Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt]. (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale] a comrade of mine from the Persian Gulf war, for the perspective of a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] a present colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve. (Mr. LAUGHLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] for the perspective of a former Army infantry first lieutenant. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr BUYER

Mr BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Chambliss], a member of the Committee on National Security. (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LaHood]. (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], prospective and former Army sergeant.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], former naval commander.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri, the Honorable Ike Skelton, coauthor of this amendment, who is well respected in this body.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, there are many in this body, both Republicans and Democrats, who fundamentally agree that the President's policy in the Balkans is ill-conceived, poorly defined, and highly dangerous. The House has been heard on this issue. It is ill-conceived, because the President 2 years ago promised 25,000 U.S. troops to enforce a future peace agreement without knowing what the situation would be on the ground. This commitment of 25,000 United States troops on the ground also is ill-conceived because the United States has lost the protection of neutrality after having bombed Bosnian Serbs and promising to arm and train Bosnia Moslems. The United States troops could become targets and casualties. The implementation has been poorly defined in that the President has set a date certain as an exit strategy. If there are vital national security interests to place troops on the ground in the Balkans, then that is what is used to define your exit strategy. What is the success and what is the failure? You see, there are also other concerns, whether it is mission creep, whether it is the issue of the Nation- building exercises. Let me also state this: The implementation plan we all understand will be highly dangerous, but it makes no sense to place U.S. troops on the ground that have lost the protection of neutrality. Many of recognize the threat to the U.S. forces will not come from actual company or battalion size or platoon size attacks upon U.S. forces. It will come through cowardly acts of terror, whether it be by sniper, whether it be by bombings, whether it be by booby traps or accidents. Let me share that this House has already been heard on this issue twice. First, we sent an overwhelming message, a bipartisan message, in that 315 Members of this body said ``Mr. President, do not negotiate a peace agreement based on the precondition that the U.S. troops will be there to implement whatever agreement you sign.'' He ignored that and he went forward. Then we had the Hefley amendment, and again the President ignored the Hefley amendment and proceeded anyway. So now what we are doing here today is sending another message to the President: ``Mr. President, we reiterate our prior positions and also oppose United States ground troops in Bosnia.'' It is now our congressional oversight responsibility to narrow the parameters, and that is exactly what we do. We are saying as to matters on the field, listen to the commanders, give them the resources they need, make sure that we protect our force by making sure they are impartial and evenhanded to the conflict, and also we have the confidence in the U.S. Armed Forces to do their mission. Mr. Torricelli. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2289 contains provisions affecting various veterans' benefits. Title I makes several VA home loan pilot programs permanent. To share with the colleagues, in particular, loans for energy- efficient home improvements, the ability of veterans to negotiate interest rates, the ability of the VA to package its portfolio for resale in the secondary market, automatic review of appraisals by lenders and continuation of authority to provide for foreclosed properties to community homeless providers, and it reduces reporting requirements on VA loan programs. I would also ask my colleagues to, please, note that the President's budget did not call for an extension of the VA adjustable rate mortgage program. However, the committee looked at that program and of consideration, approved it. Prior to the passage of the committee, the CBO estimated that the ARM cost would be zero. After the committee's passage, CBO reestimated the ARM cost at $37 million dollars. Clearly, we could not find the offset. Therefore, the extension of the VA adjustable rate mortgage program is not in this bill. However, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will continue to work to find a way to reauthorize the program. H.R. 2289 will also rename and promote the homeless veterans' reintegration project. Although the project is unfunded this year, it is important to keep alive so that the Department of Labor can fund it out of its resources. Title II of this bill focuses on the veterans' employment and training service, VETS. The changes in the law will assist the VETS program in streamlining its approach to finding jobs for veterans and improve the service at the same time. This portion of the bill will, first, reduce the number of regional administrators; second, broaden the support staff responsibilities; third, amend the residency requirements for Federal directors of veterans' employment and training stations in the States. Providing that flexibility is important. And, authorize, fourth, authorize a pilot program to test the VETS participation in the one-stop employment centers. Title III of this bill makes several technical improvements to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act that was passed in the 103d Congress. The changes specifically would clarify the employee and employer responsibilities, the time periods covered by the law, and also clarifies issues such as health care and pension benefits while called to active duty, and define what constitutes both discrimination and reprisal under the law. