prospective-only application. King v. Shelby Medical Center, 779 F.Supp. 157, 157 (N.D.Ala. December 18, 1991). Both Republican Senator John Dan-forth and Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy predicted that it would fall to the federal courts to determine the retroactivity issue. See 137 Cong.Rec. S15485 (daily ed. Oct. 30,1991) (statement of Sen. Kennedy); 137 Cong.Rec. S15483 (daily ed. Oct. 30, 1991) (statement of Sen. Danforth). The Second Circuit has yet to decide whether the Act should be applied retroactively. See Song v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 957 F.2d 1041 (2d Cir.1992) (declining to address the retroactivity issue). District courts in this circuit have reflected the national trend, with a split of authority that generally favors non-retroactivity. See Croce, 786 F.Supp. 1141 (<HOLDING>); McLaughlin v. New York, 784 F.Supp. 961, 973
holding retroactive application holding no retroactive application holding that the act is retroactive holding retroactive application of the act to prosecution that was pending before the effective date of the act was precluded because the act is prospective holding apprendi is not retroactive