Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final 1\1/2\ minutes to the delegate from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is left?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this is the first I have heard the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) speak on the floor, and we are very pleased to have her as our colleague. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have an additional 30 seconds on each side.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, Americans categorically reject the notion that the government should take a greater role in deciding who can and cannot adopt children. By a margin of nearly four to one, voters say we should keep the system that we currently have rather than allow the Federal Government to take a greater role. Parenting skills, not marital status or sexual orientation, should be considered. The Largent amendment says if you are single, unattached and date around without any long-term commitment, you can still adopt children. But if you are in a long-term committed relationship and agree with your partner that you would like to raise a child together, you are then prohibited from adopting. We do not think this amendment works. It completely overrides the ability of domestic law judges who see these children interact with the prospective parents to determine what is in the best interest of the child. No matter how wonderful a prospective couple may be as potential parents, the judge cannot let them adopt. This amendment will not directly impact any of us but it will directly harm the thousands of orphaned and abandoned children currently living in the District of Columbia who desperately want to be adopted. This amendment denies those children the opportunity of finding a loving and happy home with two monogamous committed parents. We think this is an anti-child amendment, an anti-family amendment. We would urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, with that modification, we would have no objection on this side.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with all of the preceding except for the last item. There are so many speakers on the Armey amendment, I wonder if the gentleman would consider, say, 50 minutes?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) that the Parliamentarian has explained that this is not the exact language that is in the bill. And all we are trying to do, there was a typo here, it was clear that it was meant to say ``sterile needles or syringes.'' If this is not acceptable, we would simply have to introduce a new amendment, which we are prepared to do, just to fix this small typo. I am not offering any new language to the amendment that was offered. But the amendment that was offered was cleared by the Parliamentarian as being different from what is in the bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment to correct a small typo in the way that it was actually typed up. It was typed up quickly. And I think the correction is at the desk.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is what the full Committee on Appropriations decided to do, given the fact that we had a similar, very informative, very heartfelt debate in the full Committee on Appropriations. The best way to resolve this issue was to treat the District of Columbia in the same way that we treat all other 50 States with regard to the use of Federal taxpayers funds. What this amendment would do is to say that no Federal taxpayers' funds can be used in the District of Columbia for needle exchange programs. It obviously remains silent on local funds. Much of the debate that we heard addressed Federal funds. We do not disagree with that, but we do feel that the majority of the Members would feel satisfied that they had acted as responsibly as possible with Federal funds but left the District of Columbia's own government to resolve this issue in the way they thought best. We heard from the gentleman from Maryland. In Baltimore it works. Baltimore is an urban area with a very serious drug problem. We hear from the delegate from the District of Columbia. We have an urban area with a very serious drug problem. Given the unique and drastic crisis that they are facing, they have decided to take drastic, unique measures that may not be appropriate for other areas of the country that do not have the severity of this problem. So should we not recognize that at the local level of government they ought to have some autonomy? I thought that we wanted to devolve as much responsibility and authority to the local level of government as possible. That is all we do. Let them decide how to use their own local funds and their own private funds. The legislation even affects private funds. It says all funds are prohibited. Let them use private funds, let them use local funds. They cannot use Federal funds if this amendment passes. That is why I would urge acceptance of this amendment as the best way to deal with a very difficult, complex subject. I do not argue with the sincerity of the gentleman from Kansas that has offered this amendment, and I would trust that most cities in Kansas might be well represented by his conclusion, but we know that the people in the District of Columbia feel that their crisis dictates an alternative response. We know Baltimore has decided to do that, and we know it has worked in Baltimore. We heard a passionate appeal, let Baltimore do it. Let D.C. do it. Let those local governments do what they think is in their best interest. That is the intent of this amendment. I would hope that all my colleagues would agree with the full Committee on Appropriations, vote for this amendment and do the right thing by the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to tell my colleagues that I will be offering an amendment after this Tiahrt amendment, whether it passes or fails, and that amendment will be very similar to a substitute amendment that was offered in the full Committee on Appropriations that passed, I believe, with a bipartisan vote. What it does, it is to simply apply the same restriction on Federal funds that the bill that was passed back in April of this year applies to all 50 States so that the Members will have an opportunity to vote to restrict Federal funds, in other words, the only funds over which we have control, from being used for needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia. So we will treat D.C. like we do every other State. I think after the debate, Members understand that there are good, thoughtful, fair Members on both sides of this very difficult issue. So is it not best to resolve this by limiting the funds that we are responsible for expending, Federal taxpayers funds? We limit those with this subsequent amendment, but do not dictate to the District how they can use their own funds if they choose to decide differently than this United States Congress.