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give special recognition to the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their continued leadership and also the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters]. During work on the reemployment rights portion of the bill, she offered an amendment that was very constructive that significantly improved a large portion of title III of the bill. I appreciate her efforts and thank her for the bipartisan way in which she has worked with me on this bill. I also thank my colleagues in the Subcommittee on Education, Training, Employment and Housing for their dedication on behalf of veterans. It is a pleasure to bring this bill to the floor and to note that it streamlines the process and saves money.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important legislation. The current earnings limit has been a disincentive for seniors to continue to be productively employed. In particular, the present earnings limit imposes a hardship on middle and lower-income retirees, who often rely on earnings from work to supplement their Social Security benefits. The earnings penalty is in reality a huge marginal tax on working seniors. It discourages work and it is discriminatory between earned (wages) and unearned (dividends, interest, etc.) income. I support this legislation which will allow our seniors to continue to work and not be penalized for it. The ``Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1995'' is long overdue and is just one piece of our puzzle as we bring tax fairness back to America's tax code. Again, I am pleased to support this legislation which will allow Indiana seniors the right to work.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to come to the House floor today, being a leader in this Congress, to speak against placing United States ground troops in Bosnia. Having listened to the President's address last night, I feel compelled to speak to not only the Members listening back in their offices but to the American people as well. On October 30, 1995, this House voted overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion on the Buyer-McHale resolution, and it was approved by a vote of 315 to 103. Ninety-three members of the Democratic caucus, almost half, supported the proposition that expressed a sense of this Congress that U.S. ground troops should not be a part of a peace agreement in the Balkans. This resolution passed because the President's plan is ill-conceived, poorly defined, and highly dangerous. It is ill-conceived because, over 2 years ago, the President promised 25,000 U.S. troops to enforce a future peace agreement. The President made this commitment without knowing the mission or the conditions of a peace agreement. Peacing 25,000 United States troops on the ground to implement an agreement and to make an enforced peace is ill-conceived because the United States forces have lost the protection of neutrality after having bombed the Bosnian Serbs and promising to arm and train the Bosnian Moslems. U.S. troops, having lost this protection of neutrality, will become targets and casualties on the ground. The implementation plan has been poorly defined. What is the mission of the NATO force? We need very clear objectives. What are the criteria for success? What is the exit strategy? A date set for withdrawal in 1 year is no exit strategy. Will the rules of engagement allow the force to accomplish the mission? How do we prevent the ``mission creep'' that we learned in Somalia that may escalate United States involvement in the Balkans beyond the time period which the President has set, and how do we keep United States troops from conducting nation-building exercises? This implementation plan is also highly dangerous in that the United States and NATO forces will enforce an agreement that is politically unsustainable in a region of the world that has a long history of all sides exercising vengeance and retribution on one another. This is a long-term ethnic and religious conflict that could take generations to cure. That is why the President of France has indicated that NATO's involvement in the Balkans could be 20 years, 20 years. Now the President is saying, we are only going in for 1 year, and we have this exit strategy. Twenty years. Think of this. It is generational. Now, the President last night made a good speech, but I would submit a good speech does not make good foreign policy. Whether it is mass murder or ethnic cleansing, the rape and the pillage and the plunder, the destruction are all violent to America's values. But if our foreign policy followed our heart and emotion, then U.S. troops would become the world's policeman and we would find ourselves in over 67 hot spots throughout the world. I do not believe America wants U.S. troops to be the world's policeman. