Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is trying to rewrite his amendment to the point that I brought up earlier, in that this is exactly what is in the bill now. So why would we have another waste of the Members' time, when everyone is trying to get out of here and go back to their districts to carry on very important business, that we bring an amendment that is exactly like the language that is in the bill?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and also acknowledge that I have enjoyed working with the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). Although we occasionally do not agree, we have had a good relationship in working together. I think we have put together a pretty good bill here, although I hope to amend it. I will talk about that a little later, but I am going to vote for this bill whether I am successful in my amendment or not. I think the District of Columbia is headed in the right direction. The direct Federal contribution is down. The District is running a surplus. We have certainly seen some changes that have been dramatically positive, and I am very pleased by that. This bill also includes repeal of the residency requirement, which I think is good policy. It will allow the District to hire qualified personnel to work for their police and fire departments. It also appropriates $32.6 million for charter schools, a concept that I think has been successful in my home city of Wichita and my home State of Kansas, as well as here in the District of Columbia. It provides $156 million for special education projects. It allocates $4 million in Federal funds for the Boys Town facilities in the District. It stipulates that any excess revenues be applied to eliminating D.C.'s accumulated deficit and creates a reserve fund to replace seasonal borrowing, paying water and sewer fund debt, and retiring the outstanding long-term debt. It also requires teachers to pass competency tests in order to receive pay raises, something that my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Duke Cunningham), who could not be here today because of his operation, did support. We also have in there some small programs where we are using public capital to help with the private initiatives. One is the People's House Hotline. It is a small amount of money, but it is a program where we have both the public sector and the private sector being able to come together and provide a wonderful service to those who are truly in need. This hotline, which is housed in a building that was provided through the effort of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Frank Wolf), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tony Hall), and Senator Dan Coats, connects people with the services that are available to them. All they have to do is call a number and there is a memory bank of nearly 4,000 social services and churches that offer a wide variety of assistance, including food, clothing, shelter, housing, GED courses, tutoring, a vast array of services, and it puts them together. They keep them on the line. When they call in, it keeps them on the line until they are able to directly hook up with these facilities, so that they do not get shuffled off into some pattern where they do not get the services they so desperately need. We also have funding for the first time that matches private sector funds for the Mentoring Friends Program. This is a concept that was developed with private funds in Portland, Oregon, in 1993. They currently serve about 200 children. This is a situation where mentors spend time with 5- and 6-year-olds. They make a commitment to spend time with them over the next 10 years. They are there to coordinate with their families and the schools, to help them fight off drug abuse, to help them with any school failure, to keep them out of gangs, to give them hope for the future. This is one of those instances where we see something positive happening in the District of Columbia that could spread to other cities. Big parts of this city are in desperate need of attention, and a macro approach has not been very effective. But here in a micro approach, where one-on-one these kids' lives are being changed, it is an investment in the future. Now, I want to talk just a little bit about an amendment I am going to offer. It is going to be an attempt to limit any funds from being used for a needle exchange program. Currently, the Whitman Walker Clinic has a van that drives around the D.C. area and exchanges needles with drug abusers. Not only is that bad public policy, but the police turn their heads. According to the office of the District of Columbia Police Chief, Charles Ramsey, they have to turn their heads. I just want to say the needle exchange program is spreading HIV and we could reduce this loss of life. The police chief has to have an unofficial policy of looking the other way when these drug addicts approach this van because these people are doing things that are illegal. Drug use equipment is illegal. In his June 8th Wall Street Journal editorial, Dr. Satel, a psychiatrist and lecturer at Yale University, said that most needle exchange studies have been full of design errors, and that more rigorous studies actually show there is an increase in HIV infection among participants in the needle exchange program. Our White House drug policy czar, General Barry McCaffrey, is opposed to the needle exchange program. In Vancouver, a large study was done and they found out that the needle exchange program actually increased HIV infection among those who are using the program. The death rate went from 18 in 1988 attributed to drugs, to more than 10 per week, 600 deaths this year because of drug use, and it is related to the expansion of the needle exchange program. In Montreal there was another study that said that people are twice as likely to get infected. So I want to support the bill, and I would like support for my amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I think it is obvious that what the gentleman is doing. It is not the exact same language, but I would dare say that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) could not explain the significant difference between his amendment and what is currently in the bill. And I would just go on to say that I think that what the gentleman is doing here is replacing the exact same language and it is a great waste of our time. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. TIAHRT. My inquiry is, if this is a phrase that is unknown to the Members, will they have a good idea what they are voting on in this amendment?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, there is a phrase I think is confusing in here and I am not sure the Members will understand what they are voting on. It says, ``distributing sterile needs the syringes.''

