[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 21, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3356-S3358]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 1959. A bill to prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to 
provide or support programs to provide individuals with hypodermic 
needles or syringes for the use of illegal drugs; to the Committee on 
Labor and Human Resources.


          the needle exchange programs prohibition act of 1998

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with 
Senators Ashcroft and Brownback, a bill to prohibit the use of federal 
funds to carry out or support programs for the distribution of sterile 
hypodermic needles or syringes to illegal drug users.
  This bill would effectively continue and make permanent the ban 
imposed through the appropriations process which expired at the end of 
March. We are pleased that the Administration has decided not to use 
federal tax dollars to fund needle exchanges despite the expiration of 
the ban. But coinciding with this announcement, Health and Human 
Services Secretary Donna Shalala strongly endorsed needles exchanges 
and encouraged local communities to use their own dollars to fund 
needle exchange programs. This legislation is therefore needed to 
foreclose any temptation the Administration may feel to federally fund 
needle exchanges in the future.
  The Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey, has laid out the strong case 
against needle exchange programs. Handing out needles to drug users 
sends a message that the government is condoning drug use. It 
undermines our anti-drug message and undercuts all of our drug 
prevention efforts.
  A report by General McCaffrey's office reviewed the world's largest 
needle exchange program in Vancouver, British Colombia, in operation 
since 1988. It found the program to be a failure. HIV infections were 
higher among users of free needles than those without access to them. 
The death rate from drugs jumped from 18 a year in 1988 to 150 in 1992. 
In addition, higher drug use followed implementation of the program.
  Dr. James L. Curtis of New York, who has studied needle exchange 
programs was quoted in the Washington Times stating that the programs 
``should be recognized as reckless experimentation on human beings, the 
unproven hypothesis being that it prevents AIDS.''
  According to recent scientific studies, eight persons a day are 
infected with the HIV virus by using borrowed needles, while 352 people 
start using heroin each day and 4,000 die every year from heroin-
related causes other than HIV. Far more addicts die of drug overdoses 
and related violence than from AIDS. It is wrong to aid and abet those 
deaths by handing out free needles to drug addicts. We should not be 
encouraging higher rates of heroin use.
  Therefore, I hope my colleagues will join me in making permanent the 
prohibition on federal funding and support of needle giveaway programs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1959

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page S3357]]

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR HYPODERMIC 
                   NEEDLES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal 
     funds shall be made available or used to carry out or 
     support, directly or indirectly, any program of distributing 
     sterile hypodermic needles or syringes to individuals for the 
     hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with 
Senator Coverdell, a very important piece of legislation. It is a 
tragedy that this legislation is necessary. However, following 
yesterday's announcement by the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
that this Administration supports giving clean needles to drug addicts, 
I believe that Congress must now act. Congress must act to ensure that 
federal funds are never used to support these programs. This decision 
by the Administration, to support clean needle programs--but to 
withhold federal funding--is an intolerable message that it's time to 
accept drug use as a way of life.
  Not surprisingly, the American people do not want their hard earned 
tax dollars spent to give illegal drug users the tool to continue their 
habit. We already take too much money from the American people. We 
should not use it to subsidize a lifestyle of which the people so 
fundamentally disagree. When we pass this bill we will send a message 
that giving free needles to drug addicts is not a policy that this 
nation should embrace.
  Federal policy should call Americans to their highest and best and 
not accommodate them at their lowest and least. That is exactly what 
needle exchange programs do. They tell drug addicts, ``we know that you 
are too weak to beat your addiction; therefore, we are going to make 
the lifestyle you have chosen easier.''
  This approach is called ``harm reduction.'' The Harm Reduction 
Coalition states on their webpage that the organization ``accepts drug 
use as a way of life.'' Therefore, they support policies which make 
drugs as harmless as possible. There are many that are part of this 
harm reduction movement who believe that legalization of drugs is the 
appropriate policy. In fact, the logical conclusion to their belief 
that drug use is a way of life and that it should be made as harmless 
as possible is legalization. The harm reduction philosophy is the basis 
of needle exchange programs. They say that if we provide people with 
clean needles, there will be less risk involved in using drugs. I am 
here today to reject that view.
  Since 1988, the United States Congress has banned the use of federal 
funds for needle exchange programs. Recognizing that government 
subsidies for drug addicts is bad policy, this ban consistently has 
been supported by both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, the 1998 
Labor and Health and Human Services Appropriations bill included 
language to allow the Secretary of HHS to lift the ban after March 31, 
1998. Yesterday, the Administration stated--wisely--that the federal 
funding ban should not be lifted. However, the Administration foolishly 
recommended that local communities fund these programs.
  This endorsement of needles on demand opens the door to a subsequent 
decision to fund needle exchanges with the hard-earned money of 
American taxpayers. Yesterday's endorsement of clean needle programs 
sends the intolerable message that the Administration accepts illegal 
drug use as a way of life. It says clearly that this Administration 
will give approval to taxpayer funding the moment it appears that the 
decision can be sneaked past Congress. That is why this legislation has 
become necessary.

