[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.

                          ____________________