Letter to the Senate in Opposition to Anti-Democracy Riders to the DC Appropriations Bill
Re: Oppose All Anti-Democracy Riders to the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill
Dear Senator:
The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges you to reject all anti-democracy riders to the District of Columbia appropriations bill. We urge you to pass the D.C. Appropriations bill as reported out of the Appropriations Committee--and let Mayor Williams and the rest of the District of Columbia government perform their local government duties at this critical time--without further delay or interference by Congress. This is a particularly inappropriate time to attack the District's already limited democracy.
We understand that several senators are considering offering one anti-democracy rider that was included in the House-passed bill and one rider that was rejected by a bipartisan majority of the House. These amendments would block the District from spending even its own local funds on enforcing its domestic partnership program or supporting a highly effective needle exchange program.
The ACLU 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. Specifically, we ask that you vote "NO" if either of the following amendments is offered:
VOTE "NO" ON ANY AMENDMENT BANNING LOCAL FUNDS FOR THE D.C. DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP STATUTE
A Bipartisan Majority of the House Rejected a Ban on Local Funds for the D.C. Domestic Partnership Statute
41 Republicans and nearly all of the Democrats in the House voted last month to allow the District of Columbia to spend its own local funds on implementing the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992, which is a very modest local domestic partnership statute.
The House-Passed Bill and the Senate Bill Reported Out of Committee Ban Federal Funds, But Not Local Funds
The bipartisan majority in the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee agree that no federal tax dollars will fund the D.C. domestic partnership statute. The fight in the House was over whether the District of Columbia could use its own local funds. The full House and the full Senate Appropriations Committee have decided to allow use of local funds, but prohibit use of federal funds. No one is asking the Senate to allow the use of federal dollars.
The District of Columbia Domestic Partnership Statute Costs Almost Nothing
The D.C. Health Care Expansion Act is a moderate statute. Unlike most other domestic partnership laws passed by more than 100 state or local governments, the D.C. law requires the D.C. government employee to pay the full premium of insuring his or her partner--without any government subsidy. The other principal provisions of the statute include allowing a D.C. government employee to take leave to care for his or her ill domestic partner, and requiring nursing homes and hospitals to allow any registered domestic partners to visit his or her ill partner.
The Senate Should Not Interfere With Family Law Decisions That It Allows States to Make
In exercising their jurisdiction over family law issues, many states have extended important protections to the families of gay men and lesbians and other unmarried couples. This state authority is broadly accepted. In fact, during the vice presidential debates last year, Vice President Cheney explained that:
"The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. . . . And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard. . . . I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area."
The District of Columbia should have the same right as the states to decide this issue for itself.
VOTE "NO" ON ANY AMENDMENT BANNING LOCAL FUNDS FOR NEEDLE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS
As Reported Out of Committee, the Bill Already Bans Federal Funds for Needle Exchange Programs in the District of Columbia
As reported by the Appropriations Committee, the D.C. Appropriations bill already bans all use of federal funds for needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia. However, the House-passed bill would bar the District of Columbia from using even its own money to provide life-saving needle exchange programs.
No State Is Prohibited By Federal Law From Spending Its Own State or Local Funds on Needle Exchange Programs
The House-passed amendment would impose federal requirements on the District that do not apply to any state in our nation. It would exert federal control over the District of Columbia's public health decisions--decisions now made independently by each of the fifty states. In fact, using state, local, or private funds, needle exchange programs operate in more than 80 cities in 30 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.
The House-Passed Amendment Threatens Programs That Work
Even with severe restrictions imposed by Congress, privately-funded organizations operate needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia that work. During the last few years, these programs have reached an estimated 2,000 injection drug users in the District of Columbia, and have 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. However, the House-passed ban on local government funds limits the accessibility of these programs and harms the ability of larger publicly-funded HIV service providers, such as the Whitman-Walker Clinic, to provide needle exchange services.
The House-Passed Amendment Endangers Lives
Congressional commandeering of 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.
Again, we urge you to draw the line on any further harm to democracy in the District of Columbia by voting "NO" on these anti-democracy amendments.
Very truly yours,
Laura W. Murphy
Director
Christopher E. Anders
Legislative Counsel