[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 153 (Wednesday, November 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11511-S11519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S11511]]
      THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--Continued


                           Amendment No. 2107

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada is 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Louisiana, the manager of this bill, needs 
4 extra minutes. I ask unanimous consent that she be given 4 extra 
minutes and that Senator DeWine be given 4 extra minutes in relation to 
this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
New Jersey.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to voice my very strong support 
for the District of Columbia's efforts to cut HIV/AIDS transmission 
through its needle exchange program and strongly oppose the Allen 
amendment. First, I compliment the leadership of the chairwoman, the 
distinguished Senator from Louisiana, for her efforts in making sure 
that democracy works in the District of Columbia, that we leave to the 
local folks home rule regarding those matters we leave to home rule all 
across this country. I can only argue that the District of Columbia 
should be able to use its own funds as it sees fit, the same as do 
other localities in the country.
  Let me start with the bottom line on the fundamental issue. Needle 
exchange programs work and they save lives. Facts speak for themselves. 
The Senator from Illinois was very articulate in bringing out a lot of 
them. I will go over a little more of that. There are over 130 needle 
exchange programs operating in the Nation, in 80 cities and 31 States. 
They work. These programs, like the District of Columbia's programs, 
are supported at the local level by people who want to attack this 
scourge of drug addiction and HIV/AIDS in our communities. They are 
supported by States and a huge amount of private funds in the country. 
Again, the simple reason is that they work.

  Countless government and private scientific studies have proved the 
effectiveness of the needle exchange programs. They limit the spread of 
HIV/AIDS. Fact. They do that without any sense or any kind of objective 
evidence that they do anything to spread drug use. The Centers for 
Disease Control, the University of California, and the U.S. General 
Accounting Office, among a whole host of others, have shown that these 
programs substantially reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS without 
encouraging drug use.
  I want to give an example. Beth Israel Medical Center in New York 
studied needle exchange programs in the city and found that the program 
reduced infections by two-thirds--a very substantial program. The study 
found that injection drug use did not increase at all in the city at 
the same time. Similarly, a 1997 study by the National Institutes of 
Health concluded that needle exchange programs reduced HIV by at least 
30 percent and reduced risk behaviors among drug injecting drug users.
  In fact, needle exchange programs serve as an effective link to drug 
treatment programs. So you get a double-edged benefit; not only do you 
limit the spread of HIV/AIDS, but you introduce people to drug 
treatment programs.
  According to the recent CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 95 
percent of needle exchange programs refer clients to substance abuse 
treatment. Last year, the Surgeon General found that needle exchange 
not only reduces HIV transmission but many may also reduce injection 
drug use for these people who are in the programs. Reference to drug 
treatment programs is a good thing. That is how we reduce this scourge 
in our country.
  Mr. President, the District of Columbia and communities nationwide 
are facing a two-pronged public health crisis of injection drug use and 
a persistent and growing HIV/AIDS epidemic. As many as half of all HIV 
infections are caused by the sharing of HIV-contaminated injection 
tools.
  I conclude by saying this is an important program that needs the 
Senate support. We can do a lot to make a big difference in our 
communities.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, more than 40,000 people a year become 
infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Half of all new HIV 
infections in the United States occur among drug users.
  In addition, approximately 4 million Americans have been infected 
with the hepatitis C virus. Injection drug use is responsible for at 
least 60 percent of those infections.
  Numerous authorities, including the National Academy of Sciences, the 
Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the 
American Medical Association, the Academy of Pediatrics, and the 
American Public Health Association have concluded that needle-exchange 
programs reduce the transmission of HIV and hepatitis C without 
encouraging the illegal use of drugs.
  It is indefensible for Congress to tell the citizens of the District 
of Columbia that they cannot spend their own money on programs that 
stop the spread of fatal, infectious diseases. It is irresponsible for 
members of Congress to oppose a locally funded program on the ground 
that it encourages illegal drug use, when every major health 
organization in the United States says that the opposite is true.
  People's lives are at stake. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Allen 
amendment.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, the Senate is currently considering the 
fiscal year 2002 District of Columbia Appropriations bill. I would like 
to recognize Senators Landrieu and DeWine for their strong leadership 
in moving this important bill through committee.
  The District of Columbia shares a unique relationship with the 
Federal Government. It is the only locality in the country whose budget 
intersects so directly with Congress. Congress is charged with 
approving both the Federal and local budget for the District. 
Consequently, the city cannot move forward with its own new budget 
until the Congress finishes its work and approves the bill. I encourage 
the Senate to approve this bill as quickly as possible.
  Several amendments may be offered to this bill that impose Federal 
restrictions on how the District of Columbia spends the money that it 
collects in local taxes. The District of Columbia is fortunate to have 
such an able leader in Mayor Anthony Williams. This past year, the 
mayor, along with the city council, have put together a budget for the 
city that reflects its own priorities that meet local needs. I do not 
intend to support amendments to this bill that impose restrictions on 
how the District spends it money.
  I would not want Congress telling St. Louis or Kansas City how to 
spend their local tax dollars. The same standard should be applied to 
the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is our Nation's 
Capital and an international symbol of democracy. The Congress should 
honor the unique status of this city by allowing the District to make 
its own decisions on how taxes raised from its own citizens should be 
spent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield time to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I strongly support Chairman Landrieu's 
intention in the District of Columbia fiscal year 2002 appropriations 
bill to allow the city to use its own funds to support a needle 
exchange program in the city, and I oppose Senator Allen's amendment to 
restrict the use of those funds. The current ban on the use of Federal 
funds for this program remains intact in the legislation before us.
  This issue truly is about the ability of an independent jurisdiction 
to use its locally raised revenue to support a program that its elected 
officials have deemed appropriate.
  In my own State of Rhode Island, for example, a needle exchange 
program

[[Page S11512]]

