[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 158 (Wednesday, November 10, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14439-S14473]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT OF 1999

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 625 which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 625) to amend title 11, United States Code, and 
     for other purposes.

       Pending:

       Kohl amendment No. 2516, to limit the value of certain real 
     or personal property a debtor may elect to exempt under State 
     or local law.
       Sessions amendment No. 2518 (to amendment No. 2516), to 
     limit the value of certain real or personal property a debtor 
     may elect to exempt under State or local law.
       Feingold amendment No. 2522, to provide for the expenses of 
     long term care.
       Hatch/Torricelli amendment No. 1729, to provide for 
     domestic support obligations.
       Leahy amendment No. 2529, to save United States taxpayers 
     $24,000,000 by eliminating the blanket mandate relating to 
     the filing of tax returns.
       Wellstone amendment No. 2537, to disallow claims of certain 
     insured depository institutions.
       Wellstone amendment No. 2538, with respect to the 
     disallowance of certain claims and to prohibit certain 
     coercive debt collection practices.
       Feinstein amendment No. 1696, to limit the amount of credit 
     extended under an open end consumer credit plan to persons 
     under the age of 21.
       Feinstein amendment No. 2755, to discourage indiscriminate 
     extensions of credit and resulting consumer insolvency.
       Schumer/Durbin amendment No. 2759, with respect to national 
     standards and homeowner home maintenance costs.
       Schumer/Durbin amendment No. 2762, to modify the means test 
     relating to safe harbor provisions.
       Schumer amendment No. 2763, to ensure that debts incurred 
     as a result of clinic violence are nondischargeable.
       Schumer amendment No. 2764, to provide for greater accuracy 
     in certain means testing.
       Schumer amendment No. 2765, to include certain dislocated 
     workers' expenses in the debtor's monthly expenses.
       Dodd amendment No. 2531, to protect certain education 
     savings.
       Dodd Modified amendment No. 2532, to provide for greater 
     protection of children.
       Dodd amendment No. 2753, to amend the Truth in Lending Act 
     to provide for enhanced information regarding credit card 
     balance payment terms and conditions, and to provide for 
     enhanced reporting of credit card solicitations to the Board 
     of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and to Congress.
       Hatch/Dodd/Gregg amendment No. 2536, to protect certain 
     education savings.
       Feingold amendment No. 2748, to provide for an exception to 
     a limitation on an automatic stay under section 362(b) of 
     title 11, United States Code, relating to evictions and 
     similar proceedings to provide for the payment of rent that 
     becomes due after the petition of a debtor is filed.
       Schumer/Santorum amendment No. 2761, to improve disclosure 
     of the annual percentage rate for purchases applicable to 
     credit card accounts.
       Durbin amendment No. 2659, to modify certain provisions 
     relating to pre-bankruptcy financial counseling.
       Durbin amendment No. 2661, to establish parameters for 
     presuming that the filing of a case under chapter 7 of title 
     11, United States Code, does not constitute an abuse of that 
     chapter.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, is recognized to call up amendment No. 
2771 on which there shall be 4 hours of debate equally divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of 
the amendment offered by Senator Hatch, Senator Abraham, and myself.
  This amendment contains the text of S. 486--


                           Amendment No. 2771

 (Purpose: Relating to methamphetamine and other controlled substances)

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If the Senator will suspend, the 
amendment needs to be offered and the time is under the control of the 
Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
have 5 seconds for a unanimous consent request after the amendment is 
offered.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], for Mr. Hatch, for 
     himself, Mr. Ashcroft, and Mr. Abraham, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2771.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of Friday, 
November 5, 1999, under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to have the Senator from 
Minnesota have the floor to make a unanimous consent request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Iowa. I ask 
unanimous consent that following the votes, we move to the Kohl 
amendment, but if there is not agreement to do so, we then move to my 
amendment No. 2752 which deals with a merger moratorium.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Iowa.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.
  I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of an 
amendment offered by Senator Hatch and by Senator Abraham and by me. 
This amendment contains the text of S. 486, the Methamphetamine 
Antiproliferation Act of 1999. It is a comprehensive 
antimethamphetamine bill that I am grateful to have the opportunity of 
saying is built upon what we called DEFEAT Meth legislation that I 
introduced earlier this year. It reflects a tremendous amount of truly 
bipartisan work by the members of the Judiciary Committee cooperating 
to address a threat which was once thought to have been very localized 
but is a threat now that is literally reaching from sea to sea.
  The reason for the level of bipartisan effort, of course, in crafting 
this bill is the recognition by all involved that it is needed to 
combat one of the fastest growing threats to America, the explosive 
problem of methamphetamine. When I say explosive, I do not just refer 
to the fact that those cooking or producing methamphetamines are using 
dangerous chemicals that often result in explosions and house fires. It 
has exploded in terms of growth across our culture, and we need to 
curtail it.

[[Page S14440]]

  Today we are blessed and privileged to live in a period of great 
national prosperity, but with prosperity sometimes comes apathy or 
complacency. Unfortunately, this is the perfect breeding ground for 
drug abuse. Worse still, apathy and complacency not only foster drug 
abuse, they hamper our society's ability to combat drug abuse and other 
social ills. We have not been combating drug abuse effectively enough 
as a culture, and for that reason we have been working on this measure 
to increase and elevate our effectiveness against this most dangerous 
of drugs.
  As I have noted many times before, under this administration we have 
been backsliding in the war against drugs. Marijuana use by 8th graders 
has increased 176 percent since 1992, and cocaine and heroin use among 
10th graders has more than doubled in the last 7 years. And now we need 
to add to these failings the burgeoning epidemic of methamphetamines.
  Methamphetamines have had their roots on the west coast and for a 
long time in other parts of the country, but the epidemic has now 
exploded in middle America. Meth in the 1990s is what cocaine was in 
the 1980s and heroin was in the 1970s. It is currently the largest drug 
threat we face in my home State of Missouri. Unfortunately, it may be 
coming soon to a city or town near you. If you wanted to design a drug 
to have the worst possible effect on your community, you would probably 
design methamphetamine. It is highly addictive, highly destructive, 
cheap, and it is easy to manufacture.
  To give you an idea of the scope of the problem, in 1992 law 
enforcement seized 2 clandestine meth labs in my home State of 
Missouri; by 1994, there were 14 seizures; by 1998, there were 679 
clandestine meth lab seizures in the State of Missouri alone.
  When we talk about a clandestine meth lab, we are talking about a 
place where people are making or manufacturing methamphetamines. Based 
on the figures collected so far this year, however, the number will 
jump again this year to over 800 meth labs to be seized in the State of 
Missouri.
  Let us put that in perspective: 2 in 1992, 800 in 1999. By any 
definition, this is a problem that commands our attention. And with 
this growth have come all kinds of difficult challenges and problems. 
As meth use has increased, domestic abuse, child abuse, burglaries, and 
meth-related murders have also increased. From 1992 to 1998, meth-
related emergency room incidents increased 63 percent.
  What is most unacceptable is that meth is ensnaring our children. In 
1997, the percentage of 12th graders who used meth was double the 1992 
level. In recent conversations I have had with local law enforcement 
officers in Missouri, they estimate that as many as 10 percent of high 
school students know the recipe for methamphetamines. In fact, one need 
only log onto the Internet to find scores of web sites giving detailed 
instructions about how to set up your own meth lab or production 
facility. This is unacceptable.

  We in the Congress have taken these indicators seriously. In the past 
two appropriations cycles, we have appropriated $11 million and then 
$24.5 million for the drug enforcement administration to train local 
law enforcement officials in the interdiction, finding, discovering, 
and then cleaning up of methamphetamine labs.
  Despite these appropriations, the meth problem continues to grow. I 
believe it is time we dedicate more resources to stopping this scourge 
once and for all. So that is why I am so committed to passing S. 486, 
the Methamphetamine Antiproliferation Act of 1999, as part of this 
bill.
  This amendment provides the necessary weapons to fight the growing 
meth problem in this country, including the authorization of $5.5 
million for DEA programs to train State and local law enforcement in 
techniques used in meth investigation. There is $9.5 million for hiring 
new Drug Enforcement Administration agents to assist State and local 
law enforcement in small and midsized communities. There is $15 million 
for school and community-based meth abuse and addiction prevention 
programs; $10 million for the treatment of meth addicts; and $15 
million to the Office of the National Drug Control Policy to combat 
trafficking of meth in designated high-intensity drug trafficking areas 
which have had great success in Missouri and the Midwest in bringing 
attention to, focus upon, and eradication of the methamphetamine 
problem.
  This bill also amends the sentencing guidelines by increasing the 
mandatory minimum sentences for manufacturing meth and significantly 
increasing mandatory minimum sentences if the offense created a risk of 
harm to the life of a minor or an incompetent.
  As I have traveled across my own State of Missouri, I have learned 
about cases where methamphetamines were being produced in the presence 
of children--children contaminated chemically by the processes and the 
byproducts of meth production. It is time we make a clear statement 
that we will not sacrifice our children on the altar of methamphetamine 
production. We must have serious increased, mandatory minimum sentences 
for putting at risk the life of a child in the creation and development 
of methamphetamines.
  Furthermore, the amendment includes meth paraphernalia in the Federal 
list of illegal paraphernalia.
  For a long time, drug paraphernalia relating to other serious drug 
scourges has been outlawed. The maintenance or development of, and the 
utilization of paraphernalia in those settings has been inappropriate 
and wrong. Now we are going to add meth paraphernalia to that Federal 
list of illegal paraphernalia.
  By focusing on reducing the supply through interdiction and 
punishment, we will make some progress, but that progress is not 
enough. The amendment authorizes substantial resources for education 
and prevention targeted specifically at the problem of meth. As I said 
earlier, law enforcement in Missouri tells me 10 percent of the high 
school students know the recipe for meth. I want 100 percent of the 
high school students to know that meth is the recipe for disaster.
  Meth presents us with a formidable challenge. We have faced other 
challenges in the past, and we can face this challenge as well. In 
fact, the history of America is one of meeting challenges and 
surpassing people's highest expectations. Meth is no exception. All it 
will take is that we marshal our will and we channel the great, 
indomitable American spirit. If we focus our energy on this problem, we 
can add substantially to the safety and to the health and to the future 
and opportunities for our young people. Through legislative efforts 
like this amendment, we will meet this new meth challenge and defeat 
it, and I urge Members of this body to work hard to make sure this 
effort to defeat meth becomes a part of the law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If my colleague will yield for 1 second, I ask 
unanimous consent that following the Senator from Utah and the Senator 
from Vermont, I may then speak on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senators Ashcroft, Abraham, Hutchinson, Helms, Grams, and 
Allard that contains new and responsible measures aimed primarily at 
curbing the manufacturing, trafficking, and abuse of methamphetamine, a 
destructive drug that is sweeping across our country. We must act now 
to stop this plague before it destroys the lives of many of our fellow 
citizens.
  I hope that the administration will take advantage of this 
legislation and finally begin, in its seventh year, to take serious 
steps to enforce our drug laws. Sadly, the Clinton-Gore administration 
has failed miserably at keeping drugs away from our youth. The 
administration recently boasted that reported illicit drug use by 
children 12 to 17 years of age is down this year. What the 
administration is trying to conceal, however, is that, since it took 
office, drug use among this same group of children more than doubled. 
Even with the current dip, the rate is still nearly twice what it was 
when President Clinton and Vice-President Gore took office. America's 
history of fighting illegal drugs has been long and tiring, but with so 
many Americans' lives being ruined by this drug, now is not the time to 
give up--it is a time to fight smarter and harder.

[[Page S14441]]

  This amendment will provide law enforcement with several effective 
tools, including proven prevention and treatment programs, that will 
help us turn the tide of proliferation of methamphetamine use. A 
significant portion of this amendment reflects language that was passed 
unanimously in the Judiciary Committee earlier this year. This 
language, which enjoyed the sponsorship of Senators Leahy, Ashcroft, 
Feinstein, DeWine, Biden, Grassley, Thurmond, and Kohl, represented a 
bipartisan effort to combat methamphetamine manufacturing and 
trafficking in America.
  Methamphetamine, also known on the streets as ``meth,'' ``speed,'' 
``crank,'' ``ice,'' and ``crystal meth,'' is a highly toxic and 
addictive stimulant that severely affects the central nervous system, 
induces uncontrollabe, violent behavior and extreme psychiatric and 
psychological symptoms, and eventually leads some of its abusers to 
suicide or even murder. Methamphetamine, first popularized by outlaw 
biker gangs in the late 1970's, is now being manufactured in makeshift 
laboratories across the country by criminals who are determined to 
undermine our drug laws and profit from the addiction of others.
  So what can we do about the problem? Three years ago, I authored, and 
Congress passed, the Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996. This 
legislation, which also enjoyed bipartisan support, aimed at curbing 
the diversion of commonly used precursor chemicals and mandated strict 
reporting requirements on their sale. This law has allowed the DEA, 
along with the help of industry, to stop large quantities of precursor 
chemicals from being purchased in the United States and being used to 
manufacture methamphetamine. But, as the methamphetamine problem 
continues to grow, more can and should be done to help law enforcement 
uncover, arrest, and hold accountable those who produce this drug.
  The methamphetamine threat differs in kind from the threat of other 
illegal drugs because methamphetamine can be made from readily 
available and legal chemicals, and because it poses serious danagers to 
both human life and the environment. According to a report prepared by 
the Community Epidemiology Work Group, which is part of the National 
Institute on Drug Abuse, methamphetamine abuse levels ``remain high . . 
. and there is strong evidence to suggest this drug will continue to be 
a problem in west coast areas and to spread to other areas of the 
United States.'' The reasons given for this ominous prediction are that 
methamphetamine can be produced easily in small, clandestine 
laboratories, and that the chemicals used to make methamphetamine are 
readily available.
  This threat is real and immediate, and the numbers are telling. 
According to the Drug Enforcement Administration--DEA, the number of 
labs cleaned up by the administration has almost doubled each year 
since 1995. Last year, more than 5,500 amphetamine and methamphetamine 
labs were seized by DEA and State and local law enforcement officials, 
and millions of dollars were spent on cleaning up the pollutants and 
toxins created and left behind by operators of these labs. In Utah 
alone, there were 266 lab seizures last year, a number which elevated 
Utah to the unenviable position of being ranked third in the Nation for 
highest per capita clandestine lab seizures.
  The problem with the high number of manufacturing labs is compounded 
by the fact that the chemicals and substances utilized in the 
manufacturing process are unstable, volatile, and highly combustible. 
The smallest amounts of these chemicals, when mixed improperly, can 
cause explosions and fires. And of course, most of those operating 
methamphetamine labs are not scientists, but rather unskilled 
criminals, who are completely apathetic to the destruction that is 
inherent in the manufacturing process. It is even more frightening when 
you consider that many of these labs are found in residences, motels, 
trailers, and even automobiles, and many are operated in the presence 
of children.
  I will never forget the tragedy of the three young children who were 
burned to death when a methamphetamine lab, operated by their mother in 
a trailer home in California, exploded and caught fire, as reported in 
an article:
  ``Meth Madness: Home deaths ruled felony murder,'' in the San Diego 
Union Tribune, 11/30/96. I honestly do not know which is worse: using 
methamphetamine or manufacturing it. Either way, methamphetamine is 
killing our kids.
  Another problem we face is that it doesn't take a lot of ingenuity or 
resources to manufacture methamphetamine. This drug is manufactured 
from readily available and legal substances, and there are countless 
Internet web sites that provide detailed instructions for making 
methamphetamine. Anyone who has access to the Internet has access to 
the recipe for this deadly drug. In fact, one pro-drug Internet site 
contains more than 70 links to sites that provide detailed information 
on how to manufacture illicit drugs, including methamphetamine.
  Let me take a moment to highlight some of the provisions of this 
amendment that will assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement in 
preventing the proliferation of methamphetamine manufacturing in 
America.
  This amendment will bolster the DEA's ability to combat the 
manufacturing and trafficking of methamphetamine, by authorizing the 
creation of satellite offices and the hiring of additional agents to 
assist State and local law enforcement officials. More than any other 
drug, methamphetamine manufacturers and traffickers operate in small 
towns and rural areas. Unfortunately, rural law enforcement agencies 
often are overwhelmed and in dire need of the DEA's expertise in 
conducting methamphetamine investigations. In addition, this amendment 
will assist State and local officials in handling the dangerous toxic 
waste left behind by methamphetamine labs.
  Another important section of the bill will help prevent the 
manufacture of methamphetamine by prohibiting the dissemination of drug 
recipes on the Internet. As mentioned earlier, there are hundreds of 
sites on the Internet that describe how to manufacture methamphetamine. 
These step-by-step instructions will be illegal under this bill if the 
person posting the information or the person receiving the information 
intends to engage in activity that violates our drug laws.
  In 1992, Congress passed a law that made it illegal for anyone to 
sell or offer for sale drug paraphernalia. This law resulted in the 
closing of numerous so-called ``head shops.'' Unfortunately, now some 
merchants sell illegal drug paraphernalia on the Internet. This bill 
will amend the anti-drug paraphernalia statute to clarify that the ban 
includes Internet advertising for the sale of controlled substances and 
drug paraphernalia. The provision will also prohibit a web site that 
does not sell drug paraphernalia from allowing other sites that do from 
advertising on its web site.
  This amendment contains many references to the drug amphetamine, a 
lesser-known, but no-less dangerous drug. Other than for a slight 
difference in potency, amphetamine is manufactured, sold, and used in 
the same manner as methamphetamine. And, amphetamine labs pose the same 
dangers as methamphetamine labs. Indeed, every law enforcement officer 
with whom I have spoken agreed that the penalties for amphetamine 
should be the same as those for methamphetamine. For these reasons, 
this amendment seeks to equalize the punishment for manufacturing and 
trafficking the two drugs.
  To counter the dangers that manufacturing drugs like methamphetamine 
inflict on human life and on the environment, this amendment imposes 
stiffer penalties on manufacturers of all illegal drugs when their 
actions create a substantial risk of harm to human life or to the 
environment. The inherent dangers of killing innocent bystanders and 
contaminating the environment warrant a punitive penalty that will 
deter criminals from engaging in the activity.
  This amendment also seeks to keep all drugs away from children and to 
punish severely those who prey on our children, especially while at 
school away from their parents. Indeed, studies indicate that drug use 
goes hand in hand with poor academic performance. To this end, this 
amendment would increase the penalties for distributing illegal drugs 
to minors and for distributing illegal drugs near schools and

[[Page S14442]]

other locations frequented by juveniles. The amendment also would 
require school districts that receive Federal funds to have policies 
expelling students who bring drugs on school grounds either in 
felonious quantities or with an intent to distribute in the same manner 
as students who bring firearms to school. Additionally, this amendment 
would allow school districts to use Federal education funds to provide 
compensation and services to elementary and secondary school students 
who are victims of school violence as defined by state law.
  While we know that vigorous law enforcement measures are necessary to 
combat the scourge of illegal drugs, we also recognize that we must act 
to prevent our youth from ever starting down the path of drug abuse. We 
also must find ways to treat those who have become trapped in 
addiction. For these reasons, the amendment contains several 
significant prevention and treatment provisions.
  Arguably, the most important treatment provision in this amendment 
offers an innovative approach to how opiate-addicted patients can seek 
and obtain treatment. As science and medicine continue to make 
significant strides in developing drugs that promise to make treatment 
more effective, we must pave the way to ensure that these drugs can be 
prescribed in an effective manner and in an appropriate treatment 
setting. Indeed, this provision does exactly this, by fostering a 
decentralized system of treating heroin addicts with the new generation 
of anti-addiction medications that are under development.

  By cutting the existing redtape that serves as a substantial 
disincentive for qualified physicians to treat drug addicts, this 
amendment acts as a spur for private sector pharmaceutical firms, 
working in close partnership with academic and government researchers 
and the drug abuse treatment community, to develop the next generation 
of anti-addiction medications for opiate addicts. This new system to 
treat heroin addicts can also act as a model that can be expanded in 
the future, as anti-addictive medications are developed, to encompass 
the treatment of other forms of drug addiction.
  I want to commend Senators Levin, Biden, and Moynihan who have worked 
tirelessly with me in the best spirit of bipartisanship to bring about 
not just this measure but also to bring about the day in the future 
that this new treatment paradigm becomes the norm for treating patients 
addicted to drugs. I also want to recognize the efforts of the experts 
at the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services for 
providing their views on this measure.
  Learning how to treat drug addiction is an essential component in 
America's battle to conquer drug abuse. I am proud to have worked with 
my colleagues in creating this new approach that undoubtedly will 
improve the ability for many to obtain successful treatment.
  I also support the provision of this amendment that contains the 
Powder Cocaine Sentencing Act of 1999. This measure strengthens Federal 
law by increasing the penalties against powder cocaine dealers by 
reducing from 500 to 50 grams the amount of powder cocaine a person 
must be convicted of distributing in order to receive a mandatory 5-
year minimum sentence in Federal prison. By increasing the penalty for 
powder cocaine offenses, this measure fairly and effectively reduces 
the sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine.
  It is important to our criminal justice system that the disparity in 
sentences between powder and crack cocaine be reduced. Many people whom 
I respect, including law enforcement officials and academics, believe 
that the harsher penalties for crack cocaine generally unfairly affect 
minority Americans and the poor. Senator Sessions, whom I admire a 
great deal, was an accomplished Federal prosecutor for 12 years. He 
believes passionately that Congress should reduce the disparity in 
sentences between powder and crack cocaine. While my own solution for 
reducing the disparity differs somewhat from that suggested by Senator 
Sessions, he offers a prominent example of an experienced prosecutor 
who believes that this disparity should be reduced.
  This legislation will reduce the differential between the quantity of 
powder and crack cocaine required to trigger a 5-year mandatory minimum 
sentence from 100 to 1 to 10 to 1--the same ratio proposed by the 
administration. But this legislation will accomplish that goal--not by 
making sentences for crack cocaine dealers more lenient--but rather by 
increasing sentences for powder cocaine dealers. We should not reduce 
the Federal penalties for crack cocaine dealers. It would send 
absolutely the wrong message to the American people, especially given 
the disturbing increase in teenage drug use during much of the Clinton 
administration.
  This measure is the right approach at the right time. I commend 
Senator Abraham for his tireless efforts in this matter. Reducing the 
disparity between crack and powder cocaine will help maintain the 
confidence of all Americans in the Federal criminal justice system and 
will provide more appropriate punishment for powder cocaine violations.
  The amendment I have offered also contains a provision that requires 
the FBI to prepare a report assessing the threat posed by President 
Clinton's grant of clemency to FALN and Los Macheteros terrorists. As 
is now well known, the grant of clemency freed terrorists belonging to 
groups that openly advocate a war against the United States and its 
citizens. And, the FALN and Los Macheteros--including the clemency 
recipients--have actively waged such a war by, among other acts, 
planting more than 130 bombs in public places, including shopping malls 
and restaurants. Those bombs killed several people, maimed others, and 
destroyed property worth millions of dollars.
  Over the past several months, the Judiciary Committee has sought 
answers to the many questions raised by the President's clemency grant. 
Unfortunately, we have been repeatedly stymied by this administration's 
decision to deploy Executive privilege as a shield against public 
accountability. Despite this stonewalling, the committee's 
investigation has led to the troubling conclusion that the release of 
these individuals may well have increased the risk of domestic 
terrorism posed by the FALN and Los Macheteros. This amendment insures 
that the FBI can fully assess this risk, and that the Congress and the 
American people are fully apprised of the FBI's findings.
  In conclusion, I believe that this amendment contains many tools 
essential to our struggle against illegal drug manufacturing and use. 
We can defeat those who make and sell illicit drugs, and we must fight 
this plague for the sake of our children and grandchildren. Drug use is 
a poisonous, nationwide epidemic; it is a battle we must fight until we 
have succeeded. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. LEAHY. Of course.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Hutchinson, Helms, Allard, and Grams be added as original cosponsors of 
the Hatch-Ashcroft-Abraham drug amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. With the distinguished Senator from Utah and the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa here, I ask unanimous consent to be 
able to proceed not on the amendment but on the bill for certainly not 
to exceed 12 minutes, just to let everybody know where we are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I understand this time is not coming out of the time of 
either side, just so people understand.
  Mr. President, yesterday we made some progress on the bill and were 
able to clear 22 amendments to improve it. Those were amendments 
offered by both Democrats and Republicans. Senator Torricelli, the 
ranking member of the appropriate subcommittee, and I have been working 
in good faith with Senator Grassley, the chairman of the appropriate 
subcommittee, and Senator Hatch, the chairman of the full committee, to 
clear amendments. We will try to make some more progress on amendments 
today.

[[Page S14443]]

  I thank the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Utah for their 
willingness to accept my amendment to provide that the expenses needed 
to protect debtors and their families from domestic violence is 
properly considered in bankruptcy proceedings. Domestic violence 
remains a serious problem in our society. We need to do all we can to 
protect victims and potential victims of domestic violence.
  Some of the other amendments we accepted are also quite important. 
For example, we improved the bill by accepting an amendment offered by 
Senators Grassley, Torricelli, Specter, Feingold, and Biden, giving 
bankruptcy judges the discretion to waive the $175 filing fee for 
chapter 7 cases for debtors whose annual income is less than 125 
percent of the poverty level. Bankruptcy is the only civil proceeding 
that in forma pauperis filing status is not permitted. This amendment 
corrects that anomaly.
  We also accepted a Feingold-Specter amendment which improves the bill 
by striking the requirement that a debtor's attorney must pay a 
trustee's attorney's fees if the debtor is not ``substantially 
justified'' in filing for chapter 7. The bill's current requirement 
that a debtor's attorney must pay a trustee's attorneys' fees could 
chill eligible debtors from filing chapter 7 because they could fear 
they would have to pay future attorney's fees. This is something we had 
tried to correct when the committee considered the bill. I am glad we 
have finally done so.
  I commend Senators who came to the floor on Friday and Monday and 
yesterday to offer their amendments. Despite only 4 hours of debate on 
Friday, and 4 hours on Monday, and, of course, yesterday we had our 
party caucuses, and we had extended debate on two nongermane, 
nonrelevant amendments on other matters, Senators from both sides of 
the aisle have offered 49 amendments to improve the bill. And we 
disposed of 27 of those so far in this debate.

  I hope all Senators with amendments will continue to come to the 
floor today to offer their relevant amendments.
  But unfortunately, while we continue to make progress on the 
underlying bill in some regards, the Senate's two votes rejecting 
important amendments offered by Senators Durbin and Dodd were missed 
opportunities to improve the bill.
  Senator Durbin's amendment would have allowed us to confront 
predatory lending practices. Senator Dodd's would have provided some 
restraint on the virtually unrestrained solicitation of young people by 
the credit card industry.
  I spoke earlier about the Austin Powers credit card campaign. Kids 
going into the movie theater to see ``Austin Powers'' were given a 
chance to get a credit card with a long credit line and get a free 
Coke, too, if they wanted, but they could also end up with 10-, 25- and 
almost 30-percent interest payments. I think many who got that suddenly 
found it was the most expensive soft drink they ever got at a movie.
  These are the practices on which we ought to put some limits. It does 
not help when the credit card companies come here crying crocodile 
tears that these children they have given credit cards to suddenly 
actually used them and have run up huge debts, or the people who have 
been given unrestrained credit cards actually use them and have run up 
huge debts. So I commend Senators Durbin and Dodd for their amendments. 
We actually should have accepted both of them.
  Most importantly, yesterday the Senate took several actions that will 
make it much harder to enact bankruptcy reform legislation. The Senate 
rejected the Kennedy amendment to provide a real minimum-wage increase 
and, on a virtually party-line vote, chose to adopt an amendment that 
includes special interest tax breaks that are not paid for, under the 
guise of being a real increase in the minimum wage, when in fact it is 
not.
  The President has now promised to veto the bill if it reaches his 
desk in this form. He noted that the Republican majority used its 
amendment ``as a cynical tool to advance special interest tax breaks,'' 
which it was.
  The Senate's actions yesterday in these regards were both unfortunate 
and unwise.
  I ask unanimous consent that this morning's editorial from the 
Washington Post about the bankruptcy bill and the Senate's action 
yesterday be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Washington Post, November 10, 1999]

                         What Bankruptcy Bill?

       The Senate spent much of yesterday debating and coming to 
     wrong conclusions on the minimum wage and tax cuts. It 
     intended then to debate propositions having to do with school 
     aid, agribusiness, drug policy and the future of East Timor. 
     Under an agreement between the parties, the results of these 
     deliberations were to be attached as amendments or political 
     ornaments, take your pick, to an underlying bill that would 
     significantly tighten bankruptcy law. But very little debate 
     seemed likely on the bill itself, and that is wrong. Aside 
     perhaps from the minimum wage, the underlying bill is more 
     important than the ornamentation. In several respects it is 
     defective and has the potential to do serious harm.
       The question in bankruptcy law is always the same: how to 
     achieve a balance between society's interests in seeing that 
     people pay their debts and the need to prevent debtors from 
     being permanently ruined by them. The strong economy in 
     recent years, together with competition in the credit card 
     industry, has produced a sharp increase in consumer use of 
     credit. There has been a related spike, now perhaps 
     subsiding, in bankruptcies. The bill seeks to make sure that 
     people don't take undue advantage of the bankruptcy laws--
     that those who can reasonably be expected to pay at least a 
     part of their debts aren't excused entirely. That's plainly 
     fair, and there seems to be broad agreement that the law need 
     some toughening. But critics, including the administration 
     and a number of civil rights groups, believe the legislation 
     tilts too far.
       There are multiple issues, but basically the administration 
     would make it easier for people at or below the median income 
     to qualify for the kind of bankruptcy in which most debts are 
     excused, and harder for creditors to dislodge them. The 
     administration would also like to impose additional 
     disclosure and other requirements on credit card companies, 
     whose blandishments it believes are partly responsible for 
     the current problem.
       But the House already has passed by a veto-proof 313 to 108 
     an even tougher bankruptcy bill, and the complexity of the 
     issues together with the impatience of the Senate leaves the 
     administration in a weak position. The Senate yesterday voted 
     along party lines for a slower minimum wage increase than the 
     president wants, together with a costly and regressive tax 
     cut. He says he'll veto a bankruptcy bill to which those are 
     attached, as, at least in the case of the tax cut, he should. 
     What he'll do if eventually the bankruptcy bill is sent to 
     him separately is unclear.
       What Congress should do, before it sends him the bill, is 
     make sure that in the name of financial responsibility it 
     doesn't unduly squeeze people who, because of job loss, 
     family breakup, medical bills, etc. can't help themselves. It 
     isn't clear that in the episodic legislative process thus far 
     that balance has been achieved.