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we tie U.S. troops and their commitments on foreign soil to vital national security interests. Mr. Speaker, that is a lesson we learned in Somalia, that when a nation, when one of our own, our finest sons or daughters take an oath to lay down their life for this country for liberties and economic freedoms that many people take for granted, we in this Congress must ensure, and that we believe in their solemn oath to make sure that their life is not given in vain, that it is tied to national security interests. I am extremely disappointed to be standing here and have the President of the United States ignore the will of this Congress, for we have voted twice on this issue of Bosnia in saying no to sending troops. I resent the position that the President of the United States has placed the American people in, I resent the position in which he has placed these American troops, and I resent the position that he has placed this U.S. Congress in. I remain highly skeptical of this deployment, and I recognize that the President, as Commander in Chief, can send these troops. The Framers of the Constitution created friction between the legislative body and the President. Do we have to have the friction? We are going to. We are going to, because the President has on the blinders. He has ignored the will of the American people and this Congress, and he is sending the troops. We control the purse stings. So what are we going to do? Well, I do not agree with the President's foreign policy with regard to placing ground troops in Bosnia. I believe that we have a key and vital role to play in the peace process and that we should be providing our air power and sea power and logistics on the ground in Bosnia but not sending the troops; and we have a duty to support our troops, but will narrow the parameters, define the criteria to minimize the loss of life.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that whenever two parties sit down to make out an agreement it is a binding agreement, words have meaning and should be, in fact, honored; and I was disappointed that Mr. Panetta, the Chief of Staff, would say this morning the budget could be balanced in 7 or 8 years. Now is not time to waffle. When this agreement gets sent there, we have to place meaning to those words; and doing it in 7 years, and using CBO scoring, is exactly what must be done. I listened to some of my colleagues here on the Republican side say, ``Use words such as excited, thrilled, and historic to describe this agreement.'' I have to share with my colleagues that I have somewhat of an ambivalence in my feelings here today because I think the American people, as they view the work we do here, are probably saying, ``So what, we balance our books at home all the time. What's the big deal that Congress is now balancing its books?'' If my colleagues stop to ponder and think about that, they are right. Why [[Page H 13372]] has it taken so long to do this? Many view government as how it personally affects themselves, whether they are a customer of a particular agency or a constituency of particular programs, and they view it, self-interest, in nature. But I submit, if we look at it from the greater perspective, the greatest threat to the American stability in our future as a nation is that of the national debt and our budget deficits. If we open the eyes of our mind to the greater vision, what we have to see is that we must address this, we must also address the budget deficits, and think about this. Here is why I have the ambivalence here today. My colleagues can say, ``Oh, we should be thrilled, and excited, and historic,'' but think about this. By 2002 the national debt will accrue from $4.8 trillion to approaching $6.8 trillion. Then it is going to take us up to year 2030 to 2035 to bring the debt into better balance. Now in this town, talking about 2035, some would say, ``Steve, have you lost your mind,'' and that is part of the problem with this town, is according to the emotions of the moment, decisions only for the next election cycle; that is the profound difference that has made. So what I will share with America, why it is historic and the profoundness of it, is in fact we are talking about the long-term vision of the country, not some emotion of the moment, not some decision just for the next election. Pass this.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, the quote was accurate; I just wanted to give ``the rest of the story.''

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, most of us here today are in agreement. Three weeks ago 315 of my colleagues joined in a bipartisan manner to urge the President not to send ground troops to Bosnia. Ground troops were a bad idea then, and it is a bad idea today. Some of my colleagues disagree with this next step that we have here right now to cut off the funds for a troop deployment to Bosnia before a peace agreement is in fact signed. I can understand that. I think we should probably perhaps wait to see what the President's product is. But let us not kid ourselves. We know what that product is. Based on all of the hearings and all of the meetings that I have attended, those of us that have taken interest in this issue have attended, the troops, it is down range. It is happening. It is in a plan of action. Do not kid yourself. If you are going to just sit back here today and wait, and say, well, I just want to see the product, I am going to vote against this today but I do not want to send troops, you are only kidding yourself. The troops are going. It is a serious and valid question, though, and