[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 45 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 401 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 4092.
{time} 1226
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4092) to control and prevent crime, with Mr. Torricelli
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on
Wednesday, April 20, 1994, amendment No. 41 printed in part 2 of House
Report 103-474, offered by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Martinez], had been disposed of.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 45 printed in part 2 of
House Report 103-474.
Amendment offered by Mr. HUGHES
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that has been made in
order under the rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hughes: At the end, add the
following:
TITLE .--CRACK PENALTY AMENDMENTS
SEC. . CRACK PENALTY AMENDMENTS.
(a) 50 Gram Trafficking Penalty.--Section 401(b)(1)(A) of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)) is
amended by striking clause (iii).
(b) 5 Gram Trafficking Penalty.--Section 401(b)(1)(B) of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)) is
amended by striking clause (iii).
(c) 50 Gram Penalty Import Penalty.--Section 1010(b)(1) of
the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.
960(b)(1)) is amended by striking out subparagraph (C).
(d) 5 Gram Penalty Import Penalty.--Section 1010(b)(2) of
the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.
960(b)(2)) is amended by striking out subparagraph (C).
(e) Possession Penalty.--Section 404(a) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 844(a)) is amended by striking the
sentence that begins ``Notwithstanding the preceding
sentence''.
(f) Sentencing Guidelines.--The United States Sentencing
Commission shall promulgate such amendments to the Sentencing
Guidelines as are necessary to conform those Guidelines to
the amendments made by this section. Such amendments may be
promulgated in accordance with the procedures set forth in
section 21(a) of the Sentencing Act of 1987, as though the
authority under that section had not expired.
Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Hughes
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
made in order under the rule be modified in the form that is at the
desk.
The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Amendment as modified, offered by Mr. Hughes: At the end,
add the following:
TITLE .--COCAINE PENALTY STUDY
SEC. . COCAINE PENALTY STUDY.
Not later than December 31, 1994, the United States
Sentencing Commission shall submit a report to the Congress
on issues relating to sentences applicable to offenses
involving the possession or distribution of all forms of
cocaine. The report shall address the different penalty
levels which apply to different forms of cocaine, and include
any recommendations the Commission may have for retention or
modification of these differences in penalties.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the original request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would
like to inquire of the gentleman from New Jersey the nature of his
amendment, what he wishes to substitute?
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it is exactly
as I provided to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation, I would like
to inquire of the gentleman from New Jersey, this substitute amendment,
as I understand it, will ask the Sentencing Commission to come back and
give us their views on crack cocaine and the levels of regular powder
cocaine and what the penalties maybe should be or should not be. It is
a request for their views. Is that a correct understanding?
Mr. HUGHES. The gentleman is absolutely correct.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is their objection to the original request of the
gentleman from New Jersey that the amendment be modified?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Hughes] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
Does the gentleman from Florida have any reservations?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I have no reservations, Mr. Chairman, and no desire to
be recognized.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the substitute amendment I am offering will not change
the crack cocaine penalties. The substitute will require the U.S.
Sentencing Commission to provide a comprehensive report by the end of
this year on all cocaine penalties. Congress officially will have
before it by the end of this year complete information on cocaine drug
penalties.
I believe the information is critical, because I am persuaded that
there is sufficient evidence and information to change the penalty
structure. This information was the basis for the original amendment, I
might say.
{time} 1230
I wanted to take a few minutes to explain why I think this study is
critical and why the original amendment to equalize mandatory minimum
penalties for crack cocaine and power cocaine is justified.
In 1986, during the fervor of the war on drugs and with a lack of
substantive information about a new type of cocaine substance, crack,
Congress enacted penalties for crack cocaine that have proven to be
unwarranted, unjust and do not achieve the goal of removing big-time
dealers. Powder and crack cocaine were treated as two entirely
different substances.
The threshold for the powder cocaine 5-year mandatory minimum was set
at 500 grams. The threshold for the crack cocaine mandatory minimum was
set at 5 grams, a weight equivalent to 2 pennies. In addition, simple
possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine, but not powder cocaine, can
trigger the mandatory minimum.
The information is before us now that there is no difference
pharmacologically between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. In addition
to that, crack cocaine is no more addictive than powder cocaine.
The bottom line is that poor people are the ones that use crack
cocaine and mostly minorities. It is interesting that about 95 percent
of those that are charged with crack cocaine violations are black and
other minorities.
Compared to coke, powder cocaine is used by the more affluent in our
society. I think most people understand that it is a gross inequity and
we need to rectify it.
I think even my colleagues on the Republican side understand that
there is a gross disparity, and we need to do something about it. The
author of the amendment, crack cocaine amendment on the floor of the
House, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] acknowledges that in fact
we do need to do something about it, because it is a gross disparity in
the law. And it is doing great injustice throughout the country.
So I would urge my colleagues to support this particular amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
While he and I may have a difference of opinion about what exactly
should be done, I agree there is a disparity. I think the amendment in
its present form, to give the Sentencing Commission the opportunity to
give us advice, is good.
My own judgment would be that we ought to be raising the penalties
for the powder cocaine rather than lowering them for crack. But we are
not deciding that today. We are letting the Sentencing Commission do
it.
