[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 153 (Wednesday, November 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11506-S11510]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order,the
Senator from Virginia is recognized to offer an amendment on which
there shall be 60 minutes of debate.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for just 1 minute for opening
remarks from the manager of the bill?
Mr. ALLEN. Certainly.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for
yielding.
Let me quickly support my colleague from New York in her remarks
about how important it is for us, as we fashion homeland defense, to be
cognizant, as Mayor Giuliani beautifully showed us, so that the mayors
and local officials are really on the front line. Our Federal
Government needs to recognize the great role they have played and can
play. Our budget should reflect the principle of getting those
resources down to the lower level. I thank the Senator from New York
for her very instructive remarks to us this morning.
Let me, as I begin again this morning on the DC bill, very briefly--
within 1 minute--just hit the highlights of the bill before we turn to
the three or four amendments we may be considering today, with that of
Senator Allen being the first one up for us to consider.
First, there is great consensus in this underlying bill. Again, I
thank my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, for his excellent work.
We thank Mr. Byrd, the Senator from West Virginia, and the Senator from
Alaska, Mr. Stevens, for helping us get this bill to the floor, working
across party lines and in a very dedicated way to bring a good bill to
this floor.
The five points in this bill are:
No. 1, this is the first bill over $7 billion that comes to the floor
in 5 years without the Control Board being in effect. So there is great
responsibility that we have to make sure this and future budgets
reflect the fiscal discipline that is now a part--and hopefully will be
even a stronger part--of the District's future. The budget is not only
in balance but the District is in a surplus, having swung $1 billion
from a deficit now to a surplus. We would like to keep it that way.
There are going to be great challenges ahead, but Senator DeWine and
I are committed to fiscal discipline, transparency, accountability, and
excellence in management for the District.
No. 2, there is an underlying principle--we will debate some of that
this morning--about local decisionmaking. We believe generally local
governments should be allowed to spend their money and local funds in
the ways they are directed. There is some debate about that issue. That
debate will take place this morning.
No. 3, there is a significant investment in child welfare. I want to
say on behalf of Senator DeWine and myself and many of the Members who
helped, we are investing $40 million in new moneys to set up a better
child welfare system in the District. Too many children have died.
There are too many families torn asunder. There are too many children
without parents, too many parents without children who
[[Page S11507]]
cannot be found. This investment will help the courts work better and
help us to put our money where our mouth is and invest in kids.
No. 4, there is a $16 million increase for security in the District.
After September 11, it is obvious the District itself is a target,
hosting the Capitol of these great United States. So we have recognized
that.
Finally, there is an investment in the environment and in education.
Amendment No. 2109
Ms. LANDRIEU. I send a managers' amendment to the desk and ask
unanimous consent it be approved. This is strictly a technical
amendment. Any controversial issues have been removed; they are not
included. It has been cleared on both sides.
I send the amendment to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu], for herself and
Mr. DeWine, proposes an amendment numbered 2109.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 6, line 25, insert the following after ``inserting
``1,100''.'':
Section 16(d) of the Victims of Violent Crime Compensation
Act of 1996 (sec. 4-515(d), D.C. Official Code), as amended
by section 403 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001
(as enacted into law by section 1(a)(4) of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2001), is amended--
(1) by striking ``in excess of $250,000''; and
(2) by striking ``and approved by'' and all that follows
and inserting a period.
(b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect
as if included in the enactment of section 403 of the
Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001.
On page 12, line 7, after ``Agency,'' insert the following:
``the Governor of the State of Maryland and the Governor of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, the county executives of
contiguous counties of the region''.
Page 12, line 7, after ``and'' and before ``state'' insert
the following: ``the respective''.
Page 12, line 8, after ``emergency'' and before ``plan''
insert: ``operations''.
Page 13, line 14, strike ``$500,000'' and insert:
``$250,000''.
Page 13, line 15, strike ``McKinley Technical High School''
and insert the following: ``Southeastern University''.
Page 13, line 16, strike ``Southeastern University'' and
insert the following: ``McKinley Technical High School.''.
Page 13, line 14, insert after ``students;'': ``$250,000
for Lightspan, Inc. to implement the eduTest.com program in
the District of Columbia Public Schools;''.
Page 16, line 3, strike ``U.S. Soccer Foundation, to be
used'' and insert: ``Washington, D.C. Sports and
Entertainment Commission which in coordination with the U.S.
