Letter to the House on D.C. Appropriations Vote

D.C. Appropriations Vote Today

July 29, 1999 

Dear Representative:  

The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges you to support the right of District of Columbia residents and their elected officials to debate and decide for themselves the same policy questions that each of the fifty states may debate and decide for themselves. We ask that you vote against three amendments to the District of Columbia Appropriations bill that will undermine the District's already limited democracy.  

The Largent Amendment would prohibit otherwise qualified unmarried couples in the District of Columbia from adopting children. The Tiahrt Amendment would forbid the District of Columbia from spending even its own money on needle exchange programs. And the Barr Amendment would continue to prohibit the District of Columbia from counting and certifying the results of a voter referendum from last November. All amendments undermine the District of Columbia's fragile democracy and should be defeated.  

These amendments jeopardize the entire D.C. Appropriations bill. In fact:  

• The House Appropriations Committee voted against the Tiahrt and Barr amendments.    
• The Senate-passed version of the bill does not have any of these three amendments.    
• The President's advisors are likely to recommend a veto of the bill if it contains the Largent or Tiahrt amendments.

The Largent Anti-Adoption Amendment

No State Is Prohibited by Federal Law from Applying the Best Interest of the Child Standard to Unmarried Prospective Parents  

Like every state in the country, the District of Columbia courts apply the "best interest of the child" standard in deciding whether to order an adoption. Those decisions rely on exhaustive assessments by experienced medical care and social science professionals, not on political calculations. The federal government does not interfere in the decisions of any state court anywhere in the country on whether a child's placement with unmarried prospective parents is in the child's best interest. District of Columbia courts should not be the only courts forced by federal law to abandon the best interest of the child standard.  

The Adoption Decisions of the D.C. Courts Are Consistent with the Laws of Other States  

The District of Columbia courts have reached the same decision as most state courts considering the same question--namely, that the best interest of the child is sometimes achieved by ordering a joint adoption by unmarried persons. Federal law does not prohibit adoptions by unmarried persons. No state in the country prohibits adoptions by unmarried persons. And only one state prohibits adoptions by gay or lesbian parents. The only other state that had prohibited such adoptions, New Hampshire, repealed its prohibition by an overwhelming bipartisan vote earlier this year.  

Children Are the Victims When Courts Cannot Apply the Best Interest of the Child Standard  

There is a desperate need for qualified adoptive parents in the United States. Of the 500,000 children in foster care in this country in 1996, 100,000 were in need of adoption. Yet, four out of five of these children were never adopted. By needlessly restricting unmarried couples form adopting, this amendment consigns some of these children to foster care when they otherwise could have two loving parents.  

Courts Should Apply the Best Interest of the Child Standard to All Prospective Parents--Including Gay or Lesbian Parents  

The Largent Amendment is not motivated by concern for children forever caught in the foster care system, but by animus towards gay and lesbian parents. But the facts are clear. The Child Welfare League of America has concluded that gay and lesbian prospective parents should be evaluated just like any other adoptive applicants. Moreover, the American Psychological Association has found that "not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." The Largent Amendment is a factually unsupportable attempt to put federal politics ahead of experienced professionals' determinations of the best interest of the child.  

The Tiahrt Anti-Needle Exchange Amendment

No State Is Prohibited By Federal Law From Using Its Own Funds for Needle Exchange  

The Tiahrt amendment would impose a federal requirement on the District that does not apply to any state in our nation. It would prohibit the District from using even its own funds for needle exchange programs. It would exert federal control over the District of Columbia's public health decisions - decisions now made independently by each of the fifty states.  

Many States Fund Needle Exchange Programs with Their Own Dollars  

Current federal practice already bars any federal funds for needle exchange programs. However, the states can make their own public health decision on whether to use their own funds to finance such programs. Many states use their funds for that purpose. In fact, there are more than 113 programs throughout the United States which are supported by state and local governments. The Tiahrt Amendment would single out the District by controlling the city's use of its own public health funds.  