I support the gentleman's amendment in this form.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], chairman of the full Committee on
the Judiciary.
(Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of the revised
amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes], a
distinguished former prosecutor and a very thoughtful subcommittee
Chair on the Judiciary Committee.
First, let me make clear that this amendment is not about condoning
the possession or use of any illegal drug. Neither Mr. Hughes nor I
would support such an amendment. This amendment simply asks for a study
of the existing sentencing structure for cocaine violations.
Of all the existing mandatory minimums in Federal law today, there is
none that has drawn more attention by judges than that which is applied
to cocaine. For example, the simple possession of 5 grams of crack
cocaine carries a mandatory sentence of 5 years in prison. At the same
time, there is no mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of
powder cocaine--the identical chemical substance constituting crack
cocaine.
The amendment offered by Mr. Hughes would provide us with the
necessary information to understand whether there is a
disproportionality in these sentences or a disparity in their
application that was not intended by Congress when it developed the
sentencing scheme for cocaine. I urge my colleagues to vote in support
of the Hughes amendment.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Tucker].
Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding time to me.
I would agree with the gentleman's assessment and applaud him for his
efforts in asking the U.S. Commission on Sentencing to look at this. I
believe that the information will come back to corroborate what most of
us already know, and that is that there is a gross disparity between
the sentencing between powder cocaine and crack cocaine.
Once again, I applaud the efforts of the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Hughes] and agree and associate myself with the remarks of the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], a valued member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hughes amendment
to require the U.S. Sentencing Commission to conduct a study on the
disparity in sentencing for crack and powder cocaine.
People convicted of crack cocaine offenses are punished 100 times
more severely than those convicted of powder cocaine offenses. And, to
no one's surprise--91 percent of those sentenced for crack are African-
American. Yet the majority of people who use crack every day are
white--64.4 percent.
Simple possession of over 5 grams of crack is a felony and mandates
an automatic sentence of 5 years for a first-time offender. Possession
of 5 grams of powder is a misdemeanor, and requires only 10 months
probation. This is absolutely outrageous.
The impact of this on the black community is enormous.
We already know that 23 percent of young black men are caught up in
the criminal justice system: on probation, on parole, or in prison.
There are more young black men in prison today than there are in
college.
death penalty: nonhomicidal drug kingpins
One of the many new death penalties that we have created in this
crime bill is for nonhomicidal drug kingpins. As a result, it will take
300 kilograms of powder cocaine to trigger the death penalty; but only
3 kilograms of crack. Therefore, we have mandated a racially
discriminatory death penalty. The Hughes amendment will permit us to
get a thorough evaluation of this disparity--and then to take action
accordingly.
Support the Hughes amendment.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the
additional 5 minutes that was not claimed in opposition to the
amendment, although I am not in opposition to it.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Rose].
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I will be very brief. We have danced around it, but we have not said
it. I just want to say it.
The way the law is written now, the mandatory sentence attaches to
the users of crack cocaine; the possibilities of probation attached to
the users of powder cocaine. The result of that is that our prisons are
full of black males who have used crack cocaine, and the more affluent
white boys in the community who have used the powder cocaine are on
probation.
Let us just say it. My dear friends have been a little hesitant to
put it out like that, but that is the truth.
I wish that we could pass the 2 and 2 of the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Hughes] or even make it 10 and 10, as I think some might
like to make it. But to have this unequal and to have it unequal during
this study still bothers me.
But I thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] for his
amendment. I support it.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle for making time available.
Let me refer Members to the discussion of the Attorney General and
comments that the law on racial disparity in terms of these two
different offenses is racist and has asked the Supreme Court who now is
in the midst of a comprehensive review of the evidence around that
claim.
Let me point out that Dr. Lee Brown, the Director of the National
Office on Drug Policy, has said that he believes the crack cocaine law
has a racially discriminatory impact because crack, used predominantly
by African-Americans, has a 5-year mandatory minimum for only 5 grams,
while the same amount of cocaine nets only probation; 92 percent of the
Federal crack defendants are African-American and only 3 percent are
white.
Is it clear? Could there be any doubt? I think on both sides of the
aisle we have conceded there is racial disparity that begs and pleads,
in a system that depends on the support of the criminal justice law to
be fair, that we make this correction. It really cannot be done
anywhere else. I think that the study that the gentleman from New
Jersey seeks is going to make it abundantly persuasive to all of us
that we have got to take action on this very important disparity.
{time} 1240
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear, we need some additional scientific
evidence. There is a gross disparity. The sentencing commission can
provide us with the data to make sound policy. That is what this is all
about. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. No Member having arisen in opposition to claim the time
provided under the rule in opposition, all time has expired.
The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 424,
noes 0, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 141]
AYES--424
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blackwell
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Michel
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Norton (DC)
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sharp
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Swift
Synar
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Underwood (GU)
Unsoeld
Upton
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weldon
Wheat
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--13
Andrews (NJ)
Camp
Dickey
Fish
Gallo
Grandy
Johnston
Lewis (CA)
Obey
Pelosi
Ridge
Washington
Whitten
{time} 1302
So the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the
House may receive a message.
____________________