Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 130 (Tuesday, October 17, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 130 (Tuesday, October 17, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H9950-H9951]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN FROM DRUGS ACT OF 2000

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 5312) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to
protect children from drug traffickers.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 5312

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Our Children From
Drugs Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. INCREASED MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES FOR USING
MINORS TO DISTRIBUTE DRUGS.

Section 420 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
861) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``one year'' and
inserting ``3 years''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``one year'' and
inserting ``5 years''.

SEC. 3. INCREASED MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES FOR
DISTRIBUTING DRUGS TO MINORS.

Section 418 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
859) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``one year'' and
inserting ``3 years''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``one year'' and
inserting ``5 years''.

SEC. 4. INCREASED MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES FOR DRUG
TRAFFICKING IN OR NEAR A SCHOOL OR OTHER
PROTECTED LOCATION.

Section 419 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
860) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``one year'' and
inserting ``3 years''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``three years'' each
place that term appears and inserting ``5 years''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Canady) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).

General Leave

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5312.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are few responsibilities that we have as Members
of Congress that are more important than seeking to leave our children
a better future. This legislation seeks to accomplish that goal by
protecting children from illegal drugs, drug trafficking and the
violence associated with the drug trade through increased prison
sentences for Federal drug felonies involving or affecting children.
H.R. 5312 increases the mandatory minimum prison sentences from 1
year to 3 years in three important areas. First, it raises the sentence
to 3 years for those who use children to distribute

[[Page H9951]]

drugs. Second, it raises the sentence to 3 years for those who traffic
drugs to children. And third, it raises the sentence to 3 years for
those who traffic drugs in or near a school or other protected
location, including colleges, playgrounds, public housing facilities,
youth centers, public swimming pools or video arcade facilities.
In each of these circumstances, it raises the mandatory minimum
sentence for a second time offender to 5 years.
Mr. Speaker, protecting children should be a top priority for our
society. Crime is down in America but we must remain vigilant. This
bill sends an important and unmistakable message, do not involve our
kids in your drug trade. By passing and enacting this legislation, we
are doing more to make sure our children realize the promising future
to which they are entitled. I urge my colleagues to support the
Protecting Our Children From Drugs Act of 2000. I want to express my
gratitude to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. McCollum), who is the sponsor of this legislation,
for his leadership in moving forward with this proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5312, the
``Protecting Our Children From Drugs Act of 2000,'' which would
increase mandatory minimums for certain drug offenses involving minors.
While I certainly support any legislative action which would keep drugs
out of the hands of our kids, this bill will not do that.
Unfortunately, we are here again with Congress' favorite solution to
crime--mandatory minimum sentencing. This despite the fact that
scientific studies have found no empirical evidence linking mandatory
minimum sentences to reductions in crime. Instead, what the studies
have shown is that mandatory minimum sentences distort the sentencing
process, discriminate against minorities in their application and waste
money.
In a study report entitled ``Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences:
Throwing Away the Key or the Tax Payers Money?,'' the Rand Commission
concluded that mandatory minimum sentences were significantly less
effective than discretionary sentencing, and substantially less
effective than drug treatment in reducing drug related crime, and far
more costly than either.
Further, both the Judicial Center in its study report entitled ``The
General Effects of Mandatory Minimum Prison Terms: A longitudinal Study
of Federal Sentences Imposed,'' and the United States Sentencing
Commission in its study report entitled ``Mandatory Minimum Penalties
in the Federal Criminal Justice System,'' found that minorities were
substantially more likely than whites under comparable circumstances to
receive mandatory minimum sentences.
Perhaps the problem with mandatory minimums is best stated in a March
17, 2000 letter from the Judicial Conference of the United States to
Chairman Hyde, and which provided as follows:

The reason for our opposition is manifest: Mandatory
minimums severely distort and damage the federal sentencing
system. Mandatories undermine the Sentencing Guidelines
regimen Congress so carefully established under the
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 by preventing the rational
development of guidelines that reduce unwarranted disparity
and provide proportionality and fairness. Mandatory minimums
also destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging charge and
fact plea bargains to avoid mandatory minimums. In fact, the
U.S. Sentencing Commission has documented that mandatory
minimum sentences have the opposite of their intended effect.
Far from fostering certainty in punishment, mandatory
minimums result in unwarranted sentencing disparity.
Mandatories also treat dissimilar offenders in a similar
manner--offenders who can be quite different with respect to
the seriousness of their conduct or their danger to society.
Mandatories require the sentencing court to impose the same
sentence on offenders when sound policy and common sense call
for reasonable differences in punishment.

