[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 45 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2222-H2232]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               ACTIVITIES DURING THE DISTRICT WORK PERIOD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like it go 
through a number of issues. Wednesday evening is the opportunity for 
the freshmen Republican class to spend a little time on the House floor 
and brief our colleagues and, indeed, the rest of the country on some 
of the activities that we are pursuing throughout America in our 
respective districts.
  I know for me out in the Fourth District of Colorado that I 
represent, which is essentially the eastern plains of the country, I 
spent the last two weeks over the Easter break working pretty hard, 
actually. It was not much of a break at all. We did a lot of town 
meetings and a lot of visits at school sites throughout the district 
and so on.
  I wanted to spend a little bit of time tonight just telling my 
colleagues about some of the activities that I had pursued with the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities that made a site 
visit out to my district recently, and report back on some of the 
comments that we received at that subcommittee.
  It was a subcommittee of the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations led by 
the chairman of that committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra). They came out to the town of Timnath, Colorado, which is a 
little bit east of Fort Collins, and Timnath is a community that 
includes an elementary school that we went to visit, Timnath Elementary 
School.
  The school was a unique one and one that I think provided perhaps the 
best snapshot of education in my district as far as at the elementary 
level, because this particular community is located just on the 
outskirts of a bigger city, the City of Fort Collins, but still has a 
large rural component. So we have an interesting mesh of children from 
urban as well as rural settings, and of course that is representative 
of the district overall.
  We met for a day-long hearing of the subcommittee, again, part of the 
Crossroads in Education program of the committee which has taken place 
in several States throughout the country under the leadership of the 
committee.
  Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, about some of the individuals that we 
heard from. Our focus was asking local leaders about what works and 
what is wasted in public education today. We heard from Don Unger, who 
is the superintendent of the Poudre School District in the town of Fort 
Collins.
  He cited one of the biggest problems that he is confronted with as a 
superintendent of a relatively large school district in Colorado. He 
said that we continue to receive increased Federal mandates. What he 
focused on, for example, were the changes made in the IDEA bill last 
summer, which are taking well over 100 hours of staff time with no new 
resources provided to support this additional mandated requirement.
  He also spoke about parent and staff litigation against the school 
district which he said caused a major demand on staff and dollars. 
These litigations are coming from three areas, he said: the Office of 
Civil Rights; right to due process under IDEA; and through parental and 
staff complaints to the State government.

                              {time}  1930

  He said that some of the things that are working very well are the 
efforts here in the Congress to consolidate Federal programs, and, in 
fact, this Congress accomplished that in the last session with a number 
of education titles that we reviewed and consolidated here. He spoke 
about some of the literacy programs that we have promoted as a 
Republican Congress, and commented that they are working very well in 
his district.
  Secondly, we heard from a woman named Pat Chase. She is the president 
of the Colorado Association of School Boards, and she takes in a 
perspective in her testimony of the entire State and all of the school 
boards that she represents, which are 176 in number, of locally elected 
school board members, and all very dedicated to education.
  She says that the efforts in the State to lead local school districts 
in establishing standards are being received very positively, and have 
had a very positive impact on local schools. She, once again, hit on 
the issues of public school mandates, and described the Federal 
mandates that we are handing down to school districts as being 
particularly detrimental. She said the Omnibus Transportation Employee 
Testing Act has been somewhat of a problem that imposes drug and 
alcohol testing requirements on school bus drivers, and she said that 
the mandate has the best of intentions. And on a State level and local 
level it is something that, in fact, Colorado would

[[Page H2223]]

most likely support anyway without the mandate from the Federal level.
  However, the Federal mandate just being in existence compels States 
and local school districts to fill out a lot of paperwork; spend a lot 
of time complying with the Federal mandate. Here is a mandate that is 
pretty obvious. You want to make sure that the people driving buses and 
being around kids are free from drugs, and pass the drug tests. And as 
I mentioned, Colorado is no different than many other States in that it 
would accomplish this objective on its own; left to its own devices and 
its own laws, but again the Federal Government's intrusion on something 
that is rather obvious results in nothing more in Colorado than more 
paperwork and more headaches for school board members throughout the 
State, and in the end detracts from getting dollars to classrooms where 
they are also needed most.
  We also heard from Dr. Randy Everett. Randy Everett is a urologic 
surgeon. He and his wife have been very involved in establishing 
education opportunities for children throughout northern Colorado where 
they were instrumental in establishing a school that focuses on the 
Hirsch ``Core Knowledge'' curriculum or the ``Core Knowledge'' sequence 
designed by Dr. E. D. Hirsch. And they started that school as an 
alternative school, and it resulted in a huge waiting list of parents 
who wanted to get their children into that kind of an education 
setting.
  This school is one that is created around a sequential curriculum, 
very well ordered, and very logical in terms of one lesson building 
upon the previous one. It is built around a concept called mature 
literacy and cultural literacy, which is one step above just basic 
functional literacy; the whole notion that children should be able to 
read for meaning and be able to understand all of the historic and 
scientific and cultural context of things that they read, and the way 
they understand the world.
  A curriculum that is being used throughout the world, certainly 
throughout the United States with great success, this was the first 
school that was established in Ft. Collins. Dr. Everett then went on to 
establish a second school under Colorado's charter school law. That 
school, as well, the Liberty Common School, is one that is enjoying 
tremendous success in its first year and Dr. Everett was on hand to 
give us testimony about the success of that institution.
  We also heard from Mr. Clair Orr, who is an individual from Greeley, 
Colorado. He serves on the State board of education, was elected to 
that position from throughout my Congressional District in the Fourth 
District. He spoke about a number of issues. The huge variances that we 
have in Colorado, very large school districts, down to small school 
districts that have in some cases 60 students total. And he spoke very 
directly, again, about the Federal Government taking on several 
responsibilities and duties for which it does not pay. And at one point 
in time our Federal Government mandated a number of requirements upon 
school districts, and over the years the size of the U.S. Department of 
Education has been broadened and flattened out, and there are too many 
programs now, far more than the district is able to fund.
  We heard from Jane Anderson, a parent at Liberty Common School. Jane 
Anderson spoke about school choice and the positive impact that that 
has on parental involvement. Many, many parents, far more parents than 
seems to be typical are getting involved in education delivery right at 
the classroom level when empowered by school administrators to do that, 
and again spoke about how wonderful that seems to work in Colorado.
  We heard from Bob Selle, a superintendent from east Yuma County 
school district, RJ-2, way off in the eastern part of Colorado, almost 
out near Kansas. He spoke about, once again, about some of the, about 
some of the very difficult challenges that rural communities have. They 
spend a disproportionate amount of money on transportation because they 
have to transport their children from such far distances to get to some 
of the rural schools, and spoke about the success of some of the 
reading programs that the Federal Government helps initiate.
  One of the most memorable portions of our hearing involved testimony 
from a teacher, science teacher named Pam Schmidt. She is Colorado's 
1997 Teacher of the Year and she teaches at Thunder Ridge Middle School 
in Cora, Colorado. That is in the Cherry Creek school district, a very 
inspirational teacher.
  What struck me most about Pam's comments and testimony was her desire 
to see teachers treated like real professionals. That is a term that I 
use quite frequently, and I asked her about a system that we have 
today, largely dominated by union politics at the National Education 
Association and the Colorado regimen being the Colorado Education 
Association. This union has secured a contract essentially that treats 
all teachers the same, regardless of their professional abilities and 
their ability to contribute to an education system and process; in 
fact, a system that results in the absolute worst teacher in the 
district being paid the same as the absolute best.
  She and I agreed that we ought to create a system throughout the 
country where teachers are rewarded as real professionals, and, in 
fact, allowing the very best teachers to become wealthy in carrying out 
the services that they render to children, which if we as a society 
agree, and I think we mostly would, that this process of public 
education is of paramount importance, truly then those who are the best 
and who are those who excel in their profession and field ought to be 
rewarded financially as well as professionally on that basis. And 
conversely, those who fail to perform well ought to be persuaded to 
find a new line of work.
  That, according to Pam, does not happen in public schools today. The 
worst teachers seem to be protected most by laws that certainly do not 
have the best interests of children first and foremost in their intent.

  We heard from Dan Balcerak, principal of Timnath Elementary School. 
First of all, let me say he was very gracious, and we certainly 
appreciated his hospitality in opening up his school for a day to the 
Congress and to the State of Colorado. Principal Balcerak mentioned 
that public education serves the needs of a wide variety of students, 
so teaching methods need to include accommodations for a wide spectrum 
of learning styles.
  He spoke about how local control being the best way to accomplish 
that, not centralizing curriculum in Washington, D.C., as many people 
here in Washington would suggest needs to occur. You find most of those 
folks over in the U.S. Department of Education and in the Clinton 
administration. And we assured Dan Balcerak that on the Republican side 
of the aisle, we are working very hard to liberate public schools 
throughout the country, and honor the freedom under which they operate 
best.
  We heard from Bill Moloney, the Commissioner of Education of the 
State of Colorado. He spoke about many things that seem to work very 
well. He said that technology, for example, is having a remarkable 
impact upon public education. He spoke about the Core Knowledge 
movement as being very positive, a rigid strategy toward testing and 
accountability that is occurring in Colorado; pointing out where the 
real problems are, and allowing professionals to go to work on 
improving those particular aspects of our school system. And he again 
spoke about the unfunded Federal mandates, and the real need for this 
Congress to work forcefully to liberate public schools at the State and 
local level, and free them from these burdensome rules and regulations 
that are again largely unfunded.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to go through that report for the benefit 
of the Members here and also for those who wonder what it is we do when 
we take these breaks from Congress. In this case, which is a snapshot 
of one day, we spent considerable amount of time bringing other Members 
of Congress from other parts of the country out to Colorado to consider 
the contributions and the problems that we are dealing with in a part 
of my State where the rural areas are, come up against some urban 
areas.
  I see the gentleman from South Dakota has joined me here. The 
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) is one of the outstanding 
leaders of the freshman class. I appreciate him joining us here 
tonight.