Soccer Foundation, shall use the funds''.
Page 17, line 18, insert after ``families'' the following:
``and children without parents, due to the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks on the District of Columbia,''.
Page 18, line 8, after ``provided,'' and before ``That''
insert the following: ``That funds made available in such Act
for the Washington Interfaith Network (114 Stat. 2444) shall
remain available for the purposes intended until December 31,
2001: Provided,''.
Page 34, line 4, District of Columbia Funds--Public Works,
insert after ``available'': ``Provided, That $1,550,000 made
available under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act,
2001 (Public Law 106-522) for taxicab driver security
enhancements in the District of Columbia shall remain
available until September 30, 2002.''.
Page 37, line 4, insert the following after ``service'':
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the District of
Columbia is hereby authorized to make any necessary payments
related to the ``District of Columbia Emergency Assistance
Act of 2001'': Provided, That the District of Columbia shall
use local funds for any payments under this heading: Provided
further, That the Chief Financial Officer shall certify the
availability of such funds, and shall certify that such funds
are not required to address budget shortfalls in the District
of Columbia.''.
Page 63, line 8, after ``expended.'' insert the following
new subsection:
``(C) Availability of FY 2001 Budget Reserve Funds.--For
fiscal year 2001, any amount in the budget reserve shall
remain available until expended.''.
Page 68, line 6, insert the following as a new General
Provision:
Sec. 137. To waive the period of Congressional review of
the Closing of Portions of 2nd and N Streets, N.E. and Alley
System in Square 710, S.O. 00-97, Act of 2001.
Notwithstanding section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia
Home Rule Act (sec. 1-233(c)(1), D.C. Code), the Closing of
Portions of 2nd and N Streets, N.E. and Alley System in
Square 710, S.O. 00-97, Act of 2001 (D.C. Act 14-106) shall
take effect on the date of the enactment of such Act or the
date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 2109) was agreed to.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I move to reconsider the vote, please, and move to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Ms. LANDRIEU. At this time the Senator from Virginia should be
recognized, according to the unanimous consent agreement.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
Amendment No. 2107
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President I call up amendment No. 2107.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Allen] proposes an amendment
numbered 2107.
Mr. ALLEN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: to prohibit the use of local funds to carry out needle
exchange programs in the District of Columbia)
On page 57, strike beginning with line 24 through page 58,
line 7, and insert the following:
Sec. 127. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may
be used for any program of distributing sterile needles or
syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
(b) Any individual or entity who received any funds
contained in this Act and who carries out any program
described in subsection (a) shall account for all funds used
for such program separately from any funds contained in this
Act.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues in the
Senate to take a stand, a strong stand, against illegal drug use by
rejecting a provision in the District of Columbia appropriations bill
that would allow the use of taxpayer funds for a needle exchange
program.
My amendment mirrors the section of the House bill that addresses the
needle exchange programs and would prohibit both the use of Federal and
locally generated funds for these needle exchange programs. I think it
is wrong and it is a misguided priority for the District of Columbia,
with all their priorities and pressing concerns in the District--
whether they be in improving their public schools or improving public
safety--to be wasting money. In fact, I don't think they ought to waste
a penny in providing drug users with sterile needles or syringes.
As you know, Mr. President, the Constitution provides the Congress
the authority to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all cases dealing
with the District of Columbia. We have oversight responsibilities. The
Federal District of Columbia is properly and constitutionally subject
to more oversight from the Congress than would be any of the 50 States.
This is evidenced by the fact that both the House and Senate have
authorizing subcommittees specifically addressing the District of
Columbia. Thus, we, as Members of the Senate, have not only a right but
also a constitutional oversight responsibility to stop this legislation
which would obviously be detrimental to the public good.
That is the bottom line here. When there is something that is clearly
detrimental to the public good in the District of Columbia, we have an
oversight responsibility. While the vast majority of matters have to do
with local jurisdiction--schools and traffic signals--various other
issues, management is best at that local level--although we would like
to empower them in some cases to do more--but insofar as the needle
exchange network is concerned, these needle exchange networks are bad
for the communities in which they are located.
In November of 1995, the Manhattan Lower East Side Community Board
passed a resolution to terminate their needle exchange program. You may
wonder why they stopped it. They said:
The community has been inundated with drug dealers. Lawful
businesses are being abandoned, and much needed law
enforcement is being withheld by the police.