  Mr. LEAHY. In addition to those provisions adopted yesterday, I want 
to raise again the question of the costs and the burdens of this bill. 
We have not talked here about the costs of this bill. But according to 
the Congressional Budget Office--and this is what everybody watching 
who is interested in this debate ought to stop and ask themselves: Is 
this an improvement in our bankruptcy laws or are the taxpayers going 
to pay for it?
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill reported by 
the Judiciary Committee will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The 
cost to the Federal Government, estimated by CBO, is at least $218 
million over the next 5 years.
  Much of the cost will be borne by our bankruptcy and Federal courts 
without any provision to assist them in fulfilling the mandates of this 
bill. Dockets are already overcrowded in our bankruptcy courts. We are 
not providing new judges. We are now suddenly telling those bankruptcy 
judges and Federal judges to carry an even heavier burden, but we will 
not give them additional resources. As a practical matter, somebody is 
going to have to pay. We are going to have to pay because the courts 
will get so clogged, the reaction will be to improve that, and we will 
have to pay for that.
  We have to ask, who are the principal beneficiaries? Right now, they 
are the companies that make up the credit industry. I searched high and 
low in the bill for the provisions by which these companies are asked 
to pay for these mandates that benefit them or even contribute to the 
costs and burdens of the bill, a bill that they support. If

[[Page S14444]]

they are getting these huge benefits, are they required to pay anything 
for them? They are not. I can find no provisions by which credit card 
companies and others who expect to receive a multibillion-dollar 
windfall from this bill will have to pay the added costs of this 
measure.
  Investing a couple hundred million of taxpayers' money to make 
several billion dollars for the credit card industry might seem to be a 
good business investment but not if the taxpayers have to pick up the 
bill to hand over a multibillion-dollar benefit to the credit card 
companies.
  In addition to these costs to the Federal Government, there are the 
additional mandates imposed on the private sector. We keep saying how 
we want to keep Government off the back of the private sector. In fact, 
CBO estimates the private sector mandates imposed by just two sections 
of the bill will result in annual increased costs of between $280 
million and $940 million a year. Are we willing to tell the private 
sector that with this bill we are, in effect, putting a tax on them of 
$280 million to $940 million a year, which over 5 years will amount to 
between $1.4 billion and $4.7 billion to be borne by the private 
sector? If we vote for this bill, are we going to tell them we just 
gave that kind of a tax increase to them?

  The CBO estimate explains these costs are likely to be borne by the 
bankruptcy debtors, thereby ``reducing the pool of funds available to 
creditors.'' You pay at the beginning or you pay in the end, but you 
are going to pay.
  So all in all, this amounts to a bill of an estimated cost over 5 
years of $5 billion to be borne by taxpayers and debtors so the credit 
industry can pocket another $5 billion. Not a bad day's work by the 
credit industry lobbyists but not a good result for the American 
people. They are going to be happy if they get the American taxpayers 
to give them $5 billion just like that. They ought to be awfully happy.
  I asked last Friday that those who are proposing this bill to come 
forward and answer the simple question I posed then: What language in 
the bill guarantees that any savings from this bill will be passed on 
to consumers? I continue to ask whether credit card interest rates will 
be reduced by any savings created by this bill. Certainly the 25- to 
26- and 27-percent interest rates ought to be reduced. I continue to 
ask whether credit fees will be reduced by any savings generated by 
provisions of this bill. I continue to ask how the $400 per American 
family the proponents of the bill estimate will be saved by provisions 
of this bill are going to get to these families. Everybody says we are 
saving money for the American families. So far all I see is a $5 
billion transfer from those American families to the credit card 
industry.
  I haven't heard or seen any answers to those basic questions. I think 
those who say this is going to benefit the American public ought to be 
more specific. CBO doesn't see it that way. They see a great transfer 
from the American public to one industry. For all that I can see, any 
savings generated by this bill will be gobbled up in windfall profits 
for the credit industry, without any guarantee of benefits for working 
people, and with a $1 billion per year out-of-pocket cost to taxpayers 
and those in the bankruptcy system.
  Mr. President, I understand time will now go back on the amendment. I 
think we had a unanimous consent request at this point that when we 
went back on the bill, the Senator from Minnesota was going to be 
recognized.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I understand my colleague from Michigan 
has wanted to propound a unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, apparently a UC had been entered into 
which had set in order speakers through Senator Wellstone. I know 
Senator Allard and I have been here for some time. I noticed Senator 
Kennedy has joined us. We were hoping we might come up with another UC 
which would ensure continuing order in terms of the speakers; ideally, 
the order in which we have been here. If that is possible, I would 
appreciate it. Therefore, that leads me to propose that following the 
speech of Senator Wellstone, if we might then proceed in an order in 
which I would be allowed to speak next, followed by Senator Allard, 
followed by Senator Kennedy, if that is possible. If it is not, we 
would be open to adjusting that. I am not sure how.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I prefer not to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. What was the general time? I was just trying to 
conclude. I was going to be probably 10 or 15 minutes. If I thought 
that the two Senators will be finished shortly after 11, that is fine.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I have no idea how long the Senator from 
Minnesota will be speaking. I will be speaking approximately 15 
minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. I anticipate somewhere around 7 or 8 minutes for my 
remarks.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That would be fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, I want to 
make sure I understand. Senator Wellstone, Senator Abraham, Senator 
Allard, and then Senator Kennedy, and then, perhaps after that, we 
would go back and forth. The Senator from Vermont is going to want to 
speak on the amendment at some point, too.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Vermont wish to add 
himself to the sequence?
  Mr. LEAHY. Why don't I add myself after the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I assure the Senator from Iowa, if he wishes to speak at 
that point, I will yield first to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I have no objection to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have listened to my colleagues 
discuss this amendment. I want to zero in on what is the poison pill 
provision of this amendment--no pun intended.
  The cocaine provision in the Republican drug amendment to the 
bankruptcy bill would raise powder cocaine penalties to unacceptably 
high levels, forcing jail overcrowding without offering any concrete 
solutions to drug addiction. That is the fundamental problem. In short, 
as much affection as I have for my colleague from Michigan and others, 
I think this provision is a disaster.
  The authors say they want to fix racial disparities in crack 
sentencing by establishing tougher sentences for low-end powder cocaine 
offenders. In practice, this is going to make the disparities worse. 
That is the problem. This provision capitalizes upon the common 
misperception that powder cocaine is principally a ``white drug.'' It 
seeks to neutralize complaints of racism in the heavy sentences meted 
out almost exclusively to African American defendants for crack cocaine 
offenses. In reality, this provision will only worsen the problem of 
gross overrepresentation of minorities in prison for drug offenses. To 
the existing flood of young minority males serving draconian sentences 
for nonviolent low-level crack offenses, it will simply do the same for 
minor powder cocaine offenses.
  Only low-end cocaine defendants will have their sentences changed 
under the Republican proposal. The sentence for a participant in a 50-
gram powder transaction will more than double from 27 months to 5 
years. Further, the Sentencing Commission's mandate will require it to 
make comparable increases for lesser quantities. Yet the Commission has 
documented that as with crack, such low-level street dealers--and these 
are the ones who are going to be affected by this--of powder cocaine 
are ``primarily poor, minority youth, generally under the age of 18.'' 
And overall, minorities constitute over three-quarters of all current 
powder defendants. They also found that over half of the Federal powder 
defendants are couriers or mules or lookouts--categories with the 
lowest income and lowest culpability and the highest representation of 
minorities. This amendment doesn't go after the kingpins. This 
amendment, again, is going to have a disproportionate impact on 
minorities, on kids, on the young and on the poor.
  I use this as an example. I am not trying to pick on the students. 
College

[[Page S14445]]

students at Yale or Harvard who suffer from substance abuse or sell 
cocaine out of their dorm rooms will not go to jail under this 
provision. I have no doubt about that. Instead, the vast majority will 
once again be low-income African American and Hispanic males.
  I want to read from a statement before the Judiciary Committee--this 
is not my argument--from 27 former U.S. attorneys who now sit as judges 
on the Federal court:

       Having regularly reviewed presentence reports in cases 
     involving powder and crack cocaine, we can attest to the fact 
     that there is generally no consistent, meaningful difference 
     in the type of individuals involved. At the lower levels, the 
     steerers, lookouts, and street-sellers are generally 
     impoverished individuals with limited education whose 
     involvement with crack rather than powder cocaine is more a 
     result of demand than a conscious choice to sell one type of 
     drug rather than another. Indeed, in some cases, a person who 
     is selling crack one day is selling powder cocaine the next.

  By raising powder cocaine penalties, the amendment reduces the gulf 
in sentencing between the two drugs, but it doesn't solve the 
underlying problem. The real problem is that crack penalties are way 
out of proportion to those of other drugs. You are basically trying to 
argue that two wrongs make a right, and they don't. Reducing the 
trigger quantity for a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for powder 
cocaine makes the penalties for both forms of cocaine 
disproportionately severe compared to other drugs. The same U.S. 
attorneys say they ``disagree with those who suggest that the disparity 
in treatment of powder and crack cocaine should be remedied by altering 
penalties relating to powder cocaine.''
  I emphasize this in the former U.S. attorneys' quote:

       The penalties for powder cocaine . . . are severe and 
     should not be increased.

  Mr. President, we need to stop and ask ourselves, what are we doing 
here? If the trigger amount for powder is lowered, almost 10,000 
addicts and small-time drug users will be added to the prison 
population over the next 10 years. That is what we are doing with this 
amendment. The Bureau of Prisons will have to build six new prisons 
just to house these people. This will be at a cost to taxpayers of 
approximately $2 billion. In the next 20 years, the cost will escalate 
to over $5 billion, and in 30 years it will be $10.6 billion.
  Haven't we learned yet that jails and prisons are not the sole 
answer? There are more than 1.5 million people incarcerated in State 
and Federal prisons and local jails around the country. Another 100,000 
young people are confined in juvenile institutions. These numbers have 
tripled in the past two decades. On any given day, one out of every 
three African American men in their twenties is either in prison, in 
jail, on probation, or on parole. I remember reading in the paper that 
there are more African American men in their twenties--far more--in the 
State of California in prison than are in college.
  We have one of the largest prison populations in the world. If more 
prisons were the sole solution to the problems of drugs and crime, then 
we should be among the least addicted, safest countries on Earth.
  Being ``tough on drugs'' makes for a great stump speech, but we also 
ought to be smart, and we need to be smart. A landmark study of cocaine 
markets by the conservative Rand Corporation found that, dollar for 
dollar, providing treatment for cocaine users is 10 times more 
effective than drug interdiction schemes. A recent study by the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, has 
indicated that 48 percent of the need for drug treatment, not including 
alcohol abuse, is unmet in the United States--48 percent of the need is 
unmet. Surely, if we can find an endless supply of funding for housing 
offenders and building new prisons, then we must be able to rectify 
this shortsighted lack of treatment.

  Let me simply talk a moment about this disease of alcohol and drug 
addiction which costs our Nation $246 billion annually--almost $1,000 
for every man, woman, and child. There is so much new evidence, so many 
studies, so much good science work, and we are so far behind the curve. 
Why aren't we looking at the evidence, the data, the research, and the 
work that is being done? This disease is treatable. Yet our Nation has 
an alcohol and drug treatment gap that is 50 percent nationally, 60 
percent for women, and 80 percent for youth.
  Are you ready for this? Since we are now going to throw yet even more 
of these kids--primarily Hispanic and African American--in jail and 
prison, access to youth drug treatment is particularly low, with only 
one in five adolescents able to access drug or alcohol treatment 
services. We don't provide the funding for the services or for the 
treatment, and now we have an amendment that basically will assure that 
even more of these kids will be locked up--without even dealing with 
the root of the problem.
  I have a piece of legislation--and Congressman Ramstad from Minnesota 
has the same legislation on the House side--which says that, at the 
very minimum, we ought to stop this discrimination and say to the 
insurance companies that we ought to be treating this disease the same 
way we treat other physical illnesses because right now, in all too 
many of these policies, if you are struggling with addiction, you don't 
get any treatment. We are just saying we are not even mandating it. We 
are just saying, for gosh sakes, please stop the discrimination, deal 
with this brain disease, provide some coverage for treatment.
  There are all these men and women in the recovery community who can 
testify about how, when they had access to treatment, they were able to 
rebuild their lives. They are now members of the recovery community; 
they work; they are successful; they contribute to their families, and 
they contribute to their communities.
  What do we have here? We have an amendment that does nothing more 
than imprison more of these kids and doesn't do a darn thing about 
getting at the root of the problem. It does nothing about the lack of 
treatment for these kids. This is a huge mistake.
  There is one other provision that is now part of this amendment, 
which is quite unbelievable, at least in my view. As a part of this 
amendment, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have included a 
provision that says if a child attends a title I school and becomes a 
victim of violence on school grounds, the district may use the Federal 
education funds, including IDEA, title I, and other money, to provide 
the child with a voucher to attend a private school or to provide 
transfer costs for the child to attend another public school.
  Well, now, look, I don't know exactly when this provision was even 
put in this amendment. It wasn't part of the original amendment I had a 
chance to see earlier. But I am a little bit skeptical. I think what my 
colleagues have done is taken a reality--and, God knows, I wish this 
reality didn't exist in our country, which is too much violence in 
children's lives, including too much violence in their schools--and 
then used that as a reason to once again get authorization and funding 
for vouchers.
  If for some of these children you were able to transfer money to 
private schools, what about the 90 percent of children in America who 
attend public schools, not to mention the fact that the amount of money 
these kids get to transfer to a private school wouldn't cover anywhere 
the cost of the private school? And the vast majority of these children 
are low income. What about the rest of our kids in our schools?
  I say this by way of conclusion. I will be especially brief because I 
don't believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to hear 
this, and I don't even think they want to debate it.
  Have you expanded funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools? No.
  Are you willing to support essential and sensible gun control, and 
drug treatment and drug prevention programs? No.
  Were you willing--I have this amendment--to dramatically expand the 
number of counselors in our schools to provide help and support to 
kids? No.
  Were you willing to support legislation that would deal with the 
reality of children who have witnessed violence in their homes? They 
have seen their mother beaten up over and over again, have trouble in 
school, sometimes themselves overly aggressive, sometimes themselves 
getting in trouble. That amendment passed the Senate. It was taken out 
in conference committee by the Republicans. Do you support that? No.

[[Page S14446]]

  Are you willing to dramatically increase funding for afterschool 
programs? Law enforcement communities tell us it is so important in 
getting to a lot of kids who are at risk and who might commit some of 
this violence or might themselves be victims of this violence. Have you 
been willing? No.
  Have you been willing to invest in rebuilding rotting schools? A lot 
of kids who live in tough neighborhoods who go to tough schools, when 
they walk into the schools and they see how decrepit they are, say to 
themselves, you know what, this country doesn't give a damn about us. 
They devalue themselves and they get into trouble. Have we made any 
investment here? No.
  Have you been willing to increase the amount of funding we put into 
title I? In my State of Minnesota, in the cities of St. Paul and 
Minneapolis, after you get to schools that are 60 percent low-income 
schools, then you go to schools that get 50 or 55 percent, and they 
don't get any of those funds because they have run out of money and 
because the title I money reaches, at best, about 30 percent of the 
kids in the country who need additional help. No.
  I have to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I 
would love to debate somebody on this. It strikes me that this is 
disingenuous at best.
  You talk about the violence kids experience in our schools. And then 
you say, therefore, we will now use this as an excuse to try to push 
through a voucher plan. Yet on 10 different things that you could 
support that would reduce the violence in children's lives in our 
public schools, you are not willing to invest one more cent. It is a 
weak argument you make.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate having the opportunity to 
speak on this amendment. I yield myself such time as I might require at 
this point. I believe it will be probably 15 minutes.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment which, in my 
judgment, will help protect our children and our neighborhoods from the 
scourge of drugs and drug-related violence.
  This amendment contains a number of provisions that are critical to 
our war on drugs.
  It includes a package of provisions aimed at fighting the production 
and distribution of methamphetamines.
  Authored by Senators Ashcroft, Hatch, and Grassley, these provisions 
include additional money to hire additional personnel, including almost 
$10 million for additional DEA agents to assist state and local law 
enforcement.
  Also included is a provision raising penalties for offenses involving 
methamphetamines, including production of methamphetamine precursors.
  And the amendment includes additional funding for prevention and 
treatment programs.
  Contrary to some of the positions and assertions made, in fact, this 
amendment includes significant increases in those funding proposals.
  The amendment also enhances penalties for drug distribution to minors 
and in or near schools. Also to protect our schools, the amendment 
provides incentives for schools to develop policies expelling students 
who bring drugs on school grounds and school choice for victims of 
school violence.
  Mr. President, today I want to focus in particular on the amendment's 
provisions concerning sentences for powder cocaine dealers. These 
provisions are drawn from legislation I introduced earlier this year 
along with Senator Allard and quite a few other Senators. As the father 
of three young children, I am deeply disturbed by the trend for almost 
all of the last 7 years in teenage drug use. This represents a 
reversal, really, of the decade long progress we had been making in the 
war on drugs.
  In 1997, 9.4 percent of teens reported recent use of marijuana, up 
180 percent from 1992. The percentage of teens using cocaine tripled 
during those same years. And most disturbing of all, the greatest 
increases took place among our youngest teens. For example, the 
percentage of 12 and 13 year olds using cocaine increased 100 percent 
from 1992 to 1996, compared with a 58 percent increase among 17- and 
18-year-olds. This spells trouble for our children. Increased drug use 
means increased danger of every social pathology we know.
  This trend may finally have been arrested for most drugs. In 1998, 
the Monitoring the Future Study, prepared annually by the University of 
Michigan, showed improvements--although very modest ones--in levels of 
teenage drug use. All three grades studies--8th, 10th, and 12th--showed 
some decline in the proportion of students reporting any illegal drug 
use during the previous 12 months. Equally important, use by 8th 
graders, who started the upward trend in use at the beginning of this 
decade, declined for the second year in a row.
  We also are finding heartening news in our war on violent crime. The 
FBI now reports that, since 1991, the number of homicides committed in 
the United States has dropped by 31 percent. Also since 1991, the 
number of robberies has fallen 32 percent. According to the Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, robberies fell a stunning 17 percent in 1997 alone.
  This is good news, Mr. President. And there is widespread agreement 
among experts in the field that the principal cause of this decline in 
violent crime is our success in curbing the crack cocaine epidemic and 
the violent gang activities that accompany that epidemic.
  The New York Times recently reported on a conference of 
criminologists held in New Orleans. Experts at the conference agreed 
that the rise and fall in violent crime during the 1980s and 1990s 
closely paralleled the rise and fall of the crack epidemic.
  At the same time, there is a warning signal here. The most recent 
``Monitoring the Future'' Study also showed an increase in the use of 
cocaine in all three grades studied. Use of both crack and powder 
cocaine within the past 30 days likewise rose in all three grades, 
except for powder cocaine in the 12th grade, where it did not fall but 
at least held steady. This is in contrast to the study's finding that 
the use of other drugs by kids may finally be leveling off, albeit at 
unacceptably high levels. Yet surprisingly, despite these developments, 
in last year's Ten-Year Plan for a National Drug Control Strategy, the 
administration proposed making sentences for crack dealers 5 times more 
lenient than they are today.
  We have already heard the case made by the preceding speaker--and I 
suspect successive speakers on the other side of the aisle will be 
likewise making the case--that by somehow making crack sentences more 
lenient, notwithstanding the clear evidence that as we have gotten 
tough on crack cocaine dealers, the spread of crack cocaine and 
incidental crime related to crack cocaine addiction has been going 
down. This is a strikingly bad idea, and one that this Congress should 
emphatically reject.
  The President's principal explanation for the proposal to lower crack 
sentences is that the move was recommended by the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission to address the disparity in treatment between crack and 
powder dealers. I agree we should reduce this disparity, which produces 
the unjust result that people higher on the drug chain get lighter 
sentences than those at the bottom. But going easier on crack 
peddlers--the dealers who infest our school yards and playgrounds--is 
not the solution. Crack is cheap and highly addictive. Tough crack 
sentences have encouraged many dealers to turn in their superiors in 
exchange for leniency. Lowering these sentences will remove that 
incentive and undermine our prosecutors, making them less effective at 
protecting our children and our neighborhoods.
  No, there is a better way to bring crack and powder cocaine sentences 
more in line. Instead of lowering sentences for crack dealers, we 
should instead raise sentences for powder dealers. Doing so will 
accomplish every legitimate policy objective that can be advanced by 
the President's proposal--except greater leniency for these 
individuals, which in my view is not a legitimate policy objective. 
Raising sentences for powder dealers is accordingly what this amendment 
proposes to do. Specifically, it changes the quantity of powder cocaine 
necessary to trigger a mandatory 5-year minimum sentence from 500 grams 
to 50 grams, and makes a similar change in the amount necessary to 
trigger a mandatory 10-year sentence. The effect of this will be to 
raise sentences substantially for those who deal in powder cocaine, a 
change that I think is entirely justified.

[[Page S14447]]

  Even without taking into account the differential treatment of crack, 
powder sentences are currently too low. Powder is the raw material for 
crack. Yet sentences for powder dealers were set before the crack 
epidemic, without accounting for powder's role in causing it. It is 
also one of the drugs the use of which continues to increase, not only 
among teenagers but also among adults.
  Moreover, we occasionally see a large powder supplier get a lower 
sentence than the low-level crack dealer who resold some powder in 
crack form simply because the powder dealer took the precaution of 
selling his product only in powder form. That is plainly an unjust 
result and one that our legal system should not countenance.
  By making the changes in the quantity triggers for mandatory minimums 
I have described, our amendment will reduce the differential between 
the amount of powder and crack required to trigger a mandatory minimum 
sentence from 100 to 1, the current differential, to 10 to 1. That is 
the exact same ratio proposed by the administration in their proposal. 
But our proposal in this amendment will accomplish that goal not by 
making crack dealers' sentences more lenient but, rather, by toughening 
sentences for powder cocaine dealers.
  Now the administration has charged--and we have heard a comment about 
this on the floor today; I suspect we will hear more--that the proposal 
we are offering is nevertheless the wrong way to proceed on account of 
its allegedly racially disparate impact. In my judgment, if the 
sentencing structure being proposed is in fact desirable on its merits, 
that is a dubious basis on which to evaluate the merits of this 
proposal or, for that matter, the administration's.
  Since the administration has made this charge, I think it is 
important to understand it is not true. In fact, if our proposal is 
enacted, overall the percentage of cocaine dealers sentenced to tough, 
mandatory minimum sentences should be less disproportionately African 
American than it is under current law. This is because under current 
law and under the administration's proposal, persons convicted of 
dealing between 100 and 250 grams of powder are not subject to 
mandatory sentences. Under the proposal, they are contained in our 
amendment.
  According to the Sentencing Commission statistics in the most recent 
year for which they were collected, for fiscal year 1996 the percentage 
of non-Hispanic whites in that group, 38.9 percent, was higher than the 
percentage of members in any other racial category. Therefore, imposing 
mandatory minimum sentences on this group of people would accordingly 
reduce the racially disparate impact of current law. Thus, the 
sentencing outcome under our proposal should have a less racially 
disparate impact than the current proposal which is in place in law.
  By contrast, the administration's proposal to change the triggers for 
mandatory minimums for crack dealers is highly likely to increase the 
percentage of individuals sentenced to mandatory minimums for dealing 
cocaine who are African American. Had the administration's proposal 
been in effect during fiscal year 1996, the proportion of individuals 
sentenced to a mandatory 5-year minimum sentence who are African 
American would have increased--not decreased--increased slightly from 
82.8 percent to 85.2 percent. Thus, contrary to the administration's 
charge, the proposal contained in this amendment will actually decrease 
the racially disparate effect of mandatory sentences on cocaine 
dealers.

  On the other hand, what is not true of our proposal and is true of 
the administration's proposal is to change the quantity trigger for 
crack dealers. Their proposal will increase the racially disparate 
impact of mandatory minimum sentences for cocaine dealing compared to 
current law.
  All that being said, I would like to get away from these numbers and 
talk about some of the contacts I have had with people in my State who 
are the victims of these drug dealers. Despite the disparity reduction 
justification given for the President's proposal, I have not found 
anyone in my State--any parents, regardless of their race, whose 
children have been touched by a crack cocaine dealer--who don't want to 
see the person responsible suffer serious consequences, no matter who 
the crack dealer was. Their families are already suffering 
consequences; their schoolyards are suffering consequences; their 
neighborhoods are suffering consequences. They believe that the people 
behind it, whether it is the peddler in the schoolyard or the kingpin 
selling the powder cocaine, ought to suffer the consequences, as well.
  Reverend Eugene F. Rivers II, cochair of the National Ten Point 
Leadership Foundation in inner city Boston, says:

       To confuse the concerns of crack dealers with the broader 
     interests of the black community is at best inane and at 
     worst immoral. Those who are straining to live in inner-city 
     neighborhoods that are mostly adversely affected by the 
     plight of crack and who witness crack's consequences first 
     hand want crack dealers taken off the streets for the longest 
     period of time possible.

  We owe it to the thousands upon thousands of families struggling to 
protect their children from the scourge of drugs and drug violence. 
That means staying tough on those who peddle drugs and sending a clear 
message to our young people that we will not tolerate crack dealers in 
our neighborhoods or powder dealers who supply the crack dealers.
  President Clinton had it right 3 years ago when he agreed with this 
Congress in rejecting an earlier Sentencing Commission plan to lower 
sentences for crack dealers. Back then, President Clinton said:

       We have to send a constant message to our children that 
     drugs are illegal, drugs are dangerous, drugs may cost your 
     life, and the penalties for drug dealing are severe.

  Unfortunately, President Clinton's new plan to reduce sentences for 
crack dealers does not live up to that obligation. It sends our kids 
exactly the wrong message, and it does not do any favor to anybody 
except drug peddlers. In contrast, the approach taken by our amendment 
is faithful to this obligation. It achieves a reduction in the 
disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing in the right way, 
through legislation making sentences for powder cocaine dealers a lot 
tougher.
  At this crucial time, we may be making real progress in winning the 
war on drugs and violent crime in part because we have sent the message 
that crack gang membership is no way to live and that society will come 
down very hard on those spreading this pernicious drug. At the same 
time, our kids remain all too exposed to dangerous drugs, far more 
exposed than we can probably imagine.
  In light of these two trends, it would be, in my opinion, 
catastrophic to let any drug dealer think that the cost of doing 
business is going down. This is especially no time for lowering 
sentences for dealing in crack, a pernicious drug that brought our 
cities great danger, violence, and grief. It will be nearly impossible, 
in my judgment, to succeed in discouraging our kids from using drugs if 
they hear we are lowering sentences for any category of drug dealers.
  By adopting this amendment, we can send our kids the right message: 
We will not tolerate crack dealers in our neighbors, and we will make 
the sentences on powdered cocaine dealers a lot tougher. Success in the 
drug war depends upon all the efforts of parents, schools, churches, 
the medical communities, and local law enforcement community leaders. 
There is no doubt about that. They are doing a great job in the drug 
fight. The Federal Government must do its part, too. We must provide 
needed resources, and we must reinforce the message that drugs aren't 
acceptable and that drug dealers belong in prison for a long time. Our 
kids deserve no less. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  To address a couple of the points that were made by previous 
speakers, first, we have to concern ourselves not just with costs that 
are attendant to incarcerating crack cocaine dealers but with the costs 
that are brought about when those crack cocaine dealers are running 
wild in our communities. The notion that there are no costs involved 
when these folks remain on the streets, in our playgrounds and 
neighborhoods, addicting children, precipitating violence when the 
crack gangs are busy in their communities, is to miss, I think, a very 
vital part of this debate.
  The costs of addiction are significant. Who exactly are the targets 
of the addiction? Very often, they are, themselves, members of minority 
communities. I don't think we are doing a

[[Page S14448]]

favor to the minority communities of this country if we allow the 
schoolyards in those communities to be infested with crack cocaine 
dealers. The key is, Do we want to rid our communities of drug dealers? 
In my judgment, that certainly ought to be our objective. That is what 
we have tried to do in this amendment, not just with the sections 
relating to powder cocaine sentences, for the dealers of powder 
cocaine, but the other provisions of the legislation. I am proud to be 
a cosponsor.
  I hope my colleagues understand when they cast their vote on this 
issue, the question is very simple: Do you think it is time for powder 
cocaine dealers to serve tougher sentences for drug kingpins to go to 
jail for a longer time or don't you? That is what is at stake. If you 
believe in tougher sentences for powder cocaine dealers, we ask for 
your support for this amendment. If you believe in getting tougher on 
methamphetamines, we ask for your support for this amendment. If you 
believe we should devote more resources to drug treatment programs, 
then you should vote for this amendment. But don't be fooled by claims 
that somehow or another we are doing anybody a favor by not moving 
forward in this area, and by letting drug dealers continue to infest 
our schoolyards. That is not doing any favors to anybody. I hope our 
colleagues will join us and support this amendment.