called ENCORE has existed in the city of Providence since 1995, 
supported by local funds. This has been, and continues to be, a very 
successful program. Many of the other programs in the 34 States that 
currently have either state-funded or city-funded needle exchange 
programs also have been successful in decreasing the spread of HIV/
AIDS.
  There are currently well over 100 different needle exchange programs 
around the country working to effect this positive change.
  The ENCORE program in Rhode Island has enrolled over 1,500 clients 
and provides education, counseling, access to sterile syringes, and 
referrals to substance abuse treatment programs. Followup studies and 
date continue to show that participants in this program have 
substantially reduced their risk behaviors.
  However, the HIV/AIDS epidemic continues to be very serious in my 
State, particularly as individuals with the disease are able to live 
longer and therefore constitute a greater percentage of the State 
population. That is why the State of Rhode Island continues to look for 
new methods to deal with the spread of this disease, and why programs 
like ENCORE are so important.
  The Surgeon General echoed this report in one of his own studies in 
March 2000, stating that ``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 
transmission of HIV and does not encourage the illegal use of drugs.'' 
That has been the case in my own State, and that will be the case if we 
allow the District of Columbia to take a similar approach with its own 
funds.
  The District of Columbia has the highest rate of HIV and AIDS in the 
country, and therefore desperately needs the ability to tackle this 
problem in its own way. Unfortunately, the city has been prevented from 
using its own locally raised revenue to deal with this issue since 1999 
in this appropriations bill.
  In addition, in last year's D.C. appropriations bill, even private 
funds were prevented from being used to support a program.
  Today we have an opportunity in the bill before us to change this 
attitude and allow the city to enact a targeted and aggressive program 
to attempt to eradicate this deadly disease from a vulnerable 
population.
  Several important public health organizations support this move, 
including the American Medical Association, the American Nurses 
Association, the American Public Health Association, the American 
Academy of Pediatrics, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, as well D.C. 
Mayor Anthony Williams and D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey. It is 
imperative that we add our support to this effort as well.
  To reiterate, I commend the leadership of Senator Landrieu from 
Louisiana. Her position and the position of the committee is that the 
District of Columbia should be allowed to spend its own money on a 
needle exchange program. This is a program that has been embraced in 34 
States and over 100 cities. One of those cities is Providence, RI. 
Providence has Operation ENCORE in which they provide a needle exchange 
together with education, counseling, and drug rehabilitation referrals. 
The program works.
  I come today with facts, with success, to argue that the District of 
Columbia should be allowed to use its own money to replicate successful 
programs in other urban areas. They have a huge problem with AIDS in 
their community. This is a sensible, proven way to help people avoid 
the scourge of infection with AIDS, and we should support it, not try 
to deny them this opportunity.
  It is no surprise, based on the experience of Providence, which is, 
at this point, enrolling over 1,500 individuals successfully, that this 
program has been heralded by the Surgeon General as a great success. In 
his words, in March of 2000:

       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 transmission of HIV and does not encourage the 
     illegal use of drugs.

  ``Conclusive scientific evidence,'' and today we are here to try to 
refute conclusive scientific evidence, which is at the heart of the 
proposal to strike this provision, and also to override the judgment of 
local authorities which is commonplace throughout this country in the 
over 100 municipalities that are running a program such as this.
  If we want to rely upon science and also on the authority of 
localities to use their local funds as they wish, we have to reject 
this Allen amendment and we have to support the position of the 
committee.
  This position that drug programs featuring needle exchanges are 
effective is supported by a host of organizations: The American Medical 
Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Public 
Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors. It is clearly supported by the mayor of the 
District of Columbia, Mayor Williams, and the police chief.
  Those with the most interest in this program, with the most at risk, 
the most at stake, are asking us to give them the chance to use their 
resources to provide for a needle exchange program to reduce the 
transmission of AIDS and, as the Surgeon General pointed out, in no way 
will this encourage the illegal use of drugs. I cannot think of a more 
sensible position to support.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Allen amendment and support 
Chairman Landrieu's position.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, our side rests its case. I believe our 
speakers have concluded. Senator Durbin and I have some closing 
remarks, and I have some things to submit for the Record. I understand 
the Senator from Virginia may have some time remaining on his side. I 
understand from the leader he would like to get to this vote as soon as 
possible. I inquire of the Senator from Virginia what his intentions 
are and how much time he intends to use.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Louisiana, I have 
a few minutes, no more than 3 or 4, maybe 5 at most, of concluding 
remarks. The others on our side who wanted to speak are elsewhere, and 
the vote will get them back here.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Virginia have 5 minutes and that we have 2 minutes for closing 
remarks, and then we will be ready to vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I certainly have no objection to the 
request. We have a number of Senators who have inquired as to when the 
vote will occur. I wonder if the two Senators can agree we can have the 
vote at 11:15 a.m.
  Mr. ALLEN. Agreed.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Agreed.
  Mr. REID. I pose that, Mr. President, as a unanimous consent request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana had requested in her unanimous consent 
request that the Senator from Virginia have 5 minutes and that she have 
2 minutes.
  Mr. REID. There will be time left over. That sounds great to me.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, as Senators are getting ready to vote 
on this amendment, my amendment actually keeps the policies the way 
they have been in prior administrations. I cited General McCaffrey who 
was the drug czar under President Clinton. General McCaffrey stated the 
problem is not clean needles, the problem is drug addiction.
  One thing that has arisen a great deal in this debate is not the 
message we are sending, although I think it is the wrong message if we 
actually say we are going to use taxpayer funds in the District of 
Columbia to give drug users, drug addicts, clean needles and syringes. 
The evidence is clearly mixed on it. We can get evidence, I suppose, 
from those who are drug addicts. I would not consider them the most

[[Page S11513]]

credible witnesses under any cross-examination. Indeed both sides cite 
studies. Whether it is a study in New York or Vancouver or various 
other studies, these needle exchange networks only create networks for 
drug users to exchange information and drugs and have no positive 
impact whatsoever on drug use nor do they have an impact on stopping 
HIV transmission.
  Of course, I do think AIDS and HIV ought to be addressed, but, as 
General McCaffrey states, the way of doing it is not to encourage and 
facilitate drug delivery devices that are cleaner than one would 
ordinarily use.
  The main argument, though, is a jurisdictional one. I have the same 
general sentiments as the Senator from Illinois when we are talking 
about local control. I really do not like it. Notice Virginia, of 
course, is not one of the States that allows needle exchange. I am one 
who generally, as a matter of philosophy, trust the people in the 
States. I believe the 10th amendment is very important as a part of our 
Bill of Rights granting to the people in the States those rights that 
are not specifically granted to the Federal Government. But this is an 
issue that has to do with the District of Columbia.
  The District of Columbia is under the purview and oversight of the 
Congress because it is the seat of Government. The part of the District 
of Columbia that remains is that which was ceded for the seat of 
Government by the State of Maryland. Virginia also granted some land, 
which is now Arlington County. It was not necessary, and it was retro-
ceded to Virginia.
  Just to show how Congress recognizes its special role in oversight as 
far as the District is concerned, both the House and the Senate have 
authorizing subcommittees specifically to address the needs of the 
District. There is no Chicago committee or Kansas City committee or 
Oklahoma City committee or Los Angeles committee in the House nor a 
subcommittee on them.
  To argue this is a States rights issue or 10th amendment issue 
negates and clouds the reality that we have a responsibility in the 
Senate to have oversight over the laws and the activities, the safety 
and the conduct in the District of Columbia.
  It is my view that it would be the wise and prudent course of conduct 
to not have the Senate in any way condone granting free needles, or 
free syringes to those who are engaged in and, in fact, are illegal 
drug addicts. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will stand for that 
principle for the District of Columbia, which is looked upon as not 
only our Nation's Capital but also the home of our legislative body, 
and of freedom of our representative democracy by people all over the 
world.
  I thank the Chair. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for 
his usual force and clarity in outlining many good arguments supporting 
the tabling of the Allen amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from 
the American Public Health Association, the District of Columbia 
Housing Authority, the nonprofit organization called Prevention Works, 
as well as the Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              District of Columbia


                                            Housing Authority,

                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 2001.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.

     Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
     Chairman, House Appropriations Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairmen Young and Stevens: As required by Section 
     150(b) of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-522), the District of 
     Columbia Housing Authority Police Department (DCHAPD) submits 
     to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations its 
     report on illegal drug activity at or near any public housing 
     site where a needle exchange program is conducted.
       During the reporting period from January 1, 2001, to May 
     31, 2001, Prevention Works was the only organization 
     administering a needle exchange program near a public housing 
     development. Distribution locations were at 15th and Ives 
     Streets, SE, which is near Hopkins Apartments located at 1430 
     L Street, SE; Central and Southern Avenues SE, which is near 
     East Capitol Dwellings located at 5725 East Capitol Street, 
     SE; and 21st and H Streets NE, which is near Langston Terrace 
     located at 21st and Benning Road, NE. During this period, 
     there were no needle exchange distribution sites in operation 
     directly on public housing properties.
       During the reporting period, we monitored each of the areas 
     where the needle exchange van operated near a public housing 
     site so as not to impact the behavior of needle exchange 
     clients. Based on our observations, the maximum amount of 
     time that the van remained at any one site was approximately 
     90 minutes. The activity in and around the van did not cause 
     any disturbances. People visiting the van were there long 
     enough to receive their supplies and usually left the area 
     immediately. There was also no evidence that the presence of 
     the needle exchange van led to increased crime. It should be 
     understood that the needle exchange ``sites'' are not 
     permanent sites, but rather stops on a weekly schedule of van 
     routes. It should also be noted that in addition to the 
     exchange of needles, the Prevention Works van provides free 
     food and coffee to anyone approaching the van. During the 
     reporting period, we received no resident complaints or 
     concerns regarding the operation of the needle exchange 
     program near the three public housing developments.
       The DCHAPD will continue to monitor all disbursement sites 
     located near our public housing developments and report 
     accordingly. If you have need for further information, please 
     feel free to call DCHAPD, Chief Madison Jenkins, Jr., at 
     (202) 535-2588.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Michael Kelly,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                           American Public Health Association,

                               Washington, DC, September 25, 2001.
     Hon. Robert Byrd,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Byrd: The American Public Health Association 
     (APHA), consisting of more than 50,000 public health 
     professionals dedicated to advancing the nation's health, 
     strongly urges you to oppose any amendment to the FY 02 
     District of Columbia Appropriations bill that would place 
     further restrictions on the District's needle exchange 
     programs. While APHA opposes any provision to ban the use of 
     federal, local or private money to fund needle exchange 
     programs, we are encouraged that the House Appropriations 
     Committee did not include last year's extraordinarily 
     burdensome restrictions on the operation of needle exchange 
     programs in the District. We urge your Committee to follow 
     the House Committee's lead and at a minimum, oppose last 
     year's operational restrictions.
       Since 1994, APHA has advocated for the development, 
     implementation, evaluation, and funding of needle exchange 
     programs to help prevent HIV infection. All APHA public 
     policy is passed by the Association Governing Council and is 
     required to meet strict scientific criteria. APHA policy on 
     needle exchange is no different--an enormous body of 
     published research, including more than seven federally 
     sponsored reports, demonstrates that needle exchange programs 
     reduce the spread of HIV while not increasing drug use by 
     program participants or others in the community where the 
     program is conducted. These findings are also reflected in a 
     March 2000 report released by Surgeon General David Satcher 
     reviewing all of the scientific research on needle exchange 
     programs completed since 1998.
       The current epidemiology of HIV/AIDS is clear--women and 
     children are affected disproportionately by heterosexual HIV 
     infection associated either directly or indirectly with 
     transmission from injectable drug users. These new cases of 
     HIV/AIDS that are linked to injectable drug use largely can 
     be prevented through the provision of sterile needles to drug 
     users coupled with other public health tools including health 
     education and condom distribution.
       Needle exchange programs increase the contact that health 
     professionals have with injectable drug users, thereby 
     increasing opportunities to conduct health education and 
     disease prevention activities, including drug treatment and 
     counseling. The efficacy of these programs is proven--placing 
     further restrictions on funding and operations threaten the 
     District's efforts to reach those individuals most at risk of 
     HIV infection. Public health and saving lives must take 
     precedence over politics. Your opposition to any further 
     restrictions on these important public health programs is 
     critical.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views and your 
     attention to this critical public health matter.
           Sincerely,
                                      Mohammad N. Akhter, MD, MPH,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                    Whitman-Walker Clinic Inc,

                                Washington, DC, September 3, 2001.
     Hon. Mary L. Landrieu,
     Chair, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the 
         District of Columbia, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Landrieu: As Executive Director of the 
     Whitman-Walker Clinic, the largest HIV/AIDS service provider 
     in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, I again urge you 
     not to include language in this year's DC Appropriations bill 
     that would restrict the District's ability to prevent the 
     spread of HIV/AIDS.

[[Page S11514]]