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, is this a new amendment that we are now bringing forward or is this something that is a clarification of what was previously brought forward?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that the studies that I was using as the basis for my testimony are going to be submitted for the record, and the one that was conducted in Montreal, I would just like to read from it so the Members can understand. It is in the summary, and I will point to this. It says, ``In summary, Montreal needle exchange program users appear to have higher HIV zero conversion rates than any program nonusers. This study also indicates that, at least in Montreal, HIV infection is associated with needle exchange program attendance.'' Now, I am just taking this at face value. It says if people show up, they have a higher chance of getting it, getting the HIV virus or HIV infection.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIAHRT. I think the gentleman is interpreting what I am saying incorrectly. What I am saying is that we can draw our own conclusions from the facts that in 1988 they had only 18 deaths from drug use and by 1998, a decade later, it has increased dramatically to over 10 a week. Now, what conclusion can we draw from that? I do not need an opinion piece in The New York Times to tell me that this activity is encouraging drug abuse and it ends up with more deaths.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?

Mr. TIAHRT. It is the Montreal study. It is the Vancouver study. It was study done by the American Journal of Epidemiology. I am not sure I said that exactly correctly. But let me say one thing. I am not disputing that the gentleman has an editorial where he thinks that some of the conclusions may have been----

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I am very disappointed. I find out that this is the same language that is currently in the bill. On a voice vote my amendment went down, so he is, in effect, trying to put the same language back in the bill that is already in the bill. It is very redundant. I believe that the gentleman told me that it was not the same language. Maybe it was semantic, because there is a short, nonessential phrase that is missing, but essentially it is the same language that is in the bill. I had hoped that we would deal more on an honest basis here and that I would have a clear understanding of what the gentleman was trying to do, but apparently there is some attempt to mislead the House and the chairman before we had a chance to raise a point of order. Be that as it may, we will continue on and oppose the gentleman's amendment. I would like to point out that constitutionally we have a responsibility, an oath that we swore when we took this office, to oversee the funds of the District of Columbia. It is called local control, and that is a misused term. This is a Federal area. It is the District of Columbia. According to the Constitution, in Article I, section 8, we have this responsibility, a responsibility that we cannot shirk. We have to establish public policy. We have this responsibility to deal with what is going on here. This is a public policy that affects us all. It affects us all not only in our pocketbook but affects us all because this is the city, the capital city of the greatest democracy on this globe. We have an obligation to talk about public policy here. It is very important to know that the facts of the studies that were brought forward here talked about the additional drug abuse that this policy has brought on, facts that cannot be disputed, that there are additional deaths, facts that cannot be disputed, and additional crime in the area where needles are distributed, and the fact that the police are forced, they are forced to turn their backs on this activity even though they know there is illegal drugs going on, even though they know there is illegal drug paraphernalia being transported and that there may be drug dealers who prey on the most innocent of our society, our children, that they are right there in the vicinity. Yet they must turn their head as a general unwritten policy. It is a bad public policy. It is a bad public policy. That is why it is so important that we defeat the amendment that has just been presented by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), that we vote in favor of the Tiahrt amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that since Republicans took over the House, we have significantly increased the funds for HIV and AIDs awareness. We have significantly increased the funds for research and development to find a solution for this problem. But sometimes you have to come to a point where tough love is the message that you have to send. It has to be a clear message. Do not get involved with drugs. When we go about a program that enables the drug abuser to carry on this kind of activity, we are not sending that clear message. We are sending a message of some type of confirmation from the government, and that is not the message we need to send. Nothing in this bill prevents private funds from conducting a needle exchange program. This just says that any money that goes through this committee is not going to be doing it. There is talk about how this study could be misinterpreted. There is one part of this study that cannot be misinterpreted. The deaths in Vancouver. There were only 18 in 1988. This year they anticipate 600 deaths. They are averaging 10 per week. Those are the bodies in the casket that we heard about earlier here. Those are the people that through this needle exchange program have proliferated their drug use. They have made groups that exchange needles, and the result has been higher HIV, higher deaths. It is time that we break this drug cycle, send a clear message. Do not start. It is time that we slow the spread of HIV infection and the AIDs virus. It is time that we reduce the loss of life in America by quit bringing this enabling program forward. It is opposed by the administration's drug czar. It does not have the blessing of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, local police are opposed to it, leading researchers are opposed to it. The people of America are opposed to needle exchange programs. I think the only compassionate thing to do is to vote for the Tiahrt amendment and stop this activity that is proliferating drug abuse and also allowing for additional loss of life.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would remind the gentlewoman that there is nothing that prevents private funding from doing the needle exchange program. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs).

