of the law as set out by Congress. Where Congress has since 1997 provided, in the law, in appropriation bills, the following language: provided further that none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control. I think it is fair to say that the CDC is aware of a firestorm of criticism that has come from time to time based on apparent violations by the CDC of this express intent of the Congress as set forth in the law of the land. I'll give you an example or two, Dr. Fleming. One would be a CDC study entitled Relationship Between Licensing, Registration and Other Gun Sale Laws and the Source of Crime Guns. This study espouses licensing and registration as being effective. Also, it states, this was released at a time when the California legislature was expressly debating adopting such legislation. Also, as you know, in October of 2001, the CDC released a model State emergency health powers act, which among other things, advocated legislation to allow a Governor, without any input or oversight in the State legislature, to control, restrict or prohibit firearms, including the seizing of private property. As you are aware, after a public outcry, the CDC amended their language. But in my opinion, the message was out there from the Centers for Disease Control and the damage was done. Do you agree that these examples violate either the spirit or the letter of the law? Do you agree that the express will of the Congress as stated in the appropriations act is what you should follow? And when a grant application is reviewed, are you able to tell me what procedures are in place to ensure that the CDC is in full compliance with Federal law? And what controls will the CDC implement to ensure that no monies in whole or in part are spent on studies where the objectives are to promote or advocate gun control in contravention of the clearly stated Federal law? Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Representative Wicker. We certainly are aware and intend to fully comply with the language that we have been directed to comply with. The specific examples that you have raised are ones that I am going to need to go back in and look into specifically. I would be happy to get back to you on the record around those. CDC Response to the Hearing Record Question from Mr. Wicker CDC is responding for the record regarding the prohibition on the use of federal funds to advocate or promote gun control. We have carefully reviewed this issue and have concluded we have not violated the spirit or the letter of the law in funding the model State emergency health powers act, or by funding a study published in the journal Injury Prevention, titled, "Relationship between licensing, registration, and other gun sales laws and the source state of crime guns." Draft Model State Emergency Health Powers Act As part of a broad effort to strengthen the country's preparedness for bioterrorism and other public health emergencies in the 21st century, CDC requested that legal experts at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities develop a draft model law to assist states. Using language from existing state laws, a first draft of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act ("draft Model Act") was quickly made available for public comment in October of 2001, and a second draft was made available to the public in December of 2001. One of the more powerful issues raised in the draft Model Act is the control of materials during a public health emergency. The October draft provided that the public health authority may, during a public health emergency, exercise the power "[t]o control, restrict, and regulate . . . food, fuel, clothing and other commodities, alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles, as may be reasonable and necessary for emergency response." This language was adapted from the existing laws of Louisiana (2001 LA. ACTS 1148) and Illinois (2001 ILL. 73). The December draft revised this language as follows: "To inspect, control, restrict, and regulate... food, fuel, clothing and other commodities, as may be reasonable and necessary to respond to the public health emergency." This revision removes any reference to firearms. The purpose of the draft Model Act is to stimulate thoughtful debate about the complex issues pertaining to the use of emergency health powers. It is a template that state decision makers may use to think through how these issues might apply to their individual state. The draft text does not represent any official CDC or federal government position. CDC does not advocate this or any particular emergency health powers legislation, but rather intends for the draft Model Act to serve as a sample of important topics that states may refer to as they consider their own legal preparedness for a bioterrorism or other public health emergency. Individual states, based on their unique and changing needs and interests, will decide whether to consider, adopt, modify, or reject the provisions contained in the draft. Research on Gun-Related Violence As required by CDC's Appropriation Act (PL 107-116), CDC guidelines provide that federal funds are not to be used to lobby for or against the passage of specific federal, state or local legislation intended to advocate or promote gun control. CDC goes to considerable lengths to ensure that the express will of the Congress, as stated in the Appropriations Act, is followed by grantees, including CDC-funded Injury Control Research Centers. We work with our grantees to ensure that they are aware of the legislative mandate against lobbying or advocating for gun control. The Conference Report accompanying Public Law 104-208 states that: "The CDC may need to collect data on the incidents of gun-related violence, but the committee does not believe that it is the role of CDC to advocate or promote policies to advance gun control initiatives or to discourage responsible private gun ownership. The Committee expects research in this area to be objective and grants to be awarded through an impartial peer review process." As a result of the FY 1997 prohibition, the CDC sent a letter to all injury grant recipients, informing them of the legislative prohibition and setting forth guidelines for firearmsrelated research. All subsequent Requests for Proposal contain these guidelines. These guidelines specify that recipients are expected to prevent CDC funds from being used to promote specific legislation to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms and that recipients should give close attention to isolating and separating the appropriate use of CDC funds