[[Page H2224]]

  I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) to present 
whatever point he needs to bring to our attention tonight.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado 
for yielding to me. I might add that as you traveled across your State 
of Colorado, I would suspect that many of the concerns that you heard 
were not unlike the ones I hear in traveling my State of South Dakota, 
because I think our congressional districts are very much alike in many 
respects, and as I spent the better part of 2 weeks, actually all of 2 
weeks traveling across South Dakota, I had the occasion to visit with a 
wide range of groups from economic development groups, to agricultural 
groups to education groups, and to discuss with them a wide range of 
issues; all of which I think are very relevant as we look to the 
future, and what some of the needs are that are out there.
  It is sort of ironic. I was listening to the debate today on the tax 
limitation amendment here on the House floor, and there was a lot of 
invoking, I guess you would say, of our Founding Fathers and what their 
intentions were with respect to taxes and whatnot. And there was the 
suggestion, the notion that somehow because our Founding Fathers did 
not include in those original documents a supermajority requirement to 
raise taxes, that in their wisdom they had excluded that, and they 
talked about, I heard the discussion of the Articles of Confederation 
and whatnot, and it occurred to me, I guess, that in my reading of 
history that the Articles of Confederation were, in fact, they relied 
upon the States to raise revenue, and it became clear that the States 
were not going to do it. And so they came up with a way in which they 
could raise revenue for the national government.
  But that, nevertheless, I would also argue that our Founding Fathers 
probably never anticipated that we would be looking at $5.5 trillion in 
debt. In fact, if our Founding Fathers had known that we were going to 
run the country $5.5 trillion in debt, they probably would have moved 
back to Europe and forgotten the whole thing to start with.
  The fact of the matter is that there is an inertia in government to 
spend, and one of the things that the tax limitation amendment does, it 
says in very straightforward terms that if, in fact, the government is 
going to raise taxes, that the representative form of government that 
we have, that they elect people to make these decisions; that it will 
take a two-thirds majority, supermajority to raise taxes. I think that 
is something that is very much in the interest of the people in this 
country so that we can get away from this built-in inertia toward big 
government to spend dollars.
  I look at our State of South Dakota, which I think is a good case in 
point. We have in our Constitution a balanced budget amendment. We 
balance our budget every year. We have a requirement for a 
supermajority.
  In fact, in 1996, on the ballot almost 75 percent of the voters in 
South Dakota voted in favor of making it a two-thirds requirement in 
order to raise taxes in our State. And more and more States are moving 
in that direction because the people of this country, I think, have 
realized what we already know and what you cannot help but realize 
after you have been in this town for a very short time: that there is 
an incredible inertia in this city and in government generally to 
continue to spend and spend and spend. So this afternoon we had the 
vote on that.
  I think it was a significant vote for the people of this country, and 
for your voters in Colorado, and the folks in Michigan. And the 
gentleman from Michigan has just joined us, but certainly for the 
people in South Dakota, interestingly enough, as I traveled across our 
State, and we dealt with, again, a wide range of issues. We talked 
about corn prices and wheat prices and cattle prices, and there is not 
a whole lot to be happy about in agriculture today. A little bit about 
supporting ethanol, making sure that we have opportunities to add 
values to our raw commodities in South Dakota and across the 
agricultural sector of this country.
  We also talked a lot about retirement issues, a lot about education 
issues, drug issues, which is an incredible problem in many small 
communities across South Dakota today. But interestingly enough, one 
incident in particular that stuck out to me, as I stopped at a gas 
station in Aberdeen, South Dakota and the young lady at the counter 
said to me, as I walked in, she said, Congressman, working families 
need lower taxes. And she said, my husband and I both work. We are 
raising kids, paying the bills, trying to educate our kids, put aside a 
little bit for retirement, and we are writing these big checks to Uncle 
Sam.

                              {time}  1945

  ``And the best thing that you can do to make our lives easier and to 
allow us to make to have more control over our futures is to lower 
taxes on working families.''
  In fact, I would like to just briefly mention a couple of bills that 
I introduced some time ago which would do just that. The Taxpayer 
Relief Act was one, H.R. 3151; the Taxpayer Choice Act, which is H.R. 
3149, lowered the tax burden on working people in this country in a way 
that addresses a couple of principles that I think we ought to be 
concerned about when we talk about lowering taxes. And one is, not 
further complicating the Tax Code.
  We have 480 forms, and we put them on a scale one day at one of the 
meetings I had in South Dakota. 34\1/2\ pounds of tax code and 
instructions and all that. So, clearly, we need to move in a direction 
towards simplification so the people who pay this rate in this country 
can understand what it is, the Tax Code, that they are supposed to 
comply with in the first place; and, secondly, we ought to do something 
that is broad based.
  Now, this administration has forever seemed smitten with the notion 
that we have to do things in a targeted way so that Washington can 
identify and pick winners and losers. And the legislation that we 
introduced drops more people out of the 28 percent bracket down to the 
15 percent bracket, in fact, 10 million filers in this country. 
Altogether, 29 million Americans would pay lower taxes as a result of 
lowering that.
  What in effect it does is it says to the people of this country that, 
instead of each additional dollar that they earn we are going to tax 
them at 28 cents, we are only going to take 15 cents. That is an 
incredible incentive to work harder, earn more, produce more, be more 
productive, and improve their lot in life. Today I think as people grow 
into higher tax brackets we continue to penalize them and to take away 
the incentive.
  The other bill, very simply, raises the personal exemption from 
$2,700 to $3,400, and that does affect in a broad based way everybody 
across this country who pays taxes, and it brings real relief. We talk 
about giving people more education when it comes to child care and 
education and health care and retirement.
  Giving money back to people or allowing them to keep more in of what 
they earn in the first place and making the Federal budget smaller and 
the family budget bigger does that in a very meaningful way because it 
allows families the freedom to make decisions that affect their lives. 
And they can determine how best to meet those needs, to make that house 
payment, to make that car payment, to pay for child care, to pay for 
health care. But it is doing it in a way that is consistent with the 
principle and the value which I think we in the Chamber all share, and 
that is to allow people in this country to make those decisions, rather 
than bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
  So I commend those particular bills to your consideration, and as we 
get into this budget debate I hope they will be on the table.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) in just a second.
  Because it is interesting, at the crossroads hearing that we had in 
my district that I mentioned, the topic, of course, was education, but 
one of the State Board of Education members, an elected official, in 
speaking about a variety of education issues, mentioned the marriage 
tax penalty that existed where a married couple, where two individuals 
who are earning incomes get married, they move into a higher tax 
bracket or a portion of their income does. But he spoke about, just on 
a

[[Page H2225]]

philosophical basis, how this Federal Government consistently beats up 
on families that are the most central and social unit in America and 
makes it difficult for a variety of reasons.
  And he looked to that particular example of a fallacy in our tax code 
and was able to show very dramatically to the chairman and I, who is 
here now, about the direct impact that that has on local education, on 
families, on just the ability of families to be functional in America 
today, whether it is health care, whether it is keeping their children 
on the straight and narrow or educating them appropriately in school.
  The chairman is here with us tonight, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Hoekstra). And that was one of the most memorable portions, in my 
opinion, of that hearing that we had. And I want to publicly say I sure 
appreciate the gentleman for bringing the committee out to my district, 
and those in my community appreciate his attention as well.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank both of my colleagues for being here and also for the work that 
they have helped us accomplish in this Congress.
  We are talking about education. We are talking about the budget. We 
are talking about where we go with spending and tax cuts. And because 
of the work of Members like my colleague, we here now in Washington I 
think really are at a crossroads on a number of issues, on education, 
where we have got these series of hearings, we have gone to 17 
different States, and we are at a crossroads I think in Washington 
about deciding how we deal with education in America.
  We know that, since 1979, with the Education Department, we have been 
bringing more power and more funding, more rules and regulations to 
Washington and saying we need to improve education in America, and the 
way to do that is to move more money and power to Washington and allow 
the Education Department to dictate to local schools and to local 
parents and local administrators how best to educate their kids.
  After 19 years of following down that path and seeing that our 
children's test scores are not up and seeing that Washington defines 
``education'' as being 760 programs going through 39 different 
agencies, and there is 34 pounds of rules and regulations in the IRS 
code, I can tell my colleagues that when we took a look at all of the 
forms that schools have to fill out for these 760 different programs, 
we had about four or five stacks that were four or five feet high and 
it is like wow, and what that means is when we spend a dollar to 
Washington for education, only 65 cents gets back to the classroom.
  What we found in our 17 hearings around the country is what is the 
leverage points for improving education in the local school in 
Colorado, in New York, in Michigan. It is parents, it is local 
teachers, it is local administrators identifying the needs for their 
kids. So I think here in Washington now we are going to have some votes 
on this on the floor, we are going to have some votes in committee 
about we are at the crossroads.
  The President does not agree with the gentleman, because the 
President wants to spend more of the money that comes here. He is not 
in favor of tax cuts. He believes bureaucrats here ought to define what 
school districts get more money for school construction, which schools 
get money for technology, which schools get money for lowering class 
size. He wants that money to come here and not stay in the district.

