as I said earlier in my remarks, I was going to offer this motion to recommit because I think that it sincerely attempts to address the concerns that have been expressed in the course of the debate on this issue. Not only that, it is consistent with the language of the appropriations bill that brings us here today, actually. Frankly, I was quite disappointed in the actions taken by some of my Republican colleagues, because I thought we had come to a deal on the needle exchange program. When the appropriations bill was passed, it was agreed that the Secretary of Health and Human Services could not lift the ban on the needle exchange programs until March 31, 1998, unless the Congress acted beforehand to prevent her from lifting the ban. It established criteria for the Secretary to lift the ban, and that criteria was that the projects are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not encourage the use of illegal drugs. I think that the scientific information and evidence that we have presented demonstrates conclusively that that is the case. In addition, the Secretary was expected to make a determination based on the review of the relevant science, and the additional science that has come forth in the last 6 months demonstrates even more clearly the strong scientific basis, without which we would never ask our colleagues to make this vote.
Nancy Pelosi: “as I said earlier in my remarks, I was going to offer this motion to recommit because I think that it sincerely attempts…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the motion to recommit related to needle exchange programs during a debate on an appropriations bill.
Share
More from Nancy Pelosi
Today, the Massie Amendment presents an unfortunate choice to the House. As one who is committed to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and supportive of a two-state solution, I respect Leader Jeffries’ decisive proposals to achieve a just…
Today, the Massie Amendment presents an unfortunate choice to the House. As one who is committed to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and supportive of a two-state solution, I respect Leader Jeffries’ decisive proposals to achieve a just…
This extraordinary federal review which singles out California is based upon a thinly veiled and non-evidential argument.





