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. Mr.…
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.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1170.
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.
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.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a professional in the health care field.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.