Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, some studies have been cited by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). We have a response from General McCaffrey. General McCaffrey does make it clear that he supports the language that is in this bill. The language in this bill was put in in full committee by a vote of 32-23, a bipartisan vote, to say no Federal funds can be used for free needle exchange programs. All we are asking, Mr. Chairman, is that this body agree to that restriction. We ask for two reasons. The principal reason is that that is our only jurisdiction, the use of Federal funds, for which we are responsible. The second is that we will show very compelling evidence that the District of Columbia knew what it was doing when it started up a program which is one of the most effective in the country. Now, General McCaffrey supports the language in this bill. But he also makes it clear that he has never supported a prohibition on local jurisdictions' efforts to implement a needle exchange program. There are 113 local needle exchange programs in this country. They are working with various levels of success, but all of them successful. In fact, in the District of Columbia, two-thirds of the people that had been exposed to HIV through dirty needles are no longer being exposed as a result of the effectiveness of the program in the District of Columbia. Here we have a few hundred pages. They are not numbered. But these are the summaries of dozens of exhaustive studies by all of the organizations that we would want to look into this issue. They have all concluded that the needle exchange program works. They run the gamut from the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease Control, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Association of Mental Health and Substance Abuse. This program is endorsed by the American Medical Association, any number of organizations that are prestigious and credible. Mr. Chairman, when I realized that I was going to have to debate the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) on this issue and take the position in favor of needle exchange programs, I groaned. I did not want to do this. Because on the face of it, my initial reaction was, my gosh, why would we ever give free needles to drug addicts? Well, the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the facts are compelling. The District of Columbia knew exactly what it was doing when it started this program. Let me share with my colleagues some of these facts. The District of Columbia has an HIV-AIDS epidemic, one of the worst in the country. They have the highest rate of new HIV infections of any jurisdiction in the entire country, the worst. Intravenous drug use is the second leading cause of HIV transmission/ AIDS. That is what we are talking about basically. It accounts for more than a quarter of all the new infections. Deaths attributed to AIDS from HIV transmission in D.C. is more than seven times the national average. Listen to this please, my colleagues: AIDS is the leading cause of death for all city residents between the ages of 30 and 44, the leading cause of death. African-Americans are the hardest hit by intravenous transmission from dirty needles of the HIV virus. Ninety-six percent of those infected with HIV as a result of intravenous drug use in the District of Columbia are African-Americans. Women and children are also disproportionately affected. Drug use is the highest mode of transmission of HIV for women in D.C. Women are getting AIDS at the fastest rate. This is the most serious aspect of the AIDS epidemic in D.C., which is the worst in the country. And the principal way they get AIDS is through dirty needles. Seventy-five percent of the babies born with HIV, and what could be more disturbing to us, what could break our hearts worse than to have a baby born with AIDS, 75 percent of the babies born with HIV are infected as a result of dirty needles. The District of Columbia, my colleagues, has the worst problem with HIV transmission from dirty needles, the worst in the country. And yet it is the only jurisdiction in the entire country that is prohibited from implementing this program. 113 other jurisdictions throughout the country have this program. All of the experts say it is effective. D.C. has the worst problem but, because of this Congress, they cannot use the one program that has been proven to be effective. That is why we oppose this amendment. We are not even suggesting that we use Federal funds. All we are asking is we stick with the language that says no Federal funds can be used for a needle exchange program. But gosh, please let the residents of the District of Columbia and particularly its elected leaders, elected directly by the citizens of the District of Columbia, let them be able to use their local funds and let private donations be used for this program. It is a small program. It is very inexpensive. It is run by the Whitman-Walker Clinic, a very credible organization. They do wonderful work. The reason why these programs are so effective is because, when people come in to get free needles, they then have to get registered, that way we know who are the drug addicts. They then go into counseling. They then go into treatment. They will be exposed to the whole gamut of programs designed to treat their drug addiction and to make them healthy and to protect their babies. This is the gateway; this is the way we get access to people who desperately need help. To prevent the District of Columbia from using this gateway to cure people, to get them off their addiction, to save these babies, we need this program. Again, let me just remind my colleagues, we are not even asking for Federal funds. We are asking them to support language that says no Federal funds can be used for this program. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) the only Member of this body who is elected by the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) who represents the immediate suburb of Washington D.C., Prince Georges County.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection. We would defer to the judgment of the Chairman.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). I applaud him for doing a very fine job in chairing this subcommittee and putting together an appropriations bill that is worthy of this House. In the subcommittee and in the full committee, both Democrats and Republicans agreed this is a good bill. This is the bill that we want the President to sign. It is still a good bill as it stands, unamended. If, however, it is amended on the floor of this House by changing the language that was approved by the full committee that said that no Federal funds can be used for any needle exchange program in the District of Columbia, we will have to oppose this bill. We believe that the D.C. elected council and Mayor can determine how best to combat the drug epidemic in the District which, by many accounts, is the worst in the Nation, if that language in the bill is sustained, we would certainly want to support that. If this body agrees that there is no need for the language put in by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) that would supersede the judgment of the domestic courts in this city with regard to who is