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules and sage counsel of the Republican side of the House.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will restrict any funds from being used to distribute sterile needles or syringes to people who abuse drugs. It is commonly called the needle exchange program. The reason we are doing this is because it is bad public policy, and we base this decision on whether it is bad public policy on current research. I want to cite a June 8 Wall Street Journal editorial by Dr. Satel, a psychiatrist and lecturer at Yale University School of Medicine, who reported that most needle exchange studies have been full of design errors and, in fact, the more rigorous studies have actually shown an increase in HIV infection among participants in needle exchange programs. They cite two studies, one which was done in Vancouver, which was a study that goes over 10 years, where they have distributed as many as a million needles per year. What they found out is that HIV rates among participants in the needle exchange program is higher than the HIV rate among injecting drug users who do not participate. They also found out that the death rate due to illegal drugs in Vancouver has skyrocketed since the needle exchange program was introduced. In 1988 only 18 deaths were attributed to drugs. This year they are averaging 10 deaths due to drugs per week. They anticipate 600 deaths due to drugs this year, and they attribute that primarily to the needle exchange program and the proliferation of drug abuse. They also found that the highest property crime rates in Vancouver are within a few blocks of the needle exchange program. The place has become a 24-hour drug market. There is open drug injection activity, and it has been bad for the general vicinity and obviously bad for the people who have been involved in the needle exchange program. The other extensive study was done in Montreal, and they find out in Montreal that participants in the needle exchange program were two times more likely to become infected with HIV than those who did not participate in the study. These increased risks were substantial and consistent despite extensive adjustment to the program. Dr. Bruneau, who participated in the study, said that these programs, needle exchange programs, may have facilitated formation of new sharing networks, with the programs becoming a gathering place for isolated addicts. So what we have is a policy that is a bad public policy, and we are hoping to stop that. This policy is also opposed by the drug czar. General Barry McCaffrey has said that as public servants, citizens and parents, we owe to our children an unambiguous no use message, and if they should become ensnared in drugs, we must offer them a way out, not a means to continue this addictive behavior. We have also had local police authorities who, when they stopped the needle exchange program, gave an opinion in Alexandria. Police Chief Charles Samarra said the message of government supplying needles to addicts is clearly contradictory to our Nation's national and local antidrug efforts. This is poor public policy, and it does place the police in a very poor position. Here in the District of Columbia it is the unofficial policy, according to the Office of the District of Columbia Police Chief Charles Ramsey, to look the other way when drug addicts approach this van that distributes the needles. Even though these people may be holding illegal drugs, even though they may be holding illegal drug paraphernalia, even though they may be drug pushers, they have to turn their head. So we think it is bad policy, and we hope we get support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. Tiahrt asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Todd Tiahrt

Speeches

Manage analytics