  I yield the floor to the Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the section of 
this amendment that addresses mandatory sentencing guidelines for 
handling powder cocaine. I thank my colleague from Michigan, Senator 
Abraham, for his leadership on this particular issue. We have been 
working on this issue for well over 2 years. I know it is important to 
him. It is extremely important to me. I think he made a great 
statement, great argument for why we need to toughen penalties on drug 
dealers.
  One of our colleagues who spoke earlier suggested perhaps we were not 
spending enough money on prevention and education and treatment. I 
have, in the meantime, pulled out a chart that shows how much money we 
have spent over the last 10 years in drug treatment and prevention and 
research. I would like to go over that for a moment for Members of the 
Senate.
  Over the last 10 years, we have spent more than $20 billion on drug 
abuse treatment. We have spent more than $15 billion on drug abuse 
prevention. And we have spent, in addition to that, more than $1 
billion in prevention research and more than $1.5 billion in treatment 
research.
  We certainly have not been ignoring the treatment and prevention of 
drug addiction. The fact is, it is complicated. It needs to be part of 
the formula, as far as I am concerned. But if we do not recognize 
loopholes we have in the current law that allows drug dealers to 
continue to carry on their business at an extreme cost to society, I 
think we are ignoring our responsibilities, trying to address part of 
the drug problem. That means we have to have tougher penalties.
  Currently, there is a vast discrepancy between minimum sentencing 
guidelines for those caught dealing cocaine in the form of crack and 
those dealing it in the form of powder. Under current law, a dealer can 
be sentenced to 5 years for peddling 5 grams of crack cocaine. If you 
look on the chart, we have symbolized the amount of 5 grams of crack 
cocaine. In order to receive a similar sentence, a dealer would have to 
be caught with 500 grams of powder cocaine. That creates a tremendous 
loophole. What happens with our drug dealers is they will bring in 
powder cocaine and just before they put it out on the street for 
consumption by individuals, it is converted over to crack cocaine. That 
loophole encourages drug dealers to then import more powder cocaine. 
That is why I think it is so important we pass this particular portion 
of the amendment.

  I have met with many different law enforcement organizations to look 
into this discrepancy. One effect of this discrepancy is what 
statistics show to be a racial bias in the sentencing guidelines. Mr. 
President, 90 percent of those convicted for dealing crack are African 
Americans. The majority of dealers caught with powder cocaine are 
white--58 percent of powder users are white. It is ridiculous that 
those who dabble with powder cocaine for all intents and purposes are 
protected by our sentencing parameters. Drug smugglers and drug dealers 
know about this caveat in sentencing and they do everything they can to 
take advantage of it.
  Cocaine is largely transported in powder form and only converted to 
crack at the time of sale. This loophole in the current law actually 
reduces the long-term risks to dealers and smugglers. Drug enforcement 
detectives I have met with have confirmed the going price for 5 grams 
of powder and 5 grams of crack are typically equal now on the street. 
That varies considerably, but that apparently is the price right now. 
Why should we continue to support this disparity when we can solve it 
today? I believe one way to effectively decrease crime in America is to 
punish criminals through more rigorous sentencing, particularly when we 
are providing the amount of dollars we are today for drug prevention 
and drug treatment and research on drug prevention and research on drug 
treatment.
  In order to receive a minimum sentence of 5 years, a criminal would 
only need to be caught with 50 grams of powder cocaine instead of the 
current 500. This amendment also stiffens the penalty for carrying a 
large quantity of powder cocaine. To receive a minimum sentence of 10 
years, a criminal would only have to be caught with 500 grams of powder 
cocaine, instead of the current standard of 5 kilograms.
  Henry Salano, the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado, 
has endorsed this effort saying:

       There is a strong rationale for equalizing the powder 
     cocaine penalties and the crack cocaine penalties. The law 
     enforcement community learned years ago the strong sentences 
     meted out to crack cocaine dealers has had a significant 
     deterrent effect on the production and distribution of crack. 
     [These] proposed penalties for powder cocaine will likewise 
     restrict the flow of powder cocaine in this country.

  This comes from an individual who in the past has been on the front 
line, has been on the firing line, has been dealing with this from a 
hands-on position because of his position with law enforcement.
  We must show criminals that any activity involving illegal drugs will 
not be tolerated. There is a direct correlation between drug use and 
crime. Cocaine plays a major role in this connection. A Department of 
Justice study in 1998 discovered the drug most commonly detected among 
all arrestees, from 1990 to 1998, was cocaine. Cocaine use poses a 
direct threat to the safety of our society. Let's stop treating those 
who use and deal powder cocaine as if they were special criminals. I 
ask all my colleagues to join me and end this inequality in cocaine 
spending.
  I ask my colleagues to consider the issues in this particular 
amendment. I think we are taking generally the right steps in 
addressing our drug problem. Obviously, we are not doing it just on 
penalties, but we are doing it in all areas--treatment and prevention. 
This is an important loophole we must close. I ask my colleagues to 
join me in voting for this amendment and supporting this effort.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there has been focus on different 
provisions of the amendment before us. I want to address two of those 
in my remarks.
  One of those provisions is, if a child attends a title I school and 
becomes the victim of a violent criminal offense, including drug-
related violence, while in or on the public school grounds, the school 
district may use the title I funds or any other Federal funds, 
including IDEA funds, to provide a voucher for a child to attend a 
private or religious school or pay the cost to transfer the child to 
another public school.
  In title I, we are basically talking about $500. I do not know how 
one expects to pay tuition to a school for about $500. A variety of 
technical

[[Page S14449]]

issues and questions are raised. It, obviously, is creating a sense of 
expectation by those who put this proposal forward.
  Nonetheless, on the issue of the value of the measure, even if it did 
have sufficient funds to do what it intends, it will not make the 
schools any safer and will not improve student achievement. We should 
support violence and crime prevention programs in and around public 
schools, not divert precious resources to private schools. Therefore, 
we should further invest in programs such as the Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools and Communities Act, afterschool programs, community crime 
prevention activities, encourage parent and community involvement, and 
help communities and schools ensure that all children are safe all the 
time.
  We all know that juvenile delinquent crime peaks in the hours between 
3 and 8 p.m. A recent study of gang crimes by juveniles in Orange 
County, CA, shows that 60 percent of all juvenile gang crimes occur on 
schooldays and peaks immediately after school dismissal. We know 
afterschool programs reduce youth crime.
  The Baltimore City Police Department saw a 44-percent drop in the 
risk of children becoming victims of crime after opening an afterschool 
program in a high-crime area. A study of the Goodnow Police Athletic 
League Center in northeast Baltimore found juvenile arrests dropped by 
10 percent, the number of armed robberies dropped from 14 to 7, assault 
with handguns were eliminated, and other assaults decreased from 32 to 
20 from 1995 to 1998.
  This demonstrates how we can deal with the problems of violence in 
communities, violence around schools, even violence within the schools. 
We ought to be focusing on what works and supporting those efforts, 
rather than having an untried, untested program that shows on the face 
of it very little difference in safety and security for children in 
schools.
  In addition to improved youth behavior and safety, quality 
afterschool programs also lead to better academic achievement by 
students. At the Beech Street School in Manchester, NH, the afterschool 
program has helped improve reading and math scores of students. In 
reading, the percentage of students scoring at or above the basic level 
increased from 4 percent in 1994 to one-third in 1997. In math, the 
percentage of students scoring at the basic level increased from 29 
percent to 60 percent. In addition, Manchester saved an estimated 
$73,000 over 3 years because students participating in the afterschool 
program avoided being retained in grades or being placed in special 
education.
  This kind of investment will help keep children safe and help them 
achieve, and that is the right direction for education.
  There are precious few public funds available, and those public funds 
should not be funneled to private and religious schools. Public tax 
dollars should be spent on public schools which educate 90 percent of 
the Nation's children, and the funds should not go to private schools 
when public schools have great needs.
  We should be doing all we can to help improve public 
schools, academically as well as from a security point of view. We 
should not undermine the efforts taking place in those public schools.

  This amendment will allow any Federal education funds to be used for 
private school vouchers, including the title I, IDEA, and Eisenhower 
Professional Development Program. The Eisenhower Professional 
Development Program is targeted to enhance math and science. Rather 
than enhancing math, science, and academic achievement for children in 
the public schools, we are drawing down on those funds to permit some 
students to go to other schools. It makes absolutely no sense.
  Federal funds should not go to schools that can exclude children. 
There is no requirement for schools receiving vouchers to accept 
students with limited English proficiency, homeless students, or 
students with disciplinary problems. Precious funds should be earmarked 
for public schools which do not have the luxury of closing their doors 
to students who pose a problem.
  The challenges the schools are facing today are much more complex, 
much more complicated than they were even a few short years ago. I was 
with the head mistress of the Revere School in the last week. I said: I 
remember visiting the school 2 years ago and they had nine different 
languages.
  She said: How about 29 different languages now with different 
cultures and traditions?
  They are facing more complexity in dealing with children, and it is 
necessary to give them support and not deplete scarce resources. They 
obviously should have accountability in how effectively those resources 
are being used, but when you talk about undermining the Eisenhower 
training programs for math and science or IDEA, which is funding needs 
for special education, and even the title I programs for disadvantaged 
children, it makes no sense whatsoever.
  Our goal is to reform the public schools, not abandon them. Instead 
of draining much needed resources from public schools, we should create 
conditions for improvement and reform, not in a few schools but in all 
schools, not in a few students but in all students. Effectively, what 
we would be doing is abandoning a great majority of students. That is 
wrong.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the 
various organizations representing parents and teachers and students 
who are strongly opposed to the provisions.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Organizations That Oppose the Voucher Provision in the Drug Amendment

     American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
     American Association of University Women
     American Counseling Association
     American Federation of School Administrators
     American Federation of Teachers
     Council for Exceptional Children
     Council of Chief State School Officers
     Federal Advocacy for California Education
     International Reading Association
     National Association for Bilingual Education
     National Association of Elementary School Principals
     National Association of Federally Impacted Schools
     National Association of School Psychologists
     National Association of Secondary School Principals
     National Association of State Boards of Education
     National Association of State Title I Directors
     National Education Association
     National PTA
     National Science Teachers Association
     New York City Board of Education
     New York State Education Department
     People for the American Way

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, drug abuse in our Nation is a menace that 
threatens the security, health, and productivity of all of our 
citizens. Every reputable authority who has examined the problem of 
drug addition knows that there is no army large enough to keep all 
drugs from crossing our borders and no nation powerful enough to 
imprison all pushers and suppliers. We must use all the constitutional 
enforcement tools at our command to make the criminals who would profit 
from the degradation of our fellow citizens pay the price of their 
crimes.
  An effective fight against drug abuse must take three approaches: law 
enforcement, prevention and treatment. Each of these three approaches 
is vital; no program can be successful unless it involves them all.
  The widespread use of illegal drugs is one of the most pressing 
problems facing our society. Illegal drugs are killing children and 
destroying families. Vast profits from the sale of illegal drugs have 
created a new criminal underworld which promotes violence and feeds on 
death.
  However, this amendment does not go about this problem in the right 
way.
  By raising powder cocaine penalties, the amendment reduces the 
current 100 to 1 ratio between the two drugs, but it doesn't solve the 
underlying problem. The real problems is that crack penalties are out 
of proportion to the penalties for other drugs. Increasing the penalty 
for powder cocaine makes the penalties for both forms of cocaine 
disproportionately severe compared to other drugs.
  Twenty-seven former U.S. attorneys who are now Federal judges say 
they ``disagree with those who suggest that the disparity in treatment 
of power and crack cocaine should be remedied by altering the penalties 
relating to

[[Page S14450]]

power cocaine. The penalties for powder cocaine, both mandatory minimum 
and guideline sentences, are severe and should not be increased.''
  Clearly Congress is right to be concerned about excessively lenient 
sentences for serious offenses. but the sentencing guideline system in 
place today is the most effective way to limit judicial discretion. In 
1984, Senator Thurmond, Senator Biden, I, and others, worked together 
to pass bipartisan sentencing reform legislation. A key reform in that 
legislation was the creation of the Sentencing Commission, to achieve 
greater fairness and uniformity in sentencing. since its creation, the 
Commission has developed sentencing guidelines that have eliminated the 
worst disparities in the sentencing process, without seriously reducing 
judicial discretion.
  Unfortunately, actions by Congress continue to undermine the 
Commission's work. The guidelines system was designed to achieve 
greater uniformity and fairness, while retaining necessary judicial 
flexibility. Instead, Congress has enacted a steady stream of mandatory 
minimum sentences that override the guidelines and create the very 
disparities that the guidelines are designed to end.
  A recent study by the Rand Corporation shows that ``mandatory 
minimums reduce cocaine consumption less per million taxpayer dollars 
spent than does spending the same amount on enforcement.'' On the issue 
of controlling drug use, drug spending, and drug-related crime, the 
same study found that ``treatment is more than twice as cost-effective 
as mandatory minimums''.
  One of the important goals of sentencing is general deterrence. We 
should allow the Commission to do its job, and weigh the Commission's 
recommendations more carefully before acting to override them.
  In 1995, the Sentencing Commission issued a formal recommendation to 
Congress to change the crack ratio to 1 to 1 at the current level of 
powder cocaine. Congress rejected the Sentencing Commission's 
recommendation in a House vote and told the Commission to come up with 
another solution.
  Two years later, in 1997, the Sentencing Commission issued a second 
recommendation to Congress to lower crack penalties and raise powder 
cocaine penalties. Both the Department of Justice and the drug czar's 
office agreed with this recommendation. Yet, the Commission's 
recommendation continues to be rejected by Congress. Crack cocaine 
penalties were enacted over a decade ago without the benefit of 
research, hearings, or prison impact assessments. Today, we have the 
advantage of scientific evidence about cocaine in both forms and about 
the impact of crack sentencing policies.
  Shame on Congress for ignoring the experts it put in place to address 
these issues in an informed manner. The Sentencing Commission's 
conclusion is clear--crack penalties are out of line, not powder 
cocaine penalties. Two wrongs don't make a right.
  The Sentencing Commission reports that more than half of current 
powder cocaine defendants are at the lowest levels of the drug trade, 
and 86 percent are nonviolent. Increasing the penalty will add almost 
10,000 addicts and small-time drug users to the prison population in 
the next 10 years, at a cost to taxpayers of approximately $2 billion. 
In the next 20 years, that cost will escalate to over $5 billion, and 
in 30 years it will be $10.6 billion.
  This amendment will also increase the disproportionate representation 
of minorities in federal prison, because 68 percent of the people 
sentenced federally for powder cocaine offenses are non-white. Of 
those, 40 percent are Hispanic.
  Enacting this legislation will worsen current imbalances in drug 
policy at significant cost. The new powder cocaine sentences will be 
far above those for many other more serious and violent offenses.
  We know that merely talking tough is not enough. The war on crime has 
been declared again and again--and it has been lost over and over. It 
is clear that we will never succeed in defeating crime if we try to do 
it on the cheap. We can support our State and local police without 
turning any locality into a police state, and without destroying the 
fundamental civil liberties and constitutional guarantees that make 
this Nation truly free.
  To combat the drug menace we need local law enforcement programs that 
work. It is increasingly clear that stronger law enforcement at the 
local level can be successful when coupled with enhanced drug treatment 
and education opportunities. One of the most important tools in the war 
against drugs is Federal assistance to increase the number of these 
successful local law enforcement programs, not locking up more low-
level drug dealers and throwing away the key.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I consume.
  First of all, on the issue of the Hatch-Abraham-Ashcroft amendment on 
drugs that is now before the Senate, I am very pleased that this action 
is being taken on this bill by the Senate because any action we can 
take to stiffen the laws against drug use, to discourage drug use, or 
anything else connected with the horrors of drug use and abuse in 
America is a very important thing for the Senate to be working on 
because drug abuse is a serious problem.
  I believe the methamphetamine antiproliferation amendment that is 
before us will assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
officials, treatment professionals, prevention groups, and others who 
are on the front lines of the drug fight. So I will take a few minutes 
to highlight some important sections of this amendment.
  In particular, I am happy to see additional resources in this 
legislation for training programs for State and local law enforcement 
officials. That is because methamphetamine is a new challenge for law 
enforcement. Of course, this methamphetamine problem is spreading 
across America. It may just be a California and Midwest issue right 
now, but it will not be long before it will be an issue all over the 
United States because, unlike other drugs that have to be imported, 
meth can be produced here in the United States with recipes available 
off the Internet. It can be made from chemicals available at your local 
drugstore.
  These home-grown laboratories contain chemicals and chemical 
combinations that are hazardous both to the environment and to the 
people. They are potentially explosive. Even in my State of Iowa, some 
people have been injured in the process of making drugs. Most 
importantly, when it comes to law enforcement or for an individual who 
is violating the law by making methamphetamines, the disposal of this 
laboratory requires specialized handling.
  We have all heard these horror stories about the dangers 
methamphetamine labs pose to both the manufacturers and to the people 
in the neighborhood. Because of the smell associated with it, you find 
a lot of this going on in the really rural parts of our States. So what 
this means is, the local county sheriff has more risk. Because of this, 
there is a need for training and for more equipment to clean up these 
labs.
  This amendment provides for additional training opportunities for 
State and local law enforcement in techniques used in meth 
investigations. It supports training in handling meth manufacturing 
chemicals and chemical waste from meth production.
  In addition, this amendment provides for additional DEA agents to 
assist State and local law enforcement in small and midsized 
communities in all phases of drug investigations, including foreign 
language assistance, investigative assistance, and drug prevention 
assistance. I am pleased to see the proposal Representative Matt Salmon 
and I have worked on to encourage Government web sites to include 
antidrug information in this legislation. This is the second provision 
of this bill about which I am very happy. Positive antidrug messages 
are an affordable and creative way to especially reach the young 
audience. Funding is needed for research to discover chemical agents 
that can be added to anhydrous ammonia to make it unusable for meth 
manufacture. This is a long-term solution that has the potential to be 
very beneficial. The authorized funding provided for in this bill will 
allow continued and expanded research to find an appropriate additive 
to ensure anhydrous ammonia can not be misused.

  In the agricultural regions of the United States, a nitrogen additive 
to

[[Page S14451]]

the soil is used to get a greater amount of productivity. That is 
involved with the raising of corn in the Midwest, as an example. 
Anhydrous ammonia is a source of nitrogen that farmers knife into the 
ground. We have seen these clandestine methamphetamine laboratories 
steal the anhydrous ammonia to use it in manufacturing methamphetamine. 
It is very dangerous to steal anhydrous ammonia. We have even had 
people hurt by that. But it is a cheap way to get some of the 
ingredients for this product.
  So what we want to do, through this research--and Iowa State 
University is involved in this research--is to have a chemical agent 
that can be added to anhydrous ammonia so if a person steals it from 
the tanks that are around the countryside during the period of time 
when farmers are putting it on in the spring of the year, it won't do 
the manufacturer of methamphetamine any good because it would not be 
able to be used at that point--if such a chemical additive can be made.
  A vital part of this bill, then, is the growing problem of this theft 
of anhydrous ammonia. States have even adopted tougher laws to combat 
the theft of anhydrous ammonia. But because these are separate State 
laws--the laws are not uniform --this has encouraged thieves to steal 
anhydrous in one State and transport it to an adjoining State with 
lesser penalties where it is used for the manufacture of 
methamphetamine. A Federal statute, as provided for in this amendment, 
will provide a strong deterrent to thieves who cross State lines to 
avoid stiffer penalties back home.
  Last night, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, and the Senator 
from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, came to the floor to offer an amendment 
which would essentially gut this entire bill. In the process, they made 
some statements about the bill which, with all due respect to my very 
capable colleagues, are very inaccurate statements and analyses of this 
legislation. I would like to clear the air today on some points they 
made. I will hit three points they made: First, their analysis of my 
means test in this bankruptcy reform legislation; second, what is the 
proper definition of household goods; and, third, their judgment of the 
antifraud provisions, which would prohibit loading up on debt right 
before bankruptcy. I will respond to each of these points. This will 
not take me long, for those colleagues who are waiting to speak.
  First, the means test we now have in this bill is very flexible. Some 
of my colleagues would say it is too flexible. The means test says if a 
debtor in chapter 7 can pay $15,000 or 25 percent of his or her debts 
over a 5-year period after deducting living expenses and certain other 
types of expenses, such as child support, then that debtor in 
bankruptcy may have to repay some portion of the debts owed. Paying 
some portion of debts owed is very legitimate because the signal we are 
trying to send in this bill is, no longer will anybody get off scot-
free if they have the ability to pay.

  If a bankrupt is in some sort of unique or special situation, the 
means test in this bill allows that person to explain his or her 
situation to the judge or to the trustee and actually get out of paying 
these debts.
  Again, a lot of my colleagues say, why would you have a provision 
like that in this bill? If somebody has special circumstances or not, 
if they owe, they ought to pay. Well, it is an attempt to make changes 
that are dramatically different, even with these compromises, than what 
we have had as a law of the land since 1978.
  If there are these special expenses which are both reasonable and 
necessary, and this reduces repayment ability, then, as I said, the 
debtor doesn't have to repay his or her debt. That is a simple process 
that everyone can understand. Somehow that has been interpreted by some 
people in this body as not actually doing what the bill says, or they 
are reading the bill a different way. I want to clear this up. The way 
we determine living expenses in the bill is to use a very simple 
template established by the Internal Revenue Service for repayment 
plans involved in back taxes.
  I am going to read from a chart. This study was done by the General 
Accounting Office. It noted, in this June 1999 report to Congress about 
bankruptcy reform, that the template we use as a basis for this 
legislation, to allow the debtor to declare necessary living expenses, 
does include child care expenses, dependent care expenses, health care 
expenses, and other expenses which are necessary living expenses.
  Right here is where it says: Other necessary expenses. I want this 
very clear, that this legislation allows, as you can see, child care, 
dependent care, health care, payroll deductions, on and on, life 
insurance. Let anybody tell me on the floor of this body that this is 
not a flexible test to accommodate very extraordinary circumstances or 
very regular circumstances.
  So the suggestion last night that the bill is unfair because it 
doesn't allow for child care expenses or these other expenses 
associated with raising children is misplaced. According to the General 
Accounting Office, the Internal Revenue Service living standards--and 
these standards are the basis for the court to decide the ability to 
repay--in the bill now provide that any --I emphasize any--necessary 
expense can be taken into account. So, again, how much more flexible 
can we get? The only living expenses not allowed under our bill are 
very unnecessary and unreasonable expenses. The only people who oppose 
the means test, as currently written, are people who want deadbeats 
looking to stiff their creditors to dine on fancy meals or live in 
extravagant homes and take posh vacations. And there is no reason why 
we have a $40 billion bankruptcy problem in this country, and that 
honest people in this country, a family of four are paying $400 a year 
more in additional costs for the goods and services they buy to make up 
for deadbeats who aren't paying, and that we have to put up with still 
other people who have the capability of paying to live high on the hog.

  I think what is really behind the effort is the desire to have a 
means test which, quite frankly, doesn't do anything. Why have the bill 
at all? We could continue to go on under the 1978 law, where we doubled 
the number of bankruptcies in the last 6 or 7 years, from 700,000 to 
1.4 million--an irresponsible public policy. Before I ever introduced 
this bill, I made numerous compromises to make the means test flexible, 
as I have said--more flexible, in fact. Some of the changes have even 
been suggested by this Democrat administration. They were suggested at 
the end of the last Congress when a bill that passed here 97-1 didn't 
get through. This bill has incorporated some of those. It is a 
compromise bill. I have taken heat from my side of the aisle for that.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield before he goes on to his next 
point?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, be recognized after the Senator from Iowa 
is finished, and then the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Kerrey, and then 
the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli, and that I be recognized 
at a later time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, and I won't.
  Mr. LEAHY. It will be on my time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Is this within the timeframes we already have under the 
agreement?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes. The Senator from Alabama, the Senator from Nebraska, 
and the Senator from New Jersey will be recognized.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. If the Senator will yield, what is the time agreement 
already?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Two hours equally divided. Would the Chair please tell 
us how much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The agreement was 4 hours equally divided. The 
Senator from Iowa has 48 minutes 47 seconds. The Senator from Vermont 
has 89 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. That seems more than adequate to me.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask my colleagues to give a little bit of time for the 
Senator from Vermont who is going to want to speak somewhere in there.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I make my final point, and then 
yield the floor--hopefully, the Senator from Vermont will hear this--I 
hope we can get some agreement on both sides

[[Page S14452]]

to yield back some time when the present speakers are done speaking.
  The issue of household goods is where I left off when the Senator 
from Vermont asked me to yield for a minute. On this next statement, I 
might surprise Senator Dodd and some of my colleagues, but I do 
somewhat agree with what was said last night. Under the bankruptcy 
code, household goods can't be seized by creditors. The point, as I 
understand it, from the Senator from Connecticut, is that perhaps the 
definition of household goods in the bill now could be loosened up so 
creditors can't get certain essential household items. I do see merit 
in this point. If the Senator from Connecticut were to modify his 
amendment just to deal with household goods, I would be pleased to work 
with him on that to get the bill accepted. But right now, the amendment 
of the Senator from Connecticut does much more than just deal with the 
household goods issue. I simply can't accept the other changes he has 
suggested.
  Finally, last night, the Senator from Louisiana raised some criticism 
of the provision of the bill that fights fraud. Here is the problem we 
must address in doing bankruptcy reform: Some people load up on debts 
on the eve of declaring bankruptcy and then, of course, what they try 
to do to wipe those debts away by getting a discharge. Obviously, this 
is a type of fraud that Congress needs to protect against for the 
honest consumers who are paying that additional $400 per year. The bill 
now says debts for luxury items purchased within 90 days of bankruptcy 
in excess of $250 and also cash advances on credit cards made within 70 
days in excess of $750 are presumed to be nondischargeable.
  Now, again, this is very flexible on its face. Under the bill now, 
you can't buy $249 worth of luxury items such as caviar the day before 
you declare bankruptcy and still walk away scot-free. Under the bill 
now, you can get $749 worth of cash advances minutes before you declare 
bankruptcy and still walk away scot-free.
  The question we have to answer is, How much more fraud do we want to 
tolerate in this bill? Haven't we tolerated enough in this bipartisan 
compromise, which I thank the Senator from New Jersey for working so 
hard with me on to get it put together? So we go to the amendment 
offered last night. This would allow $1,000 worth of fraud. In my view, 
that is way off base. So if you want to crack down on out and out 
fraud, you should support this bill Senator Torricelli and I have 
introduced. If you want to make it easier for crooks to game the 
bankruptcy system and to get a free ride at everybody else's expense, 
then you should support the amendment that was offered last night.
  Well, obviously, unless the Senator from Connecticut would modify his 
amendment to limit it to household goods, I oppose that amendment, and 
I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Under the unanimous consent agreement, I am to speak at 
this time; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Grassley for his 
leadership in the effort against drugs. I am a strong believer that 
this legislation that focuses on methamphetamine is focusing on 
critical issues that are important to America. We do have a spreading 
of methamphetamine around the country, and I am inclined to believe 
that increased penalties, and certainly a lot of other things involved 
in that legislation, is good. It has also been made a part of this 
legislation--efforts to change the current law with regard to crack 
cocaine and powder cocaine.
  Complaints have been made that crack cocaine penalties are 100 times 
more tough than powder sentences, and that this is, in fact, not fair--
a point with which I tend to agree. I prosecuted drug cases for 15 
years. Every year since the sentencing guidelines were imposed, until 
1992, I prosecuted drug cases. I understand how it plays out in a 
courtroom. The proposal that is made a part of Senator Grassley's 
amendment is the Hatch-Ashcroft-Abraham drug amendment, I guess it is. 
That proposal is designed to narrow the gap, saying that crack cocaine 
ought not to have 100 times more severe penalty than powder cocaine.
  An argument has been made that crack cocaine is more utilized in the 
African American community and, therefore, it has a disparity and a 
racial impact, and that we ought to look at this. Few would doubt that 
crack is a more dangerous drug than powder cocaine. It is smoked, it 
goes directly into the lungs, directly into the blood system, and 
directly to the brain.
  There are intense highs achieved at once. Some people, they say, are 
addicted the first time they try crack cocaine. It is a dangerous drug. 
Powder is normally sniffed through the nose. It is easy to receive 
through the nostrils, into the membranes, into the blood system, and it 
is not quite as intense as crack. It does not cause addiction nearly so 
quickly. So there is a difference.
  The idea of a 10-to-1 ratio is a movement in the right direction.
  But my reluctance at this point with this legislation is simply this: 
I believe it is time for us to look at the drug guidelines and the 
penalties we are imposing. This legislation would have no impact on the 
current crack guidelines but would raise the powder guidelines.
  We are talking about 50 grams of powder cocaine which you could 
virtually hold in one hand--50 grams of powder cocaine, 5 years without 
parole; 5 grams of crack, which could easily be held in one hand, is 5 
years without parole in the Federal system. That is what we are talking 
about--Federal law, Federal penalties, not States which can have their 
own sentences in any way they want.
  I say to the Chair that, as a prosecutor, I took the enforcement of 
law seriously. We had one of the highest average sentences in the 
United States. I think one year we had the highest average sentence 
imposed in the United States in drug cases. We were honest in how we 
presented the case: This is the way it worked; this is what the law is.
  You charge an individual with selling crack cocaine, and normally the 
case doesn't just go down on the fact that he is caught with 25, 30, or 
40 grams. Normally, you are prosecuting in Federal court an 
organization of drug dealers. You would bring in the underling who 
worked for that leader. You would ask him how long he had been out on 
this street corner or selling from this crack house. Then they say a 
year. How much has he sold over that year? Pretty soon, the amount goes 
up to kilograms, 1,000 grams, multikilograms of crack have been 
distributed, and that person is looking at literally 30 years, 20 
years, or life without parole.
  I have seen sentences in Federal court of quite a number of young men 
and women to life without parole, and others 30 years, 25 years, or 20 
years without parole. I believe strong sentences are effective. I 
believe they allow the law enforcement community to break the back of 
an illegal ring such as a drug ring.
  I don't want to go into any significant reduction in sentences, but I 
think it is time for us to evaluate whether or not we are approaching 
the drug penalties in the appropriate way. The judges are concerned. 
Judges think this minimum mandatory which has the effect of driving up 
all of the sentencing guidelines is too tough.
  General Barry McCaffrey has questioned the crack and powder cocaine 
laws as proposed in this amendment. He believes there is a better 
approach to it. I think it is time for us to consider that. I believe 
we have had these guidelines in effect for quite some time now--well 
over a decade. I believe we ought to look at it, have some hearings, 
and study it.
  I didn't want to, by voting for this amendment, suggest I was 
comfortable with these guidelines. In fact, my inclination would be not 
to vote for the amendment for that reason.
  I simply think the best way to reduce drug trafficking by law 
enforcement is to have more prosecutions. It is less important--I did 
this as a prosecutor for 17 years. I chaired the U.S. Attorneys 
Committee for the United States here in Washington on drug abuse and 
drug issues. I am a full and total believer in the sentencing 
guidelines, the tough Federal laws that are out there.