  Mr. President, needle exchange programs are touted as a way of 
reducing HIV rates among intravenous drug users. First, there is no 
sound scientific evidence to support that assertion. Second, even if 
there were, there are other public health and moral reasons to oppose 
needle exchange programs.
  Experts agree that the only scientifically sound method of making an 
affirmative showing that NEPs reduce the rate of HIV is to withhold 
clean needles from one group of drug users while providing clean 
needles to another. Since there are obvious problems in conducting such 
a study, it has not been done. In fact, there are studies which find 
just the opposite--that there are significant increases in HIV among 
clean needle program participants.
  Participants in the Montreal needle exchange program were two times 
more likely to become infected than those who did not participate in 
the program. Vancouver has the largest needle exchange program in North 
America which was started in 1988. In 1987, the estimated HIV 
prevalence among IV drug users was 1-2 percent, in 1997, it was 23 
percent.
  Even the so-called ``California'' study which is heavily relied upon 
by needle exchange proponents, merely found that it is ``likely'' that 
NEPs decrease the rate of new HIV infection in intravenous drug users.
  The nation's drug czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey agrees that studies have 
not yet scientifically substantiated the claims embraced by Secretary 
Shalala in her announcement. In an April 17, 1998, letter to my office 
outlining the concerns of General McCaffrey, the Office of National 
Drug Control policy states that ``science [on needle exchange programs] 
is uncertain.'' The letter states further that ``[s]upporters of needle 
exchange frequently gloss over gaping holes in the data--holes which 
leave significant doubt regarding whether needle exchanges exacerbate 
drug use and whether they uniformly lead to decreases in HIV 
transmission.''
  A significant concern of those of us who oppose federal funding of 
needle exchange programs--and I oppose all needle exchange programs, 
whether federally funded or not--is that they will increase drug use. 
That is the precise reason that the Secretary was required to show that 
NEPs do not increase drug use before lifting the ban. There is 
absolutely no data to support the Secretary's finding that NEPs do not 
increase drug use.
  While the California study found ``no evidence'' of increased drug 
use, the conclusion was based on interviews with drug users--illegal 
drug users.
  In Vancouver, deaths from drug overdoses have increased more than 5 
times since 1988--the year the needle exchange program started. Since 
their needle exchange program began, hospital admissions for heroin 
have increased 66 percent in San Francisco. In fact, the researcher who 
founded the San Francisco program and the founder of the New York 
program have both died of heroin overdoses during the last two years.
  I think the letter outlining General McCaffrey's concerns says it 
best. ``The bottom line is that General McCaffrey believes that we need 
a better understanding of how needle exchange programs will impact our 
nation's fight against drugs before we consider altering the current 
policy.''
  I believe that needle exchange programs send the wrong message to the 
youth of America. To say on the one hand, that drug use is wrong, and 
then on the other hand--to provide the tools necessary to safely use 
illegal drugs--undoubtedly will confuse the nation's youth. When their 
parents are paying taxes to the federal government that ultimately will 
be used to inject heroin into an addict's arm--how do you tell them 
that the government thinks drug use is wrong?
  According to the drug czar's office, each day over 8,000 young people 
will try an illegal drug for the first time. While perhaps eight 
persons contract HIV directly or indirectly from dirty needles, 352 
people start using heroin each day. More than 4,000 people die each 
year from heroin/morphine related causes.
  General McCaffrey, who has been entrusted by this administration to 
advise the President on drug policy agrees. He says: ``The problem is 
not dirty needles, the problem is heroin addiction. . . . The focus 
should be on bringing help to this suffering population--not give them 
more effective means to continue their addiction. One does not want to 
facilitate this dreadful scourge on mankind.''
  Secretary Shalala also said that NEPs are effective when supported by 
the communities. I think she would be hard pressed to find a community 
that embraces the needle exchange program in their neighborhood. I 
wonder if the Secretary would like a clean needle program in her 
neighborhood.
  As the name suggests, needle exchange programs are supposed to get a 
dirty needle back from an addict for every needle they hand out. The 
idea is that these dirty needles will not be