I believe we should ask it. Significant questions though remain about the purpose and execution of the President's plan. That is the clear and concise mission? What is the desired end state? How do we define success? What is our exit strategy, based on that definition of success? How can we maintain our neutrality while we arm and equip and train Bosnian Moslems? What are the vital national security interests? Are they at stake? If we are going to go in because of vital national security interests, do not say we will only be there for a year because a date certain is not an exit strategy. If you have vital national security interests to go in, then they must match your success. And that depends on how long you stay. Mr. President, you should not hide from the tough questions for fear of the answers. Mr. President, the only thing I ask is, please remove the blinders and listen and see what you will see and what you will hear is that the American people, through this Congress, disagree that U.S. ground troops should be used as a precondition or a predicate to a peace agreement.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I say in response to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], I was there to listen to Jeane Kirkpatrick in her testimony, and the gentleman is accurate when he quotes her as saying that it was not wise for us to move prior to a product. She was also then went on in the testimony, and I do not know how much of it the gentleman has there, but she went on to say, ``I cannot believe I am saying that.'' She said she could not believe she was saying that, because she knows what the end product is going to be, that this body voted overwhelmingly, 315 to 103, to say, do not use troops as the precondition. We know what the product is going to be. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to share that with the gentleman.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, this is not about scoring political points tonight. I have worked with many of my Democrat colleagues, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] and others, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], on this issue, along with my Republican colleagues. If this body does not want to send ground troops to Bosnia, when do we deliver that blow? Do we do it while the parties and the diplomats are at the table, or do we wait until the diplomats go home? I would say that we place a greater blow than once they go home. Let me add something that is thought provoking. I have been sitting there watching many come to the well in argument, and the Gulf war has been referenced. I have watched many, this is very thought provoking, from the last vote that we had there are many who voted that said, yes, it is all right to send ground troops to Bosnia, but voted against use of force in the Gulf war. I think that is extremely thought provoking. When vital national security interests are at stake, vote no. But vote yes to send troops in harm's way to an ill-conceived, poorly defined and highly dangerous mission. I will share with Members that I stand here tonight with the soldiers who took an oath to give their life to protect freedoms, liberties and economic opportunities. Sending troops in harm's way is very serious. Some feel that it is the military's job and there is something glorious about flexing our might. My colleagues, war may sound glorious in verse or prose, but in reality it is not, because it is the soldier, the sailor, the airman and marine who sees the face of death and witnesses the long dark shadows of horror. But glory is found in the new levels of courage and fear that erupt from the American character. However, the strength of the American soldier's character is in her willingness or his willingness to give the ultimate sacrifice to protect United States vital security interests, not for an ill- conceived, poorly defined and highly dangerous proposal that places ground troops as a predicate to a peace agreement. We can, the United States, and should participate in the peace process by providing our leadership in NATO, our air power and sea power, our airlift and sealift and our logistical support. But we must vote now, not later, now, while they are at the table. I ask my colleagues to support the Hefley amendment and send that message.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill once observed that sometimes doing our best is not enough. Sometimes we have to do what is required. The fundamental issue at stake between the Clinton administration and Congress is not just about balancing the budget but about our future as a nation, as a people. In passing the Balanced Budget Act, we will have done our best--we have done what is required. The President has been talking about balancing the budget for 1,261 days, yet we see nothing. He sent two budget bills to the Congress this year, neither balancing the budget. In fact, the second would create a deficit of $210 billion in 2002, the same year our budget is projected to reach zero. While the supporters of this plan to balance the budget are fighting for change, the President is fighting for the status quo. We want to cut spending; the President wants to keep spending. Before the year is out, America's debt could top the $5 trillion mark. Every Hoosier child born today will pay a whopping $187,000 in taxes just to underwrite their share of the public debt, a debt to which they were not a party. This Balanced Budget Act takes a giant step in a new direction and the middle class is the big winner. It leaves more money with the