Why would we want that to happen in our Nation's Capital? The U.S.
Senate could through this appropriations bill,
[[Page S11508]]
if this amendment is not adopted and the conference committee leaves it
in, allow the District of Columbia, our Nation's beloved capital, to
use taxpayer funds to buy clean needles for drug addicts. However,
prior experience with these needle exchange programs not only fails to
demonstrate positive results among drug addicts, but it may actually
result in negative results. That is right, negative results.
Deaths resulting from drug overdoses have increased five times since
1988. According to a White House report, in 1997 15,973 people died
from drug-induced causes. That is 1,130 more people than in 1996. The
highest death rate from illegal use was among African Americans at 8.3
deaths per 100,000 people.
Additionally, according to Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly, the
number of American teenagers using heroin has doubled in most recent
years. Indeed, when one thinks of heroin, you think of heroin being
used by folks in their late 20s and 30s. The biggest increase in the
use of heroin is among teenagers. In fact, the average age of heroin
users nationally is now lower among teenagers.
That is very frightening.
An AIDS Journal study indicated that Vancouver, the site of one of
these needle exchange programs, now has the highest rate of heroin
deaths in North America.
It seems to me that giving a drug addict a clean needle is like
giving an alcoholic a clean flask. It just doesn't make any sense.
Some would claim that needle exchange programs prevent the spread of
AIDS amongst intravenous drug users and are, therefore, important in
addressing the AIDS problem.
The Clinton administration attempted to lift the ongoing ban on
Federal funds for needle exchange programs as a solution to reducing
the rate of HIV infection among intravenous or IV drug users without
increasing the use of drugs such as heroin. While clean needles do not
contribute to the spread of HIV, there is scant evidence, scientific or
anecdotal, that needle exchanges protect users.
A Montreal study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in
1997 showed that addicts who used needle exchange programs were twice
as likely to become infected with HIV than those who did not.
The New York Times magazine reported that one New York City program
gave a single individual 60 syringes, a pamphlet with instructions on
using them, and a identification card that allows them to legally
possess drug paraphernalia. Indeed, drug addicts use these programs not
only for fresh paraphernalia but also to network among other drug
addicts for fresh supplies of the drug itself.
It may be more accurate to call the drug needle exchange programs
what they are: drug exchange networks.
We are at a time in history when more Americans are ruining or losing
their lives to illegal drug use. When the highest death rate from
illegal drug use occurs in African American communities, and when
heroin and cocaine are at some of their lowest prices in history, I
maintain that we should not vote to encourage the government to give
away the tools that enable people to promote drug use and, therefore,
harm themselves. Indeed, it is not just harming themselves. Drug use is
the key component in crime.
Ask any prosecutor, law enforcement officer, or, in fact, any judge
who deals with criminal cases, and you will find that the vast majority
of criminal cases are related to drug use. Someone may be under the
influence of drugs when they assault or rape someone, and when they are
breaking and entering, armed robberies, or other thefts and stealing of
property to pay for that addiction. You will find, I maintain, that the
vast majority of crimes are drug-related one way or the other.
I believe that in a time when all of these negative trends seem to be
on the rise that the endorsement or condoning of a needle exchange
network by the U.S. Senate sends the wrong message about our
Government's commitment to fighting drugs and, thus, undermines our
efforts to prevent drug use and eliminate the illegal drug trade.
According to former President Clinton's drug czar, General Barry
McCaffery:
The problem is not dirty needles. The problem is heroin
addiction. The focus should be on bringing help to the
suffering population, not giving them more effective means to
continue their addiction. One doesn't want to facilitate this
dreadful scourge on mankind.
We have a legal responsibility to keep these harmful networks from
becoming a reality in the District of Columbia. Allowing it in the
District of Columbia would send a very poor message to those ravaged by
drug addiction--that AIDS is a terrible disease that can be maintained,
yet it is OK to die from the effects of drug addiction.
Additionally, the Government would be sending a weak message to those
who would want to make a profit from illegal drug trade: Drugs are
illegal, yet the United States Government condones needle exchange
networks which issue identification cards that entitle users to carry
drug paraphernalia without interference from the law.
Finally, it would send a dangerous message to our youth. It seems to
me that we all know that drugs are harmful. We don't want to send a
message to our youngsters that the Federal Government supports
providing needles and syringes for drug delivery and brochures
explaining the most efficient means of injection.