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 gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first some facts: The District of Columbia has one of the highest incidences of HIV infection in the country. Intravenous drug use in the District is the District's second highest mode of transmission, accounting for over a quarter of all the new AIDS cases. For women, where the rate of infection is growing faster than among men, intravenous drug use represents the highest mode of HIV transmission. The growth of HIV infections is highest among women and where is it coming from? It is coming from dirty needles. In the African-American community, listen to this, 97 percent of the transmission occurs through dirty needles, 97 percent. The District of Columbia has had a local needle exchange program in place since last year. This program, operated by the Whitman Walker Clinic, uses scarce D.C. appropriated funds to allow the clinic to exchange on a one-to-one basis between 15,000 and 17,000 dirty needles each month. The program facilitates access to HIV testing counseling, which they provide on the spot. So what they are doing is providing the needles so that they can get hold of people so that they can counsel them and treat them to rid them of addiction. Without doing that, they are not getting access to the people that they need to. We think Whitman Walker should be free to structure the most locally appropriate response to the greatest public health crisis that has ever faced this city. Every other state and municipality in the United States is entitled to use locally raised tax revenue to determine the course of their own public health initiatives unhampered by Congressional restrictions. We think the District should be accorded the same standing. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) cites two Canadian studies on needle exchanges that allegedly show needle exchange programs have worsened the AIDS epidemic. But in a New York Times editorial, the authors of those very same studies made clear that opponents of needle exchanges have totally misinterpreted the research. While it is true that the addicts that took part in needle exchange programs in Vancouver and Montreal had higher HIV infection rates than those who did not participate in the program, that was not surprising since those participating in the program consistently engaged in the riskiest behavior. The authors of the Canadian studies that the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) has cited point to a larger study by Lancet, the British Medical Journal, that found in 29 cities worldwide where programs are in place, HIV infections in fact dropped by an average of 6 percent a year among drug users. In 51 cities that had no needle exchange programs, drug-related infection rose by 6 percent more. They conclude their article by stating that clean needles are only part of the solution. A comprehensive approach should be used, which includes health care, treatment, social support and counseling. The authors that were cited called for expansion of needle exchange as a gateway to these other services, and urged Congress to consider this approach. The Whitman Walker needle exchange program is a gateway to treatment. We should not be shutting off that gate just when its positive impact is beginning to show. We should not be telling Whitman Walker either that Federal funds for other programs will be cut off even if solely private funds are used to finance the needle exchange program. That is bad policy, and that is why we oppose this amendment. The people that were cited as the experts say in a New York Times editorial that you should not interpret their study the way that the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) has. In fact, the conclusion is just the opposite, that needle exchange programs are working. I was surprised by this data, I was surprised by the statistics, but I think when you do look at the statistics, you will realize there is merit to this, particularly in the ability of a city to use its own local funds for this purpose. Mr. Chairman, I include the New York Times editorial entitled ``The Politics of Needles and AIDS'' for the Record. [From the New York Times, Apr. 1998] The Politics of Needles and AIDS (By Julie Bruneau and Martin T. Schecter) Debate has started up again in Washington about whether the Government should renew its ban on subsidies for needle- exchange programs, which advocates say can help stop the spread of AIDS. In a letter to Congress, Barry McCaffrey, who is in charge of national drug policy, cited two Canadian studies to show that needle-exchange plans have failed to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, and may even have worsened the problem. Congressional leaders have cited these studies to make the same argument. As the authors of the Canadian studies, we must point out that these officials have misinterpreted our research. True, we found that addicts who took part in needle exchange programs in Vancouver and Montreal had higher H.I.V. infection rates than addicts who did not. That's not surprising. Because these programs are in inner-city neighborhoods, they serve users who are at greatest risk of infection. Those who didn't accept free needles often didn't need them since they could afford to buy syringes in drugstores. They also were less likely to engage in the riskiest activities. Also, needle-exchange programs must be tailored to local conditions. For example, in Montreal and Vancouver, cocaine injection is a major source of H.I.V. transmission. Some users inject