eligible to adopt children, then we have a bill that is going to pass virtually unanimously. But the problem, Mr. Chairman, is that there are two amendments here that, if they are approved by this House, are so egregious in terms of trampling the rights of the District of Columbia citizens, its elected representatives, and its court system that the White House has said it will veto this bill. Then we are right back at the starting point. All this excellent effort by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and his colleagues on the Republican side and all the bipartisan support on the Democratic side will have been for naught. That reason alone should be sufficient to vote down these amendments and vote up the appropriations bill before us, because these amendments do not belong in an appropriations bill. That is why we had the argument on the rule. We had to have a rule that waived the rules of this House, saying that despite the fact that they would be ruled out of order, we are going to rule them in order, allowing them to be added to the bill. Had we stuck with an open rule, we would not have had to deal with this. We would have had a pure bill, a pure appropriations bill. We would have bipartisan support for it and it would pass overwhelmingly in this House. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to reject these two amendments; to support the bill, if they are rejected, and to give the White House a bill that it can sign right away and at least take this issue off the table. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the members of the Committee on Appropriations staff, I want to thank my assistant on the D.C. appropriations bill, Tim Aiken, who was ably assisted by Anstice Brand. I want to thank Tom Forhan particularly as the lead minority staff person for D.C. appropriations. I want to thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who has been here throughout the entire bill, who has done an excellent job of representing her constituents. That is really what this is all about. We really would like to defer to her constituents, who have the right to elect their own representatives, and would seem to have the right to spend their own money. We talk a lot about Federalism, we talk a lot about devolvement to States and localities. This is a good opportunity to show that our money is where our mouth is; that we believe in our rhetoric, we believe in the principle of self-representation, we believe that this Congress should not be overriding the normal rules of the House, imposing restrictions on the use of local and private funds within the District, imposing restrictions upon the prerogatives of the domestic courts in the District of Columbia. That principle will be sustained if we defeat the two amendments and enable all the Members of this House to support the D.C. appropriations bill, and enable the White House to sign it. Mr. Chairman, as I say, I urge a no vote on the amendments. If they are defeated, then we could urge a yes vote on the underlying bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield three-quarters of 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the gentleman from Oklahoma I will speak and then yield to him to have the last word.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number or words.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) that the source of my comments about limiting the ability of legal professionals to come up with plea bargains and to otherwise pursue justice in the court system came from the United States Justice Department and from the offender supervision division of the District of Columbia. So it was not my personal opinion, it was a professional opinion that this could do harm to their ability to reduce drug addiction and to go after drug criminals. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time. Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to argue to make any drugs legally available. But under some circumstances, we do make drugs legally available. Certainly, morphine is customarily used when people are suffering. I know I, myself, when my mother was dying and experiencing a great deal of pain, I had to inject morphine, simply to reduce the suffering. I never would have done that, but the doctors prescribed it. Basically, that is what we are suggesting here, that we defer to the judgment of medical professionals. If there is a way to relieve people's suffering, people that are experiencing terminal illness, we should allow this. This is a tough vote, but I do think the right vote is to vote ``no.'' Leave this to the medical community. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield three-quarters of 1 minute to the gentleman from Brooklyn, New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Madison, Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and claim the time. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we oppose this amendment. We certainly oppose the use of drugs that would contribute to a drug culture, that would contribute to the debilitation of any individual human being, but that is not the issue we are arguing. The issue we began arguing is whether the District of Columbia can count the ballots in a referenda that inquired as to whether people would support the ability of doctors to prescribe marijuana for their patients who are terminally ill, generally of AIDS, so as to relieve their suffering. Again, my colleagues would think that that should be a professional decision made by professional medical practitioners. Now up until now, Mr. Barr's intent was to prevent the votes being totaled. That prevented about $1.30 apparently from being spent to itemize the ballots. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) now goes beyond that to say that under any circumstances regardless of what the outcome of that referendum might be that the citizens of the District of Columbia cannot have their doctor prescribe for patients who are suffering to be able to use marijuana to relieve their suffering. Mr. Chairman, there are some ramifications of this amendment that go beyond what some might consider to be a relatively heartless attempt on the part of the proponent of the amendment. For example, prohibiting the reduction of penalties associated with the possession, use or distribution of marijuana or any schedule 1 substance undermines the efforts of law enforcement, the courts, and the correctional system to enter into plea bargains with criminal defendants in their war against illegal drugs. It could eliminate the option of reducing sentences of prisoners as an incentive to encourage good behavior. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) I know was an assistant U.S. Attorney. He understands how important it is to be able to plea bargain, to be able to have flexibility, to look for the broader objective of reducing drug use or even to use individuals who are caught to be able to turn in the people who are truly distributing drugs. There are a lot of ramifications of this amendment, all of them negative. This should be defeated. Now at this point I am going to reserve the balance of our time, so a number of subsequent speakers can list a number of reasons for our colleagues to vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).