The fact is, we know how to reduce drug abuse--its with prevention
and drug rehabilitation programs. One study of a program in California
has shown drug rehabilitation to be so effective that for every dollar
the state spends on its drug abuse program, it saves seven dollars in
reduced costs in health care, welfare, and crime.
In addition, late last year several of us worked on the bipartisan
task force on juvenile crime. We heard from experts from across the
country, and all the testimony we heard pointed to prevention and early
intervention as appropriate strategies to deal with juvenile crime. We
did not hear a single witness suggest we enact mandatory minimum
sentencing schemes.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5312 was introduced just two weeks ago by
Representative McCollum, and comes to the floor today without the
benefit of hearings or the opportunity to amend the bill. Thus, it is
no surprise that it reflects an old approach which has been proven to
be ineffective and discriminatory in its impact. For those reasons, I
must oppose H.R. 5312, and urge my colleagues to vote against the bill.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5312,
the Protecting Our Children From Drugs Act of 2000. I urge my
colleagues to join in supporting this worthy legislation.
H.R. 5312 amends the Controlled Substances Act to increase penalties
for: (1) using persons under the age of 18 to distribute drugs, (2)
distributing drugs to minors, (3) drug trafficking near a school or
other protected location, such as a youth center, playground, or public
housing facility.
In all of these cases, the penalty for a first time offense increases
from a minimum of one to three years in prison. The penalty for
subsequent offenses is increased to a minimum of five years in prison.
Mr. Speaker, the threat posed by illegal drugs is one of the greatest
national security threats facing our nation. This is the cold truth.
While opponents have argued that we spend too much on combating
drugs, they are ignoring the true cost of drug use on our society. In
addition to costs associated with supply and demand reduction, drug use
costs billions each year in health care expenses and lost productivity.
Moreover, it also has intangible costs in terms of broken families and
destroyed lives.
Our children are on the front lines of this drug war. They are the
primary target of both the drug producers and the sellers. This
legislation is a small step designed to make selling drugs to minors, a
less attractive option. I urge my colleagues to lend it their full
support.
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support legislation
sponsored by my colleague from Florida (Mr. McCollum). The Protecting
Our Children From Drugs Act will give this country a much needed
additional source of ammunition in our war against drugs. This
legislation will send a forceful message to drug dealers that our
children and our schools are not going to be participants in the drug
trade. In addition, by taking increased measures to protect our
children from the dangers of illegal drugs, we are ensuring that one
day they will be readily equipped to continue the fight for a drug free
America.
As statistics show that the rate of teen drug use in this country has
doubled since 1992, it is clear that the time for this legislation is
now. I, unfortunately, know all too well about the constant challenges
of protecting innocent children from being corrupted by the drug trade.
In June of 1999, the ONDCP designated my district a High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area. A month before, an arrest in the suburban town of
Newington, Connecticut, that netted 60 bags of heroin, took place 1500
feet from a day care center. In November of that same year, a man was
arrested in Hartford for using a 15 year old to sell over a hundred
bags of heroin. These examples highlight the disturbing reality that
our children and our schools are not ignored by drug dealers, but that
they are often targeted. As both a legislator and a father of three
young children, it is painfully obvious that drug trafficking is
everywhere. We must send a message to drug dealers that their crimes
will be punished with significantly harsher penalties if they invade
our schools, and infiltrate among our children.
In his long and continuing effort to protect our country and our
children from illegal drugs, my colleague notes that intervention is
the first step necessary to winning the drug war. However, intervention
is not always the goal we strive for. Perhaps it is because we often
see exposure to drugs as an inevitable part of our children's lives. It
doesn't have to be. We must intervene and prevent exposure at the
source, and let dealers know that our kids are off limits. Further
action, such as this legislation, will protect our children and give
them the opportunity to lead this country into the 21st century. I rise
in support of this legislation today and I urge our colleagues to join
us.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 5312.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________