Vision Care for Kids Act of 2007

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Cardoza, the gentleman from California, for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, on the opening day of this Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, came to the floor and said that the new majority would, `` . . . begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.'' That pledge echoed a document by Speaker Pelosi titled A New Direction For America. That document said, ``bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate.''

Now as we approach the closing hours of the 110th Congress, I think it is appropriate for us to take a look at whether the majority has actually lived up to those promises.

Let us begin with closed rules. There really can be few, if any, parliamentary procedures that are more offensive to the essential spirit of democracy, the spirit of democracy, than a closed rule. A closed rule shuts off, blocks Members from both sides of the aisle from offering any amendments to legislation that is considered on the floor. As I said, no matter what their party affiliation, if and when Congress operates under a closed rule, all Members are shut out from the legislative process on the floor.

Even though the majority promised a more open Congress, as I referred to in the beginning of my remarks, they silenced the vote of every Member and thus all of every Member's constituents a record 63 times this Congress. Sixty-three times. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has ever brought forth so many closed rules. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has brought so many pieces of legislation to the floor under that legislative framework that prohibits every Member of this House from offering amendments to the legislation.

The consistent use of closed rules by the majority constitutes an affront to the democratic spirit as well as to their own promises. But that is not the only way that they have failed to live up to their promises. They have also systematically bypassed what is known as the conference process, effectively shutting out the minority from having a say on legislation that makes its way to the President's desk.

Madam Speaker, as you know, the conference process is the process by which the House and Senate work out differences, resolve their differences and achieve a final legislative product that is exact to be passed by the House and the Senate and sent to the President.

Now the majority has also used a technique known as ``ping-pong'' to avoid that conference process. They have used that technique in order to subvert the rights of the minority to offer motions to recommit and amendments. For comparison, in the 108th Congress and 109th Congress-- those Congresses combined--that technique known as ping-ponging was used three times during the 108th Congress and 109th Congress.

But that is not all. The majority has also considered 45 bills outside the regular order. They also blocked minority substitute amendments, allowing only 10 minority substitute amendments even though they promised a procedure that, and again I remind the majority of its own words, they promised that they would ``grant the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

So here we are today with a rule that a distinguished senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee said, and I quote, is `` . . . outside the normal parameters of the way that the House should conduct its business . . . it effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators.''

Prior to becoming Speaker, Ms. Pelosi pledged, and I quote, ``to conduct our work with civility and bipartisanship and to act in partnership, not partisanship, with the President and the Republicans in Congress.''

Obviously, the record has been another story.

Now with regard to what the majority is doing today, the majority is bringing forth 44 bills for consideration under what is known as suspension of the rules. It's a process by which usually noncontroversial bills, as my friend described them, bills that generally have bipartisan support because they require two-thirds of the House in order to pass, under the rule being brought forth today, we will be authorizing under this rule 44 bills for consideration under suspension of the rules. At least they're telling us what the 44 bills are. That's why it took some time for the Clerk to read them, because there are 44 bills to read the titles. So at least I think the majority should be commended for telling us what the 44 bills are.

Now, unfortunately, we're informed that the Rules Committee is meeting at this time, as we speak, to pass a rule to authorize more suspensions, but not telling us what they are; in other words, a blanket authority. So, obviously everything has to be put in perspective.

Compared to what the Rules Committee is doing now for the rest of the session, this is a commendable rule because at least it is informing us and the American people what we will be considering. At least the titles have been brought forth. So that is something that, when we consider how the majority has acted procedurally in this Congress, we have to be grateful that we're being informed at least what bills are being authorized for consideration under the rule today.

Madam Speaker, as we look back at this 110th Congress that is nearing its end, I think it would be fair to say that when one considers the promises for openness and fairness and transparency made by the majority at the beginning of this Congress and in their campaign before this Congress began, when one compares that with their record of having broken all precedent in terms of the number, the number, having broken the record in terms of the number of pieces of legislation brought to this floor authorizing no amendments, in other words, closed rules, there is an extraordinary difference between the promise and the reality by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I would inform my friend that we have no other speakers. So at this time I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank my colleague on our Energy and Commerce Committee and Health Subcommittee for allowing me to rush in from the airport to be able to put a statement on this bill.

I rise, obviously, in support of H.R. 507, the Vision Care for Kids Act. This bill has been crafted in a very bipartisan fashion with the leadership of my colleagues, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Engel, and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I'd like to thank them for their dedication to children's vision issues in this legislation in particular.

The Vision Care for Kids Act establishes a much-needed grant program to provide follow-up vision care to uninsured children with vision disorders. As we tried to target the program to the children most in need, we learned very quickly that a child's access to vision screening and comprehensive vision care varies widely depending on individual State laws. For example, some States have no vision screening requirements, whereas 30 States currently mandate vision screening. Twenty-eight of these States with screening mandates, however, do not have or offer any guarantee that children who fail the screening will receive a follow-up eye exam.

On a nationwide basis, as many as 80 percent of the children who fail a vision screening do not get the follow-up care they need. Among the parents of these children, 25 percent cite financial constraints as a primary reason their child does not receive important follow-up care more than any other factor influencing their lack of care.