people who earned it, rather than with a Washington bureaucracy that spends it. As a result of this legislation, a Fifth District family will pay $2,400 less a year on a $75,000 home mortgage, $1,000 less over the 4-year period on a new car loan, and almost $2,000 less on a student loan. President Clinton wants to spend more of our money, borrow more from our children, have more bureaucrats in Washington, and have more power over our lives. This is the fight. Morally, we cannot continue to spend money that we simply do not have and continue to hand the bill to our children and grandchildren. This is a historic moment for America. I support this measure because it is vitally important to put our country on sound fiscal ground. We can assure the American Dream for all families, but most importantly ensure that our children have a future. Balancing the Federal budget is the most important issue that faces our country. The Balanced Budget Act puts America on the path to a balanced budget and America will be all the better because of it.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and want to compliment, I will call you both chairmen, I respect both of you a lot, if I can do that here on the House floor. I think that it is a fool's folly to think that he is full of wisdom when he is safe and secure in peace to reduce his strength. In reality, when one is alone in the world, without strength and might, there is a true loss of courage. This bill addresses the shortfalls in our military readiness and addresses the quality of life issues which we all seek and desire for the men and women in arms. I support this bill. At a time of what happened on this House floor this morning, when there can be a total breakdown and lack of civility among this body, we can come together in a bipartisan fashion when it comes to the issue of national security. We are going to do that today and we are going to send this bill down to the President, and I believe it is a bill which he should sign, not veto. God bless this country.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1833 to ban a late-term abortion procedure. This procedure is defined in the bill as the partial delivery of a living fetus, which is then destroyed prior to the completion of delivery. This is a particularly appalling procedure in which the difference between a complete birth and an abortion is a matter of a few inches in the birth canal. This bill does not ban all late-term abortions. Other procedures are available. This bill applies only to the procedure in which the living fetus is partially delivered prior to the abortion act being completed. It does not jeopardize maternal health in instances when the fetus has died in utero. There is an exception in the bill for instances in which the life of the mother is at risk and no other procedure will be sufficient to preserve the mother's life. Even if the procedure is rare, as is contended by the opponents of this legislation, it is a horrific procedure that should not be performed. Constitutionally, the Congress can legislate and regulate in protecting legitimate State interests, including protecting human life and encouraging childbirth over abortion. [[Page H 11618]] This bill bans an abortion practice that offends most Americans who value the sanctity of life. H.R. 1833 would ban a cruel and inhuman method of abortion and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, leave no doubt that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. [[Page H 11400]] McHale] and I in a bipartisan effort support the peace process with regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The United States has a key role to play in brokering these talks and providing the leadership not only in NATO, but what we should be doing is providing our air power, sea power, our air lift and sea lift along with our logistical support in the Balkans. That is the role we can play. There are 3 reasons why I oppose the administration's assumption there can be no peace in the Balkans without U.S. ground troops. No. 1. The President's premature commitment of United States ground troops to Bosnia without knowing the circumstances surrounding that deployment is ill-conceived and dangerous. No. 2. It is wrong to send United States ground troops into Bosnia as peacekeepers when there is no peace to keep. This is the lesson of Lebanon and Somalia. No. 3. History has shown that no long-term military commitment is sustainable without the support of the American people. The Congress as representatives of the people must speak on the issue before troops are deployed. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] asked some very good questions. The message of this House resolution to the leaders of the warring parties when they sit down to negotiate this peace at Wright- Patterson Air Force Base is the syllogism for peace should not be based on the presence of U.S. ground troops to implement whatever agreement is reached. They should focus on the real reasons as to why they are killing each other. Once those are resolved, they will begin to focus on the real reasons of peace. If United States troops are deployed, do not get the image that 25,000 United States troops will be going to Bosnia with flowers in their M-16's, when in the kill zone peacekeeping looks a lot like combat. That is why the Secretary of Defense said to us the U.S. troops will be going as combatants to implement an agreement and make peace. U.S. troops will become targets because they have lost the protection of neutrality. To those that say that this undermines the peace process, it is extremely important that the United States, this Congress, the people's voice, go on the record so we send the correct message to the warring parties to negotiate a peace so that they will stop killing each other. Support this resolution.