  So we are going to have to make the decision. Are Washington 
bureaucrats going to make more of those decisions or are we going to 
take these programs, consolidate it, move it back to local teachers and 
administrators and parents and say, hey, here is a check, if you want 
to use this to reduce class size, use it to reduce class size? If you 
need technology, you decide where you are going to spend it.
  So I think we are at a crossroads. There is a group here in 
Washington that says we need to spend more and we need to tell people 
what to do, and there is a group that came out and said, we have gone 
around the country, we have gone to these places, the energy and 
innovation and the effectiveness, the good things that are happening in 
education in America today, and there are lots of them, it is happening 
because there are people at the local level who have a passion for 
helping their kids and they know what to do and we have got to unleash 
their potential and follow the roles of the States with charter 
schools, with innovation. That is the key crossroads in education.
  We are going to have the same types of questions on the budget. I 
know that we do not have a surplus as good as we would like to have and 
it is only a surplus in Washington terms, but it is a significant 
change. There are some that want to spend it. I think some of us want 
tax reduction and pay down the debt. That is another crossroads. Are we 
going to use it to grow government or are we going to use this to take 
the opportunity to rethink programs and move the power back to the 
American people?
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Shrinking the size of the Federal 
Government has benefits not only for education but for everything we do 
as Americans and for the constituents we represent back home.
  Right now, the Federal budget is $5\1/2\ trillion.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman would further yield, the debt is $5.6 
trillion. And we spend $1.6 trillion, $1.7 trillion.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Right. I am sorry if I misspoke.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I always get beat up at my town meetings between 
getting the deficit and the debt confused.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. The debt is $5\1/2\ trillion for the 
national debt. The amount we spend every year, $1.7 trillion to run the 
Government this year, for example. But that $5\1/2\ trillion debt that 
we consistently run up, even with this surplus that we talked about 
that we have here in Washington, we have to realize and remind people 
that this is only a surplus the way the Federal Government does its 
accounting.
  We are still moving in the right direction. There is no question 
about that. We are able to put more resources into relieving some of 
these debt issues.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. My colleague talks about moving in the right direction. 
When I first came here in 1993, the deficit as Washington counted it 
for 1998 was projected to be $300 billion per year. We are on the path 
now to have a $40 billion to $50 billion surplus. This is a switch of 
$350 billion to the positive.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Well, whatever we can do to lower the 
size of that effective debt and move not only authority but real wealth 
back to the States and the people allows us to speak more forcefully 
and more seriously about improving our local schools, about improving 
local economies, the ability to pour capital back into the private 
sector rather than hoard it here in Washington, either held as debt or 
spent on a number of government programs is a choice that we just have 
to make in favor of States and the people.
  And we talked about education a lot tonight. The problem we are 
really dealing with the U.S. Department of Education is the 
disagreement that we have, and the debate that is at the center of 
education issues is not about whether resources ought to be spent in 
classrooms. On that point we all agree. The question is, how do we do 
that?
  For those of us who are conservatives here and try to figure out how 
to make our government operate more efficiently and really improve 
classrooms, our big concern is the 40 to 60 percent of the money that 
we are spending right now out of the Federal budget never makes it to a 
classroom. It gets soaked up by bureaucrats here in Washington, never 
leaves the city. When it goes back to the States it gets soaked by 
various Federal bureaucrats and State bureaucrats at the local level.
  We believe very firmly that in order to reduce class sizes, in order 
to allow technology to be used appropriately in classrooms, in order to 
allow for innovations in education to occur at the classroom level, we 
just need to get the Federal Government out of the way and allow the 
wealth that the country is generating to be spent on its legitimate 
intended purpose, which is to help children. It is not occurring today, 
and we are fighting very hard to make that happen.
  Mr. THUNE. If I might add, we look at the Washington model, which is 
obviously, I think we would all concur, in

[[Page H2226]]

many respects a failed model and the message that Washington sends to 
our young people. And would we not be much better served if we had our 
parents and teachers and administrators and people plugged into the 
local levels and all just issue a recent incident of this that I think 
needs to be talked about later on today?
  But Washington, D.C.'s idea of how to help our young people is to 
give them free needles and to tell them to go ahead and shoot up. And 
that is a mixed signal when Washington gets in the middle of something 
affecting the young people in America today.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Is this the same Washington that is going to stop our 
kids from smoking but we are going to give them free needles? Somewhere 
in here there is a contradiction. We can stop our kids from smoking 
through Washington programs, but we cannot keep them off drugs so we 
are going to give them free needles.
  Mr. THUNE. If the gentleman would yield on that, because that is an 
important point, and we are talking about an important issue. Tobacco 
is an important issue, and it is something that we are going to pass 
legislation which prevents teens from starting smoking.
  But the issue, the reason that they are talking about at the White 
House the tobacco issue not the drug issue is because it is a money 
issue. It is all about money. It is about bringing more money in here 
to create new government, Washington-based spending programs. That is 
what the issue is. And if the objective ultimately is to help young 
people, to get them to stop smoking, to get them to stop quit using 
drugs, that is exactly the wrong message to send. We do not want to 
hand them free needles.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will yield time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) in a minute.
  What I have here in my hand is about 2 days' worth of responses to a 
public opinion survey I sent out in my district about the topic of 
education. And my colleagues can pour through these. And we have to 
respect the confidentiality of those who sent them. I do not want to 
disclose any names.
  But just in general, I asked about a number of education topics. But 
in the comments people wrote in, it was alarming to go see how many 
times parents expressed real concern for drugs in their schools, that 
their concern, the most precious things in the lives of these parents 
are their kids and they send them to schools to learn and they have 
these great hopes and ambitions for their children and their families.
  We ought to be, when it comes to schools, talking about class size 
and curriculum and the real issues that are confronting our children in 
schools. But to see the concerns of parents over and over and over 
again expressed in a way that goes right to this drug issue, it is a 
tremendous problem throughout the country. And parents in America 
should not have to worry about sending their children to a public 
school and having them confronted with the reality of drug addiction, 
drug abuse, and illegal drugs at all.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) is here, who is one the 
foremost leaders in the Congress on trying to reduce the rate of drug 
abuse in America, especially among children. I would yield to him at 
this point.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I would thank the gentleman from Colorado 
for yielding. And certainly this is a real issue. I appreciate him 
talking about what happens when government has too much money. And when 
they have too much money there, there is a lot of ideas that people 
have about how to spend that money.
  Unfortunately, one of the ideas that this administration has was, 
well, it was a good idea to hand out free needles to drug addicts.