from other funds in support of non-CDC conferences, public events, publications, and ‘grassroots' activities that appear to relate to specific legislation. Therefore, the research conducted by the Johns Hopkins University, one of eleven Injury Control Research Centers funded by CDC, was appropriate and answered questions related to the causes of violence and other crimes which contribute to injuries and death. This is a grant that was awarded by CDC through an impartial peer review process. In addition, the study investigators published the article in a peer-reviewed publication. Dr. FLEMING. I would like to say that it is important, and we do believe that it is the intent of the Committee that CDC still take an active role in looking at issues around the epidemiology of injury and violence. One of our best strengths is the ability to collect information that does not take sides on an issue one way or another, but alternatively allows policy makers and those who are appropriately, the appropriate individuals to make policy decisions have the best possible information available to them. So in that context, through our various surveillance systems, looking at injury and violence, vital records, death certificates, police reports, we do routinely collect information about weapons that are used, firearms, knives, etc., and try as hard as we can to compile that information and make it available to you and others in as objective a way as possible. We feel that the debate around gun control is something that is in your hands. Our role in that is to provide the information that you need to make that debate as scientifically sound as possible. Mr. WICKER. Just a follow-up and then I'll take my turn later on, Mr. Chairman, but Doctor, you are not saying that a study which provides, which involves surveillance and provides data in one portion and a conclusion or advocacy in another portion of that study would be permitted under the express legislative language that Congress has enacted since 1997, are you? Dr. FLEMING. Advocacy for a particular position, for a particular policy, is not something that we would be doing in this setting. Our role is to gather data so that the policy makers can set policy. Mr. WICKER. So if a study involved data in one portion and conclusions and advocacy in another portion, then that study should not be funded by CDC under the statute? Dr. FLEMING. Again, I would need to go back, and we will look at the specific issues that you've raised and get back to you on the record. Mr. WICKER. On the record. Dr. FLEMING. I would draw a distinction between conclusions that can be drawn from the scientific data and then the next step, which is to advocate for a policy or legislative decision. Mr. WICKER. Thank you very much. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Hoyer, and if you'd like to yield a minute to Mr. Obey. Mr. HOYER. I'd love to yield a minute to Mr. Obey. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Obey. BIOTERRORISM Mr. OBEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the reason I barked at the comments made by the gentleman from Mississippi is because he indicated that the questions that I had asked would lead one to the inaccurate impression that the Administration was hostile to budget increases for NIOSH. Here are the facts. After September 11th, the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Young, and I asked our staff to develop a bipartisan list of additional emergency requests that had been made to us by FBI, NSA, CIA, CDC, HHS and any other alphabet agency you can name that had anything to do with dealing with terrorism. The fact is, when we went down to the White House to talk to the President about it, he said to me, nose to nose, that if we provided one dime more than his budget called for, he would veto the bill that contained that increased money. Now, if that's not a hostile response, I'd hate like hell to see what was. In fact, we provided ten times the amount for buttressing public health than the Administration had in terms of an increase in its own budget proposal. Mr. Daniels, the OMB budget director, then attacked our package as being laden with pork. I later said to the Attorney General, if he could find a single piece of pork in that entire package that Mr. Young and I developed, that I'd eat his honorary degree from Bob Jones U. [Laughter.] Mr. HOYER. A worthy objective in and of itself. Mr. REGULA. In defense of Bob Jones, they've changed their policies, if you've been reading the news. Mr. OBEY. Hallelujah. All I would say is that CDC is getting a billion dollars more today than they would have gotten if we had listened to the President's threats. Threats which I did consider to be not only hostile, but totally irresponsible. Mr. WICKER. And if I might have a minute to respond Mr. WICKER. I could have just jumped right in and interrupted. If the Ranking Member, for whom I have the greatest admiration, had a heated and pointed exchange about one appropriation concerning CDC, I wasn't privy to that conversation, but I think the totality of the record, and it needed to be corrected this morning, in the face of repeated statements by the Ranking Member, is that the President and this Administration have been supportive of increased CDC funding and they have not demonstrated a hostility toward increasing this very valuable appropriation. That is the point that I would continue to insist on. Mr. REGULA. We'll continue this during the markup. Because that's where the rubber hits the road. Mr. Hoyer. IMMUNIZATION Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask some specific questions and maybe go to some general questions, see what time I garner here in terms of the interpretation of who yielded what when. Immunization, I've been very involved with immunization. Immunization is flat funded, as I understand it, at $631 million. As you know, Doctor, currently 75 percent, we went down one point, in terms of percentages of children immunized in America, fully immunized, from 76 I think in 2000 to 75 in 2001. It may have been 99 in 2000, I'm not sure which are the figures. We're now flat funded. What program, I want to know what's the consequence of this going to be, secondly, I want to know what programmatic steps do we need to take to raise children from the current average of 75 percent to what I believe is a much more appropriate, and I believe our target of 90 percent? The third question in the immunization area, does the President's budget assume funding for a six month stockpile of childhood vaccines? Dr. FLEMING. That last question? |