       In previous years, the Congress has added a series of 
     overly restrictive prohibitions on the District's AIDS 
     prevention needle exchange program. This year, under your 
     leadership, we hope that you will respect the decisions and 
     policies of the District's elected officials and not include 
     such provisions in the bill. Further, we ask that you oppose 
     any efforts to add such restrictions by others during 
     consideration of the D.C. appropriations bill.
       Sadly, the District of Columbia has one of the highest 
     rates of HIV/AIDS in the nation. As of December 31, 2000, 
     more than 13,000 people had been diagnosed with AIDS, and 
     more than 6,600 people were living with AIDS in the District. 
     Approximately, one-third of all AIDS cases in the District 
     are attributed to intravenous drug use. It is estimated that 
     1 in 20 adults is HIV positive.
       The spread of HIV can be prevented, and one scientifically 
     proven way to do so is through needle exchange programs. 
     According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
     the number of these programs is increasing, with 131 needle 
     exchange programs across the country in at least 81 cities 
     and 31 states, plus the District of Columbia. Four of these 
     programs are conducted in the State of Michigan, with two in 
     Detroit, one in Grand Rapids, and one in Kalamazoo. Almost 40 
     percent of all needle exchange programs receive public 
     funding. The good news is that recent data presented at the 
     2001 National HIV Prevention Conference shows that programs 
     are having an affect in decreasing new transmissions. 
     Moreover, exhaustive scientific studies have all concluded 
     that needle exchange programs reduce HIV infection and do not 
     increase drug use.
       Needle exchange programs are supported by the American 
     Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the 
     American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Bar Association, 
     and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, among others. Even the 
     recent United Nations Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS, 
     signed by the United States, supports ``access to sterile 
     injecting equipment'' as one way of preventing the spread of 
     AIDS.
       We have been heartened by your comments that you do not 
     support riders to the D.C. Appropriations Bill. We are also 
     pleased that, in transmitting the District's budget to the 
     Congress, the Bush Administration deleted section 150, which 
     placed unduly restrictive limitations on the operation of the 
     needle exchange program. We hope you will follow the lead of 
     the Bush Administration, and also delete these provisions 
     from last year's bill, and further, enable the District 
     government to fund the program as other cities are allowed to 
     do.
       While the news of late has focused on the international 
     AIDS crisis, we have a crisis of our own in the District, 
     which particularly affects African Americans. District 
     leaders and health officials are doing their best to deal 
     with the HIV crisis at home. I know you care about the health 
     of the District's people, and trust that you will demonstrate 
     it when you consider the District's appropriations bill, and 
     the District life-saving needle exchange program.
       Thank you for your continued support for the District of 
     Columbia. As you consider this issue, if you have any 
     questions or comments, please feel free to call me at 202/
     797-3511.
           Sincerely,
                                               A. Cornelius Baker,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                             Prevention Works,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 2001.
     Hon. Mary Landrieu,
     Chair, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the 
         District of Columbia, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Landrieu: I am writing as the Executive 
     Director of Prevention Works, the needle exchange program in 
     the District of Columbia. Our mission is to curb the spread 
     of HIV, hepatitis, and other blood-borne diseases among drug 
     users, their sexual partners, and newborn children. The 
     District has an AIDS rate over 10 times the national average. 
     According to Health Department statistics, 36% of people 
     living with AIDS here have been injection drug users. In 
     addition, almost a third (31%) of the cases attributed to 
     heterosexual contact involved sex with a drug injector. Our 
     outreach and education are crucial to the health of our 
     entire community.
       Elected officials in the District are aware of the AIDS 
     pandemic here and its connection to drug use. That is why 
     they funded the needle exchange program from 1996 to 1998. 
     Since October 1998 Congress has prohibited the District from 
     using logically raised public funds to support needle 
     exchange. This lack of public funding has had dramatic 
     effects on our program and on our community, as has this 
     year's Congressionally-mandated relocation of all exchange 
     sites to a limited area of the city.
       Program Instability: Prevention Works cannot guarantee the 
     same level of services each month because of insecure private 
     funding.
       Service Reliability Impaired: Having to move our exchange 
     sites has resulted in a diminished client base because 
     clients can not find the program. The change appears 
     arbitrary to clients, and because sites no longer conform to 
     patterns of high drug activity, many clients have been lost 
     and may never reaccess services.
       Program Services and Refferals Compromised: Having to 
     monitor Congressional activity and pursue smaller and more 
     numerous private funding streams means that valuable program 
     resources are directed to these administrative activities. 
     Resources for monitoring and improving services are lost and 
     the quality of linkages with drug treatment and other 
     services are compromised. Organizations that are allowed to 
     get larger and more predictable public funding do not face 
     this challenge.
       Obstacle to Collaboration: Prevention Works may be a 
     client's first or only contact with the comprehensive network 
     of service providers in the District. However, our clients' 
     access to substance abuse treatment and the rest of the 
     public health infrastructure is hindered because community-
     based organizations and government agencies are hesitant to 
     work with Prevention Works because of understandable fears of 
     repercussions on their own public funding.
       Participants Concerns: Increased restrictions affect 
     program consumers and increase the general stigma associated 
     with needle exchange. This increased stigma drives clients 
     further underground rendering this population even more 
     difficult to reach. Increased restrictions do not result in 
     less drug use, but they do lessen trust among a predominantly 
     African American population that has been historically 
     alienated from the public health establishment.
       Community Health Needs Ignored: Reducing HIV and other 
     health risks among people who inject drugs is a national 
     priority as defined in Healthy People 2010. Currently 
     prohibited by Congress from funding Prevention Works--the 
     only program with an established presence among this 
     marginalized and hidden population--the District has no 
     chance of effectively achieving these federally defined 
     objectives. In addition, because of new performance-based 
     funding guidelines, the ban on local funding for needle 
     exchange places future District funding in even more 
     jeopardy.
       The federally imposed restrictions on needle exchange do 
     not improve the health of any District resident. They merely 
     limit effective outreach and prevention of deadly disease 
     among the city's most vulnerable residents.
           Sincerely,
                                              Paola Barahona, MPH,
                                               Executive Director.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Again, I ask the Senator from Illinois for any closing 
remarks he might add.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute and 10 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank all those who have joined me on this side, 
including the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  The District of Columbia is facing the worst HIV/AIDS epidemic in 
America, nine times worse than the national average. The medical 
community and the law enforcement community of this city have asked us 
to give them the tools and weapons to fight this epidemic.
  The needle exchange program has proven successful in fighting this 
epidemic. That is why we have to defeat the Allen amendment. To do 
otherwise is to ignore the American Medical Association and every major 
public health group that has told us that needle exchange programs 
work. To reject the medical and scientific evidence and to take away 
this weapon against the war on drugs and the war on HIV and AIDS is 
wrong.
  We appropriate less than 10 percent of the funds the district will 
spend out of Congress. The rest is their own money, and they are only 
asking to spend their own money as 34 other States do for programs that 
they think are important to protect their citizens.
  The Senator from Virginia may not be surprised to find some Virginia 
license plates at the needle exchange program in DC. We need to keep 
this program in place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I move the Allen amendment be tabled, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Nickles also be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S11515]]

  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that even though we 
are probably a minute or so early, the vote begin now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time has expired. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 328 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The motion was agreed to.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Texas is recognized to offer an amendment on which there shall be 60 
minutes equally divided, 30 minutes of which are to be used at this 
time.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, if the Senator from Texas will yield for 
just a moment as she prepares to speak on her amendment, as you know, 
we have had a lot of consensus in this underlying bill. We have worked 
very hard through many stages of our committee to bring consensus on 
some of these issues. There is one issue that is going to require some 
debate and discussion. I hope between what Senator Hutchison can bring 
to this debate and Senator Durbin, we might be able to come to some 
joint resolution. It is unclear at this point if that will happen. This 
debate is going to move forward.
  I have to say with all due respect to both Senators, with whom I have 
visited at length about this issue--so has Senator DeWine--both have 
genuine concerns for the schoolchildren of the District and the well-
being of the school districts. They are both very passionate about 
these particular views. We were unable to come to a resolution. So this 
debate will ensue.
  I would like to speak about a couple of things which are of concern 
to me as manager of this bill and as the appropriations chair for the 
committee.
  It is very disconcerting that we cannot get the kind of information 
from the District, or the CFO, or the school board, or any other 
financial entity to give us the details of outstanding judgments--how 
much they are, how many there are, and that kind of information. We are 
not able to verify some of the information that was sent to us, which 
itself is a problem to me not only as manager of the bill but as chair 
of this committee.