This lack of vision care jeopardizes a child's development and can unfortunately lead to lifelong vision impairment. These children deserve a healthy start to their educational and social development, yet the reality is that nearly two of three children entering elementary school have never received preventive vision care. Unfortunately, the lack of health experience presents a barrier to the delivery of appropriate vision care in this country. For many children who are lucky enough to have health insurance for medical care, their policy doesn't cover vision coverage. This is precisely why this bill is necessary.

By targeting the program toward children who are school age, uninsured, and at risk for vision disorders, the bill is designed to spend scarce health care dollars in the wisest manner possible. A portion of the grant funds will also be used to increase education and awareness of vision disorders so that the warning signs can be recognized and any problems can be detected in a timely fashion.

During the committee consideration of this legislation, we made several changes in the underlying bill. Specifically, we clarified that the Secretary should consult with professional and patient organizations when developing the criteria associated with the grant program's operations and data collection. This amendment also specifies an authorization level of $65 million over 5 years and includes a State-matching requirement of 25 percent.

The compromise could not have been developed without the dedication of key members of the vision community, including the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American Optometric Association, the Vision Council of America, and Prevent Blindness America.

As a founding member of the Congressional Vision Caucus, I am particularly pleased to see this bill on the House floor today and consider it a milestone for our very young caucus. In 2003, I joined my colleagues David Price, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Pat Tiberi in establishing the Congressional Vision Caucus. Today the Vision Caucus is comprised of more than 100 Members of the House, both Republican and Democrat, House Members and Senators. While our initial goal was to raise the awareness of vision disorders in Congress, the caucus has developed and endorsed two key pieces of vision legislation, including the Vision Care for Kids Act before us today.

It is particularly gratifying to see our efforts result in legislative success, and I thank the members of the Vision Caucus and the 152 cosponsors of this legislation for their support. I would also like to thank Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Pallone and Mr. Deal, for their support of this legislation.

And I would also like to thank John Ford and William Garner of the committee's majority staff for their expertise, as well as Ryan Long and Katherine Martin of the minority staff for their willingness to work with us in a bipartisan fashion on this legislation.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to join us in passing this important bill to improve vision care for America's children.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1491 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1491.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1491 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time on the legislative day of Thursday, September 25, 2008, on 44 separate measures. This rule is necessary because under clause 1(a) of rule XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be considered on other days, the Rules Committee must authorize consideration of these motions.

This is not unusual. In fact, in the 109th Congress, my friends on the other side of the aisle reported at least six rules that provided for additional suspension days. This bill limits the suspension of rules only to those measures listed in the rule itself so Members on both sides of the aisle are aware of exactly what bills may be considered under this suspension of the rules.

This is standard procedure at the end of the legislative session and includes both House bills that we will send to the Senate for consideration and Senate-passed bills that are ready to become law once they pass the House.

I would remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that bills considered under suspension of the rules must receive strong bipartisan support in order to pass the House.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule which will simply help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn that is important to our constituents and

that will receive overwhelmingly bipartisan support and that will hopefully become law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any additional speakers. I am the last speaker on my side.

Madam Speaker, my friend from Florida has raised several issues with regard to the procedures of the House for the last 2 years. The gentleman is correct that there have been a number of closed rules this year. But I would like to just say, in response to that, that we have had to try and manage this House with a very obstinate Republican minority in the Senate.

There has been a record number of filibusters that have been put forward this year to try and stop everything that we have tried to accomplish in this body. In fact, there has been an absolute stonewalling on the number of conference committees, breaking down the bipartisan process, breaking down the comity that engages both Houses, so that we can get something done for the American people. By refusing to go to conference, this has gummed up the arteries of this body, and it, frankly, is the Republican minority in the other body that has really made this a very difficult House and institution to manage.

Madam Speaker, I would also say that the gentleman mentioned that this is--well, first of all, he acknowledged that we are telling everyone today the 44 bills that we are, in fact, bringing forward in this rule. Six times the gentleman's party, in the last Congress, did not tell us what they were bringing forward in a rule. And I can cite the dates. We have the information.

The reality is that this is not an uncommon practice at the end of the session. We would like to, as we are doing in this rule, do it every time, but sometimes it's possible at the end of the session we're simply running out of time.

So, Madam Speaker, as I said, this is a standard procedure at the end of the legislative session that will simply

help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn that will receive overwhelming bipartisan support.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question, Madam Speaker.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 507, the Vision Care for Kids Act, and join my colleague in asking for its adoption.

And at the outset, let me thank a few individuals for bringing this bill to the floor: of course, Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton. I'd also like to thank Representatives Green, Sullivan, and Engel for their leadership and support in bringing the Vision Care for Kids Act to the floor, and Mr. Pascrell, who's been very, very passionate about this issue for many years. I've had the privilege and pleasure of working with him, and I know how passionate he is, like so many of us, to get quality vision care for kids who need it.

We've been working on this bill for about 6 years; and after countless modifications, negotiations and compromise, I'm proud to say we have a bill that is unanimously supported by the entire vision community.