It is imperative that the Senate stand strong against illegal drug
use. We must not allow Federal funds to go toward programs supplying
individuals already struggling with addiction with drug paraphernalia.
We must not directly or indirectly endorse needle exchange networks.
I ask my fellow Senators to join me in this effort and not give up on
this war on drugs as we take on another war--the war on terrorism. We
owe it to our brave law enforcement officers who have been fighting
this war on drugs, with many of them risking their lives by
infiltrating some of these drug networks, chasing drug dealers, paying
informants, doing undercover work, and surveillance. Our law
enforcement officers have been fighting this war on drugs, and now they
are fighting daily battles on many other fronts in the war on
terrorism.
We also owe it to those struggling with drugs not to turn our
Government into an enabler.
Finally, we owe it to our children to fight to ensure that they grow
up and live in a world as free from illegal drugs as is possible.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to support my amendment, which sends
all the right messages, all the proper messages, not just for our
District of Columbia, which is in a time of crisis; but it sends the
right message for all of America, and actually the right message for
all of the world which is now watching our Nation's Capital.
Once again, I ask my colleagues to stand up for what is right in our
Nation's Capital, for all the people of America, and those who are
watching us.
I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank you for the recognition.
At this time I am prepared to yield a few moments, 5 minutes, to the
Senator from Maryland for morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 5
minutes as in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator is recognized.
(The remarks of Ms. Mikulski are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for
being so gracious.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield, under the unanimous consent agreement, to
Senator Durbin for a response to the Allen amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that under the
unanimous consent agreement there were 30 minutes allocated to each
side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, and there are approximately 18
minutes remaining on each side.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
[[Page S11509]]
Ms. LANDRIEU. How much time does the Senator need? Because there are
two other Senators who would like to speak.
Mr. DURBIN. If I could ask for 15 minutes.
Ms. LANDRIEU. How about 12 minutes?
Mr. DURBIN. I will take 12.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Illinois.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is
recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
Unfortunately, because my time has been reduced, I am going to have
to reduce the time I was going to use to praise the chair of the
subcommittee for her work on this bill. But I do want to make a point
of saying this: I have served on this subcommittee. This is not an easy
assignment. I congratulate Senators Landrieu and DeWine for bringing
forth an excellent bill. It is a bill which is a challenge every single
year.
Why is this bill a challenge? Because every Member of the Congress
who ever wanted to be mayor of a town gets the chance to be ``mayor for
a day'' on the DC appropriations bill. Senators from some of the
largest States in the Nation can't wait to make decisions that are
ordinarily made by mayors and members of city councils. They get to be
``aldermen for a day.'' They get to rule a city for a day. It is such a
tempting opportunity. And the fact that we put only 10 percent of the
money, through Congress, into the District of Columbia does not hold
them back. They don't want to merely control the money that Congress
puts in the District of Columbia, they want to control all the money in
the District of Columbia. You would think they were having a major
election here and they were elected mayor of the District of Columbia
because they want to make all the decision.
Frankly, that is wrong. It is wrong and irresponsible. If you believe
in home rule, if you believe in the appropriate delegation of authority
to the level closest to the voters, why in the world would a Senator
from any State in the United States want to impose his or her judgment
on this city, our Nation's Capital? And they do, year in and year out.
I thank the Senator from Louisiana for really fighting back the
temptation to put in all these riders and all these ideas, all these
ordinances that Members of Congress want to put on the District of
Columbia. I say thank you to the Senator from Louisiana.
But the proposal we have before us today is one of the worst. It is a
proposal where we say to the District of Columbia: You cannot use your
money, your taxpayers' dollars, on a public health program that you
endorsed to deal with a major public health crisis in the District of
Columbia.
With his amendment, the Senator from Virginia has suggested that the
District of Columbia--it is more than a suggestion--would be unable to
spend its own money on a needle exchange program. What does the
Washington Post think of that suggestion? They have asked this
question, an important one: Has Congress nothing better to do at this
point than to play mayor and city council to the District of Columbia?
They go through the proposals which we are going to consider here,
proposals relative to needle exchange and domestic partnership. Time
and again what you find is they are proposals which don't stand up.
The current DC appropriations bill would allow the District to
finance the needle exchange program only through its own funds. There
would be no Federal funds involved. That has been the rule for years.
What Senator Allen says in his amendment is, no, you can't even use
your own funds for that purpose.