  But if you ask me, my personal view is that I would prefer to have 10 
people caught and sentenced to 7 years in jail rather than 5 people 
caught and sentenced to 14 years in jail. The best way

[[Page S14453]]

for us to improve our pressure from the law enforcement end on drug 
trafficking in America is to increase prosecutions and investigations. 
Whether they serve 7 years, 9 years, 12 years, or 6 years is less 
important than people who are out dealing drugs who know they are going 
to get caught and they are going to have a big time sentence to serve, 
and it is without parole.
  Make no mistake about it, in State systems they normally serve a 
third of the time. This Congress a number of years ago, in a great 
piece of legislation, passed honesty in sentencing that says you serve 
what the judge gives you; and not only that, but you have to serve the 
sentence that the sentencing guidelines call for.
  Based on the amount of drugs literally when the case hits a judge's 
sentencing docket and the judge looks at it, it may be the difference 
between 18 and 21 years. If he likes a defendant and feels sorry for 
him, he gives him 18 years. If he doesn't like him, he gives him 21 
years. That is about all the discretion he has.
  I am not sure we ought not to take time now to reevaluate that to 
make sure we are properly sentencing and we are using our resources of 
incarceration wisely. What is it, $20,000 a year, to keep somebody in 
prison? Wouldn't it be better to drive down drug use by intensive 
prosecutions across the board, letting the drug dealer know he is soon 
going to be caught and will serve a significant amount of time, than 
just taking a few people and sending them off for 30 years without 
parole? I believe that would be a better policy. I am prepared to 
consider that. I am prepared to work with General McCaffrey and 
Attorney General Reno and others in an open and fair way.
  I do not believe we ought to eliminate the sentencing guidelines. I 
do not believe we ought to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for 
certain amounts of drugs. I believe that is appropriate. I don't 
believe we ought to retreat from a tough law enforcement presence with 
regard to illegal drug use.
  Just this morning, Senator Coverdell hosted with General McCaffrey a 
breakfast for the Attorney General of Mexico. I was able to sit at his 
table and share thoughts about what we can do as two nations to improve 
our war against drugs. Mexico is in a crisis perhaps bigger than they 
realize. As the power of that illegal drug empire grows, the harder and 
harder it is for that country to contain it. They have to, not because 
we pressure them, out of their own self-interest save that country from 
being corrupted and destabilized by a powerful, wealthy drug empire. I 
hope we can encourage that and work together to assist with that.
  We in the United States need to continue our effective efforts over 
the years to do education, prevention, treatment, prosecution, and 
incarceration of drug dealers. If we continue that effort and the 
interdiction effort, I believe we can bring drug use down. Everybody in 
this country will benefit from that.
  I wanted to share my thoughts on this. I hope to be able to vote for 
this amendment. But I am not sure I can. I believe we need to seriously 
evaluate the sentencing guidelines and the mandatory sentences for drug 
use in America to make sure they are rational, that they are 
effectuating our effort as much as they possibly can to reduce drug use 
and illegal distribution of drugs in America.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the bankruptcy 
bill. I have supported a number of amendments to it. I believe this 
bill does achieve a balance between society's interest of people paying 
their debts and preventing debtors from being permanently ruined.
  Senator Grassley and Senator Torricelli have made a good-faith effort 
to strike that balance. I am an original cosponsor of the bill. I 
supported some reasonable changes that will improve the bill. If those 
changes are adopted by a majority of the Senate, I intend to support 
final passage of what I consider to be a very important piece of 
legislation that will make certain people don't take undue advantage of 
the bankruptcy laws, especially those who can reasonably be expected to 
pay at least part of their debts. These individuals are not excused 
entirely. That is, in essence, what Senator Grassley and Senator 
Torricelli have attempted to do. I believe they have struck a fair 
balance and gotten that done.
  I understand this is the last legislative vehicle heading, hopefully, 
toward the President's signature.
  I want to speak about the methamphetamine amendment that has been 
offered that we will vote on relatively soon. Staff has advised me I 
should vote for it, that I should not be seen as being weak on fighting 
the battle against methamphetamines. I have come to the floor and I 
wish the author of this amendment were on the floor to ask him, why 
shouldn't I be angry that this amendment has been converted from a good 
piece of legislation that would provide additional resources, that 
would give additional resources to our DEA agents to enable law 
enforcement to fight in Nebraska the battle against methamphetamines? 
That is what we are trying to do.
  I have worked with almost every single sheriff, almost every single 
law enforcement officer--whether chief of police or the head of our 
highway patrol--trying to win this battle, and we are not winning it. 
We have the juvenile justice bill tied up in conference; why don't we 
pass it? Because we can't reach agreement on how to regulate gun 
ownership. It provides additional resources to win this battle, to 
enable us to say we are doing all we can to keep our kids safe against 
a drug that will destroy their lives.
  What do we have before the Senate? An amendment that has a school 
voucher proposal in it. I hear from my judges, from my law enforcement 
officers, that the net effect of the changes in the penalties on crack 
and powder cocaine, to increase the penalty to the mandatory minimum on 
powder cocaine, will be we divert more resources from fighting the 
battle on dealers and high-level drug usage to fighting the battle 
against those individuals using cocaine occasionally or on a one-time 
basis. We will be arresting and putting college kids in jail. That is 
what we will be doing.
  I am angry we have interfered with a good faith effort. The 
underlying provisions of this methamphetamine bill I find to be 
attractive with the urgency of this problem. In Nebraska, we started 
this 5 or 6 years ago when the problem of methamphetamine first came to 
light. We devoted more resources as part of the HIDTA--High Intensity 
Drug Trafficking Area--effort, part of the multiagency effort. Law 
enforcement people say they are starting to get this under control; 
they are making more arrests; they are putting people away. The tougher 
penalties in here I support because we need to have tougher penalties 
in place. They say they are getting the job done, but all of a sudden 
we are playing politics with it again.
  I favor the underlying methamphetamine effort that is in this 
amendment. But to attach a school voucher proposal to it and additional 
mandatory minimums that will redirect resources away from the real 
serious problems in my community is offensive to me personally. Not 
only will I vote against it, I intend to write a letter to every law 
enforcement officer in Nebraska and say to them, they also should be 
angry. We haven't passed the Juvenile Justice Act. We are not providing 
resources necessary to solve this problem, and we are playing politics, 
worst of all, trying to seek advantage, trying to put an amendment up 
that is difficult to vote against.
  It won't be difficult for me to vote against this amendment. I am sad 
that is what I have to do because we are playing politics rather than 
trying to actually provide our law enforcement officers with the 
resources they need to solve what has become in Nebraska one of my most 
difficult law enforcement problems to solve.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am opposed to amendment No. 2771 to S. 
625, the bankruptcy bill, because it contains a provision allowing 
school districts to use funds from any federal education program to 
provide a school voucher to any student attending a Title I school that 
has been the victim of a violent crime on school grounds. I believe 
that providing vouchers to students to attend private or parochial 
schools is a wrong-headed policy notion that would do nothing to 
improve the education system that 90% American

[[Page S14454]]

children depend upon. Further, the Hatch amendment attempts to relieve 
only those students against whom a violent crime has been committed, 
but does nothing to improve school safety for students remaining in the 
public schools.
  Federal funding must be focused on improving educational excellence 
in our nation's public schools. Money provided by the federal 
government to state and local education agencies is critical to 
increasing student achievement and improving teacher quality. A 
disservice to the public school system is done with this money is 
directed to private or parochial schools. School reform should not 
translate into an abandonment of our nation's public schools.
  I agree with Mr. Hatch in that there is a crisis of violence and 
disruption undermining too many classrooms. Last year 6,000 children 
were expelled from public schools and there were 4,000 cases of rape or 
sexual battery reported. Parents, students, and educators know that 
serious school reform will only succeed in a safe and orderly learning 
environment. But Mr. President, my solution for stemming the tide of 
violence differs radically from that of Mr. Hatch. Instead of 
abandoning the public schools, the legislation that Mr. Smith of Oregon 
and I introduced would establish a competitive grant program for school 
districts to create ``Second Chance Schools.'' In order to receive the 
funds, school districts would need to have in place district-wide 
discipline codes which use clear language with specific examples of 
behaviors that will result in disciplinary action and have every 
student and parent sign the code. Additionally, schools could use the 
funds to promote effective classroom management; provide training for 
school staff and administrators in enforcement of the code; implement 
programs to modify student behavior including hiring school counselors; 
and establish high quality alternative placements for chronically 
disruptive and violent students that include a continuum of 
alternatives from meeting with behavior management specialists, to 
short-term in-school crisis centers, to medium duration in-school 
suspension rooms, to off-campus alternatives. Schools could implement a 
range of interventions including short-term in-school crisis centers, 
medium duration in-school suspension rooms, and off-campus 
alternatives. Mr. President, I advocate a solution to the problem of 
violence in our schools that would help troubled students and ensure 
those students do not act out again, in their schools, in their homes, 
or in their communities.
  Mr. President, I also oppose this amendment because it would require 
local school officials to determine whether a student has committed a 
drug felony on school property. Administrators and educators in this 
country's public schools are not trained or well-suited to perform the 
job of law enforcement officers. Their job is to establish policies 
regulating drugs, alcohol, and tobacco on school grounds, but the 
business of suspected drug felonies should clearly be handled by law 
enforcement officers.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by Senators Hatch and Ashcroft that will help to 
reduce drug abuse and illegal narcotics trafficking throughout the 
United States. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important 
legislation.
  I am very concerned about the rate of illegal drug abuse across the 
nation. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, there 
are over 13 million current users of any illicit drug among those aged 
12 or over, and 4 million chronic drug users in America.
  These national statistics are similar to drug abuse patterns in my 
home state of Minnesota. The 1998 Minnesota Student Survey conducted by 
the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning and the 
Minnesota Department of Human Services revealed increased marijuana use 
in each age group studied--sixth graders, ninth graders, and high 
school seniors--over the past three years. In 1998, 30 percent of 
Minnesota seniors surveyed reported using marijuana in the previous 
year.
  In addition, the high volume of illegal methamphetamine trafficking 
and production in Minnesota has placed enormous strain upon the 
resources of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies 
investigating the abuse of this deadly substance. In recent years, the 
number of methamphetamine treatment admissions to treatment centers and 
``meth'' arrests of juveniles and adults has increased dramatically 
throughout our communities. Methamphetamine has become the drug of 
choice throughout Minnesota and is closely associated with increased 
crime and gang violence.
  I am also troubled by the large number of national drug trafficking 
organizations that have established operations in Minnesota. The 
alarming rate of meth production and trafficking in my state has been 
caused by independent organizations that run clandestine laboratories 
in apartment complexes, farms, motel rooms and residences with 
inexpensive, over-the-counter materials. The secretive nature of the 
manufacturing process involves toxic chemicals, and frequently results 
in fires, damaging explosions, and destruction to our environment. Meth 
trafficking in both Minnesota and the United States has severely 
threatened the health and safety of our citizens, and crippled our 
national movement against drug abuse.
  For these reasons, I am pleased that the amendment offered by 
Senators Hatch and Ashcroft includes the major provisions of 
legislation that I have recently cosponsored, the ``DEFEAT Meth Act'' 
introduced by Senator Ashcroft. This amendment will increase penalties 
for meth crimes, provide additional federal assistance to local law 
enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute meth trafficking, 
implement community-based methamphetamine treatment and prevention 
programs, and safely cleanup illegal meth labs.

  In my view, any proposal to combat illegal meth trafficking should 
also provide added security to our nation's farmers and farm businesses 
who must protect their farms from the theft of anhydrous ammonia, a 
crop fertilizer which is often used as an ingredient in the illegal 
manufacture of methamphetamine. Importantly, this amendment makes it 
illegal to steal anhuydrous ammonia or to transport stolen anhudrous 
ammonia across state lines if a person knows that this product will be 
used to illegally manufacture a controlled substance such as 
methamphetamine.
  As someone working to secure High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 
designation for the State of Minnesota, I am also very pleased that 
this proposal provides additional resources to investigate and 
prosecute meth production and trafficking in HIDTA regions throughout 
the country. This program administered by the nation's drug czar is a 
critical component of our federal drug control strategy.
  The Hatch-Ashcroft amendment also toughens federal policy toward 
powder cocaine dealers, building upon the ``Powder Cocaine Sentencing 
Act of 1999'' which I have supported throughout this Congress. As my 
colleagues know, the current law provides that a dealer must distribute 
500 grams of powder cocaine to qualify for a 5-year mandatory minimum 
prison sentence, and distribute 5 grams of crack cocaine to qualify for 
that offense. These sentencing guidelines result in a 100-to-1 quantity 
ratio between powder and more severe crack cocaine distribution 
sentences.
  The Hatch-Ashcroft amendment represents a fair and effective approach 
toward federal cocaine sentencing policy. Rather than make federal 
crack cocaine sentences more lenient, this amendment would reduce from 
500 to 50 grams the amount of powder cocaine a person must be convicted 
of distributing before receiving a mandatory five-year sentence. This 
legislation would adjust the current 100-to-1 quantity ratio to 10-to-1 
by toughening powder cocaine sentences with reducing crack cocaine 
sentences.
  I share the concern of parents and families regarding the violence 
which is occurring at an alarming rate at our nation's schools. Our 
children should be provided with the opportunity to learn in a safe and 
drug-free environment. We should make it clear that drug offenders will 
not be allowed to prey upon the innocence of young people and students.
  In my view, the Hatch-Ashcroft amendment will help local school 
districts stop the flow of illegal drugs into our classrooms. 
Specifically, this proposal increases the mandatory minimum penalties 
for distribution of

[[Page S14455]]

drugs to minors and for distribution of illegal drugs near schools and 
other locations frequented by juveniles. The amendment also requires 
school districts that receive federal funds to have expulsion policies 
for students who bring large quantities of drugs on school grounds. 
This is consistent with the current law which requires similar policies 
for students who bring firearms to school.
  I understand the concerns expressed by some Members of Congress, 
federal judges, and the public regarding the fairness of mandatory 
minimum sentences. However, I believe mandatory minimum sentences for 
certain drug offenses is an important part of our national drug control 
policy and contributes to safer schools, work places, and communities.
  Mr. President, the sale, manufacture and distribution of illegal 
drugs is one of the most difficult challenges facing our country. Drug 
abuse is a daily threat to the lives of young people and the health and 
safety of our communities. I believe a strong national anti-drug 
massage should include the proposals contained within this amendment. 
Passage of this proposal will provide greater protection to Americans 
from drug offenders, and drug-related crime and violence.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep 
disappointment concerning amendment 2771 to the Bankruptcy bill that we 
are voting on today. Earlier this year, I was an original cosponsor of 
S. 562, the methamphetamine bill introduced by Senator Harkin, to 
implement a coordinated effort to combat methamphetamine abuse. I am 
very concerned about the abuse of methamphetamine in my home state of 
New Mexico, and I am very concerned about the rise in meth labs in my 
state. That is why I wholeheartedly supported the provisions aimed at: 
(1) combating the spread of methamphetamine; (2) treating abusers of 
meth; (3) developing prevention programs; and (4) researching meth. I 
was glad to see that Senator Hatch accepted the treatment, prevention 
and research provisions that were in S. 562 when drafting this 
amendment.
  Meth is a highly addictive drug and I have supported efforts to stop 
the spread of meth in our rural communities. I support tougher 
penalties for meth lab operators and traffickers. I support resources 
to law enforcement to cover the cost of dismantling toxic meth labs.
  However, because of the provision added to this amendment at the last 
minute, concerning school vouchers, I am unable to vote for an 
otherwise good meth bill. I regret that the drafters of this amendment 
felt it necessary to politicize this bill with issues like school 
vouchers that are unrelated to the methamphetamine issue. These 
attempts to undermine the bipartisan support for this meth bill are 
unfortunate.
  While I support providing resources to law enforcement to battle the 
methamphetamine epidemic and have been a strong advocate for ways to 
improve school security, I cannot support the use of federal funds to 
send students to private or parochial schools under a legislative 
provision riddled with problems.
  The provision allowing schools to use federal funds to send a student 
to a private school, including a religious school, if they become a 
victim of a violent crime on school grounds, will do nothing to make 
our schools safer and will only divert crucial funding from our public 
school system. In addition, the language is overly broad. If a student 
is injured on school grounds, at any time, the student will be entitled 
to attend the school of his or her choice anywhere in the state. This 
provision would allow the child who gets into a fight following a 
weekend basketball game to enroll in a private school--free of charge. 
The amendment would even allow federal funds to be used to transport 
the student to the private schools, even though federal funds could not 
be used to transport a student to a public school within the student's 
current school district.
  Instead of pushing an overly broad voucher proposal which will damage 
our schools rather than improve them, we should focus on supporting 
violence and crime prevention programs for our youth. We should support 
community crime prevention activities that encourage parent and 
community involvement, and help communities and schools ensure that all 
children are safe all the time. For example, the juvenile crime bill--
that has been sitting in Conference since this summer--properly 
addresses school safety in a comprehensive manner. My Republican 
colleagues have blocked final passage of that bill.
  In addition, we should invest in initiatives such as the Safe and 
Drug-free Schools and after-school programs, since we know that most 
juvenile crimes occur between 3:00 and 8:00 p.m. As my colleague 
Senator Harkin pointed out, the Republican leadership passed a bill 
that allocates only 50% of the amount that the President requested for 
this purpose.
  Instead of draining much-needed resources from public schools, we 
should create conditions for improvement and reform--not in a few 
schools, but in all schools; not for a few students, but for all 
students.
  By attaching these voucher provisions and issues unrelated to meth 
and the underlying bankruptcy bill, this entire amendment has been 
poisoned. If the Majority Leader was serious about passing a meth bill 
to aid law enforcement and reduce meth abuse, he could have offered a 
meth bill as a freestanding bill. However, by offering it as a non-
germane amendment to the bankruptcy bill, this meth bill has little 
chance of surviving a bankruptcy conference committee and is a shallow 
attempt to help the groups fighting the spread of drugs in our states. 
Like many of my colleagues here today, I am angry that the poison pill, 
added to this meth bill at the final hour, converted a good piece of 
legislation into a bill that I cannot vote for.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong concerns 
about the provision of this amendment which authorizes vouchers for 
private schools.
  Nearly all year we have had an ongoing debate over education. We have 
discussed funding, flexibility, accountability and numerous other 
issues. And each side has claimed they were on the side of the angels--
the children and the schools--in these debates.
  But in these last few weeks the masks have finally slipped off--
Halloween is over and today we can see what direction my colleagues on 
the other side want to take education in this country.
  In appropriations, they are fighting hard, very hard, against a 
national commitment to reduce class size. We all, even my colleagues on 
the other side, know, through research and from the voices of teachers 
and parents across the country, that class size is a key barrier to 
achievement particularly in the early grades. Too many children in a 
class overwhelm even the best teacher--discipline issues, control, 
noise and lack of focus define these classes of 25-30 children. But no, 
the Republicans claim they just will not accept a continued federal 
focus in this area.
  On this bill, they will offer one amendment to block grant teacher 
training and professional development programs and reduce 
accountability in the critical area of improving teacher quality.
  And they have slipped into this ``drug'' amendment a major voucher 
program for private schools.
  Vouchers, block grants, and no class size--their position on 
education is clear.
  They are not for improving public schools for all children. They are 
not for parents or students or teachers. They instead are for their own 
special interests--they are for private schools, not neighborhood 
schools; for state bureaucracy, not a focus on class size; for revenue 
sharing, not accountability.
  This commitment to a few rather than all of our children is no where 
more clear than in the provision before us authorizing private 
vouchers.
  Our universal system of public education is one of the very 
cornerstones of our nation, our democracy and our culture.
  In every community, public schools are where America comes together 
in its rich diversity. For generations, educating the rich, poor, 
black, white, first-generation Americans--be they Irish, English, 
Japanese or Mexican-Americans--and all Americans has been the charge 
and challenge of our public schools. It is clearly not the

[[Page S14456]]

easiest task. But its importance cannot be undervalued.
  These efforts are essential to our democracy which relies on an 
educated citizenry, to our communities which require understanding of 
diversity to function, and to our economy which thrives on highly 
educated and trained workers. Education--public education--is also the 
door to economic opportunity for all citizens individually.
  However, voucher proposals, like the one before us today, 
fundamentally undermine this ideal of public education.
  Supporters of these programs never argue they will serve all 
children. They simply argue it is a way for some children to get out of 
public schools.
  I do not argue that our public schools do not face challenges--
violence, disinvestment and declining revenues plague some of our 
schools, just as they do many other community institutions.
  And our schools are not ignoring these problems--even with limited 
resources.
  Many are digging themselves out of these problems to offer real hope 
and opportunities to students. James Comer in Connecticut has led a 
revolution in public schools across the country by supporting parents 
and improving education through community involvement and reinvestment 
in the schools. Public magnet and charter schools are flourishing 
offering students innovative curriculum and new choices within the 
public school system. School safety programs, violence prevention 
curriculum and character education initiatives are making real gains in 
the struggle against violence in our schools and larger communities.
  And these reform efforts are beginning to show results. Our schools 
are getting better. Student achievement is up in math, science and 
reading. The reach of technology has spread to nearly all of our 
schools. The dropout rate continues to decline.
  We clearly have a ways to go before all our schools are models of 
excellence, but our goal must be to lend a hand in these critical 
efforts, not withdraw our support for the schools that educate 90 
percent of all students in America--public schools.
  And there is no question about it, private school vouchers will 
divert much needed dollars away from public schools. Our dollars are 
limited. We must focus them on improving opportunities for all children 
by improving the system that serves all children--the public schools.
  Proponents of private school choice argue that vouchers will open up 
new educational opportunities to low-income families and their 
children. In fact, vouchers offer private schools, not parent's choice. 
The private schools will pick and choose students, as they do now. Few 
will choose to serve students with low test scores, with disabilities 
or with discipline problems. Vouchers will not come close to covering 
the cost of tuition at the vast majority of private schools.
  There are also important accountability issues. Private institutions 
can fold in mid-year as nearly half a dozen have done in Milwaukee 
leaving taxpayers to pick up these pieces--only the pieces are 
children's lives and educations.
  Our public schools are not just about any one child; they are about 
all children and all of us. I do not have any children, but I pay 
property taxes and do so happily to support the education of the 
children I am counting on to be tomorrow's workers, thinkers, leaders, 
teachers and taxpayers.
  Our future is dependent on nurturing and developing the potential of 
every child to its fullest. Investing in our public schools is the best 
way to reach this goal.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the scourge of illegal drugs is one of 
the greatest problems facing our nation today. We have all heard 
stories about the wreckage of crime and shattered lives that drugs 
leave in their wake. Tragically, after years of steady progress in the 
war on drugs we have seen a reversal in hopeful trend lines under the 
current administration. I believe that the Ashcroft-Hatch-Abraham 
amendment can be an important step towards reducing the trend of 
increased drug use and putting our nation back on the road to victory 
in the war on drugs.
  I am pleased that this legislation takes special aim at 
methamphetamines. In recent years, ``meth'' as it is called, has 
emerged as the leading illegal drug of choice, replacing cocaine as the 
most popularly used drug. In some ways ``meth'' is even worse than 
cocaine. It is cheap, easy to produce, highly addictive, and it kills. 
This drug is proving especially devastating in rural America. In my 
State of Kentucky, ``meth'' labs have been springing up like a deadly 
cancer in our communities. The methamphetamines produced in these labs 
are addicting adults and children at an alarming rate. We need to do 
something to combat this threat to our families and communities.
  This antidrug legislation contains some important provisions to 
strengthen the war on drugs. The increased sentences for 
methamphetamines related offenses will send a clear message to dealers, 
producers, and users that we will not tolerate the problems they are 
bringing to our communities. This legislation also directs the DEA to 
mount a comprehensive offensive against this drug. Finally, it will 
provide additional resources for hard hit areas--especially those in 
rural America--that are struggling with the rising tide of ``meth'' 
production and use. The legislation will help these areas combat 
methamphetamine trafficking and implement abuse prevention efforts.
  Mr. President, methamphetamine production and use has become a very 
serious problem in our country. It is time that Congress took aim at 
this issue. I support this legislation and urge all of my colleagues to 
do likewise.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President. I rise in support of the Republican crime 
amendment (#2771) to the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999. This amendment 
takes a multi-faceted approach to combating the problem of drugs. 
However, I am particularly pleased with the methamphetamine component 
of the amendment, which will help my own state of Arizona combat a 
veritable meth epidemic.
  Arizona law enforcement continues to seize a record number of meth 
labs. Meth lab seizures are up to 30 percent over last year, with over 
400 labs projected to be dismantled by the end of this fiscal year. An 
average of 26 labs per month are seized--that's almost one lab per day.
  Meth usage is up, I am sad to report. Phoenix has the second highest 
rate for meth emergency-room admissions in the United States, according 
to the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN). Phoenix also has the second 
highest percent of arrestees testing positive for meth in the U.S. 
according to the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring program (ADAM).
  Meth prosecutions are up, as well. The number of meth cases 
prosecuted by the Maricopa County Attorney's office in the first five 
months of this year was equal to all of the cases prosecuted during 
1990.
  This amendment provides a well-balanced approach to tackling meth by 
not only increasing penalties for certain meth-related crimes but also 
providing money to law enforcement (DEA and HIDTAs) for training, 
personnel, and meth lab cleanups, and providing money for prevention. 
The amendment also pays special attention to the anti-meth needs of 
rural communities by providing funding so the DEA can assist rural law 
enforcement in meth investigations. Many rural counties in my state 
cannot afford the latest and safest equipment, so they use old and 
unsafe equipment. Limited personnel and expansive terrain hinder meth-
lab seizures. For example, Mohave County law enforcement seized about 
one lab per week last year and could have seized double that if they 
had the resources.
  Because of Arizona's meth problem, I have fought for additional 
funding for Arizona law enforcement. Last year, I secured $1 million 
for Arizona law enforcement to use for equipment, personnel, and 
training in order to combat meth. This was in direct response to a 
field hearing I held in Phoenix highlighting the problem of meth and 
meth labs. During the hearing I heard from urban and rural law 
enforcement on the dangers posed by meth labs as well as their drain on 
resources.
  I support this amendment because it will give law enforcement the 
resources needed to combat the problem of meth in my state.