                              {time}  2000

  Now we have to look at this issue. You know, drugs are not legal. 
Marijuana, heroin, crack, cocaine, all those are against the law. But, 
yet, the paraphernalia, needles and other things that are used to 
inject those drugs into a human body all of a sudden are not just 
legal, all of a sudden, you have the Federal Government with a plan to 
use taxpayer dollars, Federal dollars to hand those needles to drug 
addicts.
  I am saying, you know, maybe we have got something wrong. We talked 
about trying to stop kids from smoking cigarettes. I think that is 
something we should do. I mean, we should send a message. We should 
have the moral courage to talk about this issue. Certainly teen smoking 
is not a good thing. But I question when we take a cigarette out of a 
kid's mouth and stick a needle in his arm, I mean, where are we going? 
What is the issue here? How can you justify that and morally move that 
idea forward?
  I think we have a bad message, certainly a bad message to drug 
addicts to all of a sudden say it cannot be too bad. The Federal 
Government is giving me the paraphernalia to put these drugs in my 
veins.
  And certainly the message to parents, and I think as a parent myself, 
and a teacher, the worst thing that I would ever want to happen is to 
think about my kids using drugs. I think most parents think of that, 
boy, one of the things I do not want to see ever happen in my family is 
to have my kids use drugs. Yet, the Federal Government is actually 
saying, oh, by the way, if you need free needles to use drugs, you 
cannot use drugs. That is bad. That is illegal. But if you want the 
free needles to use them, here they are.
  I do not quite understand that. The logic is not there. You know, it 
is the wrong message. I am particularly frustrated in what signal, in 
what message we are sending to the kids in this country, the parents of 
this country, the schools of this country, our foreign neighbors.
  I was just down in Chile last weekend attending the President's 
Summit down there in South America on issues that are relevant. One of 
the things, one of the messages we are trying to get across to our 
South American neighbors is that we need to stop drugs. We need to have 
them stop growing drugs in South America and in Colombia and Peru and 
Bolivia and other countries. We need to stop having them move those 
drugs or transit those drugs across their countries and across through 
Mexico and on to our borders.
  But when we are saying it is our job, too, to take care of the demand 
in this country, but, oh, by the way, we are against people using 
drugs, and we want to stop the demand because we know the demand in 
some sense drives supply and vice versa, here, by the way, here is what 
we are doing. We are instigating a program. We are giving away needles 
so people can use drugs. The message is wrong, very, very wrong.
  I think this Congress needs to stand up. They need to say it is 
wrong. They need to convince this administration that it is a wrong-
headed policy. That is our job.
  I think, you know, one of the reasons we are talking tonight and 
trying to get involved in this and have talked to the American people 
is to get people to react. I am not sure if there are many people in 
this country who realize that the Federal Government wants to instigate 
a program that starts giving away taxpayer-paid needles to drug 
addicts.
  I think in the heart of hearts of some people, the reason they are 
going to do that is that because there is a high incidence of AIDS 
among drug addicts, and they want to stop AIDS. But do you know what 
the facts are? In both the Montreal study and in the Vancouver study 
and in the Chicago study, and I would like to enter those studies into 
the Record.
  What it says is, you know, people who get free needles pass these 
needles around anyway. The drug is such, especially the purity of 
heroin that we have today, is such a driving need for those people, 
once they become addicted, is that they do not care; they just have 
needles. They do not care if they are clean needles or dirty needles. 
Once they get that drug buy, they do not want to go more than 100 feet 
away from where they are at to inject the drug. They will take a dirty 
needle. They will take a needle from a friend.
  The statistics are amazing that, in programs where you do not give 
needles away, 38 percent of the people trade needles. In programs where 
you give needles away, such as they did in a study in Montreal and 
Vancouver and in Chicago, 39 percent of the people trade needles. So it 
does not make any difference. As a matter of fact, it exacerbates the 
problem.

[[Page H2227]]

  What else you find is, when there are free needle programs, it does 
not do away with drug addicts. The percentage of drug addicts in a 
neighborhood actually rise. More people are using drugs. And do you 
know what? The whole issue is to do away with HIV. And do you know 
what? You have more incidents of HIV. Plus crime increases.
  So you have all these dynamics that happen that certainly are not 
good.
  Another interesting thing, too, in New York City, we had a hearing 
last September, as a matter of fact, September 18, 1997, and it was a 
hearing on the needle exchange and legalization and the failure of the 
Swiss heroin experiments. In this study, we found out that, in New York 
City, for every 40 needles given away, only one needle was actually 
exchanged. Let me explain that.
  The idea of a needle exchange is, you give one needle to the person; 
he gives you the dirty needle back. Here in New York City, they give 40 
needles away and get only one dirty needle back. So the exchange means 
you just put out more needles in the universe and certainly something 
that just perplexes me.
  Interesting, I have a constituent in my district who heads up the 
Illinois Drug Educational Alliance, a woman by the name of Judy 
Kreamer. Ms. Kreamer says needle exchange programs are offered as a way 
to prevent the spread of HIV, AIDS. However, studies have shown that 
such programs increase the spread of HIV, AIDS.
  In addition, needle exchange programs encourage drug use and pose a 
serious threat to the health and safety of innocent people, and I will 
attach support.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the documents referred to for the Record.

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 22, 1998]

                           Clean But Not Safe


                  free needles don't help drug addicts

                          (By James L. Curtis)

       Donna Shalala, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     wanted it both ways this week. She announced that Federal 
     money would not be used for programs that distribute clean 
     needles to addicts. But she offered only a halfhearted 
     defense of that decision, even stating that while the Clinton 
     Administration would not finance such programs, it supported 
     them in theory.
       Ms. Shalala should have defended the Administration's 
     decision vigorously. Instead, she chose to placate AIDS 
     activists, who insist that giving free needles to addicts is 
     a cheap and easy way to prevent H.I.V. infection.
       This is simplistic nonsense that stands common sense on its 
     head. For the past 10 years, as a black psychiatrist 
     specializing in addiction, I have warned about the dangers of 
     needle-exchange policies, which hurt not only individual 
     addicts but also poor and minority communities.
       There is no evidence that such programs work. Take a look 
     at the way many of them are conducted to the United States. 
     An addict is enrolled anonymously, without being given an 
     H.I.V. test to determine whether he or she is already 
     infected. The addict is given a coded identification card 
     exempting him or her from arrest for carrying drug 
     paraphernalia. There is no strict accounting of how many 
     needles are given out or returned.
       How can such an effort prove it is preventing the spread of 
     H.I.V. if the participants are anonymous and if they aren't 
     tested for the virus before and after entering the program?
       Studies in Montreal and Vancouver did systematically test 
     participants in needle-exchange programs. And the studies 
     found that those addicts who took part in such exchanges 
     were two to three times more likely to become infected 
     with H.I.V. than those who did not participate. They also 
     found that almost half the addicts frequently shared 
     needles with others anyway.
       This was unwelcome news to the AIDS establishment. For 
     almost two years, the Montreal study was not reported in 
     scientific journals. After the study finally appeared last 
     year in a medical journal, two of the researchers, Julie 
     Bruneau and Martin T. Schechter, said that their results had 
     been misinterpreted. The results, they said, needed to be 
     seen in the context of H.I.V. rates in other innercity 
     neighborhoods. They even suggested that maybe the number of 
     needles given out in Vancouver should be raised to 10 million 
     from 2 million.
       Needle-exchange programs are reckless experiments. Clearly 
     there is more than a minimal risk of contracting the virus. 
     And addicts already infected with H.I.V., or infected while 
     in the program, are not given antiretroviral medications, 
     which we know combats the virus in its earliest stages.
       Needle exchanges also affect poor communities adversely. 
     For instance, the Lower East Side Harm Reduction Center is 
     one of New York City's largest needle-exchange programs. 
     According to tenant groups we have talked to, the center, 
     since it began in 1992, has become a magnet not only for 
     addicts but for dealers as well. Used needles, syringes and 
     crack vials litter the sidewalk. Tenants who live next door 
     to the center complain that the police don't arrest addicts 
     who hang out near it, even though they are openly buying 
     drugs and injecting them.
       The indisputable fact is that needle exchanges merely help 
     addicts continue to use drugs. It's not unlike giving an 
     alcoholic a clean Scotch tumbler to prevent meningitis. Drug 
     addicts suffer from a serious disease requiring comprehensive 
     treatment, sometimes under compulsion. Ultimately, that's the 
     best way to reduce H.I.V. infection among this group. What 
     addicts don't need is the lure of free needles.
                                                                    ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 22, 1998]

                   Clean Needles May Be Bad Medicine

                           (By David Murray)

       The Clinton administration on Monday endorsed the practice 
     of giving clean needles to drug addicts in order to prevent 
     transmission of the AIDS virus. ``A meticulous scientific 
     review has now proven that needle-exchange programs can 
     reduce the transmission of HIV and save lives without losing 
     ground on the battle against illegal drugs,'' Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services Donna Shalala announced.
       The administration is not unanimous, however; the drug 
     czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who opposes needle exchange, was 
     out of the country Monday. Who's right? As recently as a 
     month ago, HHS had restated needle-exchange programs, ``We 
     have not yet concluded that needle exchange programs do not 
     encourage drug use,'' spokeswoman Melissa Skolfield told the 
     Washington Post March 17. By Monday the department had 
     reached that conclusion, though the scientific evidence that 
     needle exchanges don't encourage drug use is as weak today as 
     it was a month ago.
       In fact, the evidence is far from clear that needle-
     exchange programs protect against HIV infection. Most studies 
     have had serious methodological limitations, and new studies 
     in Montreal and Vancouver have revealed a troubling pattern: 
     In general, the better the study design, the less convincing 
     the evidence that clean-needle giveaways protect against HIV.
       The Montreal study, the most sophisticated yet, found that 
     those who attended needle-exchange programs had a 
     substantially higher risk of HIV infection than intravenous 
     drug addicts who did not. In a much-discussed new York Times 
     op-ed article two weeks ago, Julia Bruneau and Martin T. 
     Schechter, authors of the Montreal and Vancouver studies 
     respectively, explained the higher risk this way: ``Because 
     these programs are in inner-city neighborhoods, they serve 
     users who are at greatest risk of infection. Those who didn't 
     accept free needles . . . were less likely to engage in the 
     riskiest activities.''
       Dr. Bruneau is apparently rejecting her own research. For 
     her study had statistical controls to correct for precisely 
     this factor. In the American Journal of Epidemiology, Dr. 
     Bruneau wrote: ``These findings cannot be explained solely on 
     the basis of the concentration around needle-exchange 
     programs of a higher risk intravenous drug user population 
     with a greater baseline HIV prevalence.''
       Even more troubling, Dr. Bruneau reported that addicts who 
     were initially HIV-negative were more likely to become 
     positive after participation in the needle exchange. Dr. 
     Bruneau speculated that needle-exchange programs ``may have 
     facilitated formation of new sharing networks, with the 
     programs becoming the gathering places for isolated 
     [addicts].''
       Janet Lapay of Drug Watch International says needle-
     exchange programs often become ``buyer's clubs'' for addicts, 
     attracting not only scattered users but opportunistic 
     dealers. Not everyone agrees. Dr. Schechter says that when he 
     asked his study's heroin users, they reported meeting 
     elsewhere. But a delegation from Gen. McCaffrey's office 
     returned from Vancouver in early April with some startling 
     news: Although more than 2.5 million clean needles were given 
     out last year, the death rate from illegal drugs has 
     skyrocked. ``Vancouver is literally swamped with drugs,'' the 
     delegation concluded. ``With an at-risk population, without 
     access to drug treatment, needle exchange appears to be 
     nothing more than a facilitor for drug use.''
       The problem for science is that no study has used the most 
     effective method for settling such issues--a randomized 
     control trial. Moreover, needle-exchange programs are usually 
     embedded in complex programs of outreach, education and 
     treatment, which themselves affect HIV risk. A 1996 study 
     showed that through outreach and education alone, HIV 
     incidence in Chicago-area intravenous drug users was reduced 
     71% in the absence of a needle exchange.
       Peter Lurie of the University of Michigan argues that ``to 
     defer public health action on those grounds [awaiting better 
     research] is to surrender the science of epidemiology to 
     thoughtless empiricism and to endanger the lives of thousands 
     of intravenous drug users.'' But Dr. Lurie's reasoning 
     appears circular. Only someone convinced that needle-exchange 
     programs are effective at preventing HIV can claim that 
     addicts are jeopardized by further testing.
       And drug use carries risks besides HIV infection. A recent 
     article in the Journal of the American Medical Association 
     warned that the arrival of a new drug from Mexico called 
     ``black-tar-heroin,'' cut with dirt and shoe polish, is 
     spreading ``wound botulism.'' This potent toxin leads to 
     paralysis and agonizing death, even when injected by a clean 
     needle.

