or attention deficit 
hyperactivity disorder, ADHD, and treated with medication such as 
Ritalin or Adderall. When a licensed medical practitioner properly 
diagnoses a child as needing these drugs, the administration of the 
drugs may be beneficial. However, these medications also have the 
potential for serious harm and abuse, especially for children who do 
not need the medications.
  Unfortunately, in some instances, school personnel freely offer 
diagnoses for ADD and ADHD disorders and urge parents to obtain drug 
treatment for their child. Sometimes, officials even attempt to force 
parents into choosing between medicating their child and allowing that 
child to remain in the classroom.
  This is unconscionable. Parents should never be forced to medicate 
their child against their will and better judgment in order to ensure 
their child will receive educational services.
  That is why I introduced the Child Medication Safety Act, a 
straightforward, sensible approach to remedy this growing problem. The 
Child Medication Safety Act calls on States to establish policies and 
procedures prohibiting school personnel from forcing

[[Page 26004]]

parents to place their child on any drug intended to have an altering 
effect on perception, emotion, or behavior in order to attend school.
  The bill before the House today also includes a provision to ensure 
that parents and teachers are not prohibited from having an open 
dialogue about any academic or behavior-related needs of their child. 
Teachers spend a great deal of time with students and observe a wide 
variety of situations. These men and women have a valuable perspective 
to offer to parents, and a candid dialogue between teachers and parents 
should be encouraged, not stifled. The Child Medication Safety Act 
makes clear that these constructive conversations can still take place.
  This bill is not anti-school, anti-teacher, or anti-medication. This 
bill is pro-children and pro-parent. The Child Medication Safety Act is 
essential in protecting children and reinforcing parental control.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill that restores power to 
parents and puts children first.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1790, entitled the Child 
Medication Safety Act.
  Later today, we will be considering a resolution. In fact, we just 
finished that resolution where we are celebrating the 30th anniversary 
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. So it is fitting 
that we consider this bill to reaffirm parents' rights on this day, and 
I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for bringing this 
legislation forward.
  One of the most difficult decisions for parents is choosing the best 
course of care for a child with mental health needs. Teachers and other 
school personnel often play a very important role in bringing problems 
to the attention of parents because children spend the majority of the 
day in the classroom. They help to identity children's mental health 
needs and behavioral problems and assist children and their families in 
overcoming these barriers toward academic achievement.
  Mental health professionals often work with teachers and other school 
personnel to help create classroom environments that best support 
children's mental health needs. The information that school personnel 
provide to the health care professionals about a child's behavior in 
the classroom is critical to an accurate diagnosis of a child's 
emotional disorder, learning disability, or other disability. However, 
the decision to medicate a child to treat mental health problems such 
as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, better known as ADHD, 
belongs solely to the parents. It is a matter between the child, his or 
her parents, and qualified health and mental health care professionals. 
That is what this suspension bill today is aimed at achieving.
  I support this bill because it achieves this goal while especially 
recognizing the critical role of teachers and other school personnel in 
promoting positive child adjustment together with parents.
  Mr. Speaker, our intent here today is not to cause school 
administrators to become overly cautious or to discourage teachers in 
aiding parents in the identification of children with serious emotional 
disorders but to ensure that the decision to use medication to treat 
serious problem behavior remains with the family.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to be here to 
support the bill offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline). 
An identical bill to this passed the last Congress 425-1.
  Now, one would wonder, why do we need to be here doing this? There 
are children that do, in fact, have behavioral disorders, have mental 
health issues, other issues, and certainly teachers and school 
administrators have a role to play in terms of helping bring this to 
the attention of parents and, in many cases, urging them to seek 
qualified medical attention.
  But what has come to our attention in a number of hearings that we 
have had on this issue over the last 4 or 5 years are the number of 
complaints from parents, grandparents and others where their children 
were going to be denied admission to school or denied services unless 
their child was put on medication.
  As was noted by both of my colleagues earlier, that is a decision 
that should be left to the parents, and only to the parents. Certainly, 
school personnel and teachers can play a role in terms of helping the 
parents understand what is happening in the school, helping the medical 
professional in terms of what type of behavior is being exhibited, but, 
at the end of the day, parents of children ought to have the right to 
make that decision about whether their child should be on some 
prescription drug.