[[Page S14457]]

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate amendment 
2771 to S. 625 because it will provide additional federal resources to 
combat the dramatic increase in the production, use and distribution of 
methamphetamine which I believe must be stopped.
  Methamphetamine is particularly insidious because it is highly 
addictive, cheap, easy to produce and distribute, popular with youth, 
and tends to make its users paranoid and violent. Thus, crimes like 
burglaries, theft, shoplifting, robberies, and murder can be traced to 
methamphetamine use. In fact, the prosecuting attorney of my home 
county, Benton County, Arkansas, estimates that 70% of the felony court 
docket is directly or indirectly related to methamphetamine. Another, 
often-forgotten but tragic problem which accompanies methamphetamine 
use is child abuse. Children of methamphetamine users have specific 
problems associated with their parents' drug addictions: medical, 
environmental, and educational neglect; malnutrition; and sometimes 
physical abuse. According to child welfare workers, parents who use 
meth are more likely to physically abuse their children than parents 
who use other drugs.
  Methamphetamine is a serious and growing problem in my home state of 
Arkansas because the state of Arkansas possesses many of the 
characteristics which allow drug trafficking to flourish: it is 
sparsely populated with remote areas; it suffers from a high rate of 
poverty and joblessness and a low per capita income; it has a large 
population of illegal immigrants; and it has two major interstate 
highways which facilitate the transportation of drugs to Oklahoma City, 
Kansas City, Memphis, St. Louis, and throughout the rest of the nation.
  The rapid increase and magnitude of the methamphetamine problem is 
illustrated in my home state's experience. In 1995, the Arkansas State 
Police seized 24 methamphetamine labs; in 1996, the number of labs 
seized more than tripled to 95, then more than tripled again to 242 in 
1997, and doubled again to 434 labs in 1998. Recently, the DEA 
identified Arkansas as one of the top three methamphetamine-producing 
states in the nation, based on per-capita figures. The growth of the 
methamphetamine problem in my home state is also seen by the increase 
in the amount spent to clean up clandestine lab sites, which is one of 
the most dangerous activities law enforcement officers must undertake. 
In 1998, $567,000 was spent on clandestine lab cleanups associated with 
federal agencies in Arkansas whereas five years before, only $71,000 
was expended.
  I support this amendment because it provides an additional $15 
million a year to the Office of National Drug Control Policy to 
facilitate the hiring of federal, state, and local enforcement 
personnel to combat methamphetamine trafficking in designated HIDTAs. 
It is my hope that such an increase will result in the designation of 
additional HIDTAs in areas, like my home state, where the greatest 
increase in the methamphetamine problem is occurring. I also support 
this amendment because of the additional $9.5 million it provides to 
enable the DEA to hire new agents to help state and local enforcement 
officials in the small and mid-sized towns with limited resources where 
methamphetamine is so often found to conduct more methamphetamine 
investigations. This amendment also will provide an additional $5.5 
million for the DEA to train state and local law enforcement officials 
in one of their most dangerous duties, the cleanup of methamphetamine 
labs.
  Finally, I wish to commend and thank Senators Hatch, Ashcroft, 
Grassley, and my other colleagues who have worked so tirelessly on this 
bill and to address the methamphetamine problem and urge my colleagues 
to pass this amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the drug 
amendment to the bankruptcy reform bill introduced by my distinguished 
colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch.
  S. 486, the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999, has been 
drastically altered to give us the amendment we are now debating. I was 
a proud cosponsor of that bipartisan bill. It would provide needed law 
enforcement training and resources to combat meth, as well as 
prevention and treatment resources for meth users, to my state, 
Wisconsin, and all states in the Midwest that have been overrun by this 
horrible drug. The Judiciary Committee explored the extent of the meth 
problem and the urgent need for federal resources and support to fight 
the spread of meth. Hearings and a mark-up of the Methamphetamine Anti-
Proliferation Act were held. The bill was reported out of the Judiciary 
Committee only after extensive negotiations between members from both 
sides of the aisle.
  Now, as we debate bankruptcy reform, I am greatly troubled to see 
that this well-crafted bill has been contorted into a bill with all 
sorts of provisions that have nothing to do with methamphetamine and 
are bad policy, pure and simple. First, the bill has been saddled with 
the Powder Cocaine Sentencing Act. The powder cocaine bill is 
objectionable because it raises powder cocaine penalties to extremely 
high levels--ensuring further prison overcrowding without offering any 
concrete effort to promote cocaine use prevention and treatment. The 
powder cocaine bill has been attached to this amendment, even though it 
has not been considered by the Judiciary Committee. The Committee 
hasn't even had a hearing this year on the bill. Second, the drug 
amendment is bad policy because it includes a voucher provision that 
would provide federal funding for some children to attend private 
school at taxpayer expense, without providing any resources to improve 
the overall quality of education for the children who remain in our 
public schools.
  As a result, I cannot support the drug amendment to the bankruptcy 
reform bill. I want to be clear. I am committed to fighting the spread 
of meth in Wisconsin and across the country. But I cannot support an 
amendment that will do harm to our nation's schools and to our effort 
to punish cocaine offenders fairly. If the drug amendment passes, I 
urge the conferees on this bill to remove the troubling provisions 
relating to powder cocaine and school vouchers.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2655

 (Purpose: To provide for enhanced consumer credit protection, and for 
                            other purposes)

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the 
pending amendment aside and call to the floor amendment No. 2655, and 
that the Senate then return to the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], for himself, 
     Mr. Grassley, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2655.

  Mr. TORRICELLI. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of Friday, 
November 5, 1999, under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, at the outset of this debate for 
bankruptcy reform, I made clear my own feelings that, as important as I 
thought it was to reform the bankruptcy laws, in fairness, the 
legislation needed to be balanced by addressing some of the abuses in 
the credit industry.
  In recent days, Senators Durbin and Dodd have come to the floor with 
their own variations to protect consumers and the credit industry's own 
excesses. Those amendments have not been successful.
  I offer what I believe is a balanced and is clearly a bipartisan 
effort to include some consumer protection in this legislation. It is 
not based on a theory of government intervention or restriction on 
credit. It is based on the theory of giving consumers information to 
make their own judgments. I offer this amendment with Senator Grassley, 
who has been both accommodating and has offered leadership in fair 
consumer protection, with Senator Leahy and Senator Biden.
  As I outline the amendment, I think it will be clear we borrowed 
heavily from ideas offered by Senators Grassley, Biden, and Leahy but 
also consumer protection initiatives in part

[[Page S14458]]

previously offered by Senator Schumer, Senator Reed, Senator Hatch, and 
Senator Gramm. That is why it is all inclusive and why it is balanced.
  There has been a great deal of attention on the rise of consumer 
bankruptcy in recent years. The numbers bear some repeating. Since 
1980, there has been a 350-percent increase in bankruptcy filings. 
Indeed, there are many reasons for it. Part of the crushing debt 
forcing millions of Americans into bankruptcy clearly is the 
availability of credit. In the last 23 years, the debt burden by 
American families has quadrupled. Twenty percent of families earning 
less than $10,000 have consumer debt that is more than 40 percent of 
their income.
  As this chart indicates, consumer bankruptcies and consumer credit 
debt are nearly identically tracking each other. One cannot separate 
the rise in bankruptcies from the level of consumer debt. They are one 
and the same problem.
  Therefore, as certainly as we deal with other reasons for the abuse 
of bankruptcies, we must at least deal in part with this issue of 
availability of credit and whether consumers are fully informed.
  In 1975, total household debt was 24 percent of aggregate household 
income. Today, the number is more than 100 percent. That bears 
repeating: Household income and household debt have now matched each 
other in an extraordinary and dangerous statistic. Certainly, one of 
the factors that has led to this radical rise in household debt is the 
amount of solicitation of consumer credit card debt, which include both 
aggressive and dubious solicitation techniques.

  In 1998, the credit industry sent out more than 3.5 billion 
solicitations. That is 41 mailings for every American household; 14 
credit solicitations for every man, woman, and child in America. This 
does not simply represent aggressive marketing for Americans with high 
incomes who can afford this increase in credit; it includes high school 
and college students, a situation so serious, as Senator Dodd pointed 
out yesterday on the floor of the Senate, that 450 colleges and 
universities have banned the marketing of credit cards on their 
campuses; so serious that credit card debt is a leading reason for 
college students dropping out of school.
  I recognize the problem. Our amendment does not restrict access to 
credit, as many Senators would not support that. There is no mandatory 
control. All we are doing is simply ensuring that before people with 
low income or students incur this debt, they at least know the 
consequences of the debt they are accepting. If this is true for 
students, it is equally true for low-income people. Just in this 
decade, Americans below the poverty line have doubled their credit 
usage. Indeed, that is one of the reasons credit card debt now accounts 
for 31 percent of all consumer debt, putting not only students but low-
income people on a treadmill from which they will never, ever escape.
  Yet I recognize why many Senators would never accept restricting 
access to credit because the availability of credit to low-income 
people, even to students, in a free economy is part of how they make 
investments, make their own judgments. The answer is not to restrict 
credit to poor people or working people or students. The Senate has 
rejected that technique, and I do not offer it today. I offer full 
disclosure. Full disclosure means the 55 to 60 million households in 
America that carry a credit card balance on average, month to month, of 
$7,000, which incurs interest and fees of $1,000 a year, will 
understand the consequences of that debt before and during incurring 
that debt. Too few consumers understand making only the minimum payment 
means their balance will grow and they may never, in a reasonable 
amount of time, have that debt paid.
  Specifically, what are we asking under this amendment? First, we are 
requiring a warning as appears on this chart which, in my own office, 
has modestly been dubbed ``the Torricelli warning.'' It has provisions 
in it specifically that will warn that, with a balance of $1,000 and 
17-percent interest, if the consumer pays only the minimum payment, it 
will take 88 months to pay off the balance. Here is that warning:

       Minimum payment warning: Making only the minimum payment 
     will increase the interest you pay and the time it takes to 
     repay your balance. For example, making only the typical 2-
     percent minimum monthly payment on a balance of $1,000 at an 
     interest rate of 17 percent would take 88 months to repay the 
     balance in full. For an estimate of the time it would take to 
     repay your balance making only the minimum payments, call 
     this toll-free number.

  First, in this Torricelli warning, we put a 1-800 number that is 
available for people to call to get the specifics of how long it will 
take to pay down your account. That is one.
  No. 2, we will require creditors to disclose that interest on loans 
secured by a dwelling is tax deductible only to the value of the 
property because too many consumers are being told if they secure their 
debt with their real estate, it is tax deductible, only then to find if 
they have a debt beyond the value of the property, it is not tax 
deductible. We want full disclosure of this fact.

  This is based on an amendment previously offered by Senator Reed. It 
has great merit. I have included it in this amendment that I offer with 
Senator Grassley and others of my colleagues.
  No. 3, we require that with credit solicitations containing an 
introductory or teaser rate, which is so popular, the date at which the 
introductory rate will expire must be clearly and conspicuously 
disclosed, so people understand these low interest rates will expire 
and when they expire, so they can make an informed judgment as 
consumers. This is based on legislation previously offered by Senator 
Schumer. I think it is invaluable.
  No. 4, we require that disclosure of the standard truth-in-lending 
information now required for paper solicitations also be required for 
Internet solicitations. What we are already requiring on paper 
solicitations we simply apply to the Internet. This is also based on an 
amendment offered in committee by Senator Schumer. I think it is 
extremely valuable.
  No. 5, we require prominent disclosure of the date on which a late 
fee will be charged and the amount of the fee. If people are subjecting 
themselves to late fees, that fact and what the fee would be must be 
disclosed in the amendment Senator Grassley and I are offering. This, 
as well, is based on something Senator Schumer has done in the past, 
and we are very grateful for his valuable contribution to it.
  No. 6, finally, we prohibit a creditor from terminating an account 
prior to its expiration date because a consumer has not incurred 
finance charges. To me, this is the most outrageous of the abuses of 
the credit industry. A person uses their credit card, they pay off the 
balance in full, therefore not availing themselves of the credit that 
could be used, and there is no interest rate because they are paying 
off their balance, and they are getting their credit card taken from 
them. We would prohibit that. Good consumers who use their credit card 
and do not incur any debt do not have to pay, and should not be 
penalized, for being responsible consumers. We prohibit that practice.
  I believe, therefore, what we have done with Senator Leahy and 
Senator Biden, under the leadership of Senator Grassley, is balanced, 
it is fair, it is at this point the only chance in the bankruptcy bill 
to have real consumer protection. It is the only amendment being 
offered on a bipartisan basis. It is based on the very good work of 
Senator Reed and Senator Biden, Senator Leahy, Senator Schumer, and 
Senator Durbin. I hope, based on that work, this amendment can be 
adopted.
  I yield the floor and thank my colleagues for their contributions to 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?


                           Amendment No. 2650

         (Purpose: To control certain abuses of reaffirmations)

  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2650 
proposed by Senator Reed and myself, and I send a modification to the 
desk and ask that the amendment be agreed to as modified and the motion 
to reconsider be agreed to and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2650), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

     SECTION 1. REAFFIRMATION.

       In S. 625, strike section 203 and section 204(a) and (c), 
     and insert in lieu of 204 (a) the following--

[[Page S14459]]

       ``(a) In General.--Section 524 of title 11, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 202 of this Act, is amended--
       (1) In subsection (c) by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) the debtor received the disclosures described in 
     subsection (i) at or before the time the debtor signed the 
     agreement.
       (2) by inserting at the end of the section the following--
       ``(i)(1) The disclosures required under subsection (c) 
     paragraph (2) of this section shall consist of the disclosure 
     statement described in paragraph (3), completed as required 
     in that paragraph, together with the agreement, statement, 
     declaration, motion and order described, respectively, in 
     paragraphs (4) through (8) of this subsection, and shall be 
     the only disclosures required in connection with the 
     reaffirmation.
       ``(2) Disclosures made under this paragraph shall be made 
     clearly and conspicuously and in writing. The terms ``Amount 
     Reaffirmed'' and ``Annual Percentage Rate'' shall be 
     disclosed more conspicuously than other terms, data or 
     information provided in connection with this disclosure, 
     except that the phrases ``Before agreeing to reaffirm a debt, 
     review these important disclosures'' and ``Summary of 
     Reaffirmation Agreement'' may be equally conspicuous. 
     Disclosures may be made in a different order and may use 
     terminology different from that set forth in paragraphs [(2) 
     through (7)], except that the terms ``Amount Reaffirmed'' and 
     ``Annual Percentage Rate'' must be used where indicated.
       ``(3) The disclosure statement required under this 
     paragraph shall consist of the following--
       ``(A) The statement: ``Part A: Before agreeing to reaffirm 
     a debt, review these important disclosures:'';
       ``(B) Under the heading ``Summary of Reaffirmation 
     Agreement'', the statement: ``This Summary is made pursuant 
     to the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code'';
       ``(C) The ``Amount Reaffirmed'', using that term, which 
     shall be the total amount which the debtor agrees to 
     reaffirm, and the total of any other fees or cost accrued as 
     of the date of the reaffirmation agreement.''
       ``(D) In conjunction with the disclosure of the ``Amount 
     Reaffirmed'', the statements
       (I) ``The amount of debt you have agreed to reaffirm''; and
       (II) ``Your credit agreement may obligate you to pay 
     additional amounts which may come due after the date of this 
     disclosure.
       Consult your credit agreement'';
       ``(E) The ``Annual Percentage Rate'', using that term, 
     which shall be disclosed as--
       ``(I) if, at the time the petition is filed, the debt is 
     open end credit as defined pursuant to the Truth in Lending 
     act, title 15 United States Code section 1601 et. seq., then
       ``(aa) the annual percentage rate determined pursuant to 
     title 15 United States Code section 1637(b)(5) and (6), as 
     applicable, as disclosed to the debtor in the most recent 
     periodic statement prior to the agreement or, if no such 
     periodic statement has been provided the debtor during the 
     prior six months, the annual percentage rate as it would 
     have been so disclosed at the time the disclosure 
     statement is given the debtor; or to the extent this 
     annual percentage rate is not readily available or not 
     applicable, then
       ``(bb) the simple interest rate applicable to the amount 
     reaffirmed as of the date of the agreement, or if different 
     simple interest rates apply to different balances, the simple 
     interest rate applicable to each such balance, identifying 
     the amount of such balance included in the amount reaffirmed, 
     or
       ``(cc) if the entity making the disclosure elects, to 
     disclose the annual percentage rate under (aa) and the simple 
     interest rate under (bb).
       ``(II) if, at the time the petition is filed, the debt is 
     closed end credit as defined pursuant to the Truth in Lending 
     Act, title 15 United States Code section 1601 et seq., then
       ``(aa) the annual percentage rate pursuant to title 15 
     United States Code section 1638(a)(4) as disclosed to the 
     debtor in the most recent disclosure statement given the 
     debtor prior to the reaffirmation agreement with respect to 
     the debt, or, if no such disclosure statement was provided 
     the debtor, the annual percentage rate as it would have been 
     so disclosed at the time the disclosure statement is given 
     the debtor; or to the extent this annual percentage rate is 
     not readily available or not applicable, then
       ``(bb) the simple interest rate applicable to the amount 
     reaffirmed as of the date of the agreement, the disclosure 
     statement is given the debtor, or if different simple 
     interest rates apply to different balances, the simple 
     interest rate applicable to each such balance, identifying 
     the amount of such balance included in the amount reaffirmed; 
     or
       ``(cc) if the entity making the disclosure elects, to 
     disclose the annual percentage rate under (aa) and the simple 
     interest rate under (bb).''
       ``(F) If the underlying debt transaction was disclosed as a 
     variable rate transaction on the most recent disclosure given 
     pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, title 15, United States 
     Code, section 1601 et seq., by stating ``The interest rate on 
     your loan may be a variable interest rate which changes from 
     time to time, so that the annual percentage rate disclosed 
     here may be higher or lower than your current obligation.'';
       (G) If the debt is secured by a security interest which has 
     not been waived in whole or in part or determined to be void 
     by a final order of the court at the time of the disclosure, 
     by disclosing that a security interest or lien in goods or 
     property is asserted over some or all of the obligations you 
     are reaffirming and listing the items and their original 
     purchase price that are subject to the asserted security 
     interest, or if not a purchase-money security then the 
     original amount of the loan.''
       ``(H) At the election of the creditor, a statement of the 
     repayment schedule using one or a combination of the 
     following--
       ``(I) by making the statement: ``Your first payment in the 
     amount $______ is due on ______.'', and stating the amount of 
     the first payment and the due date of that payment in the 
     places provided;
       ``(II) by making the statement: ``Your payment schedule 
     will be:'', and describing the repayment schedule with the 
     number, amount and due dates or period of payments scheduled 
     to repay the obligations reaffirmed to the extent then known 
     by the disclosing party; or
       ``(III) by describing the debtor's repayment obligations 
     with reasonable specificity to the extent then known by the 
     disclosing party.
       ``(I) The following statement: ``Note: When this disclosure 
     talks about what a creditor ``may'' do, it does not use the 
     word ``may'' to give the creditor specific permission. The 
     word ``may'' is used to tell you what might occur if the law 
     permits the creditor to take the action. If you have 
     questions about your reaffirmation or what the law requires, 
     talk to the attorney who helped you negotiate this agreement. 
     If you don't have an attorney helping you, the judge will 
     explain the effect of your reaffirmation when the 
     reaffirmation hearing is held.'';
       ``(J) The following additional statements:
       ``Reaffirming a debt is a serious financial decision. The 
     law requires you to take certain steps to make sure the 
     decision is in your best interest. If these steps are not 
     completed, the reaffirmation agreement is not effective, even 
     though you have signed it.
       ``1. Read the disclosures in this Part A carefully. 
     Consider the decision to reaffirm carefully. Then, if you 
     want to reaffirm, sign the reaffirmation agreement in Part B 
     (or you may use a separate agreement you and your creditor 
     agree on).
       ``2. Complete and sign part D and be sure you can afford to 
     make the payments you are agreeing to make and have received 
     a copy of the disclosure statement and a completed and signed 
     reaffirmation agreement.
       ``3. If you were represented by an attorney during the 
     negotiation of the reaffirmation agreement, the attorney must 
     sign the certification in Part C.
       ``4. If you were not represented by an attorney during the 
     negotiation of the reaffirmation agreement, you must complete 
     and sign Part E.
       ``5. The original of this Disclosure must be filed with the 
     court by you or your creditor. If a separate reaffirmation 
     agreement (other than the one in Part B) has been signed, it 
     must be attached.
       ``6. If you were represented by an attorney during the 
     negotiation of the reaffirmation agreement, your 
     reaffirmation agreement becomes effective upon filing with 
     the court unless the reaffirmation is presumed to be an undue 
     hardship as explained in part D.''
       ``7. If you were not represented by an attorney during the 
     negotiation of the reaffirmation agreement, it will not be 
     effective unless the court approves it. The court will notify 
     you of the hearing on your reaffirmation agreement. You must 
     attend this hearing in bankruptcy court where the judge will 
     review your agreement. The bankruptcy court must approve the 
     agreement as consistent with your best interests, except that 
     no court approval is required if the agreement is for a 
     consumer debt secured by a mortgage, deed of trust, security 
     deed or other lien on your real property, like your home.
       ``Your right to rescind a reaffirmation. You may rescind 
     (cancel) your reaffirmation at any time before the bankruptcy 
     court enters a discharge order or within 60 days after the 
     agreement is filed with the court, whichever is longer. To 
     rescind or cancel, you must notify the creditor that the 
     agreement is canceled.
       ``What are your obligations if you reaffirm the debt? A 
     reaffirmed debt remains your personal legal obligation just 
     as though you hadn't filed bankruptcy, it is not discharged 
     in your bankruptcy. That means that if you default on your 
     reaffirmed debt after your bankruptcy is over, your creditor 
     may be able to take your property or your wages. Otherwise, 
     your obligations will be determined by the reaffirmation 
     agreement which may have changed the terms of the original 
     agreement. For example, if you are reaffirming an open end 
     credit agreement, the creditor is often permitted by the 
     agreement and/or applicable law to change the terms of the 
     agreement in the future under certain conditions.
       ``Are you required to enter into a reaffirmation agreement 
     by any law? No, you are not required to reaffirm a debt by 
     any law. Only agree to reaffirm a debt if it is in your best 
     interest. Be sure you can afford the payments you agree to 
     make.
       ``What if your creditor has a security interest or lien? 
     Your bankruptcy discharge does not eliminate any lien on your 
     property. A ``lien'' is often referred to as a security 
     interest, deed of trust, mortgage or security deed. Even if 
     you do not reaffirm and your personal liability on the debt 
     is discharged, because of the lien your creditor may still 
     have the right to take the security property if you do not 
     pay the debt or default on it. If the lien is on an item of 
     personal property that is exempt under your

[[Page S14460]]

     state's law or in certain other circumstances, you may redeem 
     the item rather than reaffirm the debt. To redeem, you 
     make a single payment to the creditor equal to the current 
     value of the security property, as agreed by the parties 
     or determined by the court.''
       ``(4) The form of reaffirmation agreement required under 
     this paragraph shall consist of the following--
       ``Part B: Reaffirmation Agreement. I/we agree to reaffirm 
     the obligations arising under the credit agreement described 
     below.
       Brief description of credit agreement:
       Description of any changes to the credit agreement made as 
     part of this reaffirmation agreement:
       Signature:
       Date:
       Borrower:
       Co-borrower, if also reaffirming:
       Accepted by creditor:
       Date of creditor acceptance:'';
       ``(5)(i) The declaration shall consist of the following:
       ``Part C: Certification by Debtor's Attorney (If Any)--I 
     hereby certify that (1) this agreement represents a fully 
     informed and voluntary agreement by the debtor(s); (2) this 
     agreement does not impose an undue hardship on the debtor or 
     any dependent of the debtor; and (3) I have fully advised the 
     debtor of the legal effect and consequences of this agreement 
     and any default under this agreement.
       Signature of Debtor's Attorney:
       Date:'';
       (ii) In the case of reaffirmations in which a presumption 
     of undue hardship has been established, the certification 
     shall state that in the opinion of the attorney, the debtor 
     is able to make the payment.''
       ``(6) The statement in support of reaffirmation agreement, 
     which the debtor shall sign and date prior to filing with the 
     court, shall consist of the following--
       ``Part D: Debtor's Statement in Support of Reaffirmation 
     Agreement.
       1. I believe this agreement will not impose an undue 
     hardship on my dependents or me. I can afford to make the 
     payments on the reaffirmed debt because my monthly income 
     (take home pay plus any other income received) is $______, 
     and my actual current monthly expenses including monthly 
     payments on post-bankruptcy debt and other reaffirmation 
     agreements total $______, leaving $______ to make the 
     required payments on this reaffirmed debt. I understand that 
     if my income less my monthly expenses does not leave enough 
     to make the payments, this reaffirmation agreement is 
     presumed to be an undue hardship on me and must be reviewed 
     by the court. However, this presumption may be overcome if I 
     explain to the satisfaction of the court how I can afford to 
     make the payments here: ______.
       2. I received a copy of the Reaffirmation Disclosure 
     Statement in Part A and a completed and signed reaffirmation 
     agreement.'';
       ``(7) The motion, which may be used if approval of the 
     agreement by the court is required in order for it to be 
     effective and shall be signed and dated by the moving party, 
     shall consist of the following--
       ``Part E: Motion for Court Approval (To be completed only 
     where debtor is not represented by an attorney.) I (we), the 
     debtor, affirm the following to be true and correct:
       ``I am not represented by an attorney in connection with 
     this reaffirmation agreement.
       ``I believe this agreement is in my best interest based on 
     the income and expenses I have disclosed in my Statement in 
     Support of this reaffirmation agreement above, and because 
     (provide any additional relevant reasons the court should 
     consider):
       ``Therefore, I ask the court for an order approving this 
     reaffirmation agreement.''
       ``(8) The court order, which may be used to approve a 
     reaffirmation, shall consist of the following--
       ``Court Order: The court grants the debtor's motion and 
     approves the reaffirmation agreement described above.'';
       ``(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title--
       ``(1) A creditor may accept payments from a debtor before 
     and after the filing of a reaffirmation agreement with the 
     court.
       ``(2) A creditor may accept payments from a debtor under a 
     reaffirmation agreement which the creditor believes in good 
     faith to be effective.
       ``(3) The requirements of subsections (c) and (i) shall be 
     satisfied if disclosures required under those subsections are 
     given in good faith.
       ``(k) Until 60 days after a reaffirmation agreement is 
     filed with the court (or such additional period as the court, 
     after notice and hearing and for cause, orders before the 
     expiration of such period), it shall be presumed that the 
     reaffirmation agreement is an undue hardship on the debtor if 
     the debtor's monthly income less the debtor's monthly 
     expenses as shown on the debtor's completed and signed 
     statement in support of the reaffirmation agreement required 
     under subsection (i)(6) of this section is less than the 
     scheduled payments on the reaffirmed debt. This presumption 
     must be reviewed by the court. The presumption may be 
     rebutted in writing by the debtor if the statement includes 
     an explanation which identifies additional sources of funds 
     to make the payments as agreed upon under the terms of the 
     reaffirmation agreement. If the presumption is not rebutted 
     to the satisfaction of the court, the court may disapprove 
     the agreement. However, no agreement shall be disapproved 
     without notice and hearing to the debtor and creditor and 
     such hearing must be concluded before the entry of the 
     debtor's discharge.''

     SEC. 2. JUDICIAL EDUCATION.

       Add at the appropriate place the following:
       ``(  ) Judicial Education.--The Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Executive Office for 
     United States Trustees, shall develop materials and conduct 
     such training as may be useful to courts in implementing the 
     act, including the requirements relating to the 707(b) means 
     test and reaffirmations.''

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2771

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining under the 
control of the Senator from Vermont?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventy minutes 28 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Seven-zero?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven-zero.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair and my good friend from Montana.
  Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Alabama 
for his comments and others who have spoken on this. He and I belong to 
that great fraternity which I have always considered the best 
fraternity--former prosecutors. I have sometimes said the best job I 
ever had was as a prosecutor, although I must admit, when I told the 
U.S. attorney of our State, Charles Tetzlaff, who is a superb U.S. 
attorney, I often wanted to trade with him, he said: ``Yeah, sure you 
do.'' In my view, it is one of the best positions one can have in 
government, also one that requires the most concern for the public.
  I wear both hats of a Senator and also as a former prosecutor in 
opposing this amendment. I am not opposing the motivation of Senators 
who want to stop what has become a scourge of drug use in our country. 
When I think of the young people in this country whose lives are 
damaged by drugs, when I think of families who are damaged, when I 
think of the people who are victims of crime from those seeking money 
to buy drugs, I fully appreciate what a scourge it is.
  Right on Capitol Hill, one of the most beautiful parts of our Nation, 
we have seen people suffer burglaries, muggings, thefts, and assaults 
by people trying to get money for drugs. It is a problem our country, 
probably more than any other country, has to face because we are the 
wealthiest nation on Earth and we, as a nation, fuel the drug trade 
because of all the money we put into it.
  It is ironic, in a way, that we send in troops and helicopters and 
chemicals to countries to stem the drug production and trade from their 
country, when the answer, of course, is within our borders. If we 
worked harder stopping the demand for drugs in the United States, that 
drug traffic would dry up. If you could turn off the drug production in 
a country in Central America and could somehow hermetically seal that 
country, as long as there are tens of billions, even hundreds of 
billions, of dollars willingly spent by U.S. citizens for drugs, drug 
production will just take place somewhere else. It is the ultimate 
example of supply and demand. The supply is always going to be there. 
We do far too little to stop the demand.
  We are not going to stop the demand by this amendment because it 
takes the wrong approach to combating illegal drug use in this country. 
The amendment would dramatically increase mandatory minimum penalties 
for cocaine trafficking. It would throw the principle of federalism out 
the window by telling local schools and school districts how they must 
deal with illegal drug use by students. Frankly, how my State of 
Vermont may want to deal with this may be far different than the State 
of Montana, the State of Alabama, or any other State. I have to think 
we know our people the best within our States and they are capable of 
making those decisions.
  The amendment attempts to solve the unfair discrepancy between 
sentences for powder and crack cocaine.

[[Page S14461]]

 There is an unfair discrepancy, and I do not think people are that far 
off when they say that discrepancy may have racist overtones. We should 
all agree the discrepancy is unfair. In solving that discrepancy 
between powder and crack cocaine, this amendment is going about it in 
precisely the wrong way by increasing the use of mandatory minimums for 
those who manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess with intent to 
distribute powder cocaine.