  I hope we will be respectful of that issue as we debate whether it is 
appropriate to have caps for attorneys representing children and 
families with special needs--whether or not it is appropriate to have 
caps based on the data. But if people are looking to us or to the staff 
for some specifics, we have tried our best. It is a real problem, when 
we don't have this information, to be able to explain to people for the 
benefit of debate how much the judgments are that are outstanding, how 
many there are, what moneys we may be saving, what moneys we may be 
spending, and what the interest rates are. It would be very pertinent 
in trying to resolve this issue.
  I say to the Senator from Texas and to the Senator from Illinois that 
we cannot really trust the documents we have. We will just do the best 
we can.
  I appreciate the Senators feeling so strongly about their respective 
positions and hope the outcome will be something that will serve the 
children of the District, their parents, the school system, and the 
taxpayers in the fairest manner possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 2110

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison), for herself and 
     Mr. Sessions, proposes an amendment numbered 2110.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Under ``General Provisions'' insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec.  . (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     made available to pay the fees of an attorney who represents 
     a party who prevails in an action or any attorney who defends 
     any action, including an administrative proceeding, brought 
     against the District of Columbia Public Schools under the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 
     et seq.) If--
       (1) the hourly rate of compensation of the attorney exceeds 
     300 percent of the maximum amount of compensation under 
     section 11-2604(b)(1), District of Columbia Code; or
       (2) the maximum amount of compensation of the attorney 
     exceeds 300 percent of the maximum amount of compensation 
     under section 11-2604(b)(1), District of Columbia Code, 
     except that compensation and reimbursement in excess of such 
     maximum may be approved for extended or complex 
     representation in accordance with section 11-2604(c), 
     District of Columbia Code; and
       (3) in no case may the compensation limits in paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) exceed $3,000.
       (b) Notwithstanding the preceding subsection, if the Mayor 
     and the Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public 
     Schools concur in a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth 
     a new rate and amount of compensation, or a new limit 
     referred to in subsection (a)(3), then such new rates or 
     limits shall apply in lieu of the rates and limits set forth 
     in the preceding subsection to both the attorney who 
     represents the prevailing party and the attorney who defends 
     the action.
       (c) Notwithstanding 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415, 42 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1988, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794a, or any other law, none of the 
     funds appropriated under this Act, or in appropriations acts 
     for subsequent fiscal years, may be made available to pay 
     attorneys' fees accrued prior to the effective date of this 
     Act that exceeds a cap imposed on attorney's fees by prior 
     appropriations acts that were in effect during the fiscal 
     year when the work was performed, or when payment was 
     requested for work previously performed, in an action brought 
     against the District of Columbia Public Schools under the 
     Individuals With Disabilities Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et 
     seq.).

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Senator Sessions and I are offering 
this amendment for one simple reason: We want to improve the quality of 
education for the District of Columbia. Our amendment will preserve an 
estimated $44 million for special education funding in the District.
  The amendment will continue a provision contained in the last three 
DC appropriations bills that cap the allowable fees an attorney may 
charge for a child's special education placement in the District of 
Columbia. We raise the cap in the present law from $125 an hour to $150 
per hour, and a per-case limit from $2,500 to $3,000.
  Our amendment also continues a provision contained in last year's 
bill that allows the District of Columbia, acting through the mayor and 
school superintendent, to waive those caps if they believe it is in the 
best interest of the D.C. students to do so.
  I also point out that our amendment will prevent an estimated $32 
million in retroactive attorney's fees from being awarded, as has been 
threatened by the D.C. Circuit Court. That court has ruled that should 
this fee cap be lifted, they will go back and actually undo the will of 
Congress by awarding all the billed attorney fees in excess of the caps 
during the last 3 years.
  Our amendment is supported by the school board and the superintendent 
of

[[Page S11516]]

schools in the District. And the mayor has told me he also has 
supported this. They support it because it allows them to put the 
dollars in education for the children. They are trying to use the money 
for the education programs. In fact, they have put the money they have 
saved since the caps were put in place, that would have gone to 
attorney's fees, into the special needs programs, and they have 
increased the number of children who now can be taken into the 
programs.
  Why is our amendment necessary? In fiscal year 1998, the District of 
Columbia spent $14 million solely to pay attorneys who challenged the 
District's placement of special education children. The next year, in 
fiscal year 1999, the District spent $3.5 million in attorney's fees. 
This meant that the District had approximately $10 million in 
additional funds for the education of these children. The District 
allocated all this money saved to improving the quality of their 
special education programs.
  And those programs have continued. Over the next 3 years, D.C. 
allocated $32 million in funds that would otherwise have gone to pay 
attorneys to improving special education programs for disabled and 
special needs children.
  This effort has significantly improved the availability and quality 
of special education. They have also been able to reduce the backlog of 
initial assessments of special education children from 1,805, before 
the imposition of the cap, to 143 as of March of this year.
  Now they are hiring new special education teachers, purchasing new 
assistive medical devices, and providing new training and education for 
existing special education teachers.
  So what we are trying to do with this amendment is make sure the 
education dollars, which are so crucial for the District to improve the 
quality of education and the quality of special education, stay in the 
education budget rather than going to pay lawyer's fees.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter the president of the school 
board and the superintendent of D.C. schools have written in support of 
our amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              District of Columbia


                                           Board of Education,

                                 Washington, DC, October 26, 2001.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: On behalf of the District of 
     Columbia Board of Education and the DC Public Schools, we are 
     writing to strongly urge you to include language in the FY 
     2002 appropriations bill for the District of Columbia that 
     provides a cap on the amount of funds expended for special 
     education attorney fees. Specifically, we are requesting 
     language comparable to that contained in the District of 
     Columbia Appropriations Act of 2001, P.L. 106-522.
       It is our determination that the exclusion of such language 
     could result in an additional cost of at least $44 million to 
     the District of Columbia Public Schools in FY 2002 (including 
     approximately $32 million in fees subject to the cap in FY 
     1999 through FY 2001 that could now be billed, plus at least 
     $12 million in new fees no longer subject to the cap). It is 
     our collective opinion that the result of such an expenditure 
     will seriously and adversely affect our ability to provide 
     educational materials, textbooks, and operational support to 
     the students, teachers, and staff of the DC schools. This 
     will, as a consequence, further jeopardize the opportunity of 
     our children to receive a quality education.
       We are grateful for your past support of our efforts to 
     improve the quality of education provided to the children of 
     our City and we look forward to working with you to continue 
     to build upon our growing accomplishments. Your support of 
     this request will be a significant step toward further 
     realization of our mutual goals for education.
       Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. 
     Should you have any questions or require additional 
     information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
           Respectfully,
     Ms. Peggy Cooper Cafritz,
       President.
     Dr. Paul L. Vance,
       Superintendent.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to read briefly from that letter:

       It is our determination that the exclusion of [the cap] 
     could result in an additional cost of at least $44 million to 
     the District of Columbia Public Schools in FY 2002. . . . It 
     is our collective opinion that the result of such an 
     expenditure will seriously and adversely affect our ability 
     to provide education materials, textbooks, and operational 
     support to the students, teachers, and staff of the DC 
     schools. This will, as a consequence, further jeopardize the 
     opportunity of our children to receive a quality education.

