A longtime supporter of syringe exchange programs, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34) spoke today in the U.S. House of Representatives against an attempt to ban federal funding for the initiative.
Background about the issue from the national advocacy organization, AIDS Action: The amendment proposed by Rep. Mark Souder would have, if enacted, prohibited federal funding for syringe exchange programs. Annually, nearly 8,000 Americans contract HIV/AIDS and approximately 12,000 Americans contract the hepatitis C virus directly or indirectly from sharing contaminated syringes.
Eight federally funded programs have shown that syringe exchange programs are effective in reducing HIV infection. In 2008, the Centers for Disease control and Prevention concluded that syringe exchange programs accounted for an 80 percent decrease in HIV infections among drug users. Additionally, more recent studies suggest such programs also reduce hepatitis C infections.
In opposing the amendment, public health advocates called upon Members of Congress to sustain the Appropriation Committee's sound decision (which included Congresswoman Roybal-Allard’s vote) to allow states and local jurisdictions to decide on the most effective, science and evidence-based approach to HIV prevention for their communities.
The amendment opposing federal funding for syringe exchange programs failed today (July 24, 2009) by a vote of 211 (Yeas) to 218 (Nays).
Prior to the vote, Congresswoman Roybal-Allard made the following statement: “Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. Prior to elected office, I worked in alcohol and drug prevention programs, and saw firsthand the power and destructive nature of drug addiction. I saw it destroy the life of the user, and I saw the agony it caused the family. I would never support a measure that encourages or contributes to the use of illegal drugs.
Chairman Obey’s leadership in eliminating the ban on federal dollars for needle exchange programs is based on sound scientific research that tells us these programs are a valuable HIV prevention tool that does not increase drug use.
Mr. Souder’s amendment reinstates this ill-advised ban and returns us to a practice of allowing personal belief rather than science to direct our federal funding decisions. The science is clear. When addicts have clean needles available, the incidence of HIV infection declines among users.
Furthermore, needle exchange programs provide a critical portal to treatment and are an important part of our efforts to reduce the HIV epidemic. I urge my colleagues to follow the science and join me in voting NO on this amendment.”
###