  Under the current law--and this is how we get into the improper and 
unfair discrepancy--the quantity threshold to trigger mandatory minimum 
penalties for crack offenders is 100 times more severe than for powder 
cocaine offenders. Let me put this in a different way.
  If you have an offender charged with a 5-gram-crack-cocaine offense, 
they would be subject to the same 5-year minimum sentence that would 
apply to somebody who was caught with 500 grams of powder cocaine. 
These harsher crack sentences have resulted in a disparate impact on 
the African American community. African Americans constitute 12 percent 
of the American population but account for 40 percent of our prison 
population. Anybody looking at those numbers know something has gone 
astray. Eighty-eight percent of those convicted of crack offenses are 
black and, of course, crack offenses always carry the higher penalties. 
In 1993, the number of African American men under the control of the 
criminal justice system was greater than the number of African American 
men enrolled in college. Something has gone dramatically astray in our 
country.
  While it is true that Federal courts have held the disparate impact 
caused by the crack and powder cocaine mandatory sentencing thresholds 
does not violate constitutional protections, the fact existing laws 
fall within the judicially determined boundaries of constitutional 
acceptability does not absolve Congress of its ongoing responsibility 
to implement the most just and effective ways to combat drugs in 
America.
  Just because an act of Congress may be constitutionally acceptable 
does not mean it makes sense. On national highways we could probably 
constitutionally set a $500 fine for somebody driving 5 miles an hour 
over the speed limit. It would probably be upheld constitutionally, but 
do we have any constituents who would say it made sense? Of course not.
  I have repeatedly stated my objections to the shortsighted use of 
mandatory minimums in the battle against illegal drugs because of the 
way they are applied. My objections are all the more grave when an 
attempt is made to increase the use of mandatory minimums through 
provisions placed in the middle of--what?--an amendment to a bankruptcy 
bill offered as the adjournment bells are almost ringing at the end of 
the session.
  We can debate whether mandatory minimums are an appropriate tool in 
our critically important national fight against illegal drugs. I 
believe they have not made that much difference. Others would believe 
otherwise. In my view, simply imposing or increasing mandatory minimums 
undercuts and even subverts the more considered process Congress set up 
with the Sentencing Commission.
  The Federal sentencing guidelines already provide a comprehensive 
mechanism to mete out fair sentences. They allow judges the discretion 
they need to give appropriate weight to individual circumstances. In 
other words, sentencing guidelines allow judges to do their jobs.
  The Sentencing Commission goes through an extensive and thoughtful 
process to set sentence levels. For example, pursuant to our 1996 anti-
methamphetamine law, the Sentencing Commission increased meth penalties 
after very careful analysis of sentencing data, especially recent 
sentencing data. They studied the offenses. They had information from 
the Drug Enforcement Agency on trafficking levels, dosage unit size, 
price, and drug quantity. They took all those matters into 
consideration. Simply increasing arbitrarily, in the middle of a 
bankruptcy bill, mandatory minimums goes too far in taking sentencing 
discretion away from judges.
  Would it not make far more sense if we set this amendment aside, and 
at the Judiciary Committee, which certainly has jurisdiction over this 
issue, have real hearings and have people discuss whether it is a good 
idea or bad idea? Bring in drug enforcement people, bring in local 
authorities, bring in everybody else involved, and have a real hearing. 
If we simply do it because it sounds good at the moment, I think we 
make a mistake.
  That is why I have repeatedly expressed my concerns about creating 
new mandatory minimum penalties, including as recently as in August, 
when the methamphetamine bill that has contributed many of this bill's 
provisions was considered by the Judiciary Committee.
  The meth bill, which was reported by the Judiciary Committee, is 
contained in this amendment to the bankruptcy bill. It contains a 
provision directing the Sentencing Commission to amend the guidelines 
to make penalties for amphetamine offenses comparable to the offense 
levels for methamphetamine.
  Congress recently increased mandatory minimum sentences for 
methamphetamine. Stiff mandatory minimum penalties were slipped into 
last year's omnibus appropriations bill. As a result, now 
methamphetamine penalties are the same as crack penalties. This 
amendment in the bankruptcy bill would now order the Sentencing 
Commission to increase penalties for amphetamine crimes by a number of 
base offense levels so the same penalties apply to both meth and 
amphetamine offenses.
  So what do we get for a result? Even without the question of 
mandatory minimums, you are going to have dramatic increases in the 
penalties for amphetamine offenses.
  We ought to first pass a resolution saying, we are all against 
illegal drug use. We live in neighborhoods. We are parents or 
grandparents. We walk the streets of America. We have seen the dangers 
of illegal drug use--all Senators, Republican and Democrat. We are all 
against it. That should be a given. But do we need to stand up here, 
the 100 of us who are suppose to represent a quarter of a billion 
Americans, and prove over and over and over again that we are against 
illegal drug usage by imposing harsher and harsher penalties, without 
any regard to whether spending more taxpayer money on more prisons and 
more prison guards is really the most cost-effective way to address 
this problem?

  In many parts of this country we spend far more money building new 
prisons than we do building new schools. We spend far more money 
increasing the number of prison guards and on their pensions and their 
pay, and everything else that goes for them, than we do in hiring new 
science teachers or math teachers or language teachers. We ought to ask 
ourselves: Does this picture make that much sense?
  I agree with the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, 
that we have put a misplaced emphasis on long mandatory minimum 
penalties as the primary tool we use to fight illegal drug trafficking. 
When I was a prosecutor, I must admit, there were many times I asked 
for a stiff penalty, when the case called for it. But I also knew 
enough to know that stiffer penalties by themselves are not the whole 
answer. There are a whole lot of other things involved. For one thing, 
a lot of people committing a crime do not get too concerned about the 
penalty if they think they are not going to get caught.
  So the example I have used before is, you have two warehouses side by 
side. One has all kinds of alarm systems and security personnel. The 
other has a rusted old padlock, no lights, and nobody around it. They 
both are filled with, say, television sets. The penalties for breaking 
in and stealing those TV sets are the same, whether you break into the 
warehouse that has its security system, the lights, and the guards, or 
if you break into the one with the rusty old padlock with no guards and 
no lights. It does not take a criminologist to know which one is going 
to get broken into. Why would somebody break into one where they might 
get caught when they can go into the one where they assume they will 
not get caught? The penalties are the same, so the penalty is not the 
deterrent.
  We have to make drug dealers feel vulnerable and make drug dealing a 
risky business. We do this by making

[[Page S14462]]

sure they are caught and prosecuted, not simply piling on lengthier 
prison terms with increased mandatory minimum penalties for the few on 
the fringes who do get caught.
  These mandatory minimums also carry with them significant economic 
and social costs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the 
annual cost of housing a Federal inmate ranges from $16,745 per year 
for minimum security inmates to $23,286 per year for inmates in high-
security facilities.
  Mr. President, you and I and every taxpayer is paying for that. It is 
critical that we take steps that will effectively deter crime, but we 
should not ignore the costs of this one-size-fits-all approach to 
mandatory minimums.
  We also cannot ignore the policy implications of the boom in our 
prison population. Let me just tell you about this. In 1970--5 years 
before I came to the Senate--the total population in the Federal prison 
system was 20,868 prisoners, of whom 16.3 percent were drug offenders.
  By 1997, the federal prison population had grown to almost 91,000 
sentenced prisoners, approximately 60 percent of whom were sentenced 
for drug offenses. The cost of supporting this expanded federal 
criminal justice system is staggering. The portion of federal drug 
control spending attributable to the criminal justice system grew from 
$415 million in 1981 to over $8.5 billion in 1999. Imprudently lowering 
the cocaine sentencing threshold without considering the fiscal 
consequences would further encumber our already overworked system. We 
ignore at our peril the findings of RAND's comprehensive 1997 report on 
mandatory minimum drug sentences: ``Mandatory minimums are not 
justifiable on the basis of cost-effectiveness at reducing cocaine 
consumption, cocaine expenditures, or drug-related crime.''
  Reducing the disparity between sentences for powder and crack cocaine 
in the manner proposed in this amendment is simply wrongheaded. 
Sentencing parity at any cost is not the smartest way to wage our war 
on drugs. Drastically increasing the mandatory minimum penalties for 
powder cocaine in this hasty, end-of-session amendment will be costly 
to taxpayers far into the future, as we will have to build numerous new 
prisons to house non-violent drug offenders who are subject to lengthy 
federal prison terms under this amendment. Indeed, when a bill seeking 
to make identical changes to our powder cocaine laws was introduced in 
the last Congress, I wrote to the Attorney General requesting a prison 
impact assessment. I received a letter from the Justice Department on 
June 1, 1998, estimating that the total cost of this legislation over 
30 years would be over $10.6 billion, including construction of nine 
new medium security federal prisons to house 11,000 more prison beds.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                     Washington, DC, June 1, 1998.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: This is in response to the letter you 
     and two colleagues wrote to the Attorney General requesting a 
     prison impact assessment for S. 2033, which would alter 
     federal sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine 
     offenders. I hope the following information is helpful to 
     you.
       S. 2033 would mandate a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence 
     for 50 grams of powder cocaine, instead of the current 500-
     gram threshold. In addition, the proposal would impose a 10-
     year mandatory minimum sentence for 500 grams of powder 
     cocaine, instead of the current 5 kilogram threshold. The 5- 
     and 10-year mandatory minimum thresholds for crack cocaine 
     would remain at 5 and 50 grams, respectively.
       Table 1 estimates the impact of the proposed change on 
     prison costs and population for the 30 years following 
     enactment. Using its 1996 data set, the U.S. Sentencing 
     Commission produced estimates of the number of individuals 
     who would be incarcerated under this scenario. These 
     estimates, which were based on a review of all defendants 
     sentenced for drug trafficking and related offenses (U.S.S.C. 
     2D1.1) involving a single drug type, were then used by the 
     Bureau of Prisons to project prison costs. While our 
     estimates assume a constant rate of prosecutions for the next 
     30 years, it is important to understand that changes in 
     sentencing during that time period could alter prosecution 
     practices, thus affecting the cost and population estimates 
     we provide here. Additional cost analysis assumptions are 
     contained in Enclosure A.
       We estimate that, in the fifth year after enactment, S. 
     2033 would require us to provide over 5,500 additional prison 
     beds than currently projected in order to handle those 
     inmates who would be spending more time in prison. The 
     cumulative additional cost over five years would be almost 
     $794 million, including construction of seven new medium 
     security federal prisons. In the thirtieth year after 
     enactment, we would need approximately 11,000 additional 
     beds. The total cumulative cost over thirty years would be 
     over $10.6 billion, including construction of a total of nine 
     new medium security federal prisons.
       Please do not hesitate to contact our office if you have 
     additional questions concerning this or any other issue. We 
     have sent similar letters to Senators Biden and Kennedy.
           Sincerely,
                                                 L. Anthony Sutin,
                                Acting Assistant Attorney General.
       Enclosures.

                 Enclosure A: Cost Analysis Assumptions

       For crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentencing scenarios, 
     the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is assuming that these inmates 
     will be housed in medium security facilities. BOP's projected 
     construction and operating costs presented in this prison 
     impact assessment are consistent with costs required by 
     medium security facilities, which are designed for a capacity 
     of 1,152 prisoners.
       If the estimated impact of enacted legislation will result 
     in fewer than 1,152 additional prisoners, the prisoners will 
     be added to existing facilities and be charged at marginal 
     costs. If the estimated impact of enacted legislation will 
     meet or exceed 1,152 additional prisoners, construction of a 
     new facility will be necessary. While construction is 
     underway, space will be found in existing facilities. Once 
     the prisoners are transferred to the newly built facility, 
     those prisoners are charged at full per capita cost to meet 
     the full expense of operating an additional facility.
       The increase in costs over time due to inflation is assumed 
     to be approximately 3.1% per year.

                                             TABLE 1.--5/50 RATIO FOR FIVE YEAR MANDATORY MINIMUM THRESHOLD*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Cumulative operating
             Year and number of inmates                Annual operating cost             cost              Construction cost      Total cumulative cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: 358..............................................               $3,122,476               $3,122,476             $327,168,000             $330,290,476
2: 1,321............................................               11,878,432               15,000,908               84,327,552              426,496,460
3: 2,777............................................               25,745,567               40,746,475               86,941,440              539,183,467
4: 3,756............................................               35,899,848               76,646,323                        0              575,083,315
5: 5,529............................................              126,303,054              202,949,377               92,415,744              793,802,113
10: 9,163...........................................              251,592,061            1,235,564,127         Yr 7: 98,234,496            1,924,651,359
20: 10,868..........................................              426,305,688            4,721,379,782       Yr 13: 117,980,928            5,528,447,942
30: 11,066..........................................              580,578,254            9,793,498,397                        0          10,600,566,557
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Whenever a 5 year mandatory minimum threshold ratio is discussed, we are presuming that there is also a 10 year mandatory minimum threshold at a drug
  weight equal to 10 times the amount of the 5 year mandatory minimum threshold weight.

  Mr. LEAHY. We are going to see the effects of this amendment much 
earlier than 30 years from now. Most of us won't be here 30 years from 
now to answer for it; some may be. We have to look at this and ask, do 
these costs justify what we wanted to do?
  We also will be focusing a lot more Federal resources on lower-level 
drug dealers. We will have to hire a whole lot of new drug enforcement 
officers right off the bat, but we are going to be refocusing them on 
lower-level drug dealers. I do not believe this is the most cost-
effective allocation of Federal resources.
  In addition to being costly, another consequence of lowering the 
powder cocaine threshold is that more federal resources will be focused 
on lower-level drug dealers. We must ask whether this is the most cost-
effective allocation of federal resources. In adopting the federal 
sentencing scheme, Congress intended state and local drug enforcement 
personnel to investigate and prosecute small-time offenders, while

[[Page S14463]]

the federal government was to use its more sophisticated law 
enforcement weapons to investigate and prosecute higher-level drug 
traffickers. Recently, Congress has made great strides toward balancing 
the federal budget and has opted to devolve many federal programs to 
states in the belief that certain programs can be more efficiently 
administered by state and local governments. Likewise, Congress should 
be wary of assuming the costs associated with federal intrusion into 
the traditional domain of the states in prosecuting criminal offenses. 
Ill-considered expansion of the federal criminal justice system has 
recently come under fire from Chief Justice Rehnquist, who criticized 
the Congress for federalizing the criminal justice system during a 
period in which the Senate has failed even to keep the federal bench 
adequately filled.
  A 50-gram powder cocaine offense is a serious criminal charge. No one 
is debating whether a 50-gram powder cocaine dealer should be subject 
to the possibility of incarceration. What is debatable, however, is 
whether a 50-gram powder cocaine offender is the type of high-level 
dealer that should be dealt with harshly by federal rather than state 
authorities. It is inevitable that the possibility of harsh federal 
sentences will encourage more federal prosecutions. The question is 
whether a 50-gram powder cocaine dealer is the type of sophisticated 
drug trafficker that requires the expense of federal technical 
expertise. If not, then we should be looking very seriously at more 
cost-effective ways of distributing law enforcement, prosecution, and 
incarceration obligations between the federal and state governments in 
order to maximize the efficiency of our nation's drug control strategy. 
By restructuring the federal sentencing scheme, we can ensure that 
state and local governments can assume greater responsibility for the 
investigation and prosecution of low-level dealers, whose offenses are 
of particular local concern. Federal resources can then be freed to 
pursue traffickers higher in the distribution chain.
  Other aspects of this amendment also turn principles of federalism on 
their head. For example, the amendment contains a federal mandate for 
the disciplinary policies of local schools. It would require local 
schools to adopt certain specific policies on illegal drug use by 
students, including mandatory reporting of students to law enforcement 
and mandatory expulsion for at least one year of students who possess 
illegal drugs on school property. This turns on its head our 
traditional idea that state and local governments should have the 
primary responsibility for education, even though that idea is one that 
is constantly put forward by my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, and indeed is currently being used by them to justify their 
opposition to the President's plan to provide funding for schools to 
hire additional teachers and reduce class size.

  I am particularly concerned about this one-size-fits-all mandate on 
the expulsion of students. Expulsion is an option that schools need to 
have so they can deal with particularly intractable behavior problems 
among their students. But only local teachers and principals can know 
which students who violate policies or laws should be expelled, and 
which deserve a different punishment.
  I can just see the school principal in Tunbridge, VT getting a 
directive from the Federal Government, based on something we passed in 
a bankruptcy bill, telling them how they are going to run disciplinary 
procedures in Tunbridge. We may find ourselves back to the days when 
Vermont decided they wanted to be a republic.
  I am not willing to tell thousands of school principals and 
administrators around the country, the U.S. Congress will tell you when 
to expel your students. If I did that, I would almost expect a recall 
petition and expulsion petition from the people of my State.
  Finally, I object to the provision in this amendment that authorizes 
the use of public funds to pay tuition for any private schools, 
including parochial schools, for students who were injured by violent 
criminal offenses on public school grounds. Such a provision obviously 
raises serious Establishment Clause questions that deserve a fuller 
airing than is possible in an end-of-session amendment. It also gives 
rise to the numerous policy questions surrounding the issue of school 
vouchers, which could cause significant damage to our public school 
system. As a practical matter, this provision also raises the very real 
possibility of fraud and collusion to manufacture injuries in order to 
attend a private school at the taxpayers' expense.
  I do believe that there are good things contained in the parts of 
this amendment that deal with our methamphetamine and amphetamine 
problems, most of which are borrowed from a bill that was reported by 
the Judiciary Committee in August. That bill managed to help local law 
enforcement in its daily battle against drugs, provide funding for the 
hiring of new DEA agents, and increase research and prevention funding, 
all without imposing mandatory minimums. I supported each of those 
provisions. But the good things included within this amendment are 
outweighed by the amendment's return to the failed drug policies of the 
recent past and its unwise and likely unconstitutional educational 
policies. Therefore, I will vote against this amendment.
  Mr. President, I know others wish to speak. I know the distinguished 
Senator from New York was waiting to speak.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Is the Senator asking unanimous consent that he speak 
next? Otherwise, the Senator from Michigan is due.
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time remains for the Senator from Vermont?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 45 minutes 59 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. When next this side is recognized, I ask unanimous consent 
that Senator Schumer of New York be recognized. I know the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan is ready to be recognized on the 
other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. 
Lautenberg, be recognized after the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, Senator Ashcroft, and 
myself.
  I wish to be somewhat responsive to a few of the statements made in 
some of the speeches in opposition to this amendment, as they pertain 
specifically to the issue of changing the mandatory minimum sentences 
on dealing with powder cocaine. I think it is important that we reflect 
on how we got to where we are today. There has been for some time, as 
reflected in actions of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, concern about 
the disparity between the mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine 
triggers of 5-year mandatory minimums for the dealing of 5 grams, of 10 
years for dealings of 10 grams, and the mandatory minimums for powder 
cocaine, which are 100 times greater with the 5-year mandatory minimum 
trigger at 500 grams and the 10-year trigger at 1,000.
  The Sentencing Commission has tried on a couple occasions to address 
this issue. The first time they tried this we were forced to take 
action as a Congress to stop their proposal from going into effect. I 
remind my colleagues that we overwhelmingly voted, I believe 
unanimously voted, to say no to the proposal of addressing this 
disparity by simply changing the powder cocaine thresholds to the same 
as crack cocaine. We thought it was a big mistake to make the cost of 
doing business go down.
  The President signed that legislation into law, making the very same 
statement, that the message we would be sending to young people, to 
drug dealers, to everybody, was the wrong message if we made crack 
cocaine sentences more lenient.
  The Sentencing Commission came back with a second proposal--that was 
a proposal actually in response to a study we requested--that we would 
simultaneously make the crack cocaine mandatory minimum sentences more 
lenient while making powder tougher. The Sentencing Commission decided 
that a ratio of a 10-to-1 difference in the thresholds versus a 100-to-
1 difference was the appropriate ratio.
  A number of us found this second suggestion also unacceptable 
because,

[[Page S14464]]

once again, it would require making the sentences for crack cocaine 
dealers more lenient. I speak for myself, but I think others who 
cosponsored this legislation share the view that we should not be 
making drug sentences more lenient, particularly for crack cocaine 
dealers.
  I want to talk about why we should not do that because the only way 
to change the disparity between powder cocaine mandatory minimums and 
crack cocaine mandatory minimums is either make the mandatory minimums 
for crack cocaine more lenient and the mandatory minimums for powder 
cocaine tougher or do a little of each.
  I think anything that changes the crack cocaine mandatory minimum 
threshold is a mistake, for several reasons. First, the current 
mandatory minimum with respect to crack cocaine, the 5-gram threshold, 
to trigger a 5-year mandatory, has been a very effective device in 
terms of getting the lower end drug dealers to begin giving up to 
prosecutors up the drug chain so we can begin prosecuting people higher 
on the drug chain. If we make those mandatory minimums more lenient, if 
in fact the sentences being confronted by people at the bottom end of 
the drug chain aren't very severe, they are not going to cooperate. 
They are not going to provide the evidence or finger the higher-ups in 
the drug chain itself.
  A second argument not to change the crack cocaine thresholds is that 
we have differences in a lot of States already between what the State 
mandatory minimums punishments are and the Federal mandatory minimum 
punishments are.
  In Michigan, we have a pretty tough set of State laws, similar to the 
Federal laws. They are sufficiently similar so that if somebody is 
being pursued for crack cocaine dealing, they don't really gain 
anything by playing off the State versus the Federal law enforcement 
officials. But if we begin to make crack cocaine thresholds for 
mandatory minimum sentences more lenient, in Michigan, what is going to 
happen--and I predict in a lot of other States--is that the crack 
cocaine dealer is going to begin to make a deal with the Federal 
prosecutors, as opposed to the State prosecutors, to get the lighter 
sentence. I can't imagine that is what we want to do here in the 
Congress of the United States.
  The third issue I think is important is to understand exactly how 
crack cocaine is sold. I have talked to people who are in our drug task 
forces in Michigan. They have pointed out that you really can't 
increase the thresholds very much beyond 5 grams because people don't 
walk around with larger quantities of crack cocaine in their possession 
when they are dealing. They hide their stuff, and they deal in 
quantities smaller than 5 grams or slightly greater than 5 grams. If 
you change that as significantly as has been proposed by the Sentencing 
Commission, if you make the thresholds more lenient, you are not going 
to find anybody carrying around or being apprehended with sufficient 
levels of crack cocaine to be pursued under the mandatory minimum 
structure.

  Fourth, if we make the sentences for crack cocaine more lenient, we 
are going to be sending a terrible message as well as providing 
incentive for people to pursue crack dealing in greater amounts. Do we 
really want to send the message to young people that we are getting 
less tough on crack cocaine dealers? Do we want to send the message to 
crack dealers that the cost of doing business just got cheaper? Do we 
want to tell the families that we want to, in fact, make it harder to 
pursue, prosecute, and ultimately confine and incarcerate crack cocaine 
dealers who are in their neighborhoods, their schoolyards and 
playgrounds, selling dope to their kids? Is that the message we want to 
send? I hope not.
  Finally, of course, as we know, crack is both cheaper and more 
addictive than cocaine in powder form. That is the reason there is a 
disparity to begin with, much the same as between heroin and opium.
  For all these reasons, it does not make a lot of sense to make the 
mandatory minimum threshold for 5-year or 10-year sentences for dealing 
in crack cocaine more lenient. If you rule out the notion of making 
crack cocaine sentences more lenient, then the only other way to 
address the disparity between powder and crack cocaine is to make the 
powder cocaine sentences tougher.
  So if people are on the other side of this issue and want to 
simultaneously make the disparity between crack and powder closer, 
lower that disparity, and oppose this amendment, then the only thing 
they can be saying is they want to make sentences for crack cocaine 
dealers more lenient. I can't believe many Members of this body want to 
do that. That is the only option we have. That is why we have pursued 
an option that will reduce the disparity by making sentences for powder 
cocaine dealers tougher.
  What we have done in setting the standard we have chosen in this 
amendment is to use the ratio that was agreed upon by the Sentencing 
Commission in their proposal, and by the administration, of a 10-to-1 
ratio between the triggers of mandatory minimum sentences for crack 
dealers and for powder dealers. But we have reduced the disparity from 
100-to-1 to 10-to-1 by making tougher sentences for powder cocaine 
dealers--the change in our proposal.
  I want to address two or three other points that were made in some of 
the earlier speeches. First, we have heard talk about the cost of 
incarceration. I addressed this earlier in my first speech because I 
get frustrated when I hear people talking about how much it costs to 
keep crack dealers and drug dealers out of the playgrounds and 
neighborhoods of our communities. The impression is that the only cost 
on which we should focus is exclusively the cost of incarceration. But 
what is the cost to us as a society and of having larger numbers of 
children becoming addicted to crack cocaine, having these people not in 
prison but in our neighborhoods? What about those costs? Can we 
possibly equate the cost of someone who dies as a result of their drug 
addiction or kills somebody in pursuit of the resources to be able to 
meet their drug addiction? What are the costs of that?
  So I think it is a little bit unfair to only add up the costs on one 
side of this equation. I think we should also be talking about the 
costs to our communities of allowing larger numbers of drug dealers to 
avoid sentencing and to stay in business.
  The other point I make, as I did earlier today, is that we have seen 
a dramatic reduction in the last few years in both the number of 
murders and robberies and other numbers of violent crimes across the 
board in our country, in city after city. Those with expertise on this 
issue have consistently cited that the reason for these declines in the 
murder rates, the rates of armed robbery, and so on, is the 
effectiveness with which we are finally beginning to address the crack 
cocaine epidemic in America.
  So, Mr. President, the notion that we would do anything that would 
reverse our course with regard to cracking down on the dealers of crack 
seems to me to be a mistake.
  Finally, I say our goal should be to lower the disparity so that more 
people up the drug chain are subject to mandatory minimum sentences. 
That is a good reason, in my judgment, by itself, to make tougher the 
threshold for mandatory minimum thresholds for the sale of powder 
cocaine.
  In addition, by doing that, we will reduce this disparity that 
exists. I believe if we accomplish both objectives, we will make a 
greater impact on our fight against drugs in this country. But our 
colleagues should make no mistake about the fact that if we don't take 
this approach and want to reduce this disparity, their only option is 
to make the sentences for crack dealers lighter and more lenient. I 
don't believe the Members of this Chamber want to go on record as 
saying they want to move in that direction. So we have offered an 
amendment that constructively addresses the disparity without making 
crack sentences more lenient.
  I think the other components of this amendment are also good--those 
that deal with methamphetamines, the increased amount of support for 
drug treatment programs, and the variety of other components of this 
amendment.
  I say, finally, with respect to the question of why it should be in 
the bankruptcy bill, there are a lot of issues that were agreed upon 
when we moved to the bankruptcy legislation that were going to be 
included in the debate here, the so-called nongermane

[[Page S14465]]

amendments, ranging from amendments dealing with East Timor, to 
agriculture, and so on, and this amendment as well. Perhaps this isn't 
the ideal spot for this debate. I only say that was the agreement that 
was reached by 100 Senators, that we would have amendments that were 
not specifically germane to bankruptcy as part of the final bill we 
will deal with on the floor this year.

  I hope those who argue somehow that we shouldn't be dealing with this 
issue will be equally vocal in complaining about the insertion of other 
less germane issues in the bankruptcy debate because clearly we are 
going to hear it argued from both sides that some of the issues are 
inappropriate in this context. The fact is, I think the American people 
want us to take a tough stand on drugs and want us to take a tough 
stand in favor of tough drug sentences. Our amendment accomplishes 
that. I sincerely hope our colleagues will join us in supporting its 
passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how is the time apportioned?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 45 minutes, 
and the other side has 16 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I will try to save some time for 
my friend from Iowa.
  Mr. President, I raise my voice in opposition to this amendment 
because I think it is a wrong-headed distraction from the real issue 
that parents all over this country care about--the epidemic of gun 
violence in our society at large and especially in our schools.
  This amendment would allow Federal education funding to be shifted 
from special education, computer technology, bilingual education, and 
other key programs to provide vouchers to students who are victims of 
school violence.
  In a way, I have to tell you that I think this amendment has a cruel 
twist to it because we all want to be of help wherever we can be to 
those who are victimized by violence. But look at the way the program 
is designed.
  Vouchers to schools? It doesn't, in my view, really make a lot of 
sense when in fact, if we could keep guns away from our schools, we 
would not have to be thinking about vouchers but, rather, about how we 
educate our children. We could bring the teachers into the schoolrooms, 
as the President would like to have us do--100,000 teachers. Perhaps 
the workloads of many would be able to be confined to a serious review 
of the educational requirements.
  This amendment is disturbing on many levels--so many that I am not 
sure where we begin.
  Is this the answer to school violence--ignore the causes, do nothing 
to remedy the issue, but ship certain kids out of public schools?
  Does the Republican majority really believe schools should cut 
special education and computer funding in public schools to fund 
voucher programs?
  We are approaching the 21st century. Everyone knows that whatever the 
20th century brought by way of technology, computers, et cetera, is 
likely to be dwarfed in the earliest years of the 21st century. It all 
starts with a computer base. Why we would want to take funds away from 
those programs is really hard to understand. It is not what America's 
parents want. They want answers. We had one of the answers on the floor 
of this Senate. It passed this body. They want to see a juvenile 
justice bill passed, but the majority has buried this legislation in 
conference and declared it dead for the year. It is hardly a way to 
respond to the anguished calls we hear all over this country.
  It includes, yes, stricter punishments for those who would violate 
the rules of behavior in our society. But it also closed a gun show 
loophole that took the anonymous buyer out of the equation. It reduced 
the possibility that anyone who is on the 10 Most Wanted List of the 
FBI could walk into a gun show and buy a gun. As outrageous as that 
sounds, that is the truth.
  I don't know when the Congress is going to catch up with the American 
people. The American people are so far ahead of Congress that it is 
embarrassing. Poll after poll after poll pleads with the Senate and 
pleads with the House to take away the availability of guns. At least, 
if you are not going to take it away, make sure that those who buy guns 
are qualified; that they know what to do; that they are mature; that 
they are not likely to use them for a violent ending.
  The public is demanding an end to the gun violence. It has reached 
epidemic proportions. The events of last week prove no one is safe from 
maniacs who amass arsenals of deadly weapons and use them to gun down 
whole groups of people--people from Hawaii to Seattle, from Colorado to 
Texas to Kentucky.
  Just think about it. Schoolchildren, high school children at 
Columbine--everyone remembers that and will never forget the picture of 
that child hanging out the window pleading for help before he fell to 
the ground. Then the next one is office workers running away from a 
gunman in Atlanta, GA; the next, a picture of youngsters gathering 
together to pray while being assaulted by a gunman and running for 
their lives.
  We have to do something to stop this insanity. We have to do 
something about a system that makes it easier for someone to buy a gun 
than to get a driver's license.
  We are about at the end of this legislative session. One thing is 
clear--we have given in to the extremists, to the gun lobby, the NRA 
that opposed even the most commonsense proposal to stop gun violence. 
If I were their adviser, or counselor, I would say: Listen, guys and 
women. Let's give in on this one. It doesn't hurt us a darned bit, and 
it makes us look as if we are in touch with the American people. But 
no; the extremists went out, and they have their hand in this place. 
They have their hand in the House, and they turned our programs away 
from public opinion and public demand.
  Most Americans assumed that the horrific shootings in Columbine would 
be enough--the ultimate outrage. Most Americans thought that the vision 
of 2 high school students systematically killing 12 classmates and a 
teacher and wounding 23 others would finally spur Congress to action, 
would finally say ``that is enough,'' ``that is enough.''