[[Page H2228]]

       Thus, dispensing needles to the addicted could produce a 
     public health tragedy if this policy does indeed place them 
     at greater risk for HIV or enhances the legitimacy of hard 
     drug use. Simply put, the administration's case is not 
     proven.
                                                                    ____


   Needle Exchange Programs Have Not Been Proven To Prevent HIV/AIDS

       Outreach/education programs have been shown to be very 
     effective in preventing HIV/AIDS. For instance, a Chicago 
     study showed that HIV seroconversion rates fell from 8.4 to 
     2.4 per 100 person-years, a drop of 71%, in IV drug addicts 
     through outreach/education alone without provision of 
     needles. i (1) Needle exchange programs (NEPs) add needle 
     provision to such programs. Therefore, in order to prove that 
     the needle component of a program is beneficial, NEPs must be 
     compared to outreach/education programs which do not dispense 
     needles. This point was made in a Montreal study which 
     stated, ``We caution against trying to prove directly the 
     causal relation between NEP use and reduction in HIV 
     incidence. Evaluating the effect of NEPs per se without 
     accounting for other interventions and changes over time in 
     the dynamics of the epidemic may prove to be a perilous 
     exercise. ``ii (2) The authors conclude, ``Observational 
     epidemiological studies . . . are yet to provide unequivocal 
     evidence of benefit for NEPs.'' An example of this failure to 
     control for variables is a NEP study in The Lancet which 
     compared HIV prevalence in different cities but did not 
     compare differences in outreach/education and/or treatment 
     facilities. iii (3)
       Furthermore, recent studies of NEPs show a marked increase 
     in AIDS. A 1997 Vancouver study reported that when their NEP 
     started in 1988, HIV prevalence in IV drug addicts was only 
     1-2%, now it is 23%. iv (4) HIV seroconversion rate in 
     addicts (92% of whom have used the NEP) is now 18.6 per 100 
     person-years. Vancouver, with a population of 450,000, has 
     the largest NEP in North America, providing over 2 million 
     needles per year. However, a very high rate of needle sharing 
     still occurs. The study found that 40% of HIV-positive 
     addicts had lent their used syringe in the previous 6 months, 
     and 39% of HIV-negative addicts had borrowed a used syringe 
     in the previous 6 months. Heroin use has also risen as will 
     be described below. Ironically, the Vancouver NEP was highly 
     praised in a 1993 study sponsored by the Centers for Disease 
     Control. v (5)
       The Vancouver study corroborates a previous Chicago study 
     which also demonstrated that their NEP did not reduce needle-
     sharing and other risky injecting behavior among 
     participants. vi (6) The Chicago study found that 39% of 
     program participants shared syringes vs 38% of non-
     participants; 39% of program participants ``handed off'' 
     dirty needles vs 38% of non-participants; and 68% of program 
     participants displayed injecting risks vs 66% of non-
     participants.
       A Montreal study showed that IV addicts who used the NEP 
     were more than twice as likely to become infected with HIV as 
     IV addicts who did not use the NEP. vii(7) There was an HIV 
     seroconversion rate of 7.9 per 100 person years among those 
     who attended the needle program, and a rate of 3.1 per 100 
     person-years among those who did not. The data was collected 
     from 1988-1995 with 974 subjects involved in the 
     seroconversion analysis. There was a cumulative probability 
     of 33% HIV seroconversion for NEP participants compared to 
     13% for non-users.
       It is important to note that the Chicago, Montreal, and 
     Vancouver studies followed the same group of addicts over an 
     extended period of time, measuring their seroconversion from 
     HIV negative to HIV positive. This has not been the case in 
     previous studies which have purported to show the success of 
     NEPs, such as a New York study which combined results in 
     different populations viii(8) or the New Haven study which 
     was based on a mathematical model of anonymous needles. ix(9)
       Some authors have suggested that the increase in HIV in NEP 
     users in Vancouver and Montreal is because NEPs attract high-
     risk IVDUs. If this is true, then most IVDUs are at high 
     risk, since 92% of Vancouver IVDUs used the NEP. However, an 
     alternative hypothesis was posed by the authors of the 
     Montreal study who postulated that NEPs may serve to 
     facilitate the formation of ``new [needle] sharing groups 
     gathering together isolated IVDUs.'' x(10) This evidence is 
     supported by information that NEPs serve as buyers' clubs and 
     facilitate drug use. Pro-needle activist Donald Grove has 
     written, ``Most needle exchange programs actually provide a 
     valuable service to users beyond sterile injection equipment. 
     They serve as sites of informal (and increasingly formal) 
     organizing and coming together. A user might be able to do 
     the networking needed to find good drugs in the half an hour 
     he spends at the street-based needle exchange site--
     networking that might otherwise have taken half a day.'' 
     xi(11) By cutting down on the search time, i.e. the time 
     necessary to find drugs, an addict again is able to inject 
     more frequently, resulting in increased drug use, dependency, 
     and exposure to HIV/AIDS through needle sharing or sexual 
     behavior.


