Coverdell
to
Introduce
Amendment
to
Ban
Needle
Exchange
in
District
of
Columbia
7/2/99
Taylor West, [email protected] AIDS Action, a Washington, DC-based organization for AIDS advocacy, is reporting that Senator Paul Coverdell (R-GA) will introduce an amendment to the DC Appropriations bill (S.B. 1283) that bans both federal and local funding of needle exchange programs in the District. The Appropriations bill is scheduled to be debated on the floor of the Senate during the first few days of July. Following that report, President Clinton's office issued a strong statement threatening a possible veto of the Act if such an amendment is added. Coverdell's potential amendment is a continuation of needle exchange restrictions placed on the District by Georgia Representative Bob Barr in last year's appropriations. These restrictions ban private organizations that receive federal or local government money from operating needle exchange, even if the exchange operations are funded by private money. Last year, the ban forced the closure of a DC needle exchange program operated by the Whitman-Walker clinic. Prevention Works!, the only remaining syringe exchange program in the District, operates on a relatively small budget, financed entirely by private contributions. Jeff Jacobs, a spokesperson for AIDS Action, praised Prevention Works!, but explained the limitations created by the strict funding bans. "It is great that people from Prevention Works! can be out on the street, helping people and distributing clean needles. But we would like to see the city health department and Whitman-Walker be able to get involved, because of the extensive linkages they have to health services such as drug treatment and other HIV prevention programs." According to a report released earlier this year by the Washington based group Drug Strategies, the District's death rate from AIDS is more than seven times the national average, and needle sharing accounts for as much as 36% of new HIV/AIDS infections. Needle exchange supporters were heartened somewhat by the Clinton administration's statement of opposition to the Coverdell amendment, although it provides no guarantee of a presidential veto. "We're encouraged that the administration issued this strong rebuke to the amendment," Jacobs said. "We hope that they will follow through and take the appropriate action to remove this language from the appropriations legislation wherever it might be added."
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
