[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21883-21887]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



        DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--Continued

  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 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-

[[Page 21884]]

     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, 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

[[Page 21885]]

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.
  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

[[Page 21886]]

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 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

[[Page 21887]]

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.

                          ____________________