  After that terrible incident, 89 percent in one poll and 91 percent 
in another poll asked for the elimination of the gun show loophole. But 
it was ignored here. The public ought to look at why it was ignored.
  The reason I think it was ignored is that campaign contributions 
overwhelmed the good judgment and the demand of the American people--
campaign contributions. Get elected; that is what counts. There is more 
to it than that.
  It was 7 months ago when that happened. Congress hasn't acted even 
while the body count rises. Just last week, nine more people were shot 
and killed in rampages by two gunmen. One of these gunmen owned 17 
handguns.
  In May of this year, the Senate--with Vice President Gore's help--
passed my gun show loophole amendment as part of the juvenile justice 
bill. The gun show loophole amendment said that where gun shows, where 
so many guns are bought, traded, and sold, had a place for nonlicensed 
gun dealers, non-Federally-licensed gun dealers, anyone--it didn't 
matter who you were--could walk up to one of those gun dealers and say, 
``Give me 20 guns, and here is the money.'' There would be no questions 
asked: What is your name? Where do you live? What do you do for a 
living? Have you been in jail? Have you been a drug addict? Have you 
been an alcoholic? Have you been known to have bursts of temper, 
outrage, beaten your wife, your children? Not one question. It is 
outrageous--not one question. We tried to close that loophole. It was a 
commonsense measure that would have stopped lawbreakers, underage 
children, and the mentally unstable from walking into a gun show and 
walking out with a small arsenal.
  We passed it 51 to 50. But as soon as the Senate passed my amendment, 
the NRA sounded its alarm and its allies went to work to defeat the 
proposal in the House.
  The gun lobby spent millions on radio and TV ads, but, of course, 
those ads didn't mention the gun massacres that followed Columbine. 
They didn't mention that. In the first week of July, a violent racist 
went on a shooting rampage in Illinois and Indiana killing two people 
and injuring nine. Or that a few weeks later, a deranged day trader in 
Atlanta shot 9 people to death in an

[[Page S14466]]

office and wounded 13. Or that in August, a man with a .44-caliber 
Glock gun killed three coworkers in Alabama.
  No State is safe. There is no group of people that is safe--no ethnic 
group, religious group, or otherwise.
  Five days after that, a white supremacist killed a Filipino postal 
worker and shot four young people at a Jewish day-care center. Who will 
forget that scene--these little kids, like my grandchildren, being led 
by policemen out of the schoolhouse, where they went to learn and have 
fun, running away from a killer? Last month, a well-armed maniac walked 
into the Baptist Church in Ft. Worth, TX, and killed seven young people 
who were at a prayer gathering.

  Day by day, the death toll mounts. Our family, children, friends, and 
neighbors are being gunned down in our schools, in our houses of 
worship, where we work and live.
  More than 34,000 people are killed by guns every year, more than lost 
during the Korean war. Additionally, we wind up treating 134,000 
gunshot wounds, and the cost to the country is over $2 billion; 
taxpayers pay almost half of that.
  While the NRA may be on the Republican side, law enforcement is on 
our side. I worked with law enforcement drafting my gun show amendment, 
and I received numerous letters from law enforcement organizations 
supporting that amendment and other gun safety measures the Senate 
passed.
  I ask unanimous consent copies of those letters be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         International Brotherhood


                                           of Police Officers,

                               Alexandria, VA, September 15, 1999.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hatch: The International Brotherhood of 
     Police Officers (IBPO) is an affiliate of the Service 
     Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. The IBPO is the 
     largest police union in the AFL-CIO.
       On behalf of the entire membership of the IBPO I wish to 
     express our strong support of the gun-related provisions 
     adopted by the Senate as part of S. 254. The IBPO knows that 
     passage of these measures will keep guns away from children 
     and criminals.
       The IBPO requests that the conferees continue to focus on 
     the need for adequate time to conduct background checks at 
     ``gun shows.'' As I am sure that you are aware, the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation has estimated that over 17,000 
     disqualified individuals would have been able to purchase a 
     gun if a twenty-four hour time limit was required for a 
     background check. Accordingly, if such time requirement is 
     legislated 17,000 more felons will be able to purchase guns.
       The IBPO is also in support of extending the requirements 
     of the Brady Act to cover juvenile acts of crime. Our union 
     has supported legislation which seeks to comprehensively 
     control crime. The Brady Act is a major part of such efforts.
       Thank you for your consideration of these issues that are 
     significant to all law enforcement officers and the citizens 
     of the United States of America.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Kenneth T. Lyons,
     National President.
                                  ____

                                         International Association


                                          of Chiefs of Police,

                               Alexandria, VA, September 14, 1999.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hatch: On behalf of the more than 18,000 
     members of the International Association of Chiefs of Police 
     (IACP), I am writing to express our strong support for 
     several vitally important firearms provisions that were 
     included in S. 254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender 
     Accountability Act of 1999.
       As conference work on juvenile justice legislation begins, 
     I would urge you to consider the views of our nation's chiefs 
     of police on these important issues. Specifically, the IACP 
     strongly supports provisions that would require the 
     performance of background checks prior to the sale or 
     transfer of weapons at gun shows, as well as extending the 
     requirements of the Brady Act to cover juvenile acts of 
     crime.
       The IACP has always viewed the Brady Act as a vital 
     component of any comprehensive crime control effort. Since 
     its enactment, the Brady Act has prevented more than 400,000 
     felons, fugitives and others prohibited from owning firearms 
     from purchasing firearms. However, the efficacy of the Brady 
     Act is undermined by oversights in the law which allow those 
     individuals prohibited from owning firearms from obtaining 
     weapons, at events such as gun shows, without undergoing a 
     background check. The IACP believes that it is vitally 
     important that Congress act swiftly to close these loopholes 
     and preserve the effectiveness of the Brady Act.
       However, simply requiring that a background check be 
     performed is meaningless unless law enforcement authorities 
     are provided with a period of time sufficient to complete a 
     thorough background check. Law enforcement executives 
     understand that thorough and complete background checks take 
     time. The IACP believes that to suggest, as some proposals 
     do, that the weapon be transferred to the purchaser if the 
     background checks are not completed within 24 hours of sale 
     sacrifices the safety of our communities for the sake of 
     convenience.
       Requiring that individuals wait three business days is 
     hardly an onerous burden, especially since allowing for more 
     comprehensive background checks ensures that those 
     individuals who are forbidden from purchasing firearms are 
     prevented from doing so.
       Finally, the IACP believes that juveniles must be held 
     accountable for their acts of violence. Therefore, the IACP 
     also supports modifying the current Brady Act to permanently 
     prohibit gun ownership by an individual, if that individual, 
     while a juvenile, commits a crime that would have triggered a 
     gun disability if their crime had been committed as an adult.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have 
     any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 703/
     836-6767.
           Sincerely,
                                               Ronald S. Neubauer,
     President.
                                  ____



                             Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office,

                                Littleton, CO, September 15, 1999.
     Chairman Orrin Hatch,
     Senate Judiciary Committee,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hatch: As you and other conferees meet to 
     craft juvenile justice legislation, I urge you to adopt the 
     gun-related provisions adopted by the Senate as part of S. 
     254, The Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability 
     and Rehabilitation Act of 1999. We at the National Sheriffs' 
     Association (NSA) appreciate your efforts to curb violent 
     juvenile crime.
       We feel that S. 254 combines the best provisions of each 
     legislative attempt to reform and modernize juvenile crime 
     control. As you know, sheriffs are increasingly burdened with 
     juvenile offenders, and they present significant challenges 
     for sheriffs. The so-called core mandates requiring sight and 
     sound separation, jail removal and status offender mandates 
     are so restrictive, that even reasonable attempts to comply 
     with the mandates fall short. We welcome modest changes to 
     the core mandates to make them flexible without jeopardizing 
     the safety of the juvenile inmate. We agree that kids do not 
     belong in adult jail and therefore we appreciate the 
     commitment to find appropriate alternative for juvenile 
     offenders.
       Additionally, NSA supports the Juvenile Accountability 
     Block Grant program. S. 254 sets aside $4 billion to 
     implement the provisions of the bill and this grant funding 
     will enable sheriffs to receive assistance to meet the core 
     mandates. NSA is also hopeful that the prevention programs in 
     the bill will keep juveniles out of the justice system. Kids 
     that are engaged in constructive activities are less likely 
     to commit crimes than those whose only other alternative is a 
     gang. We applaud the focus on prevention, and we stand ready 
     to do our part to engage America's youth.
       In addition, you may be asked to consider the following 
     amendments that I support.
       Four ways to close loopholes giving kids access to 
     firearms:
       1. The Child Access Loophole.
       Adults are prohibited from transferring firearms to 
     juveniles, but are not required to store guns so that kids 
     cannot get access to them. This Child Access Prevention (CAP) 
     proposal would require parents to keep loaded firearms out of 
     the reach of children and would hold gun owners criminally 
     responsible if a child gains access to an unsecured firearm 
     and uses it to injure themselves or someone else.
       2. The Gun Show Loophole:
       So-called ``private collectors'' can sell guns without 
     background checks at gun shows and flea markets thereby 
     skirting the Brady Law which requires that federally licensed 
     gun dealers initiate and complete a background check before 
     they sell a firearm. No gun should be sold at a gun show 
     without a background check and appropriate documentation.
       3. The Internet Loophole Similar to the Gun Show Loophole:
       Many sales on the internet are preformed without a 
     background check, allowing criminals and other prohibited 
     purchasers to acquire firearms. No one should be able to sell 
     guns over the internet without complying with the Brady 
     background check requirements.
       4. The Violent Juveniles Purchase Loophole:
       Under current law, anyone convicted of a felony in an adult 
     court is barred from owning a weapon. However, juveniles 
     convicted of violent crimes in a juvenile court can purchase 
     a gun on their 21st birthday. Juveniles who commit violent 
     felony offenses when they are young should be prohibited from 
     buying guns as adults.
       The National Sheriffs Association and I welcome passage of 
     this legislation. We look forward to working with you to 
     ensure swift enactment of S. 254.
           Respectfully,
     Patrick J. Sullivan, Jr.,

[[Page S14467]]

       Sheriff, Chairman, Congressional Affairs Committee and 
     Member, Executive Committee of the Board of Directors, NSA.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                     School Resource Officers,

                            Boynton Beach, FL, September 16, 1999.
     Chairman Hatch,
     Senate Judiciary Committee,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Daer Chairman Hatch: The National Association of School 
     Resource Officers (NASRO) is a national organization that 
     represents over 5,000 school based police officers from 
     municipal police agencies, county sheriff departments and 
     school district police forces. On behalf of our entire 
     membership nationwide, I am writing today in strong support 
     of the gun-related provisions adopted by the Senate as part 
     of S. 254. These measures are crucial in reducing child and 
     criminal access to guns.
       As you and other conferees meet to craft juvenile justice 
     legislation, NASRO urges you to focus on an important issue 
     to law enforcement--the need for at least three business days 
     to conduct background checks at gun shows. This is the same 
     period of time currently allowed when a firearm is purchased 
     from a licensed gun dealer.
       As law enforcement officials we know from experience that 
     it is critical to have at least three business days to do a 
     thorough background check. Law enforcement officials need 
     time to access records that may not be available on the 
     federal National Instant Check Background System (NICS) such 
     as a person's history of mental illness, domestic violence or 
     recent arrests. What is important to law enforcement is not 
     how fast a background check can be done but how thorough it 
     is conducted. Without a minimum of three business days, this 
     will increase the risk that criminals will be able to 
     purchase guns.
       NASRO is concerned that 72 or 24 hours is not an adequate 
     amount of time for law enforcement to do an effective 
     background check. The FBI analyzed all NICS background check 
     data in the last six months and estimated that--if the law 
     had required all background checks to be completed in 72 
     hours--9,000 people found to be disqualified would have been 
     able to obtain a weapon. If the time limit for checks had 
     been set at just 24 hours, 17,000 prohibited purchasers 
     would have gotten guns in just the last half year. The FBI 
     also found that a gun buyer who could not be cleared by 
     the NICS system in under two hours was 20 times more 
     likely to be a prohibited purchaser than other gun buyers.
       It is impossible to tell precisely how many lives will be 
     saved by applying the same background check system that now 
     applies to gun store sales to gun shows. We know, however, 
     that without such equivalent treatment gun shows will 
     continue to be the purchase points of choice for murderers, 
     armed robbers and other violent criminals like Hank Earl 
     Carr, who was a frequent gun show buyer despite being a 
     multiple convicted felon. Carr's crimes didn't stop until 
     1998, when he shot his stepson and three police officers 
     before turning a gun on himself.
       On June 23, 1999 a Colorado man shot and killed his three 
     daughters, ages 7, 8 and 10 just hours after purchasing a gun 
     from a licensed dealer. The dealer completed a NICS check, 
     but the check failed to reveal that the man had a domestic 
     abuse restraining order against him. If law enforcement had 
     consulted local and state records using both computerized and 
     non-computerized data bases than the man probably would have 
     never been able to purchase the gun.
       The other Senate passed provisions NASRO supports include 
     requiring that child safety locks be provided with every 
     handgun sold; banning all violent juveniles from buying guns 
     when they turn 18; banning juvenile possession of assault 
     rifles; enhancing penalties for transferring a firearm to a 
     juvenile; and banning the importation of high capacity 
     ammunition magazines.
       It is important to adopt the Senate-passed gun-related 
     provisions in order to protect the safety of our families and 
     our communities. The police officer on the street understands 
     that this legislation is needed to help keep guns out of the 
     hands of children and violent criminals.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Curtis Lavarello,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

        National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives,


                           Alexandria, VA, September 15, 1999.

     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: The National Organization of Black Law 
     Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) representing over 3500 black 
     law enforcement managers, executives, and practitioners 
     strongly urge you to support the gun related provisions 
     adopted by the Senate as a part of S. 254. These measures are 
     crucial in reducing child and criminal access to guns.
       As you and other conferees meet to craft juvenile 
     legislation, NOBLE urges you to focus on an important issue 
     to law enforcement--the need for at least three business days 
     to conduct background checks at gun shows. This is the same 
     period of time currently allowed when a firearm is purchased 
     from a licensed dealer.
       NOBLE is concerned that 24 hours is not an adequate amount 
     of time for law enforcement to do an effective background 
     check. The FBI analyzed all National Instant Check Background 
     System (NICS) data in the last six months and estimated 
     that--if the law had required all background checks to be 
     completed in 72 hours, 9000 people found to be disqualified 
     would have been able to obtain a weapon. If the time limit 
     for checks had been set for 24 hours, 17,000 prohibited 
     purchasers would have gotten guns in just the last half year. 
     The FBI also found that a gun buyer who could not be cleared 
     by the NICS system in under two hours was 20 times more 
     likely to be a prohibited purchaser than other gun buyers.
       It is impossible to tell precisely how many lives will be 
     saved by applying the same background check system that now 
     applies to gun store sales to gun shows. We know, however, 
     that without such equivalent treatment gun shows will 
     continue to be the purchased points of choice for murderers, 
     armed robbers and other violent criminals like Hank Earl 
     Carr, who was a frequent gun show buyer despite being a 
     multiple convicted felon. Carr's crimes did not stop until 
     1998, when he shot his stepson and three police officers 
     before turning the gun on himself.
       The other Senate passed provisions NOBLE supports include 
     requiring that child safety locks be provided with every 
     handgun sold; banning all violent juveniles from buying guns 
     when they turn 18; banning juvenile possession of assault 
     rifles; enhancing penalties for transferring a firearm to a 
     juvenile; and banning the importation of high capacity 
     ammunition magazines.
       It is important to adopt the Senate passed gun related 
     provisions in order to protect the safety of our families and 
     our communities. The police officer on the street understands 
     that this legislation is needed to help keep guns out of the 
     hands of children and violent criminals.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert L. Stewart,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                          Hispanic American Police


                                 Command Officers Association,

                               Washington, DC, September 15, 1999.
     Chairman Hatch,
     Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hatch: The Hispanic American Police Command 
     Officers Association (HAPCOA) represents 1,500 command law 
     enforcement officers and affiliates from municipal police 
     departments, county sheriffs, and state and federal agencies 
     including the DEA, U.S. Marshals Service, FBI, U.S. Secret 
     Service, and the U.S. Park Police. On behalf of our entire 
     membership nationwide, I am writing today in strong support 
     of the gun-related provisions adopted by the Senate as part 
     of S. 254. These measures are crucial in reducing child and 
     criminal access to guns.
       As you and other conferees meet to craft juvenile justice 
     legislation, HAPCOA urges you to focus on an important issue 
     to law enforcement--the need for at least three business days 
     to conduct background checks at gun shows. This is the same 
     period of time currently allowed when a firearm is purchased 
     from a licensed gun dealer.
       As law enforcement officials we know from experience that 
     it is critical to have at least three business days to do a 
     thorough background check. Law enforcement officials need 
     time to access records that may not be available on the 
     Federal National Instant Check Background System (NICS) such 
     as a person's history of mental illness, domestic violence or 
     recent arrests. What is important to law enforcement is not 
     how fast a background check can be done but how thorough it 
     is conducted. Without a minimum of three business days this 
     will increase the risk that criminals will be able to 
     purchase guns.
       HAPCOA is concerned that 72 or 24 hours is not an adequate 
     amount of time for law enforcement to do an effective 
     background check. The FBI analyzed all NICS background check 
     data in the last six months and estimated that--if the law 
     had required all background checks to be completed in 72 
     hours--9,000 people found to be disqualified would have been 
     able to obtain a weapon. If the time limit for checks had 
     been set at just 24 hours, 17,000 prohibited purchasers would 
     have gotten guns in just the last half year. The FBI also 
     found that a gun buyer who could not be cleared by the 
     NICS system in under two hours was 20 times more likely to 
     be a prohibited purchaser than other gun buyers.
       It is impossible to tell precisely how many lives will be 
     saved by applying the same background check system that now 
     applies to gun store sales to gun shows. We know, however, 
     that without such equivalent treatment gun shows will 
     continue to be the purchase points of choice for murderers, 
     armed robbers and other violent criminals like Hank Earl 
     Carr, who was a frequent gun show buyer despite being a 
     multiple convicted felon. Carr's crimes didn't stop until 
     1998, when he shot his stepson and three police officers 
     before turning a gun on himself.
       On June 23, 1999 a Colorado man shot and killed his three 
     daughters, ages 7, 8 and 10 just hours after purchasing a gun 
     from a licensed dealer. The dealer completed a NICS check, 
     but the check failed to reveal that the man had a domestic 
     abuse restraining order against him. If law enforcement had 
     consulted local and state records using both computerized and 
     non-computerized data

[[Page S14468]]

     bases then the man probably would have never been able to 
     purchase the gun.
       The other Senate passed provisions HAPCOA supports include 
     requiring that child safety locks be provided with every 
     handgun sold; banning all violent juveniles from buying guns 
     when they turn 18; banning juvenile possession of assault 
     rifles; enhancing penalties for transferring a firearm to a 
     juvenile; and banning the importation of high capacity 
     ammunition magazines.
       It is important to adopt the Senate-passed gun-related 
     provisions in order to protect the safety of our families and 
     our communities. The police officer on the street understands 
     that this legislation is needed to help keep guns out of the 
     hands of children and violent criminals.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jess Quintero,
     National Executive Director.
                                  ____



                              Police Executive Research Forum,

                              Washington, DC, September, 14, 1999.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hatch: The Police Executive Research Forum 
     (PERF) is a national organization of police professionals 
     dedicated to improving policing practices through research, 
     debate and leadership. On behalf of our members, I am writing 
     today in strong support of the gun-related provisions adopted 
     by the Senate as part of S. 254. These measures are crucial 
     in reducing children's and criminals' access to guns.
       As you and other conferees meet to craft juvenile justice 
     legislation, PERF urges you to focus on an important issue to 
     law enforcement--the need for at least three business days to 
     conduct background checks at gun shows. This is the same 
     period of time currently allowed when a firearm is purchased 
     from a licensed gun dealer.
       As law enforcement officials, we know from experience that 
     it is critical to have at least three business days to do a 
     thorough background check. While most checks take only a few 
     hours, those that take longer often signal a potential 
     problem regarding the purchaser. Without a minimum of three 
     business days, the risk that criminals will be able to 
     purchase guns increases. The FBI analyzed all NICS background 
     check data in the last six months and estimated that, if the 
     law had required all background checks to be completed in 72 
     hours, 9,000 people found to be disqualified would have been 
     able to obtain a weapon. If the time limit for checks had 
     been set at just 24 hours, 17,000 prohibited purchasers would 
     have obtained guns in just the last half year. The FBI also 
     found that a gun buyer who could not be cleared by the NICS 
     system in under two hours was 20 times more likely to be a 
     prohibited purchaser than other gun buyers.
       PERF also strongly supports measures that impose new safety 
     standards on the manufacture and importation of handguns 
     requiring a child-resistant safety lock. PERF helped write 
     the handgun safety guidelines--issued to most police agencies 
     more than a decade ago--on the need to secure handguns kept 
     in the home. Our commitment has not wavered. I also urge you 
     to clarify that the storage containers and safety mechanisms 
     meet minimum standards to ensure that the requirement have 
     teeth.
       PERF also encourages the enactment of proposals that 
     prohibit the sale of an assault weapon to anyone under age 18 
     and to increase the criminal penalties for selling a gun to a 
     juvenile. PERF all supports banning all violent juveniles 
     from buying any type of gun when they turn 18, and supports 
     banning the importation of high-capacity ammunition 
     magazines. PERF knows we must do more to keep guns out of the 
     hands of our nation's troubled youth.
       PERF supports strong, enforceable ``Child Access 
     Prevention'' laws. Once again, we have witnessed the carnage 
     that results when children have access to firearms. PERF has 
     supported child access prevention bills in the past because 
     we have seen first hand the horror that can occur when angry 
     and disturbed kids have access to guns.
       We must do more to keep America's children safe--not just 
     because of recent events, but because of the shootings, 
     accidents and suicide attempts we see with frightening 
     regularity. It is important to adopt the Senate-passed gun-
     related provisions in order to protect our families and our 
     communities. The police officer on the street understands 
     that this legislation is needed to help keep guns out of the 
     hands of children and violent criminals. Thank you for 
     considering the views of law enforcement. We applaud your 
     efforts to help make our communities safer places to live.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Chuck Wexler,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, some of my colleagues may recall that 
former President George Bush resigned from the NRA because the 
organization referred to law enforcement people as ``jack-booted 
thugs.'' What a twist to refer to our law enforcement people 
courageously out there risking their own lives to protect others and 
referring to them as ``jack-booted thugs.'' I saluted President Bush 
for that one.
  We ought to be skeptical when the NRA says it supports law 
enforcement. We ought to be skeptical when they use the second 
amendment to promote extremist views. What does the second amendment 
say?

       A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of 
     a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, 
     shall not be infringed.

  It doesn't say one ought to be able to buy it without a license. It 
doesn't say if someone is crazy, they ought to be able to buy a gun. It 
doesn't say if one is 12 years old, they ought to be able to buy a gun. 
It doesn't say one ought to be able to buy as many guns as they want. 
No matter how broadly one interprets that, there is nothing that says 
one shouldn't have to have a license to buy a gun.
  The interpretation of the amendment has been broadened and the courts 
don't hold or support that. That is the kind of gobbledygook that 
accompanies that. It is like saying guns don't kill; people kill. Who 
pulls the trigger? Animals. I guess maybe in some ways they are.
  We never hear the NRA talk about the first 13 words in that 
amendment:

       A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security 
     of a free State . . .

  They only cite the last 14 words when they argue that the amendment 
creates an unlimited right for individuals to bear arms.
  Nonsense. The NRA knows the history of the second amendment doesn't 
support the organization's radical views. When the Constitution was 
being debated, each State had its own militia. Most adult males were 
required to enlist and to supply their own equipment, including their 
own guns. The second amendment was written in response to concerns that 
excessive Federal power might lead to the Federal Government passing 
laws to disarm those State militias.
  The United States has changed a great deal since then. We no longer 
have State militias where citizens are required to provide their own 
arms. Thank goodness we have a National Guard--a State-organized 
military force--that is more limited and depends on government-issued 
weapons. They are there to respond to protecting the public.
  If my colleagues are interested in reading more about reality and the 
myths surrounding the second amendment, I urge them to read some recent 
scholarly articles written by independent historians whose research has 
not been funded by the NRA. These include articles by Saul Cornell, a 
history professor at Ohio State University; an editorial by Garry 
Wills, a Pulitzer Prize-winning history professor at Northwestern 
University; and an article by historian Mike Bellesiles of Emory 
University.
  I ask unanimous consent these articles be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, June 24, 1999]

                           Real and Imagined

                           (By Saul Cornell)

       Three words are routinely invoked by opponents of gun 
     control: the Second Amendment. So it was during the debate 
     last week in the House.
       In reality, however, the amendment was never meant to ban 
     virtually all efforts to regulate firearms. Indeed, the 
     Founding Fathers viewed regulation as not only legal but also 
     absolutely necessary, and colonial America enacted all sorts 
     of regulatory legislation governing the storage of arms and 
     gunpowder.
       The mythology of the Second Amendment, however, has turned 
     history on its head. Herewith, the truth about the Second 
     Amendment and its place in history.
       Myth: The right to bear arms has always been an individual 
     right.
       Reality: States retained the right to disarm law-abiding 
     citizens when the good of the community required such action.
       In Pennsylvania, as much as 40 percent of the adult, white 
     male population was deemed to lack the requisite virtue to 
     own guns.
       Myth: The armed citizen militia was essential to the cause 
     of American independence.
       Reality: If Americans had relied on their militia to 
     achieve independence, we would still be part of the British 
     empire. There were never enough guns in the hands of citizens 
     to pose a threat to a well-equipped army. The Continental 
     Army, not the militia, won the American Revolution.
       Myth: The militia included all able-bodied citizens.
       Reality: The list of groups excluded from the militia in 
     Massachusetts ran to two paragraphs.
       Myth: The militia was an agent of revolution.
       Reality: While the militia became a powerful agent of 
     political organization, it was invariably used by states to 
     repress rebellions by citizens and slaves.