the drug up to 40 times a day. At that rate, we have calculated that the two cities we studied would each need 10 million clean needles a year to prevent the re-use of syringes. Currently, the Vancouver program exchanges two million syringes annually, and Montreal, half a million. A study conducted last year and published in The Lancet, the British medical journal, found that in 29 cities worldwide where programs are in place, H.I.V. infection dropped by an average of 5.8 percent a year among drug users. In 51 cities that had no needle-exchange plans, drug-related infection rose by 5.9 percent a year. Clearly these efforts can work. But clean needles are only part of the solution. A comprehensive approach that includes needle exchange, health care, treatment, social support and counseling is also needed. In Canada, local governments acted on our research by expanding needle exchanges and adding related services. We hope the Clinton Administration and Congress will provide the same kind of leadership in the United States. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this actually is a very important issue. It is going to become more important in the future because we are talking about moving 7,000 Lorton inmates around the country as we close down the Lorton prison. There was a front-page article in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal, talking about this situation at Youngstown, but I think we need to address the larger issue and give a little background in the time I have. I support this amendment, and I support the efforts the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has taken to improve the security at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown. I represent the communities surrounding the Lorton Correctional Complex, and I can understand the frustration of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) with the housing of inmates from the District of Columbia. Although the facility in Youngstown is operated by the Corrections Corporation of America, the root of the problems faced there stems from the inability to adequately and properly classify the inmates of the District of Columbia. In the late 1980's the District was experiencing a tremendous increase in its inmate population and court orders capping the number of inmates that could be housed in each of its facilities. To escape the court-ordered cap on the number of inmates that could be housed in the maximum facility, the District created a category known as ``high medium'' but they were really maximum security prisoners. The District is still operating under this court-imposed cap and continues to house medium and high medium inmates together. That policy has led to numerous problems at the Occoquan facility at Lorton; has continued when the inmates was transferred to the Youngstown facility. Under current law all District inmates who are in prison for more than one year are in the custody of the Attorney General of the United States. When inmates are transferred to various facilities around the country, the Attorney General must approve all of those transfers. Before the Department of Corrections could transfer inmates to the Youngstown facility, the Department of Justice had to inspect the Youngstown facility and certify that it was acceptable for the housing of the inmates that were being transferred from Occoquan to Youngstown, and the transfer had to be approved. According to the Director of the Department of Corrections this had been done before every transfer. Under the contract between the District and the Corrections Corporation of America, CCA has 5 days to challenge the transfer on the grounds that the inmate should not be housed in that facility because he is too much of a security risk. The District, however, has made the process impossible to implement because it has shipped 1,700 inmates without their records. This is the problem. We ship 1,700 inmates without their records, so it is impossible for the Attorney General to approve each one of them. In fact, the Department of Corrections did not send the records until Judge Bell from Ohio ordered the records to be transferred. This decree was ordered 1 year after the original transfer, and even with Judge Bell's order, all of the records have not been sent to Ohio, and there is some question whether the records even exist. I raise these points to highlight ongoing problems with how the District of Columbia classifies and houses its inmates. It is not the first time that we have had a problem like this. In 1996 Congress required the Justice Department to study D.C.'s inmate classification system and create a more appropriate system for the inmate population. It was done by the National Council of Crime and Delinquency, but there has not been any follow-up to that study. So I support this amendment wholeheartedly, and I hope we can work with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the Department of Justice and the Corrections Corporation of America to go even further and address the fundamental problems with how the District's prisoners are classified. That is what this problem is. And only by ensuring the District's inmate population is fairly classified can we ensure that the inmates, the guards and the communities in which the prisoners are housed are safe and secure. I raise these issues because it is going to be an ongoing problem, and basically the problem is that when we transfer 1,700 inmates without their records there is no way that we can ensure that the people in the proper classification are going where they should be going.