Why should we keep our hands off this decision? Let me tell the
Senate about this beautiful Nation's Capital in which I have had the
privilege of being a student and a Congressman and a Senator for so
many years of my life. This beautiful city has massive problems. One of
the biggest problems is a public health problem we cannot overstate.
The AIDS rate, the rate of infection of AIDS in Washington, DC, is the
highest in the Nation. It is nine times the national average. For us to
say we are going to impose our political opinion on how to deal with
the AIDS crisis in the worst suffering city in America is just wrong.
Individuals become infected in the District of Columbia with AIDS and
HIV primarily through the sharing of contaminated needles for
intravenous drug usage. More than a third of the AIDS cases nationwide
are related to injection drug use. These statistics are most dramatic
among women, where three out of four women diagnosed with AIDS injected
drugs themselves or became infected through a partner who was an
injection drug user.
I refer to this statistic about the District of Columbia: Over half
of the children born with HIV have a parent engaged in substance abuse.
Our vote this morning will decide whether or not we take away the
authority of the District of Columbia to deal with a public health
crisis that is the worst in the Nation. We are imposing our political
view on the best medical judgment in America of how to deal with an
epidemic. We wouldn't accept that if the epidemic related to
bioterrorism. We wouldn't let the Governors and mayors make medical
decisions. We would stand up for what is right scientifically and
medically.
Both the District of Columbia mayor, Anthony Williams, and the police
chief support the use of local funds to finance needle exchange
programs in Washington, DC. The arguments that these programs are
creating and fomenting crime, encouraging drug use, fall flat on their
face. Last year in this appropriations bill we said we want the D.C.
government to report to us if there is a higher incidence of crime
around areas with needle exchange programs. It came back consistently
and said no.
I say to the Senator from Virginia, they said no. The people, the
cops on the beat, those who were asked to report to Congress said no,
there was not an increase in crime or drug usage around these programs.
Let's talk about the scientific community for a moment. In addition
to strong support from political officials, the potential for needle
exchange programs to halt the spread of HIV/AIDS and encourage
substance abusers to enter treatment is scientifically proven. The
Surgeon General of the United States, David Satcher, stated:
There is conclusive scientific evidence that syringe
exchange programs as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention
strategy are an effective public health intervention that
reduces the transmission of HIV and does not encourage the
illegal use of drugs.
This is the Surgeon General of the United States. He is not an
elected official. He has never put his name on a ballot that I know of,
but he has spent his lifetime in public health and medicine. He says
the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia is just plain wrong.
If that amendment prevails, we will increase the likelihood of HIV
and AIDS in the District of Columbia; we will increase the likelihood
of more drug usage. How can we in good conscience consider such a
measure? How can we turn our back on the overwhelming scientific and
medical evidence against the Allen amendment? To ignore that is to
ignore any warning we receive.
Do my colleagues recall during the Reagan administration President
Reagan faced the onset of the AIDS epidemic and thank goodness Dr.
Koop, his Surgeon General, had the courage to stand up and say: Don't
politicize an epidemic. We will deal with it in honest medical terms.
Thank goodness Dr. Koop said that and sent notices out to every home in
America so they understood the seriousness of this public health
challenge. It would have been so easy for this to be politicized. It
would have been so easy for someone to take advantage of it. President
Reagan and Dr. Koop wouldn't allow that.
Dr. Koop supports needle exchange programs--Dr. Koop, the former
Surgeon General under a Republican President.
The Institute of Medicine in Washington, DC, said access to sterile
syringes is one of the four unrealized opportunities in HIV prevention.
The National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine indicated
that needle exchange programs have the potential to reduce risk
behaviors associated with HIV by 80 percent and HIV transmission by 30
percent.
When I start to list the organizations that oppose the Allen
amendment, that
[[Page S11510]]
say it is just plain wrong scientifically and medically, we will have
some understanding of why this is the wrong thing to vote for.
First, those opposing the Allen amendment: The American Medical
Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American
Foundation for AIDS Research, the American Nurses Association, the
American Pharmaceutical Association, the American Public Health
Association. The list goes on and on and on. Every major credible
public health organization that has been asked to comment on needle
exchange programs has concluded they are an effective way to fight drug
usage and the spread of HIV and AIDS.