      facilitation of drug use leads to rise in cocaine and heroin

       This facilitation of drug use, coupled with the provision 
     of needles in large quantities, may also explain the rapid 
     rise in binge cocaine injection which may be is injected up 
     to 40 times a day. Some NEPs are actually encouraging cocaine 
     and crack injection by providing so-called ``safe crack 
     kits'' with instructions on how to inject crack 
     intravenously. xii(12) This increases the addict's drug 
     dependency and irrational behavior, including prostitution 
     and needle sharing. In some NEPs, needles are provided in 
     huge batches of 1000, and although there is supposed to be a 
     one-for-one exchange, the reality is that more needles are 
     put out on the street than are taken in. For instance, on 
     March 8, 1997, Nancy Sosman of the Coalition for a Better 
     Community, NYC, accompanied by a reporter from the New York 
     Times visited the Manhattan Lower East Side NEP requesting 
     needles. xiii(13) Even though they had no needles to exchange 
     and were not drug-users, they were promptly given 60 syringes 
     and needles, little pans for cooking the heroin, instructions 
     on how to properly inject drugs into their veins, and a card 
     exempting them from arrest for possession of drug 
     paraphernalia. They were told that they did not need to 
     return the needles. This community has requested that the NEP 
     be closed.
       NEPs also facilitate drug use because police are instructed 
     not to ``harass'' addicts in areas surrounding these needle 
     programs. Addicts are exempted from arrest because they are 
     given an anonymous identification code number. Since police 
     in these areas must ignore drug use, as they are instructed 
     not to ``harass'' these program participants, it is no wonder 
     drug addiction is increasing. In Vancouver, Lynne Bryson, a 
     Downtown Eastside resident, notes that large numbers of 
     addicts visit the exchange, pick up needles, and ``shoot up'' 
     nearby. She has watched addicts buy heroin outside the NEP 
     building ``and inject it while huddled against buildings in 
     nearby alleys.'' xiv(14) As the presence of law enforcement 
     declines in these areas, it is not surprising that the 
     supply of drugs also rises, with increased purity and 
     lower prices. This also serves to hook new young users. 
     With addictive drugs, increased supply creates increased 
     demand. Surprisingly, the response in both Vancouver and 
     Montreal to the above-mentioned reports was to increase 
     the amount of needles provided.
       Many drug prevention experts have long feared that the 
     proliferation of NEPs, now numbering over 100 in the US, 
     would result in a rise in heroin use, and indeed, this has 
     come to pass. This rise in drug use was ignored by all the 
     federally-funded studies which recommended federally funding 
     NEPs. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at 
     Columbia University reported August 14, 1997 that heroin use 
     by American teens doubled from 1991 to 1996. In the past 
     decade, experts estimate that the number of US heroin addicts 
     has risen from 550,000 to 700,000.xv(15)
       A 1994 San Francisco study falsely concluded that there was 
     no increase in community heroin use because there was no 
     increase in young users frequenting the NEP.xvi(16) The 
     rising rate of heroin use in the community was not measured, 
     and the lead author, needle provider John Watters, was found 
     dead of an IV heroin overdose in November 1995. According to 
     the Public Statistics Institute, hospital admissions for 
     heroin in San Francisco increased 66% from 1986 to 
     1995.xvii(17)
       In Vancouver, heroin use has risen sharply: deaths from 
     drug overdoses have increased over five-fold since 1988 when 
     the NEP started. Now Vancouver has the highest heroin death 
     rate in North America, and is referred to as Canada's ``drug 
     and crime capital.''xviii(18)
       The 1997 National Institutes of Health Consensus Panel 
     Report on HIV Prevention praised the NEP in Glasgow, 
     Scotland, but the report ignored Glasgow's massive resultant 
     heroin epidemic. Currently, as revealed in an article 
     entitled ``Rethinking `harm reduction' for Glasgow addicts,'' 
     Glasgow leads the United Kingdom in deaths from heroin 
     overdose, and the incidence of AIDS is rising.xix(19)
       In Boston, illegal NEPs were encouraged after the well-
     known, long-time needle provider Jon Stuen-Parker was 
     acquitted in 1990 amidst much media publicity.xx(20) Then in 
     July 1993, NEPs were legalized, and the city became a magnet 
     for heroin. Logan Airport has been branded the country's 
     ``heroin port;''xxi(21) Boston leads the nation in heroin 
     purity (average 81%); and heroin samples of 99.9% are found 
     on Boston streets.xxii(22) Boston now has the cheapest, 
     purest heroin in the world and a serious heroin epidemic 
     among the youth.xxiii(23) The Boston NEP was supposed to be a 
     ``pilot study'' but there was no evaluation of seroconversion 
     rates in the addicts nor of the rising level of heroin use in 
     the Boston area.xxiv(24)
       Similarly, the Baltimore NEP is praised by those who run 
     it, but the massive drug epidemic in the city is overlooked. 
     For instance, the National Institutes of Health reports that 
     heroin treatment and ER admission rates in Baltimore have 
     increased steadily from 1991 to 1995. ``At one open-air drug 
     supermarket (open 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.) customers were herded 
     into lines sometimes 20 or 30 people deep. Guarded by persons 
     armed with guns and baseball bats, customers are frisked for 
     weapons, and then allowed to purchase $10 capsules of 
     heroin.``xxv(25) Baltimore's mayor Kurt Schmoke is a pro-drug 
     legalizer on the Board of the Drug Policy Foundation. He 
     favors not only NEPs but also heroin distribution.xxvi(26)
       Any societal intervention which encourages drug use will 
     also result in increased AIDS rates. It is important to note 
     that needle sharing is not the only way drug users

[[Page H2229]]

     are infected with AIDS since they are at high risk for 
     acquiring AIDS sexually through promiscuity or prostitution. 
     For instance, a study of non-needle using NYC crack addicts 
     showed a high incidence of HIV/AIDS.xxvii(27) Addicts often 
     fund their addiction through prostitution and trading sex for 
     drugs. Furthermore, addicts commonly support their habit by 
     selling drugs to other addicts, and by recruiting new 
     addicts. They target the youth, often providing free samples 
     and free needles to hook their clients. By enabling addicts 
     to stay addicted, NEPs serve to increase the numbers of new 
     young addicts.
       Recently, many communities have been attempting to defeat 
     these NEPs before they start or to close them once they have 
     started. In Willimantic, Connecticut, community opposition to 
     its NEP arose as many discarded needles were observed along 
     with increased open drug use. One man, having received 
     needles from NEP, fatally overdosed after his friend 
     unsuccessfully tried to get help from the exchange. Also, a 
     toddler was stuck by a needle discarded near the NEP which 
     was finally shut down. xxviii(28) In New Bedford, 
     Massachusetts, there was a referendum, and the people voted 
     down NEPs by a margin of over 2-1. xxix(29) A 1997 survey 
     done by the Family Research Council found that Americans 
     overwhelmingly oppose NEPs and believe giving an endless 
     supply of needles to drug addicts is irresponsible, 
     representing an official endorsement of illegal drug use 
     which encourages teenage drug use.


      Rather Than Encourage Drug Use, Treatment Should Be Mandated

       By providing needles to addicts, NEPs enable the addict to 
     continue self-destructive illegal behavior. With regard to 
     treatment outcomes, NEPs should be compared to mandatory 
     treatment programs, such as drug courts, which serve to force 
     addicts into treatment whether they are ``ready'' or not. An 
     addict under the influence of a mind-altering drug does not 
     think clearly and may overdose before he/she ever concludes 
     that treatment is the best choice. Indeed, most persons in 
     treatment are there because of an encounter with the criminal 
     justice system, and studies show that involuntary treatment 
     works as well as voluntary treatment. Thus addiction 
     specialist Dr. Sally Satel writes that ``For Addicts, Force 
     is the Best Medicine.'' xxx(30) Even worse is the fact that, 
     as pointed out by addiction expert Dr. James L. Curtis, NEPs 
     often serve to lure recovering addicts back into injecting 
     drug use. xxxi(31)
       Since outreach/education programs and mandatory treatment 
     programs are safe and effective in preventing both drug use 
     and HIV/AIDS, these programs should be encouraged and funded. 
     NEPs should be discontinued since they are not safe or 
     effective and since they result in increased drug use and 
     HIV/AIDS.