  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It is a reasonable 
cap. We are not trying to starve lawyers. We want legitimate lawyers to 
be able to earn a living. But $150 an hour is quite a legitimate amount 
to spend. I think if anyone has the legitimate interests of the school 
district at heart, they will listen to the superintendent of schools 
and the president of the school board to let them do what they believe 
they need to do to improve the education in the schools. And they do 
not want to spend this money on lawyer's fees.
  They are doing the best they can. There are no complaints--or maybe 
there are complaints; I guess there are complaints against every school 
district, but there are no complaints that they are not making every 
effort to increase the quality of and the number of children they can 
serve in these special needs classes.
  Madam President, I now would like to reserve the remainder of my 
time. I ask that either Senator Durbin or Senator Sessions be allowed 
to speak. Senator Sessions is my cosponsor. I do not know if Senator 
Durbin wishes to speak first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Who yields time?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I yield time, as stated in the 
unanimous consent agreement, to the Senator from Illinois for a 
response to this amendment. Then probably, after the Senator from 
Illinois speaks, the Senator from Alabama would like to speak. And then 
Senator Murray could be recognized in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the chair of the subcommittee for yielding to me.
  Madam President, several years ago Congress decided to pass a law 
which was revolutionary. It said that in the United States of America, 
if you had a child who needed special educational assistance, we were 
going to try to help that child. It really was a commitment that had 
never been made before.
  I can recall, as a child growing up in my small hometown, that it was 
rare to see kids with learning disabilities and physical disabilities 
in my classroom. I do not know where those kids were. They were 
certainly here on Earth, but they were not in the classroom.
  So Congress said: We are going to change that. We are going to open 
the doors of education in the schools across America to children with 
special needs--kids who are disabled, mentally and physically, kids who 
have learning disabilities. We are going to give them a chance.
  That bill passed with an overwhelming, bipartisan vote because it 
sounded so right and so American for us to stand up and say: That is 
why America will be different.
  We knew, when we passed that bill, it would not be easy because many 
of these children really need special attention. I have seen it in 
classrooms across Illinois and people have seen it across the Nation. 
But the success stories are so gratifying, that children, who would 
have been tossed in the trash heap just a few years ago, are given a 
chance. With special education and special assistance, they can become 
productive citizens in America and have a good, wholesome, and happy 
life.
  Democrats and Republicans said: This is a good thing for us to do. 
But what are we going to do about school districts that turn these kids 
down, that will not give them the chance to go into the schools, where 
the parents are distraught, where they have no place to turn? What are 
we going to do in that situation?
  The law said, if it comes to that, if the school district will not 
accept the child who needs special education, there may have to be a 
hearing. Of course, hearings involve attorneys. An attorney would have 
to stand up for that child and that child's family and try to give that 
child the chance the parents want.
  Who will pay for that attorney, because some of these kids are from 
the poorest families in America. They are not all rich families and 
rich kids. The law said, when it comes to that issue, the court will 
decide. If the attorney representing that disabled child--a child with 
a learning problem--prevails

[[Page S11517]]

in the lawsuit, the court can award attorney fees to the attorney who 
represented the child, and the school district that resisted bringing 
the child in for special education will have to pay the attorney fees.
  I have just stated the law in America. Through her amendment, the 
Senator from Texas wants to change what I have just described in one 
city--the District of Columbia--to say that in this, the Nation's 
Capital, we will not play by the same rules that Texas, Louisiana, 
Ohio, and every other State, including Alabama, plays by. No. In the 
District of Columbia we are going to do it differently. We are going to 
say, in the District of Columbia, no matter how complicated the case, 
no matter how many problems that child might have, no matter how many 
hearings might be necessary, no matter how much effort is put up by the 
school board to stop this child from coming into special education, no 
matter how much is involved in it, no attorney is paid more than 
$3,000, period--none, not a penny.
  That $3,000 limit does not apply in Texas, does not apply in 
Illinois, Washington State, Alabama, or any other State. The Senator 
from Texas would have us apply that here in the District of Columbia.
  So when you put a limit on the attorney's fees in complicated and 
difficult cases, how easy is it for a person, a family, a mother and a 
father, to find an attorney to represent their son or daughter? It 
becomes increasingly difficult.

  What the Hutchison amendment does is to close the courthouse door, 
close the opportunity for administrative hearings for children who are 
seeking special education in the District of Columbia.
  Need I remind my colleagues, the District of Columbia is one of the 
poorest cities in America. There are children in this city who, through 
no fault of their own, came to the Earth in the usual way--as Harry 
Chapin used to sing in a song--who came to the Earth in the usual way 
with a lot of problems, disabilities. These kids, through no fault of 
their own, will find the schoolhouse door is closed to them because of 
the Hutchison amendment.
  She has said these kids cannot have the same legal representation as 
children all across America who are asking for an opportunity for 
special education. Her war is against trial lawyers. I used to be one. 
I plead guilty as charged, Your Honor. But I can tell you, to say that 
no lawyer will spend more than 20 hours on any case involving special 
education is just terrible. It is terrible when you consider the 
outcome. The losers here won't be the trial lawyers. They will find 
other work. The losers be will be the children and their families who 
do not want to give up hope for these kids.
  Senator Hutchison says it is a matter of dollars and cents: Either 
give it to the trial lawyers or give it to the school district. 
Certainly, the schools of D.C. and schools across America need more 
money. But does this meet the test of fairness and justice? Does it 
meet the test of those who proudly voted for the IDEA legislation and 
said they really cared about special education? It does not meet that 
test.
  Let me tell you something else that is unintended perhaps but has to 
be said: When Senator Hutchison limits the amount the District of 
Columbia can pay to any lawyer representing any child, no matter how 
complicated the case, to $3,000, do you know what the D.C. courts have 
said? They have said: We reject that. We are going to award to these 
attorneys the fees to which they are reasonably entitled. We understand 
the D.C. appropriations bill passed by Congress may limit how much 
Congress can pay out to those lawyers, but that is not going to limit 
our right under the IDEA bill to award these attorney's fees.
  So what has happened?
  Let's assume in a case that an attorney works long and hard for many 
years on a special education case and the court says, you are entitled 
to $10,000 in attorney's fees. The Hutchison amendment says, no, D.C. 
can only pay $3,000. What happens to the difference; what happens to 
the $7,000? The $7,000 is still an obligation of the District of 
Columbia. Senator Hutchison is not doing the District any favor.
  What is happening is all of these awards in court above the Hutchison 
payment level continue to build up in the District of Columbia, and 
interest is running on them. This mountain of debt for the District of 
Columbia is going to be there whether Senator Hutchison or Senator 
Durbin like it or not. It is a reality. In every city and school 
district across America, they face their legal obligation--in Texas, 
Louisiana, Alabama, and in Illinois. But Senator Hutchison would say we 
won't face that legal obligation when it comes to the District of 
Columbia.
  The root problem is the weakness and poor performance of the D.C. 
public school system. They come racing to us now and say, we don't want 
the attorneys who want children to come in as special education 
children to be paid what they are entitled to be paid by the court.