[[Page S3358]]

used again or left on the streets. However, according to needle 
exchange workers, an ``exchange'' usually does not take place.
  According to the Associated Press, in Willimantic, Connecticut, 
``more than 350 discarded hypodermic needles were collected from the 
city's streets, lots, and alleys in a single week.'' These were found 
after a two year old girl found and accidentally pricked herself with a 
dirty needle.
  One needle exchange worker, who said they got approximately one-third 
to one-half of the needles back, handed out 950 needles in just one 
night. That means that about 475 dirty needles are either being used 
again--defeating the stated objective of these programs--or they are 
lying on our cities' streets, parks and playgrounds. In response to low 
number of needles they get back, the worker casually said that ``one-
for-one exchange does not fit the reality of how injection drug users 
live.''

  Needle exchanges also turn into one-stop shopping for drug addicts. 
Even the needle exchange proponents recognize this and talk about it as 
though it were a virtue of the program. From Harm Reduction 
Communication--``A user might be able to do the networking needed to 
find good drugs in the half hour he spends at a street-based needle 
exchange site--networking that might otherwise have taken half a day.''
  There are many tragic examples all over the nation. However, one 
article from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette best explains what this does 
to America's neighborhoods. ``Our community has worked hard to battle 
the drug problem that plagues our neighborhoods at many levels. But the 
needle exchange program gives dealer and users one more reason to stay 
here. In addition, drug users from outside our community now find 
reasons to frequent our neighborhood. Drug addiction is not a 
victimless crime. Not only does it kill the addict, but also, in the 
process, the addict preys on those around him. Prostitution, burglary, 
and now violence are an increasing problem in our community. So while 
the needle exchange people try to help addicts, they do so at the 
expense of our neighborhoods.''
  This legislation is simple. It says that federal funds cannot be used 
to support directly, or indirectly, needle exchange programs.
  The Nation's drug policy should be one of zero tolerance. It should 
not be a policy of accommodation. Drugs are turning our once vibrant 
cities into the centers of despair and hopelessness. We need an 
Administration who has no tolerance for the drug culture. An 
Administration who says that America can be called to a higher standard 
rather then accommodated in a culture of consuming drugs.
  This Administration has shown that it is willing to ignore the 
record, ignore sound drug policy, and ignore the will of the American 
people. This is just another example of Washington, D.C. attacking, 
through policy, American values. Giving bulletproof vests to bank 
robbers would make bank robbery safer and simpler, and send the message 
that we accept bank robbery. A free needle policy is no different. What 
advocates of free needles on demand would clothe in rhetoric of `harm 
reduction' and `public health' is, instead a decision to subsidize, 
tolerate, and facilitate the use of illegal drugs.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues 
Senator Coverdell and Senator Ashcroft in introducing legislation that 
would prohibit the use of federal funds for any program that gives out 
hypodermic needles or syringes for use with illegal drugs.
  Mr. President, last Friday, the Clinton Administration announced 
their intention to use federal funds to distribute free drug needles. 
Although they abruptly reversed course this week, they have maintained 
their intention of encouraging state and local governments and other 
institutions to distribute drug needles.
  This is bad policy, bad science, and bad news for our country. A 
comprehensive study of the needle exchange program in Vancouver, 
British Columbia--the city with the world's largest needle give-away 
program--found that drug use, crime, and HIV transmission all increased 
where drug needles were handed out.
  This should come as no surprise. One of the primary principles of 
economics is that you get more of what you subsidize and less of what 
you tax. You do not discourage drug use by giving out free needles. You 
cannot reduce disease by encouraging addiction.
  More than ever before, we need strong leadership in the war on drugs, 
and a clear message that drugs are wrong, and harmful. Consider the 
facts: Over the past three years, casual drug us among teens has almost 
doubled. A survey by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that 
the proportion of eighth graders who had tried heroin had doubled 
between 1991 and 1996. Every year, there are thousands of young people 
who fall prey to drugs. We need to send the clear message that using 
drugs is illegal and wrong. Drug use must be stopped, not subsidized.
  That is why I am proud to stand with Senators Coverdell and Ashcroft 
in introducing legislation that to prohibit spending taxpayer dollars 
on drug needle give-aways, and urge my colleagues to expedite passage 
of this legislation.
                                 ______