                               References

       1. Weibel WW et al, J. AIDS and Human Retrovirology 12:282-
     289, 1996.
       12. Bruneau J et al, American J Epidemiology 146:1007-1010, 
     1997.
       13. Hurley SF et al, The Lance 349:1797-1800, 1997. 14. 
     Strathdee SA et al, AIDS 11:F59-F65, 1997. 15. The Public 
     Health Impact of Needle Exchange Programs in the United 
     States and Abroad, U. Cal, 1993. 16. National Research 
     Council/Institute of Medicine, Preventing HIV Transmission: 
     the Role of Sterile Needles and Bleach, National Academy 
     Press, Washington DC, p. 302-304, 1995. 17. Bruneau J et al, 
     American J Epidemiology, 146:994-1002, 1997. 18. DesJarlais D 
     et al, Lancet 348:987-991, 1996.
       19. Heimer K et al, American Journal of Medicine 95:214-
     220, 1993. 110. Bruneau J et al, American Journal of 
     Epidemiology 146:1007-1010, 1997. 111. Grove D, The Harm 
     Reduction Coalition, NYC, Harm Reduction Communication, 
     Spring 1996. 112. Ehrenfeld, Rachel, Insight, December 29, 
     1997. 113. The New York Times Magazine, October 15, 1997. 
     114. British Columbia Report, August 1997. 115. USA Today 5/
     21/97. 116. Watters JK et al, Journal of the American Medical 
     Association 271:115-120, 1994.
       117. The Boston Globe ``Overdoses swamp San Francisco ERs'' 
     February 1, 1998. 118. The Washington Post 4/24/97. 119. The 
     New York Times 8/18/96. 120. Boston Globe 1/10/90. 121. The 
     Boston Globe 8/5/93. 122. The Boston Globe 8/2/93. 123. The 
     Boston Globe Magazine 6/8/97. 124. Final Report: First Year 
     of Pilot NEP in MA, The Medical Foundation, Boston, October 
     1995. 125. Epidemiologic Trends in Drug Abuse, Community 
     Epidemiology Work Group, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 
     June 1997, p.21-23.
       126. The Boston Globe, May 22, 1997. 127. Edlin BR et al, 
     The New England Journal of Medicine 331:1422-7, 1994. 128. 
     The Hartford Courant, March 11, 1997. 129. Standard Times, 
     November 6, 1996. 130. Satel, Sally, Wall Street Journal, 
     January 6, 1998. 131. Letter from Dr. Curtis to Reverend 
     Edgar L. Vann, April 11, 1996. Curtis JL, National Press 
     Club, August 20, 1997. Curtis JL, The Black Leadership 
     Commission on AIDS, June 4, 1997. 1
       i Weibel WW et al, J. AIDS and Human Retrovirology, 12:282-
     289, 1996.
       ii Bruneau J et al, American J Epidemiology 146:1007-1010, 
     1997.
       iii Hurley SF et al, The Lancet 349:1797-1800, 1997.
       iv Strathdee SA et al, AIDS 11:F59-F65, 1997.
       v The Public Health Impact of Needle Exchange Programs in 
     the United States and Abroad, U. Cal, 1993.
       vi National Research Council/Institute of Medicine, 
     Preventing HIV Transmission: the Role of Sterile Needles and 
     Bleach, National Academy Press, Washington DC, p. 302-304, 
     1995.
       vii Bruneau J et al, American J Epidemiology, 146:994-1002, 
     1997.
       viii DesJarlais D et al, Lancet 348:987-991, 1996.
       ix Heimer K et al, American Journal of Medicine 95:214-220, 
     1993.
       x Bruneau J et al, American Journal of Epidemiology 
     146:1007-1010, 1997.
       xi Grove D, The Harm Reduction Coalition, NYC, Harm 
     Reduction Communications, Spring 1996.
       xii Ehrenfeld, Rachel, Insight, December 29, 1997.
       xiii The New York Times Magazine, October 15, 1997.
       xiv British Columbia Report, August 1997.
       xv USA Today 5/21/97.
       xvi Watters JK et al, Journal of the American Medical 
     Association 271:115-120, 1994.
       xvii The Boston Globe ``Overdoses swamp San Francisco ERs'' 
     February 1, 1998.
       xviii The Washington Post 4/24/97.
       xix The New York Times 8/18/96.
       xx Boston Globe 1/10/90.
       xxi The Boston Globe 8/5/93.
       xxii The Boston Globe 8/2/93.
       xxiii The Boston Globe Magazine 6/8/97.
       xxiv Final Report: First Year of Pilot NEP in MA, The 
     Medical Foundation, Boston, October 1995.
       xxv Epidemiologic Trends in Drug Abuse, Community 
     Epidemiology Work Group, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 
     June 1997, p. 21.
       xxvi The Boston Globe, May 22, 1997.
       xxvii Edlin BR et al, The New England Journal of Medicine 
     331:1422/7, 1994.
       xxviii The Hartford Courant, March 11, 1997.
       xxix Standard Times, November 6, 1996.
       xxx Satel, Sally, Wall Street Journal, January 6, 1998.
       xxxi Letter from Dr. Curtis to Reverend Edgar L. Vann, 
     April 11, 1996.
       Curtis JL, National Press Club, August 20, 1997.
       Curtis JL, The Black Leadership Commission on AIDS, June 4, 
     1997.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), has 
done a lot of work in this area.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado 
for yielding. I also thank the gentleman from Illinois, the 
distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security on 
which I have the honor of serving and which has really been on the 
forefront on the war against mind-altering drugs, both here 
domestically as well as in the international manifestations.
  We have, in recent years, as we know and, Mr. Speaker, as you know, 
become a Nation deeply concerned with the messages that we, as adults, 
send to our children. We yearn for the athlete whose poster hangs above 
our child's bed to be as good a citizen as to be a ball player. We want 
our teachers to practice what they preach, and we want our government 
to provide an environment by which our children can truly learn safely.
  Unfortunately, our government, at the direction of the President, is 
failing miserably. Drug use among America's children is on the rise. 
This was confirmed recently in a study, Substance Abuse and the 
American Adolescent, released by the National Center for Addiction and 
Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
  What is more, surveys have found that 23.5 percent of 12-year-olds 
personally now know a drug user, whereas, 2 years ago, in 1996, 10.6 
percent of 12-year-olds personally knew a drug dealer. That is an 
increase of 122 percent. Drug overdoses and emergency room treatment of 
drug patients are also increasing.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the President and his Secretary of Health and Human 
Services would have us believe that giving needles to drug users is 
sound policy and good for our Nation's children. This is pure lunacy.
  In the wake of this ill-advised policy, we now have evidence that 
America's children are drinking, smoking, and using mind-altering drugs 
at the youngest ages ever.
  The war on drugs should only be thought of in one way, a war for the 
very lives of our children. I am constantly dismayed that many of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who rarely introduce 
legislation without claiming that it is for America's children would 
support any legislation or initiatives that in any way encourage drug 
abuse, particularly since initiatives have proved to be destructive in 
other nations that have similarly experimented with the lives of their

[[Page H2230]]

children. Mr. Speaker, we must never experiment with the lives of 
children in America.
  As the distinguished subcommittee chairman indicated, Switzerland has 
gone through this very same policy with devastating results. I had the 
opportunity just last year to visit Switzerland where such an 
experiment has taken place. It has failed. Drug use in Switzerland has 
not decreased. It has increased. America will rue the day when you can 
walk down a city street in Atlanta or Washington or Indianapolis or 
Boulder and next to a Coke machine find a machine that distributes 
needles or, more accurately, death in a box, indiscriminately, to any 
man, woman, or child, with the only qualification to getting that out 
of the machine is that you are tall enough to drop the coins into the 
slot.
  The proponents of this medicinal use of marijuana or needle exchange 
programs which, as the distinguished subcommittee chairman said, is 
really a needle giveaway program, know that this is simply the first 
step towards legalizing drugs in our Nation. For our children, this 
must never happen.
  In Switzerland each year, their needle distribution programs have 
given out more, not fewer drug needles. It does not take a rocket 
scientist to conclude that more, not fewer people, are using drugs 
under the Swiss experiment. Of course, the initial logic behind these 
distribution programs was suspiciously benign: to help combat the 
spread of HIV.
  In 1986, the Swiss started a needle exchange program in a park in 
Zurich. In the beginning, they exchanged about 300 needles a day. By 
1992, that number had swelled to 12,000. We should not, we must not be 
fooled.
  This is part of a strategy to legalize drugs in the United States. 
First, it starts with needles. Then it moves to distributing the drugs. 
To be sure, there will be some clever reason why this should be done. 
There is always an excuse, always a rationale.
  Were I to support this needle giveaway program, how could I or any of 
us ever look a mother in the eye who comes to us in a town hall meeting 
or visits us in our office and says to us that her child is shooting up 
drugs and what can we do to help? How could any of us tell that parent 
that that needle that child is using could be a needle that was bought 
and paid for by our government? Her tax dollars at work, in the hands 
of her child, in the form of a needle, containing a recipe for death. 
What a cruel twist of fate.
  Mr. Speaker, there can be no compromise in the lives of our children. 
As the saying goes, the buck does stop here. Not one single penny of 
Federal tax dollars, not one should ever be used to help addicts 
continue their destructive and deadly work on the streets, in the 
homes, in the schools, and in the businesses of these United States of 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado for yielding, 
and I want to once again thank the gentleman from Indiana for the 
distinguished leadership that he has provided as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on National Security.
  If the gentleman from Colorado would continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, 
I want to insert into the Record with my remarks the following 
editorial which appeared on April 22, 1998, by James L. Curtis in the 
New York Times, entitled Clean But Not Safe.
  Mr. Curtis is a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University's 
Medical School and the director of psychiatry at Harlem Hospital. He 
has written a very eloquent, very eloquent, indeed, opinion piece on 
this matter which he concludes as we do here that needle exchange or 
needle giveaway programs are not a cure. They are simply one more way 
of getting death and destruction into the veins of our citizens.
  The editorial is as follows:

                [From The New York Times, Apr. 22, 1998]

                           Clean But Not Safe

                          (By James L. Curtis)

       Donna Shalala, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     wanted it both ways this week. She announced that Federal 
     money would not be used for programs that distribute clean 
     needles to addicts. But she offered only a halfhearted 
     defense of that decision, even stating that while the Clinton 
     Administration would not finance such programs, it supported 
     them in theory.
       Ms. Shalala should have defended the Administration's 
     decision vigorously. Instead, she chose to placate AIDS 
     activists, who insist that giving free needles to addicts is 
     a cheap and easy way to prevent H.I.V. infection.
       This is simplistic nonsense that stands common sense on its 
     head. For the past 10 years, as a black psychiatrist 
     specializing in addiction, I have warned about the dangers of 
     needle-exchange policies, which hurt not only individual 
     addicts but also poor and minority communities.
       There is no evidence that such programs work. Take a look 
     at the way many of them are conducted in the United States. 
     An addict is enrolled anonymously, without being given an 
     H.I.V. test to determine whether he or she is already 
     infected. The addict is given a coded identification card 
     exempting him or her from arrest for carrying drug 
     paraphernalia. There is no strict accounting of how many 
     needles are given out or returned.
       How can such an effort prove it is preventing the spread of 
     H.I.V. if the participants are anonymous and if they aren't 
     tested for the virus before and after entering the program?
       Studies in Montreal and Vancouver did systematically test 
     participants in needle-exchange programs. And the studies 
     found that those addicts who took part in such exchanges were 
     two to three times more likely to become infected with H.I.V. 
     than those who did not participate. They also found that 
     almost half the addicts frequently shared needles with others 
     anyway.
       This was unwelcome news to the AIDS establishment. For 
     almost two years, the Montreal study was not reported in 
     scientific journals.
       After the study finally appeared last year in a medical 
     journal, two of the researchers, Julie Bruneau and Martin T. 
     Schechter, said that their results had been misinterpreted. 
     The results, they said, needed to be seen in the context 
     of H.I.V. rates in other inner-city neighborhoods. They 
     even suggested that maybe the number of needles given out 
     in Vancouver should be raised to 10 million from 2 
     million.
       Needle-exchange programs are reckless experiments. Clearly 
     there is more than a minimal risk of contracting the virus. 
     And addicts already infected with H.I.V., or infected while 
     in the program, are not given antiretroviral medications, 
     which we know combats the virus in its earliest stages.
       Needle exchanges also affect poor communities adversely. 
     For instance, the Lower East Side Harm Reduction Center is 
     one of New York City's largest needle-exchange programs. 
     According to tenant groups I have talked to, the center, 
     since it began in 1992, has become a magnet not only for 
     addicts buy for dealers as well. Used needles, syringes and 
     crack vials litter the sidewalk. Tenants who live next door 
     to the center complain that the police don't arrest addicts 
     who hang out near it, even though they are openly buying 
     drugs and injecting them.
       The indisputable fact is that needle exchanges merely help 
     addicts continue to use drugs. It's not unlike giving an 
     alcoholic a clean Scotch tumbler to prevent meningitis. Drug 
     addicts suffer from a serious disease requiring comprehensive 
     treatment, sometimes under compulsion. Ultimately, that's the 
     best way to reduce H.I.V. infection among this group. What 
     addicts don't need is the lure of free needles.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the Majority 
Whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I really appreciate the gentleman for taking this special order and 
allowing us to participate, and I really appreciate my Chief Deputy 
Whip for all the fine work that he has done on drug abuse. Everybody 
that has spoken, I greatly appreciate it. I want to just take a few 
minutes, if I could, to express my opinion about the drug war and the 
lack of emphasis that the White House is making.
  You know, when a mother sends her son off to a foreign war, she 
worries ceaselessly about his safety. Yet, every day, millions of 
mothers put their children on a school bus and send them off into a 
domestic drug war zone. Teen drug abuse has reached epidemic 
proportions. And few places, least of all the classroom, are safe 
havens from this insidious modern plague.
  Let us not mince any words here. Drugs are everywhere. They are in 
the lockers and bathrooms and playgrounds of America's children's 
schools and parks and on the streets of our towns. Their poison, no 
longer confined to the inner city, has burst the damn and flooded the 
suburbs.