[[Page S14469]]

     
                                  ____
                      [From the Chicago Sun-Times]

                  Shooting Holes in Age-Old Gun Myths

                            (By Garry Wills)

       For a number of years now, historian Michael Bellesiles of 
     Emory University has been amassing a great body of evidence 
     that demolishes the myths of the gun's role in American 
     history. I have wondered by no one in the popular press has 
     picked up on this work published in scholarly journals. Now 
     that a news magazine finally has done that, the magazine, it 
     turns out, is not an American one but the Economist, 
     published in London. Its current issue runs a very full and 
     important summary of Bellesiles' findings.
       By a sophisticated bit of sleuthing, Bellesiles has put 
     together probate reports on what people owned in the 18th and 
     early 19th centuries, government surveys of gun ownership 
     (something the NRA would go crazy at today), records of the 
     number of guns produced in America and imported from abroad--
     all to establish this fact, which runs contrary to romantic 
     notions of the frontiersman's reliance on his weapon: Up 
     until 1850, fewer than 10 percent of Americans owned guns, 
     and half of those were not functioning.
       Guns were expensive in early days; they cost the equivalent 
     of the average man's wages for a year. They were inefficient 
     and hard to maintain. Few were made in America. Repairs were 
     not readily executed (mainly by blacksmiths who worked on 
     farm implements). How did people protect themselves then? Not 
     by guns. Only 15 percent of the violent deaths inflicted in 
     the period 1800 to 1845 were brought about by guns--about the 
     same number as were caused by ax attacks and fewer than those 
     caused by knives. The leading cause of violent death was 
     being beaten or strangled (twice as many died that way as by 
     shooting or stabbing).
       So much for the NRA argument that if guns are taken away, 
     people would just find other means of killing one another. 
     People certainly will kill, but the rate just as certainly 
     would drop. When is the last time you heard of a drive-by 
     strangling, or the case of a school where a dozen children 
     were mowed down with an ax? that is why the murder rate is so 
     low in the countries that do have gun control.
       Another myth that Bellesiles demolishes is that of the 
     militias. Most militias did not have guns, or powder, or the 
     training to use what few weapons they had. They were not made 
     up of the whole male citizenry--how could they have been, 
     when no more than 10 percent of the citizens had guns. 
     Militias usually were mustered for immediate emergencies from 
     the unemployed, the drifting or those too poor to buy 
     substitutes for their service. One of the few exceptions to 
     this condition was militias in the South that were kept in 
     fighting condition in order to patrol the slaves. So far from 
     being a great bastion of freedom, the militias were a support 
     of slavery.
       When Bellesiles' findings are put together with Robert 
     Dykstra's study of the cowboy legend (towns such as Tombstone 
     and Dodge City had gun control laws, so that only 1.5 deaths 
     occurred annually during the cattle drives of their most 
     famous years) and with Osha Gray Davidson's history of the 
     NRA (which did not oppose gun control until the 1960s), there 
     is nothing left standing to vindicate the myth that 
     individually owned guns were a source of American freedom and 
     greatness.
                                  ____


                   [From the Economist, July 3, 1999]

                            Arms and the Man

       America's love affair with the gun is the eternal stuff of 
     fiction. It has not always been the stuff of fact.
       Richard Henry Lee, one of the signers of America's 
     Declaration of Independence, wrote that ``to preserve 
     liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people 
     always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when 
     young, how to use them.'' This association between guns and 
     liberty seems hard-wired into the American consciousness. It 
     has produced a country with more guns than people. It has 
     made national heroes of the armed frontiersman, the cowboy 
     and Teddy Roosevelt, the president who carried a big stick 
     and a hunting rifle. Above all it has engendered such a 
     powerful cult of the gun that whether you glorify it, fear it 
     or accept it as a necessary evil, hardly anyone questions its 
     basis in fact. Have guns really been an essential part of 
     American life for 400 years?
       At first glance it seems absurd to doubt it. From the time 
     of the earliest settlement on the James River, the English 
     colonies required every freeman to own a gun for self-
     defence. More than a century and a half later, the notion of 
     the citizen-soldier was enshrined in the constitution. ``A 
     well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a 
     free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms 
     shall not be infringed,'' holds the second amendment of the 
     Bill of Rights, which establishes additional safeguards for 
     Americans' freedom.
       Yet in ordinary life people were not armed to the teeth a 
     couple of centuries ago. Wills from revolutionary times 
     present a different picture. Probate records that list the 
     belongings passed on to heirs often give valuable insights 
     into everyday activities and possessions. Michael Bellesiles, 
     a professor at Emory University in Atlanta, has trawled 
     through more than 1,000 probate records dating from between 
     1765 and 1850. Here is a typical finding: ``He takes note of 
     his favourite chocolate pot [says Mr. Bellesiles]. The record 
     notes broken bottles, bent spoons. It notes every scrap of 
     land and every debt and credit he holds. There's not a single 
     gun listed. And this is the commander of the Virginia 
     militia.'' Between 1765 and 1790, fewer than 15% of probate 
     inventories list guns of any kind (see chart 1 on), and more 
     than half of those listed were broken. The larger-than-
     average proportion in the South was probably due to 
     difficulties in persuading people to be slaves by peaceful 
     means.
       Official surveys of private-gun ownership show much the 
     same thing. (Amazingly, to modern sensibilities, state and 
     federal governments were able to undertake surveys of this 
     sort without any debate in state legislatures about their 
     right to do so.) The state of Massachusetts counted all 
     privately owned guns on several occasions. Until 1840, at any 
     rate, no more than 11% of the population owned guns--and 
     Massachusetts was one of the two centres of gun production in 
     the country. At the start of the War of 1812, the state had 
     more spears than firearms in its arsenal. What was true at 
     the state level was true nationwide. ``It would appear,'' 
     says Mr. Bellesiles, ``that at no time prior to 1850 did more 
     than a tenth of the people own guns.''
       So, contrary to popular belief and legend, and contrary 
     even to the declarations of the founding fathers, gun 
     ownership was rare in the first half of America's history as 
     an independent country. It was especially low in parts of the 
     countryside and on the frontier, the very areas where guns 
     are imagined to have been most important. By no stretch of 
     the imagination was America founded on the private ownership 
     of weapons.
       But what about the civilian militias of the period, in 
     which all adult men were supposed to serve? These included 
     bodies such as the Minutemen of Massachusetts, embattled 
     farmers who agreed to turn out at a minute's notice and 
     managed to take on the British at Lexington and Concord. 
     Surely they at least exemplified the republican ideal of 
     universal military service by the citizenry?
       Not really. Most militias were a joke. Describing a 
     shooting competition at a militia muster in Pennsylvania, one 
     newspaper wrote cruelly: ``The size of the target is known 
     accurately, having been carefully measured. It was 
     precisely the size and shape of a barn door.'' The 
     soldiery could not hit even this; the winner was the one 
     who missed by the smallest margin. No wonder the militias 
     of Oxford, Massachusetts, voted in 1823 to stop their 
     annual target practice to avoid public humiliation. South 
     Carolina fined people who heckled or disrupted the militia 
     muster--to no avail.
       Militias, it seems, were neither adept nor well-armed. In 
     1775 Captain Charles Johnson told the New Hampshire 
     Provincial Congress that his company had ``perhaps one pound 
     of powder to 20 men and not one-half our men have arms.'' The 
     adjutant general of Massachusetts complained in 1834 that 
     only ``town paupers, idlers, vagrants, foreigners, 
     itinerants, drunkards and the outcasts of society'' manned 
     his militias. Delaware was one of several states that fined 
     people for non-attendance at musters. In 1816 it gave up the 
     unequal struggle and repealed all the fines; and when the 
     legislature dared to enact a new militia law in 1827, it was 
     turfed out at the next elections and the law repealed. In the 
     1830s, General Winfield Scott discovered the Florida militia 
     to be essentially unarmed--and this was during a war against 
     the Seminole Indians.
       These and other bits of information confirm the evidence of 
     the probate records: guns were rare. Perhaps the fact should 
     not surprise. Gunpowder and firing mechanisms had to be 
     imported, so a gun cost about a year's income for an ordinary 
     farmer. (For comparison, a basic rifle now costs the 
     equivalent of three days' work at the average wage.) And guns 
     were hard to maintain: muskets were made mostly of iron, 
     which rusted easily and needed constant attention. Many busy 
     farmers had better things to do with their time.
       Even if farmers had wanted and been able to buy guns, they 
     would usually have found them hard to obtain. Before the 
     civil war, America had only two armouries, at Harper's Ferry, 
     Virginia, and Springfield, Massachusetts (see chart 2). Their 
     joint output was not enough even for basic national defense. 
     In an attempt to equip the militias sufficiently to protect 
     the newly independent country, Congress ordered the purchase 
     of 7,000 muskets in 1793. A year later, it had managed to buy 
     only 400.
       Strikingly, the citizen-soldiers could not be bothered to 
     arm themselves even when guns were both available and free of 
     charge. In 1808 the government made its biggest attempt to 
     arm and organise the citizenry, offering to buy weapons for 
     every white male in the country. All the militias had to do 
     to get guns was apply for them, reporting how many members 
     they had. By 1839 only half the companies in Massachusetts 
     had taken the trouble to do this.
       Across the country, popular neglect was killing the 
     militias. In 1839 the secretary of war complained that ``when 
     mustered, a majority of [the militias] are armed with walking 
     canes, fowling pieces of unserviceable muskets.'' Practically 
     every militia commander reported that his members did not 
     look after their guns properly. All complained of non-
     attendance. All worried about the low esteem in which the 
     militias were generally held. In 1840 most states gave up 
     filing militia returns altogether. Militias as the founding 
     fathers had envisaged them were finished.

[[Page S14470]]

                       Arming America by mistake

       So when did mass ownership of guns begin to develop, if not 
     at the start? It was during the civil war, from 1861 to 1865, 
     and the agent of change was industrialisation. The American 
     civil war was the first conflict in history in which the new 
     techniques of mass production and transport played vital 
     roles. Armies were ferried around by train and issued with 
     the latest weapons from the most modern factories.
       Naturally, weapons production soared. In the 12 months to 
     July 1864, the state-owned Springfield armory produced over 
     600,000 rifles, nearly as many as in the whole of its 70-year 
     history. The Union government's Ordnance Department spent 
     $179m (about $2.5 billion at today's prices) from 1861 to 
     1866 on buying or making weapons.
       Much of the money was collected by the dozens of new 
     private factories that opened or grew to meet the increased 
     demand. Chief among them was Samuel Colt's, the first private 
     company to manufacture guns on a large scale. Between 1836, 
     when Colt's factory first opened, and 1861, when the civil 
     war began, production averaged a few thousand weapons a year. 
     By 1865 Colt had become the largest private supplier to the 
     Union army, selling 386,417 revolvers in the course of the 
     conflict. Like other gun makers, Colt started to reap huge 
     economies of scale, as the war went on, and the costs of 
     production dropped sharply. In 1865 the Colt Peacemaker 
     revolver cost $17 to buy--about two months' earnings for a 
     labourer.
       The civil war expanded not just the production but also the 
     ownership of guns. At its outset the Union government owned 
     300,000 muskets and 27,000 rifles; the Confederacy had 
     another 150,000 guns of various sorts; and there were tens of 
     thousands of guns in private hands. During the war, the 
     Ordnance Department of the Union government bought or made 
     3.5m carbines, rifles, revolvers, pistols and muskets, as 
     well as over 1 billion cartridges and 1 billion percussion 
     caps. In addition, it imported $10m-worth of rifles, muskets 
     and carbines from Europe. In all, the Union issued at least 
     4m small arms to its soldiers in five years--perhaps eight 
     times as much as the total stock of guns at the beginning of 
     the war.
       The men were not only issued with firearms but also taught 
     how to use them. At its peak, the Union army counted around 
     1.5m enlisted men and the Confederate army another 1m. These 
     were easily the largest military forces ever assembled. Most 
     important, these weapons were left in the hands of the 
     soldiers at the end of the war. Anxious to press ahead with 
     reconstruction, the victorious Union government allowed all 
     soldiers, including those of the Confederacy, to take their 
     guns home. (In theory, soldiers were supposed to buy their 
     guns but no one made any serious effort to collect the money 
     that was due.)
       The civil war thus transformed America from a country with 
     a few hundred thousand guns into one with millions of them. 
     it was this war, rather than any inherent belief in the right 
     of individuals to carry guns, that first armed America--and 
     then created the first crime wave to go with it. In the 
     decade immediately after the war, murder rates soared, and 
     guns became the murder weapon of choice (see chart 3). This 
     crime wave was one important reason why the ownership and 
     production of guns did not fall away after the ``late 
     unpleasantness between the states'', as some Southerners put 
     it.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Colt was a self-publicist of genius. When his brother, 
     John, unfraternally chose a mere axe with which to commit 
     murder in 1841, Samuel persuaded the court to let him stage a 
     shooting display inside the courtroom to demonstrate the 
     superiority of the new revolver over the axe as a murder 
     weapon. Using these publicity skills, and displaying 
     precocious evidence of lobbying ability (he gave President 
     Andrew Jackson a handgun and pioneered the practice of wining 
     and dining members of Congress), Colt aimed his campaign at 
     the growing middle class. He devised advertising campaigns 
     showing a heroic figure wearing nothing but a revolver 
     defending his wife and children. His guns were given 
     nicknames (Equalizer, Peacemaker and so forth). Since most of 
     his customers did not know how to use a firearm, he printed 
     instructions on the cleaning cloth of every gun. His initial 
     success shows up in the probate records: the percentage of 
     wills listing firearms among their legacies rose by half 
     between 1830 and 1850.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The big industrial cities back East were actually far more 
     violent than even the most notorious cowboy town. Robert 
     Dykstra writes that ``during its most celebrated decade as a 
     tough cattle town, only 15 persons died violently in Dodge 
     City, 1876-85, for an average of just 1.5 killings per cowboy 
     season.'' Towns such as Tombstone (in Arizona) and Dodge City 
     (in Kansas) had very low murder rates, mainly because drovers 
     had their guns confiscated at the town limits. Not so in the 
     East. In 1872 the Missouri Republican, for example, called 
     New York a ``murderer's paradise'' and criticized its 
     ``chronic indifference'' in the face of ``the murdering 
     business [that] is carried on with impunity.''
       Nonetheless, by the end of the 19th century, two elements 
     of America's present gun culture were in place: widespread 
     individual ownership of guns, and large numbers of factories 
     that were turning out affordable weapons to meet popular 
     demand. More was required, however, to create a true ``gun 
     culture'': in particular, as Mr. Bellesiles points out, 
     ``there needed to be a conviction, supported by the 
     government, that the individual ownership of guns served some 
     larger purpose.'' The notion that the right to own 
     firearms was somehow the quintessential American freedom 
     had yet to come.


the cult of the gun

                           *   *   *   *   *


       After the second world war, the organization's character 
     altered. It began to represent sportsmen more, organizing 
     training courses for hunters, teaching classes in gun safety 
     and even putting together a rifle team to represent the 
     United States in the Olympic games. Though it did some 
     lobbying, the question of influencing gun laws came low on 
     its list of priorities. The NRA was, in fact, a little like 
     the Boy Scouts.
       Two developments changed that. The first was the Gun 
     Control Act of 1968, which forbad selling guns by post after 
     President Kennedy was assassinated by a weapon that had been 
     bought in this way. The act was supported by the NRA's 
     leaders but opposed by many of its members.
       The other event was the appearance of Hanlon Carter at the 
     head of a dissident group within the NRA. A tough Texan who 
     had had a murder conviction overturned on appeal, he 
     transformed the NRA from a sporting club into what is widely 
     seen today as one of the most powerful lobbying organizations 
     in America. In 1997, incensed at plans for training in 
     environmental awareness at the NRA's new national shooting 
     range, Carter organized what was in effect a takeover of the 
     association. When the smoke cleared, his headliners were in 
     charge.

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The courts have interpreted the second amendment in a 
straightforward and commonsense way. In the United States v. Miller, 
decided in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled the amendment guarantees the 
right to be armed only in service to a well-regulated militia. In other 
words, no one has an automatic right to own a firearm.
  The NRA is simply wrong. If they were right, anyone could carry a gun 
any time they wanted to. People could carry machine guns anywhere they 
wanted to--to work, restaurants, on airplanes. That is exactly why 
former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative appointed to the 
Supreme Court by President Nixon, and a gun owner himself, called the 
NRA's distortion of the second amendment a fraud on the American 
public. That is a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
  I hope my colleagues will put aside the false rhetoric of the 
extremist NRA and listen to other American people, people of every 
religion, race, color, creed, and profession coming together to try to 
stop gun violence, people joining together because the right to bear 
and raise children safely must come before the right to bear arms. 
People are joining together because there is no need for 200 million 
firearms in a civilized society. The people are joining together to say 
if citizens want a gun, they ought to prove they can use it safely.
  Vouchers are not the answer; a voucher to go to different schools 
won't solve the problem. Ignoring the problem is not an answer. Instead 
of wasting our time today on this meaningless amendment, the Senate 
ought to be working to pass a gun safety bill to close dangerous 
loopholes. I hope the constituents back home will watch how their 
Senators vote on matters to control gun violence and compare it to what 
kind of vote we get on the school voucher issue.
  On this issue, we will prevail because there is no force stronger 
than the people united to protect their children. There aren't enough 
gun lobby dollars to protect politicians who stand in the way. Lord 
help us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I associate myself with the eloquent and erudite remarks 
made by my colleague, the Senator from New Jersey. He is right on 
target.
  This amendment we are about to vote on misses the mark by a mile in 
terms of what we ought to do. The Senator from New Jersey has been the 
leading advocate on the Senate floor for focusing razor-like on the 
real problem, which is the proliferation of guns, the ready access to 
guns of the youth of this country. He is right on target. I compliment 
the Senator for his leadership in that area and the statements made 
today.
  Again, the majority has taken a measure which has strong bipartisan 
support and added a poison pill--nothing more or less than a blatant 
political maneuver. Most of the provisions

[[Page S14471]]

of this amendment provide critical resources to law enforcement and 
communities to battle the methamphetamine epidemic. This started as a 
strong measure, one I wholeheartedly endorsed and have cosponsored. We 
have in the Midwest, the West, the Southwest, a major problem with this 
dangerous and highly addictive drug. We need additional resources to 
stop the spread of meth in our rural communities and urban centers.
  I am a cosponsor of the bill authored by Senators Hatch and Ashcroft, 
including provisions to help law enforcement investigate and clean up 
highly toxic meth labs. It includes $15 million for meth prevention and 
education, $10 million for meth treatment, and authorizes funding for 
needed research on the treatment of meth. It also includes tougher 
penalties for meth lab operators and traffickers. Many of these 
provisions, about a third of them, are taken from the bill I introduced 
earlier this year called the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Abuse 
Reduction Act.
  Over the past 3 years, I have worked very hard to increase the 
resources for law enforcement and communities to reduce the supply and 
demand of these illegal drugs through millions of dollars in grants for 
law enforcement, prevention, treatment, and research. So the 
methamphetamine bill is a good bill. It has strong bipartisan support. 
The methamphetamine amendment is a good amendment--until last-minute 
additions were included to undermine the bipartisan support. We now 
have a couple of poison pills added to it.
  The first is a school voucher program, private school vouchers that 
will divert Federal education dollars from public schools to private 
schools. It says for a victim of a crime at a school--a situation that 
no one condones--that Federal education funds could be used to send 
that student to a private school anywhere in the State. That sounds 
good, but it doesn't do anything to make schools safer. Plus there is a 
big loophole in the amendment. If you read the amendment, it says here:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law [et cetera, et 
     cetera] if a student becomes a victim of a violent criminal 
     offense, including drug-related violence, while in or on the 
     grounds of a public elementary school or secondary school 
     that the student attends. . . .

  Then they can use these funds to send the student to a private 
school, including a religious school, anywhere in the State, wherever 
the parent wants the student to go.
  So, obviously, a student could be on the school grounds after school, 
in the evening, on the weekend, as most of these grounds are available 
as playgrounds, basketball courts, things like that, and if the violent 
act occurred then, which has nothing to do with the school whatsoever, 
these funds could be diverted. There is a big loophole in that 
amendment. Aside from that, that is not the way to address violence in 
schools. We should, instead, support violence and crime prevention 
programs in and around public schools, not divert resources from public 
to private schools. We should invest in initiatives such as the Safe 
and Drug-Free Schools Act and afterschool programs, since we know most 
juvenile crimes occur between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m.

  I am on the Appropriations Committee for education. As soon as I 
finish my statement, I am going downstairs to continue negotiations. 
The President wanted $600 million for afterschool programs to keep 
these kids off the streets and put them into afterschool programs. The 
Republican leadership knocked that down in half, to $300 million. That 
is where we ought to be putting our money, not saying take money out of 
public schools and put them in vouchers. Let's do what the President 
wanted to do: Put $600 million in afterschool programs so these kids 
will be safe.
  We also need more counselors in schools, especially in our elementary 
schools, to prevent problems before they start. Public tax dollars 
should be spent on public schools which educate 90 percent of our 
Nation's children. Taxpayers' money should not go to vouchers when 
public schools have great needs, including providing a safe 
environment.
  Again, there is another part of this that is a poison pill, and that 
is the mandatory minimum provisions which were put in the amendment. 
The Department of Justice, all of the U.S. attorneys, including the two 
U.S. attorneys from the State of Iowa, oppose this provision. It does 
not fix the problem. Our prisons are already full. We are building new 
prisons. In fact, the most rapidly growing part of public housing today 
is our building of prisons. Yet what this amendment would do is crowd 
more people into those prisons and require us to build more prison 
cells. That is not the answer. Building more prisons, making mandatory 
minimum sentences, getting young people who may be first-time abusers 
into these prisons, is not the answer. We need more education; we need 
more prevention; we need more treatment; and we need more counseling 
for kids in elementary and secondary schools.
  With these two poison pills, I do not see how anyone could support 
this. The methamphetamine part was a good part when it started out. 
Then the majority decided to add some poison pills in a political 
maneuver. I understand the politics of it, but the politics does not 
mean we have to shield our eyes and cast a blind vote.
  I am hopeful that sometime--probably not this year--next year we will 
be able to bring up again a targeted methamphetamine bill, one that 
gets to, yes, penalties but also gets to education, prevention, 
treatment, and research, and put this package together in an 
antimethamphetamine drug bill that we can bring up and pass without all 
these riders and poison pills.
  I yield the remainder of the time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We also yield the remainder of the time on this side. I 
assume we can go to a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back. Has someone 
requested the yeas and nays?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2771. The yeas and nays were ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 360 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 2771) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I move to lay that on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I voted against the Hatch ``drug'' 
amendment. I voted against this amendment with some regret because I 
very much wanted to support one provision in this amendment--Senator 
Hatch's Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999.

[[Page S14472]]

  Senator Hatch's Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999 is a 
bipartisan bill that would go a long way toward attacking the 
proliferation of methamphetamine trafficking and abuse that 
particularly plagues the Midwest. I know my friend Senator Harkin and 
others have worked tirelessly with Senator Hatch to improve the bill 
and to ensure that prevention and treatment programs targeted at young 
people tempted by or addicted to methamphetamine are included in any 
solution to this problem. Because I feel strongly about this issue, I 
co-sponsored Senator Harkin's bill the ``Comprehensive Methamphetamine 
Abuse Reduction Act,'' and many of the provisions of Senator Harkin's 
bill are now included in this amendment.
  We have a serous problem in South Dakota with the production, 
trafficking and use of methamphetamine. I have met with many members of 
South Dakota's law enforcement community about this problem, and I know 
that cracking down on meth traffickers and users has become more and 
more difficult as this highly addictive drug has increased in 
popularity, particularly among our young people. The number of 
methamphetamine arrests, court cases, and confiscation of labs 
continues to escalate. In the Midwest alone, the number of clandestine 
methamphetamine labs confiscated and destroyed in 1998 was nearly 
triple the number confiscated and destroyed in 1997.
  It has become evident that methamphetamine is fast becoming the 
leading illegal drug in our region, and efforts to combat its spread 
are complicated by the fact that the drug does not discriminate. Its 
users range from teenage girls who use the drug to decrease their 
appetite in an effort to lose weight, to middle class men looking for a 
cheap high. This highly addictive drug can lead to devastating 
consequences for its users, and far too often methamphetamine use has 
been a major factor in a number of violent crime cases. In recent 
years, the Drug Enforcement Agency has registered an increase in the 
percentage of arrests due to methamphetamine in South Dakota from 
around 20% of the total arrest rate to 70%, and several high profile 
crimes, including murders, in South Dakota have been attributed to 
methamphetamine abuse.
  Though, we have taken some important steps to combat methamphetamine 
abuse in recent years, such as securing targeted funding to fight 
methamphetamine production and trafficking in South Dakota, Iowa, 
Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri, I believe it is time to do more. 
Accordingly, I would have liked to support the provisions in this 
amendment that increase penalties for amphetamine manufacturing and 
trafficking and provide more money for law enforcement personnel to 
address the methamphetamine problem in high intensity drug trafficking 
areas. That is why I would have liked to support the provisions that 
provide needed funds for hiring and training law enforcement officers 
to combat methamphetamine trafficking and manufacture. And that is why 
I would have liked to support the provisions that would fund increased 
methamphetamine abuse research, grants to states and Indian tribes to 
expand treatment activities, and grants to schools and local 
communities for methamphetamine prevention activities. But 
unfortunately, I could not because the Republicans added, at the last 
minute, a poison pill provision aimed at weakening our public education 
system.
  The Hatch amendment includes a provision allowing school districts to 
use federal funds to provide vouchers to students who have been victims 
of violent crime on school grounds. This means that money that is 
supposed to be used to help public schools improve technology, to 
develop charter schools, or that has been set aside for special 
education students, could be used on vouchers for private schools. The 
amendment does nothing to make schools safer for children and will do 
nothing to increase student achievement.
  Let there be no mistake about what this amendment is trying to do. 
This is just a back-door attempt to take federal resources necessary to 
improve our public schools and squander them on vouchers to send a few 
children to private schools. While the proponents claim that parents 
could send their child to any school, this provision actually creates 
an incentive to send the child to private or parochial schools by 
disallowing transportation expenses for public school students, while 
allowing transportation expenses along with tuition and fees for 
private or religious schools.
  Federal resources should be invested in improving public schools for 
all children through higher standards, smaller classes, well-trained 
teachers, modern facilities, more after-school programs, and safe and 
secure classrooms. They should not be frittered away on ineffective and 
unproven programs to help just a few children.
  Mr. President, we all know that the education provisions in this 
amendment will necessitate that this amendment be dropped in 
conference. Thus, this is not a meaningful vote. I will continue to 
work to enact legislation to provide law enforcement officials the 
tools they need to combat the methamphetamine problem in this country. 
But I don't want to be part of an effort that may jeopardize the 
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999--a bill that is aimed, rightly, at 
reducing the abuses of the bankruptcy system. We should be focused on 
enacting meaningful bankruptcy reform, and not encumbering this bill 
with decisive partisan issues. We need to send a bankruptcy bill to the 
President which he can sign into law--this amendment, unfortunately, 
does not further that end.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Republican drug amendment to the 
bankruptcy bill would authorize private school vouchers for students 
who are injured by offenses on public school grounds. It allows school 
districts to use funds from other Federal education programs, including 
IDEA funds, technology funds and others, to provide vouchers. I will 
vote against this amendment. I will do so because it will not make our 
schools safer and it will not invest in student achievement. Ninety 
percent of students are educated in our nation's public schools. Our 
public tax dollars should be used for improving public schools, through 
smaller class size, well-trained teachers, more after-school programs, 
modern facilities, higher standards, and safe and secure classes. I 
repeat, vouchers are the wrong way to go.
  My decision to oppose this amendment is bitter-sweet because while I 
oppose the voucher provisions of this amendment, I strongly support a 
provision of the amendment which is, in fact, legislation which I co-
authored and introduced with Senator Hatch, Senator Moynihan and 
Senator Biden in January of this year--S. 324, the Drug Addiction 
Treatment Act. It addresses a long-time crusade of mine--that of 
speeding the development and delivery of anti-addiction medications 
that block the craving for illicit addictive substances. This is one 
way in which we can fight and win the war on drugs--by blocking the 
craving for illegal substances. The Drug Addiction Treatment Act is 
aimed at achieving this goal. It was originally reported out of the 
Judiciary Committee as Sec. 18 of the Methamphetamine Anti-
Proliferation Act of 1999, and provides for qualified physicians to 
prescribe schedule IV and V anti-addiction medications in their 
offices, under certain strict conditions. I was pleased to have 
introduced S. 324 along with my distinguished colleagues. I regret that 
this vital legislation, which can be a tool for fighting and winning 
the war on drugs, is included in an amendment that I cannot support.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise now to echo the sentiment of my 
friend and colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, that the passage of 
the Republican drug amendment marks a bittersweet moment. I, too, 
regret that I had to vote against the Republican drug amendment today, 
because it contains a provision that is very important to me, which I 
will address in a moment. I voted against the Republican drug amendment 
as a whole because of the provision that would expand the number of 
people who would come within the reach of mandatory minimum sentences 
for certain offenses involving cocaine. I feel very strongly that the 
correct way to address the problem of addiction is not by increasing 
the reach of mandatory minimum sentences, but rather to increase access 
to treatment. And that is why passage of the Drug Addiction Treatment 
Act of

[[Page S14473]]

1999 (S. 324), in Subtitle B, Chapter 2, of the Republican drug 
amendment, marks a milestone in the treatment of opiate dependence. The 
Drug Addiction Treatment Act increases access to new medications, such 
as buprenorphine, to treat addiction to certain narcotic drugs, such as 
heroin. I thank my colleagues Senator Levin, Senator Hatch, and Senator 
Biden for their leadership and dedication in developing this Act, and 
regardless of the outcome of the Bankruptcy Reform Act, one way or 
another, I look forward to seeing the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 
1999 become law.
  Determining how to deal with the problem of addiction is not a new 
topic. Just over a decade ago when we passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 
1988, I was assigned by our then-Leader Robert Byrd, with Sam Nunn, to 
co-chair a working group to develop a proposal for drug control 
legislation. We worked together with a similar Republican task force. 
We agreed, at least for a while, to divide funding under our bill 
between demand reduction activities (60 percent) and supply reduction 
activities (40 percent). And we created the Director of National Drug 
Control Policy (section 1002); next, ``There shall be in the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy a Deputy Director for Demand Reduction and 
a Deputy Director for Supply Reduction.''
  We put demand first. To think that you can ever end the problem by 
interdicting the supply of drugs, well, it's an illusion. There's no 
possibility.
  I have been intimately involved with trying to eradicate the supply 
of drugs into this country. It fell upon me, as a member of the Nixon 
Cabinet, to negotiate shutting down the heroin traffic that went from 
central Turkey to Marseilles to New York--``the French Connection''--
but we knew the minute that happened, another route would spring up. 
That was a given. The success was short-lived. What we needed was 
demand reduction, a focus on the user. And we still do.
  Demand reduction requires science and it requires doctors. I see the 
science continues to develop, and The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 
1999 will allow doctors and patients to make use of it.
  Congress and the public continue to fixate on supply interdiction and 
harsher sentences (without treatment) as the ``solution'' to our drug 
problems, and adamantly refuse to acknowledge what various experts now 
know and are telling us: that addiction is a chronic, relapsing 
disease; that is, the brain undergoes molecular, cellular, and 
physiological changes which may not be reversible.
  What we are talking about is not simply a law enforcement problem, to 
cut the supply; it is a public health problem, and we need to treat it 
as such. We need to stop filling our jails under the misguided notion 
that such actions will stop the problem of drug addiction. The Drug 
Addiction Treatment Act of 1999 is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
votes be limited to 10 minutes in length each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________