                              {time}  1545

  The bill is very simple, and I think it lays it out very clearly. 
Last year when we reauthorized IDEA, the special ed law, we put 
identical language in that law to protect the parents of special needs 
children. What this does is covers the rest of the children. I think it 
is a great step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to participate in the 
discussion and debate on this legislation. I want to urge my colleagues 
to support and vote for H.R. 1790, the Child Medication Safety Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
only to thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) and, of course, 
the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner), for their support on this very important bill and again to 
encourage all of my colleagues to pass this pro-parent, pro-child bill.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I want to convey my appreciation to my 
distinguished colleague from Minnesota, Congressman John Kline, for his 
deep concern about our Nation's youth. I thank him for offering this 
legislation, and I also thank the distinguished Chairman of the 
Education Committee for his work. Let me be clear that I support H.R. 
1790.
  Mr. Speaker, during my career in elected office, I have worked to 
raise awareness that mental illnesses are real and they must be dealt 
with. Patients diagnosed with psychological disorders, like depression, 
have higher rates of chronic medical illness and use health care 
services more often. Untreated depression costs employers more than $51 
billion per year in absenteeism and lost productivity, plus even higher 
medical and pharmaceutical costs. I have seen first-hand that 
medication can, indeed, be very successful to depression patients, 
especially when it is accompanied by proper psychotherapy by a trained 
and licensed professional.
  That notwithstanding, I am concerned about some schools coercing 
parents to medicate their children without medical justification--
exactly what this legislation aims to prevent. When I saw child 
patients as a psychologist, I was once strongly pressured by a school 
administrator to recommend medication for students. That sort of 
pressure is unethical, not to mention potentially leading to harm for 
children.
  While I support H.R. 1790, please allow me to raise one concern that 
we should keep in mind as the bill moves forward. This bill would make 
Federal education funding to States contingent on their establishing a 
policy to prohibit school personnel from requiring a child to be 
medicated in order to attend school. I am concerned that an unintended 
consequence of this requirement would be that teachers will be less 
likely to report legitimate mental health illnesses and needs out of a 
fear of losing Federal funds.
  The current language that would call for a GAO study does not address 
this problem. I believe, instead that the study should focus on schools 
that actively influence parents to have their children receive 
controlled substances. I have shared language that provides this focus 
with the author of the bill, and I know we can work together with our 
colleagues to adjust the direction of the GAO study.

[[Page 26005]]

  Ultimately, we should be doing all we can to encourage parents, 
teachers and health personnel to communicate with each other whenever 
there are concerns about children. Our job is to support that 
communication in every way possible. Nothing in this bill should be 
construed to limit that important relationship.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, specifically pertaining to H.R. 1790, the 
Child Medication Safety Act, I firmly believe that parents should have 
the final say about the administering of medication to their child. I 
agree with the legislation's main intent to prohibit school personnel 
from requiring a child, as a condition of attending school or receiving 
services, to obtain a prescription for a controlled substance or a 
psychotropic drug.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I opposed the Child Medication 
Safety Act in the 108th Congress and I rise today to oppose it once 
again on the same 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.
  I opposed it previously after the House Committee on Education and 
the Workforce held a hearing on the bill. At that time, not one witness 
could produce statistical evidence that this was a nationwide problem 
and that students were prevented from attending school over medication.
  I still believe passing this legislation is an irresponsible rush to 
legislative judgment without all the facts. We should not pass 
legislation over anecdotes and isolated incidents, and I have yet to 
see evidence that this legislation is necessary.
  Today, we vote on H.R. 1790 without even holding a hearing to 
determine why this bill is needed and to look at any new evidence.
  I will not argue that there may be cases when a teacher unfairly or 
unjustly asks that a student take medication for behavioral concerns.
  But H.R. 1790 assumes teachers across the nation are requiring 
students to take medication. Please, let us be clear, teachers educate. 
They do not medicate; physicians must prescribe medication.
  This legislation is based largely on false assumptions.
  Let us consider the impact of this bill in the classroom. If a child 
is having trouble seeing the blackboard, the teacher must advise the 
parent to seek professional help.
  The same is true if a child has behavioral problems or mental health 
issues. Teachers can make recommendations that may help the student 
learn.
  Again, I have yet to see statistical evidence that teachers are 
preventing students from attending school because they refusing to take 
medication.
  Mr. Speaker, until I see hard evidence that this issue is a problem 
for our students and schools, I cannot support this bill.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cole of Oklahoma). The question is on 
the motion offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1790, 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. KLINE. 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 question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________