                              {time}  2015

  Marijuana and hard narcotics are no longer the province of beatniks, 
punks and gangsters. The new drug abusers look a lot like Beaver 
Cleaver. Truth is, drug users do not just look like your son or 
daughter, drug users may very well include your son or daughter.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves.
  Overall teenage drug use has nearly doubled, nearly doubled in the 
1990's, and perhaps most frightening of all,

[[Page H2231]]

nearly half of all 17-year-olds say that they could buy marijuana 
within an hour, and that is according to a survey by Columbia's highly 
respected Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse. For those under 18, 
marijuana has become as accessible as beer or cigarettes, and with the 
President who did not inhale and a generation of baby boom parents 
nostalgic about their own youthful drug use and who too often 
considered marijuana benign, our children have been getting mixed 
messages for years.
  It does matter, character does matter. That is not to say that 
President Clinton or any national figure can be held individually 
responsible for the drug habits of our children, but the Clinton 
administration has made the fight against drugs its last priority and 
then abandoned ship mid-storm. No wonder teen drug use is on the rise.
  Wherever American children turn, in the schools, in the 
neighborhoods, parties, movies, rock concerts, even at home where 
household products can double as inhalants, they will find drugs 
available. Children rate drugs their No. 1 problem, and every single 
child in America is at risk of falling prey, regardless of race, 
ethnicity or economic status.
  So where is our war on drugs? Where is our political courage? Where 
is our sense of responsibility? Where is our leadership? Where is our 
shame?
  Too often we find that people who should be leading us out of this 
crisis are leading us deeper and deeper into it. Just this week Bill 
Clinton, the President of the United States, publicly embraced the 
outrageous practice of supplying hypodermic needles to drug abusers. On 
the one hand he wants to take cigarettes away from teenagers, and on 
the other hand he wants to give them condoms and needles.
  What kind of anti-drug policy is that? Instead of providing those 
addicted to drugs with assistance in kicking their habits, Bill Clinton 
is actually promoting the practice of providing drug addicts with the 
necessary tools needed to sustain their addiction. The issue is not 
whether our children are going to be tossed into the sea of drugs; the 
issue is how we will teach them to swim while we drain the pool.
  But there is a solution, multiple solutions in fact. We wish to solve 
the drug crisis. We will start with the family. If we want to solve the 
drug crisis we will start with the family and the school and with our 
churches and synagogues. Teens with families that eat together, play 
together and pray together are the ones least likely to try drugs. 
Teens with parents who assume responsibility for their children and do 
not blame society at large, teens who have an active religious life, 
these are the teens least likely to use drugs.
  Now, unfortunately there is an ever-increasing minority of our 
children. If the battle against drug abuse is waged at home, the war is 
only half won. Parents and children must also demand that their schools 
and their communities be made drug-free and take the actions necessary 
to keep them that way.
  We need to encourage kids to report drug dealers to their teachers 
even when those drug dealers are their classmates. We need to empower 
teachers so that when they know who the drug dealers are there is 
actually something they can do about it, and we must demand absolute 
accountability and zero tolerance by principals for any drug use on 
school grounds whatsoever. Only when our teachers and principals are 
enlisted in the anti-drug effort can we make our schools truly drug-
free.
  The good news is that our children seem ready to enlist. More than 80 
percent say that if their classmates went along they would make a 
pledge promising not to smoke, drink or use illegal drugs at school.
  Now some communities should consider assigning a full-time police 
officer to each school. They could walk the hallways like they would 
walk the beat, passing lockers, checking the parking lot, becoming a 
presence in the cafeteria. It is happening in some places already and 
it is working. Officers are bonding with the students because the 
students know that the cops are there to help. The drugs are kept out 
of the school and the kids are kept out of harm's way.
  Now there is even a role for the Federal Government. We can be more 
aggressive in guarding our borders, we can be more proactive in helping 
our neighbors to the south with their anti-drug efforts, as the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) is so good at doing, and we can 
be more vigilant in our policing, arresting and prosecution of anyone, 
anyone who sells this poison to our children.
  But it is time for the policy-makers to acknowledge to parents and 
their children that while Washington must use the bully pulpit to set 
an example, the drug crisis cannot be solved here in Washington. It 
must be solved in an our homes, in our schools, in our neighborhoods, 
and in every other place where children make decisions about whether or 
not to use illegal drugs.
  It is time for parents to say, ``We're mad as hell and we're not 
going to take it any more.'' It is time for them to send their kids a 
unequivocal message that they do not want them to try marijuana or any 
other illegal drugs and they will not tolerate it if they do. There is 
nothing wrong with being judgmental when it comes to the lives of our 
children, and I call upon every parent, Mr. Speaker, every parent to be 
intolerant and judgmental when it comes to drug use. It is time for 
parents to exert tough love for their children before these children 
become a physical threat to themselves and society at large.
  And it is time for us to take a stand against those in the community 
that preach the life-threatening notion that drugs are harmless. Shame 
on the entertainment industry for glorifying drug abuse. Shame on the 
sports stars who use drugs and fail to live up to their responsibility 
as role models. Shame on the drug legalizers who profit from addicting 
innocent children and citizens. And, yes, I even say shame on us, the 
parents, the teachers, the principals and the politicians who have 
passed the buck and turned a blind eye for too long.
  For the sake of our children we cannot afford to be shy any longer 
about calling drug abuse what it is, a moral crisis that must be 
addressed both immediately and over the long term. Drug use is wrong 
because it is immoral, and it is immoral because it enslaves the mind 
and destroys the soul. People addicted to drugs neglect their duties, 
their family, their friends, their education, their jobs, everything 
important, noble and worthwhile in life. In the end the drug problem is 
nothing so much as a manifestation of weakness, weakened families, 
weakened communities, weakened institutions.

  People turn to drugs in an attempt to escape the realities of life 
with all its richness and suffering. Drugs may numb the pain, but they 
also flatten the world and cause it to lose all texture.
  The question that the drug crisis poses is no less than the question 
of our civilization's future. Can humanity survive freedom and 
influence? Can we meet the challenge of liberty or must we, absent 
political bonds, find a way to enslave ourselves chemically? I decline 
to accept the dim view that man cannot retain the old virtues, the old 
values in this modern age. I decline to accept the notion that humanity 
is not suited for freedom.
  America can overcome the drug problem, but it will not simply go away 
on its own. No, the cure for drugs lies in the hearts and the minds of 
America's families and communities. It is time for us to act.
  By combining national leadership with community activism, we can and 
we will save America, one child and one neighborhood at a time. Working 
together with the American values of family, faith and sacrifice close 
at hand, we can ensure that the lives of our children are safer, more 
productive and free of the drugs that cripple their minds and destroy 
their souls. They, our legacy, deserve nothing less.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado taking this special order 
and the gentleman from Illinois for all the fine work that they have 
done in this regard. It is just a shame, as far as I am concerned, that 
our own President and our own administration seems to care less about 
what is happening to our children when it comes to drugs.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. I have about a minute left, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado 
yielding time to me, and the eloquence of the whip from Texas, a very 
nice presentation.

[[Page H2232]]

  But the sad story is that we have 20,000 people who die of drugs in 
this country every year, 14,000 directly from drugs. They die because 
of overdose, they die because of gang violence. They are our kids. They 
are dying today at our street corners in the darkest parts of our 
cities. We should not help them die. We should work to stop the drug 
menace in this country.

                          ____________________