Let me draw the attention of the Senate to this chart. This is a map
of the United States showing the States that are currently involved
with needle exchange programs. Keep in mind, all of these 31 States
have decided this is a good way to fight drug usage and HIV/AIDS. Are
we passing a law banning States around the country such as Maryland
from having a needle exchange program, or Illinois? No. Only the
District of Columbia, where Senators and Congressmen get to play mayor
for a day. That is unfair. Look at these States all across America:
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, the
President's home State, all with needle exchange programs.
If this is such a scourge on America, as the Senator from Virginia
suggests, why hasn't he offered an amendment to ban these programs
nationwide? Because, frankly, it is not Congress's business to do so.
Secondly, it is just plain wrong from a public health point of view.
We know in these States that these programs bring people who are
currently addicted into the presence of those who will give them the
clean and safe needles, but also much more. They will connect up with
them to try to help them end their drug usage. People living and
lurking in the shadows and alleys of America as IV drug users using
contaminated needles are not going to end their addiction, they are
going to unfortunately continue it. They are going to give birth to
children who will also suffer from HIV and AIDS as a result of it.
Ninety-five percent of the programs refer clients to substance abuse
treatment and counseling programs--95 percent of those needle exchange
programs do make the referrals. You are going to cut off this
opportunity to reach out to a drug addict and say, please, we know that
you are addicted, but here is your chance to shake this addiction, to
change your life. Why would we walk away from that? Why in the Nation's
Capital would we walk away from it, where the HIV and AIDS infection is
the worst in America?
Over half of the people who come to these needle exchange programs
realize they have an opportunity for voluntary HIV testing on the site,
and more than a quarter are screened for hepatitis B and C. All seven
of the needle exchange programs in my home State of Illinois offer
referrals to treatment information about HIV prevention.
I have voted for some of the toughest penalties in the law when it
comes to drug usage. I have joined with those who say we have to make
it clear that this is wrong; it not only kills you, but it threatens
America in so many ways. I think these harsh punishments have worked in
some cases; they have not worked in others. There are some people for
whom even the harshest punishment in the world is not enough. They need
a helping hand, someone who will reach out to them and say, please,
test yourself for HIV, consider this program for rehab.
The amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia will stop the
Nation's Capital, a city that is rocked with the HIV/AIDS epidemic,
from fighting it. This amendment turns its back on the scientific and
medical evidence which we gather across America in terms of how these
programs help us to fight drugs, how they help us to fight crime, fight
dependency, and fight addiction, why 31 different States, including the
State of Utah and the State of Louisiana, have similar programs.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's 12 minutes have
expired.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask for 2 additional minutes.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator.
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Virginia said at one point that this is
a program that harms its participants. I say to the Senator that the
American Medical Association disagrees with him. The American Public
Health Association disagrees with him. Law enforcement in the District
of Columbia disagrees with him, and the Surgeon General of the United
States disagrees with him as well.
When we consider what we are up against, the Senator says we have to
make sure we send the right message. The fact that we can come to the
floor and make a political judgment to take away one of the tools and
weapons to fight for good public health and to fight HIV/AIDS is the
wrong message. What are we going to do next? Are we going to decide
that Congress is going to make decisions about the threat of anthrax
and not the public health community, that it is a political decision
not a medical decision? I hope not.
Whether we are fighting AIDS or anthrax, whether we are fighting drug
addiction or other problems facing us in America on the medical scene,
for goodness sakes, let us have the humility as Members of the Senate
and the House to defer to the experts in the field. Let us not be swept
away with the thought that by passing this amendment we are stating
something that is politically strong.
Let me close with this statement from the Surgeon General because
this says it all:
In summary, the new studies contribute substantially to the
strength of the data showing the following effects of
effective syringe exchange programs: A decrease in new HIV
sero conversions; an increase in the numbers of injection
drug users referred to and retained in substance abuse
treatment and well-documented opportunities for multiple
prevention services and referral and entry into medical care.
The data indicate that the presence of a syringe exchange
program does not increase the use of illegal drugs among
participants in the syringe exchange programs.
That is the Surgeon General speaking on the basis of facts and real
statistics. I beg the Senate not to play mayor and council for a day at
the expense of an HIV/AIDS epidemic in the Nation's Capital. Stand with
the AMA and the Surgeon General for the sound and prudent medical
judgment to let those programs continue in the District of Columbia
using their own funds.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada is
recognized.
Mr. REID. I ask that the time I consume not be charged against either
of the managers.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________