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, we have kept our commitment to the American people and brought an end to the Washington tax and spend practices of old--which have saddled our Nation with almost $5 trillion of debt. The question about balancing the budget is not simply about financial practices, but rather a question of fiscal morality. We cannot continue to spend money that we simply do not have and pass the bill on to our children. On October 20, 1995, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, again called for Congress to balance the Federal budget. He said doing so would have a positive effect on America's economy. A balanced budget will mean lower mortgage rates and lower interest rates. It means lifting our children from their growing share of the national debt. In fact, a child born today will pay and average of $187,000 in interest alone on the debt. We have put America on the path to a balanced budget by eliminating wasteful and bureaucratic programs. We have returned programs back to the State and local governments where they can be run more efficiently and effectively. The debate is clear: Those who think wasteful Government programs should be cut or eliminated, inefficient programs reformed, and Americans given tax relief, will vote for this balanced budget. Those do not, will vote against this historic balanced budget plan and continue the status quo.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, this is the third time now that I have, with patience, listened to the debate of my colleagues from both sides. I do rise in support of H.R. 2259 to disapprove the recommendations made by the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding crack cocaine and money laundering. Despite what we hear from the opponents of this bill, the legislation is about being tough in the war against drugs. It is about standing up for our children's right to grow up drug-free and be saved from the scourge of drug abuse that has ruined so many young lives. I applaud the courage of the chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], for moving forward with this legislation in the face of some of the allegations we hear tonight. He does so out of concern for all of America's children. The U.S. Sentencing Commission has recommended equalizing these penalties for distribution of the cocaine and crack cocaine, and I believe that it is simply wrong. Although the same drug, crack cocaine possesses the greater risk to society due to its increased addictiveness, the manner in which it is marketed, and the increased association with violence. Our sentencing policies must reflect the inherent differences, not be race-based, sex- based, or national origin-based. The Sentencing Commission-proposed changes do not do this. The powder cocaine, due to price, is generally used by the more affluent. One of the most distressing things about crack is it is cheap and inexpensive. Of these using cocaine, crack was [[Page H 10271]] the more popular among 12-to-17-year-olds than among any other age group. Crack is highly addictive and is available to our children for little more than lunch money. The other harms associated with crack are an increase of violent crime, destructive to the entire neighborhoods, to the child, and to domestic abuse. Our sentencing policies must reflect these greater harms to society. The target of these sentencing guidelines is the dealers of crack cocaine. Under current policies, a mid-level dealer who distributes 50 grams of crack would trigger a 10-year sentence. Under the proposed changes by the Sentencing Commission, this same dealer would only face a 12-to-18-month sentence. This is too short of a time for someone responsible for selling up to 500, 500 crack transactions that devastate 500 potential lives. In closing, let me leave with my colleagues the words of someone on the front lines fighting the war on drugs. I recently received a letter from the Marion County prosecutor in Indianapolis. He writes and says, I simply cannot understand why the United States Sentencing Commission would consider lightening the penalties for crack cocaine distribution relative to other narcotic drugs. To do so would be a serious mistake and would more than likely lead to even fewer meaningful prosecutions of crack cocaine dealers in Federal court. I must make one other comment, and that is it is not justice nor equality to base criminal prosecutions based through the dimension of color, sex, or national origin. If we take the arguments that I have listened to here tonight, and let us look at it from the other perspective and say if white-collar crime, that there are more whites in America that commit bank fraud, in a racial disparity of 1000 to 1, should we then reduce the penalties? If we then look at sex and say that how many, if there are greater men that commit battery against spouses, should we have lesser penalties against the men? If we look to the dimension of national origin and say that because there are more illegal aliens from Mexico versus Canada, that therefore we should not be harsh on illegal aliens from Mexico? The penalties of crime should not be based due to the dimension of color, sex, or national origin, period, and I support the efforts of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].