  Litigation is merely a symptom of a larger problem. Fifteen percent 
of the kids in the D.C. public school system are special needs 
children, 10,500 children. The appropriate way to reduce the burden of 
litigation on the D.C. public school system is for the system to comply 
with the law and provide the services and education that children with 
special needs deserve in every State in the Union, and every school 
district in America plays by those rules. But not under the Hutchison 
amendment. She has said there will be one exception: the District of 
Columbia, one of the poorest cities in America with children suffering 
from learning disabilities. That system, those children, those families 
will not have the same legal representation as kids across America.
  Singling out the District of Columbia is just plain wrong. This isn't 
a war against trial lawyers. This is a war against poor children who 
need a helping hand. That is just not fair.
  I asked before in the earlier debate, why is it when this 
appropriations bill comes to the floor, every Member of the Senate and 
House wants to turn into a mayor or a member of the city council? Time 
and again we defer these judgments to the city council and mayor. In 
Springfield, IL, and Chicago, IL, we say: It is your call. When it 
comes to the District of Columbia, no, we want to superimpose our 
decision, our judgment. It is not fair for the District of Columbia 
public school system to be standing here begging to be treated as a 
home rule unit and then say to Congress: Make sure you carve out a 
little exception for D.C. when it comes to special education students. 
They want to have it both ways.
  The mayor, whom I respect very much, has talked out of both sides of 
his mouth on this issue. I don't know where he stands on this issue. I 
can't follow it. I really respect this man. But eight members of the 
D.C. city council have written a letter, a compelling letter. I ask 
unanimous consent that the letter from the D.C. council of September 24 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    Council of the


                                         District of Columbia,

                               Washington, DC, September 24, 2001.
     Re: special education attorney fees.

     Hon. Mary Landrieu,
     Chairwoman, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Senate 
         Committee on Appropriations, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Landrieu: As the Congress considers the 
     District's appropriation for fiscal year 2002 we understand 
     that the House has dropped any provision limiting attorney 
     fees in special education cases. We hope and urge that the 
     Senate agree.
       As you know, the federal Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) mandates special 
     education for children with learning disabilities, and 
     provides that where a child must go to court to effect his or 
     her right that child (if he wins) is entitled to have his 
     attorney's fees paid by the government. That the District has 
     been singled out for the last three years with a limit on the 
     fees has been a matter of great controversy.
       The position of the Council and Mayor is quite clear: we 
     adopted a proposed budget that contains no cap on attorneys 
     fees. Our objections to a fee cap include:
       A cap makes it more difficult for children to obtain 
     special education to which they are entitled. It is a simple 
     fact: a cap on fees reduces the number of attorneys willing 
     to take such cases and, therefore, reduces access to counsel.
       A cap discriminates against low income children. Affluent 
     families can afford legal representation; the cap affects 
     them but they still have an economic ability to help their 
     children.

[[Page S11518]]

       The effect of the cap is to treat the children of the 
     District of Columbia differently--and less favorably--than 
     any other child in any other state in the nation. District 
     children have fewer rights with the cap.
       The way to improve special education in the District of 
     Columbia must be programmatic--improve the programs rather 
     than limit the advocacy for special needs children.
       We want public school children to obtain the best possible 
     education. Reforms must be done in a way that does not 
     disadvantage children. It is our strongly held view that the 
     cap on attorney fees places already vulnerable children at an 
     even greater disadvantage. For all of these reasons we ask 
     that the Senate follow the House and eschew any provision 
     limiting attorneys fees for prevailing parties under the 
     federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
           Sincerely,
     Sharon Ambrose,
       Ward 6.
     David Catania,
       At-Large.
     Kevin Chavous,
       Chairman Comm. on Education & Libraries.
     Adrian Fenty,
       Ward 4.
     Jim Graham,
       Ward 1.
     Phil Mendelson,
       At-Large.
     Kathy Patterson,
       Ward 3.
     Carol Schwartz,
       At-Large.

  Mr. DURBIN. These include Republican as well as Democratic and 
Independent members of the council. They write in part:

       The position of the Council and Mayor is quite clear: we 
     adopted a proposed budget that contains no cap on attorneys 
     fees. Our objections to a fee cap include:
       A cap makes it more difficult for children to obtain 
     special education to which they are entitled. It is a simple 
     fact: a cap on fees reduces the number of attorneys willing 
     to take such cases and, therefore, reduces access to counsel.
       A cap discriminates against low income children.
       The effect of the cap is to treat the children of the 
     District of Columbia differently--and less favorably--than 
     any other child in any other state in the nation.