And my colleague from Wisconsin put it very simply: there are many kids today who have problems with their eyes; who have an inability to see properly; who, if left untreated, obviously, leads to negative consequence in social interaction, not to mention their poor performance in school and academic achievement because of their inability to see, and not to mention the fact that they're not getting the appropriate care that in some cases leads to greater illnesses and in some cases leads to death.

The legislation we hope to pass today represents the kind of quality, sound public policy that can only come about through the bipartisan cooperation and a willingness to compromise by many interested parties.

H.R. 507 represents a responsible and sensible approach to public health. It's well documented that without the adequate access to vision screening and treatment for eye disorders, a child's entire learning and development can be adversely affected. And we say that for children who do not qualify for a public program and did not have health insurance, our assisting in catching potentially eye disorders is critical.

The bill strikes an effective balance with a shared relationship between Federal and State governments. Once States have identified, through the screening mechanism of their choice, that a child may have an eye disorder, this legislation will provide Federal funding for follow-up comprehensive eye exam and the necessary treatment.

By incorporating a three-to-one Federal-State match, we maintain incentives for States to run their programs efficiently, providing additional assurances to taxpayers that we're maximizing the use of each dollar spent.

I'd like to thank the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the Vision Council of America, Prevent Blindness

of America, the American Optometric Association for their support of the legislation, that of my colleague, and know full well that if this bill does become law, there will be children who currently don't have access to quality treatment that will get the treatment they deserve and need so that they can live a more full and healthy and happy life.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let me again, in closing, thank the sponsors, Mr. Green and, of course, Mr. Pascrell for really helping us to get to this point. I failed to mention Ms. Ros-Lehtinen before. She was instrumental as well, and Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Engel. Let me commend and thank my colleague Ms. Baldwin for her eloquence in shepherding all these bills to the floor.

As it relates to this bill, early detection, early diagnosis, and early treatment, we know that those are the magical things that have to happen in order for a child to lead a more forward, healthy life. Without the access to the care that a child needs, we know that that life is going to be compromised in some way, shape, or form.

I think that this bill helps to get us to that point. I think it will help a lot of children who currently have no help and no access.

I would also like to thank Ryan McKee from my office, who has worked on this bill for several years in our efforts.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), who is a model of sensitivity to the needs of all of our children.

I want to thank Congressman Fossella, who's been at the forefront of this.

Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding an issue that has long been near to my heart. I've been listening to these other bills that have been put forth in bipartisan fashion. This is a good example of what we can do together when it comes to our children, their health care and their education. This is critical. This is important. So anybody who says we can't do it is not listening today.

I also want to thank Chairman Dingell, Chairman Pallone for their thoughtful consideration and support for preventive vision care for children. Many a kid has been put in the back of the class or sent out of the room because it was misinterpreted, misunderstood, and many times, that child had a problem with vision, with seeing and was too embarrassed to say so, or couldn't recognize it within himself. So preventive vision care is critically important to avoid vision loss and blindness in our Nation's children.

Untreated vision problems can affect a child's physical, educational, and emotional development. That is why for many years, as my good friend from Staten Island has pointed out, we have fought for legislation to set up a grant program to provide comprehensive eye exams and the necessary follow-up care for children whose families do not have the resources or access to such care.

The Center for Disease Control states that approximately 1.8 million children under the age of 18 are blind or have some form of visual impairment. Fortunately, vision loss can be avoided with early diagnosis and treatment. That is not so revealing, is it? On any such disease, early vision, early problems affecting vision, early problems affecting hearing, early problems of detection of teeth, et cetera, et cetera, many of these visual deficits are caught only after they have impaired the child's early and most critical education. That's the rub.

Eye health has a direct impact on learning and achievement. That's the core of the fight that we have waged. It is a national disgrace, Madam Speaker, that only one in three children receive preventive vision care before they are enrolled in elementary school. That's not acceptable.

So I'm pleased to introduce this, along with Congressman Gene Green, and there are many others that we need to salute here who have fought this fight with us, and that is Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Representative John Boozman. Senator Kit Bond on the other side of the building has waged that fight over there. A truly bipartisan effort.

It's so easy. I know it's difficult for us as Congressmen to understand that, including myself. But it's so easy that we can come together when the problem is defined and we can work together, together on a solution.

Here's a perfect example. The seven bills, the eight bills that we just have gone through, Commerce, these affect people's lives. They're not esoteric. They're not up in the sky someplace. These affect people.

H.R. 507 will establish a Federal grant program to provide for timely diagnostic examination, treatment and follow-up vision care for children.

This legislation will complement existing State programs and allow eye exams for a vulnerable pediatric population that does not qualify for Medicaid and does not qualify for SCHIP and do not have access to private health insurance. Critical that we understand this. Very important here. Very significant for those families.

Better eye care will significantly mitigate the effects of visual impairment. So it's important to act now, Madam Speaker. The prevention is more than half the battle.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Vision Care for Kids Act. Kids out there are waiting for us in all 50 States to act on this.

Thank you, Mr. Fossella. Thank you to my good friend, the gentlelady from Wisconsin. And I think that we've hit a home run here for the last hour and a half, thanks to you both.