The Tiahrt Amendment Threatens a Comprehensive Private Health Care Provider  

The Tiahrt Amendment is so extreme that it may even jeopardize any governmental funding for organizations that operate needle exchange programs with private money, such as the Whitman-Walker Clinic's successful program. Since 1997, this program has reached an estimated 2,000 injection drug users, and has reduced needle sharing among participants by two-thirds, thus greatly reducing the risk of HIV transmission. Additionally, all drug users were provided free HIV tests as well as information on substance abuse, treatment and rehabilitation. But that program was stopped because of a restriction added to last year's appropriations bill.  

The Tiahrt Amendment Endangers Lives  

Commandeering the District's public health program will endanger lives. The District of Columbia has one of the highest incidences of HIV infection in the country, with almost 66 percent of new cases related to intravenous drug use. This form of transmission of the HIV virus represents a very serious threat to public health. At least seven federally funded studies have held that needle exchange programs can help stop the spread of AIDS without increasing drug use. In Connecticut, for example, needle exchange programs have reduced the percentage of intravenous drug users who share used syringes from 52 percent to 32 percent. Needle exchange programs save lives.  

The Revised Barr Anti-Democracy Amendment

After a strong bipartisan vote against the original Barr amendment last week in the full Appropriations Committee, Congressman Barr revised his amendment. However, it continues to undermine the democratic process by trying to stop a voter referendum held last November from having the effect that it would have if held by any one of the fifty states. In fact, the revised Barr amendment adds several new problems to most of the problems caused by the original Barr anti-democracy amendment. For that reason, the ACLU strongly urges you to vote "NO" on it.  

The Revised Barr Amendment May Undermine Appropriate Sentencing  

The awkwardly drafted Barr amendment may undermine sentencing by misleading prosecutors and courts into believing that they cannot reduce drug sentences for such routine matters as the defendant's cooperation with the prosecution, successful completion of drug rehabilitation, medical necessity, or need to care for a minor dependent. The phrase "otherwise reduce penalties associated with" drug possession or use is clearly overbroad and may tie the hands of courts and prosecutors.  

The Revised Barr Amendment Does Not Specify the Prohibited Activities  

By vaguely prohibiting funds "used to enact or carry out" a group of laws, the revised Barr amendment causes confusion about the continued availability of legal, prescription drugs. A tetrahydrocannabinols derivative, sold under the name Marinol, may be prescribed legally by physicians for the relief of extremely painful symptoms. The revised Barr amendment may mislead the District or physicians into believing that the law authorizing the use of prescription drugs such as Marinol is "carrying out" a prohibited reduction in penalties.  

The Congress Already Has Extraordinary Powers to Stop D.C. Legislation  

There is no reason for Congress to interfere with a referendum process before the votes have even been counted and certified. Although the use of its oversight powers over the District of Columbia is always unwise, the Congress already has (i) the opportunity to veto any new law, including a law enacted by a referendum; (ii) the opportunity for Congress to repeal any part of the D.C. Code; and (iii) the opportunity for Congress to enact any law that it wants for the District of Columbia. The Congress has no reason to interfere with a referendum at such an early stage.  

The District of Columbia Should Have the Same Self-Determination Rights As the States  

The Congress should continue its recent record of supporting the right of District of Columbia residents and their elected officials to debate and decide for themselves the same policy questions that each of the fifty states may debate and decide for themselves. We ask that you vote against all amendments to the District of Columbia Appropriations bill that will undermine the District's already limited democracy.  

The Revised Barr Amendment Could Jeopardize the Entire D.C. Appropriations Bill. In fact:  

• The House Appropriations Committee voted against the original Barr amendment.    
• The Senate-passed version of the bill does not contain any version of the Barr amendment.    
• The President's senior advisors are likely to recommend a veto of the bill if it contains the revised Barr amendment.

Again, we urge you to allow the District of Columbia to have the same power that every state has to make its own public policy decisions.

Very truly yours,

Laura W. Murphy
Director
Washington National Office

Christopher E. Anders
Legislative Counsel
Washington National Office  

Mary Jane DeFrank
Executive Director
ACLU of the National Capital Area