  I was a practicing attorney before I came to Congress, and there are 
some wonderful people who are involved in pro bono--free--legal work. 
They do great work. There are also some attorneys who can't find any 
other kind of work; they are not up to it. I don't think we should put 
the future and fate of these special ed kids in the hands of an 
attorney who may or may not be qualified to handle the case. That is 
exactly what we are doing.
  This is discrimination against the special ed kids in the District of 
Columbia. The District of Columbia school system should be ashamed that 
they have called on this Congress to perpetuate this injustice. I hope 
this Congress will think twice. If you voted proudly for IDEA, if you 
really stand for children with disabilities, then for goodness' sake 
give them the legal rights to pursue the right they have under law.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. May I inquire how much time the Senator from Alabama 
might need to speak on this amendment?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will finish the time of Senator Hutchison. How much 
time does the Senator have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. That would be fine, of course, under the consent 
agreement, because the Senator from Washington State is on the floor 
and wants to speak not on this amendment but as in morning business. I 
was just inquiring. The Senator from Alabama is entitled to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act has done a lot of great things. It has had a consistently 
strong goal to mainstream disabled children into regular classrooms.
  I have in the last year or so visited 20 schools in my State. I try 
to take the opportunity each time to meet with the principals and 
teachers in a conference and ask them about their problems, what are 
their frustrations, what is working, what is not working, what can we 
do in the Federal Government to help them.
  The thing I hear over and over again--and I ask Senators if they hear 
the same thing; I suspect they do--is that the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act has become a legal nightmare. It has created 
laws that are not helpful and are costing the schools tremendous sums 
of money in litigation. It is not helping children in ways we would 
like to help them. Yes, we want to mainstream every child who can be 
mainstreamed.
  I will share this story. I attended a wonderful, award-winning 
elementary school in a mid-size town in Alabama. It was so well 
decorated. It was the first week of the school year. The classrooms 
were well appointed, well organized, with bulletin boards of first 
quality. My wife taught elementary school a number of years, and I know 
about those things and what you are supposed to do. The principal told 
me this story.
  He said: The first day of school, when we were working as hard as we 
could to do all the things necessary to make that first day a great day 
for the kids, I spent that afternoon and until 7:30 that night with 13 
individuals, including a group of lawyers, over how long an individual 
child should be kept in the mainstream classroom.
  This child had a serious emotional disability and was not going to be 
removed from school but would be put in an alternative setting where 
the disability could be dealt with. But the parents and lawyers wanted 
the child to be mainstreamed. In the previous year, I believe that 
child had been in the classroom 1 hour a day. The principal had 
concluded the child didn't need to do that. He was disrupting the 
classroom and the child would not benefit from being in the classroom 
an hour a day, and he decided to change that policy. So they did that 
under the individual plan for the child. As a result, an objection was 
raised. The compromise--he told me this, and I find this unbelievable--
was that the child was allowed to be in the classroom for 15 minutes a 
day. After all of that.
  As part of that settlement, the school was obligated to pay the 
lawyer who brought the allegation because the child had prevailed--at 
least in some part. So they had to pay the lawyer's fee for their 
lawyers and the lawyer's fee of the people on the other side. The 
teachers and all who had relevant information about this had to disrupt 
their first day of school to meet and meet and meet. They had to 
prepare and they had to talk to experts and have expert testimony about 
this child and what they could do--all because of the Federal education 
disabilities act.
  We want to help children who can be in the classroom--children who 
have sight disability, who can't hear, or children who have other 
disabilities and are in wheelchairs; they need to be mainstreamed. We 
want to achieve that. Nothing here would say otherwise. There are a lot 
of problem areas, though, and there is a cottage industry of lawyers 
who are filing lawsuits regularly.
  The District of Columbia tells us they had nearly 2,000 cases last 
year, and they are over the kinds of issues about which I am talking. 
These children are not being thrown on the ash heap. The question often 
is, What kind of program or benefit do they get? Do they stay in the 
main classroom or go to a special education classroom.
  We had a case in Alabama--and this is true all over America--where a 
child was so unable to control himself--apparently unable, or at least 
did not control himself--an aide was hired by the State to meet him at 
the school bus stop in the morning, go to school with that child, sit 
with him all day in the classroom, and come home with him in the 
afternoon. This is happening all over America.
  The lawyers and the regulations are impacting principals and teachers 
who love children. They want to see children do well, and they want to 
see every child reach their highest and fullest potential; but they are 
being handicapped by complex regulations and litigation. I say that in 
general. Then I will say this: $150 an hour is not unusual. There are a 
lot of regulations that we have where the hourly fees are lower than 
that. Criminal defense attorneys are paid less than that in most States 
in America. $150 an hour is a 20-percent increase over the current law.
  This Hutchison amendment is a 20-percent increase over current law in 
the District of Columbia. This was requested by the District of 
Columbia. They say, well, you don't cap other lawyer's fees. Other 
lawyers don't have their fees capped.

[[Page S11519]]

  Let me say this: If someone cheats you on a contract and you sue them 
and you win the lawsuit, they don't pay you anything for legal fees, 
unless it is in the contract, which it normally is not. Most people in 
America file a lawsuit, they pay their lawyer out of what they recover. 
So we have given a special advantage to lawyers in disability cases and 
in several other instances in lawsuits against Government agencies. We 
have agreed to pay their legal fees, but they are not guaranteed 
unlimited legal fees, guaranteed to be paid forever, however much they 
want or whatever some judge may agree to award them.

  So I think this is a reasonable amendment. It is a serious request of 
the school board of this city, which is facing an avalanche of 
lawsuits. There were nearly 2,000 last year. None of this money that is 
expended--the $10.5 million that was saved last year is not being 
thrown away. The $10.5 million that is saved can be used to help 
disabled children and provide them better programs. If we pay out more 
money in legal fees, from where do people think it is coming? It is 
coming from the children. That is where it is coming from--the people 
we want to help. We need to address nationally some of the litigation 
that is arising with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 
There is not a superintendent of schools in America who has been on the 
job very long, I suggest--or certainly very few who would suggest this 
system is working effectively.
  Principals tell me all the time it is a nightmare for them. It is 
disrupting their ability to educate our children. They tell me the 
child who is getting hurt is the average child. There are special 
programs for the bright children and for those with disabilities, but 
the average child is getting shortchanged. Oftentimes, teachers are so 
frustrated they are leaving the profession. They are being sued for how 
they handle difficult circumstances.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Alabama has 
expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and reiterate my support for the 
Hutchison amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I want to speak for a moment. The 
Senator from Washington wants to be recognized. I want to say this: I 
voted with Senator Sessions on the last amendment he offered on this 
subject. I actually agreed very strongly with what he said. Many of us 
on both sides of the aisle voted with him, as he has outlined so 
beautifully some of the real problems with special education as far as 
Federal rules and regulations go. We are all well intended. We all want 
to help these children, but there is a major disagreement and debate 
about whether the rules are actually helping or hurting.
  The Senator is absolutely correct that many of our resources are not 
being devoted to sort of mainstream children because of the complicated 
rules about special needs and also gifted children. It is a problem and 
it has to be worked out. I agree with the Senator. My disagreement is 
that this amendment doesn't actually fix that problem, and it makes it 
worse, not better, which is why I probably cannot support this exact 
amendment and why we have tried to work out some compromise between the 
Senators.
  I wanted to say that for the record, and I want to also say that in 
limiting the attorney's fees to $150 an hour, which doesn't seem to 
many people to be much of a limit--that is quite a lot of money to 
make, particularly in these times. But the problem the Senator, as an 
attorney and prosecutor, should know is the real problem is the overall 
limit of $3,000 per case.

  So what happens is an attorney basically can only spend 2\1/2\ days. 
That would allow them to process one or two motions and may not cover 
them until the end of the case.
  These are long and complicated and, as he has described, very 
difficult cases. That is the problem Senator Durbin is trying to raise. 
So I hope we can resolve it. Maybe the good prosecutor, my colleague 
from Alabama, would have a suggestion about that to us.

                          ____________________