Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Before I close, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the civility and the tone of this debate. I think it is an important one for us to have, and I always enjoy working with the gentleman from Illinois and want to thank him for his courtesy during this debate.
Having said that, I rise in very, very strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. First, I would like to say what a privilege it is to defend the subcommittee's position, to defend the bill; and I would like to read to my colleagues what the bill says on this issue.
The bill says,
No funds appropriated under this act shall be used to carry out any program of distributing sterile needles for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drugs unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that such programs are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not encourage the use of illegal drugs.
What this amendment will do will remove the discretion from the Secretary of HHS and say that if the Secretary determines that such programs are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do discourage the use of illegal drugs, that she does not have the discretion to have funds used on those needle exchange programs.
I just do not see how that makes sense from a humanitarian standpoint, from a scientific standpoint, or from a fiscal standpoint.
Starting at the fiscal end, if I did not think it would frighten my colleagues so much, I would have brought a hypodermic needle to the floor. The exchange of clean needles is very important in many ways including the fact that one hypodermic needle costs 10 cents.
The medical cost alone, lifetime medical cost alone of a person with HIV/AIDS is $120,000, not counting loss of productive years, taxes that person would pay, and just the human concerns we would have about that person's health. So in the interest of balancing the budget and cutting costs, the prevention a 10-cent hypodermic needle, a clean one, seems to me very cost effective.
We are talking, I want to emphasize to my colleagues, about needle exchange, not needle giveaway. The needle exchange programs do not increase the number of hypodermic needles in circulation because it is an exchange. To get a needle, one must bring a needle in. What these exchange programs do is decrease the number of contaminated needles that are in circulation, and in that way help stop the spread of AIDS.
The needle exchange programs are helping our young people because, in some instances, it is the only way they are drawn into a system of care. That is why on the scientific level there is so much support for lifting this ban or for sticking with the language in our bill.
In February of this year the National Institutes of Health sponsored a consensus development conference on interventions to prevent HIV risk behaviors. The group recommended lifting the current restrictions on the use of Federal funds for needle exchange programs, and that means also supporting groups which use funds for needle exchange programs. Their key findings were a 30 percent, or greater, reduction in HIV and other disease transmission and a preponderance of evidence which shows no change or indeed even decreased drug use.
During the NIH overview hearings that our subcommittee held, Dr. Varmus, the director of the National Institutes of Health, testified that in his view the ban on the use of Federal funds should be lifted and that science supported the findings outlined in section 505 of the appropriations bill. His findings were supported by Dr. Leshner of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Hyman of the National Institutes of Mental Health.
Support the scientists that Congress has asked to give us their opinions. Vote against the Hastert amendment.
