[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 145 (Monday, September 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13738-S13740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Thurmond,  Mr. 
        Grassley,  Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Feinstein,  Mr. Shelby, and Mr. 
        Coverdell):
  S. 1254. A bill to disapprove of amendments to the Federal Sentencing 
Guidelines relating to lowering of crack sentences and sentences for 
money laundering and transactions in property derived from unlawful 
activity; read the first time.


                           DRUGS LEGISLATION

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am today introducing two bills, 
both of which address one of the most serious problems facing this 
country today: the epidemic of drugs in our Nation.
  The purpose of each bill is simple. The first bill would prevent 
reductions in crack cocaine penalties proposed by the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission from taking effect. The second would raise the penalties for 
distributors of powder cocaine by applying existing mandatory minimums 
to a larger group of cocaine dealers.
  No problem has parents more worried than the drugs and violence so 
prevalent today in schools throughout the Nation. All of us spend a lot 
of time fretting about how to protect our kids and keep them from 
getting caught up in drugs and gangs and the terrible dangers they 
create.
  Nevertheless, on April 11, by a 4 to 3 vote, the Sentencing 
Commission proposed amendments to the sentencing guidelines dealing 
with crack distribution and possession.
  According to the Department of Justice, the effect of these 
amendments would be to lower base sentences dramatically for criminals 
who deal in crack cocaine. New sentences for these criminals would be 
between one-half and one-sixth their present length. Some drug dealers 
now subject to substantial prison sentences could end up serving no 
jailtime at all.
  In my judgment, this sends entirely the wrong message: that in the 
war against crack, society has blinked.
  That is not what we should be telling the crack dealers.
  That is not what we should be telling concerned parents across this 
Nation.
  And that is not what we should be telling the brave law-abiding 
members of our communities who are fighting back against the crack 
dealers.
  Accordingly, the first bill I am introducing simply says: This shall 
not happen. It blocks these guideline changes, changes that otherwise 
would automatically become effective on November 1.
  The principal reason the Sentencing Commission gave for lowering 
sentences for crack dealing was fairness. The Commission was concerned 
that a powder cocaine dealer has to distribute 100 times more powder 
cocaine than a crack dealer to receive the same sentence as the crack 
dealer.
  The Commission believes that this disparity creates a perception of 
unfairness because a substantial majority of convicted crack dealers 
are African-Americans, whereas a majority of convicted powder dealers 
are not. It further believes that the solution to this 

[[Page S 13739]]

perception is to drastically lower crack sentences.
  I believe the Commission is wrong on two scores. First, the 
Commission itself has given several strong reasons why it is entirely 
legitimate for our laws to punish crack distribution more severely than 
distribution of powder cocaine, and there are some reasons even beyond 
those the Commission gave.
  Second, there is some basis for believing that the differential in 
the sentences may be too great. But the answer is not to lower the 
crack sentences. The answer is to toughen the powder sentences. That is 
what I am proposing in the second bill I am introducing today.
  As to the first point: The Commission itself, in a report issued just 
this February, recognized that there is a strong foundation for 
Congress' original decision to punish distributors of crack more 
severely than distributors of powder cocaine.
  That is a judgment every U.S. Court of Appeals that has considered 
the question has shared. As the Commission explained, crack is more 
addictive, provides a more intense high, is easier to use, does greater 
harm, and is associated with greater violence than simple powder.
  Though powder cocaine and crack contain the same active ingredient, 
the cocaine alkaloid, crack is far more attractive and addictive. This 
is primarily because crack is easily smoked while powder is injected or 
snorted.
  Smoking is one of the quickest methods of maximizing the drugs 
effects. The quicker the cocaine reaches the brain, the greater the 
effect, the shorter the effects duration and the greater the likelihood 
cocaine use will lead to dependence and abuse.
  Furthermore, somebody who has never used drugs before is much more 
likely to try a drug by smoking it than by injecting it. It is 
unpleasant and requires some expertise to inject oneself with a foreign 
substance. Smoking seems casual and easy. Therefore it is no surprise 
that three times more people smoke cocaine than inject it.
  Crack is also associated with systemic violence to a greater degree 
than powder cocaine. Use and distribution of crack are also associated 
more generally with enhanced criminal activity of all types.
  Crack is also more dangerous in other ways. It produces more medical 
emergencies than snorting powder or injecting cocaine. And it is sold 
in small quantities at affordable, even cheap, prices--making it easier 
for small kids to get and use.
  In short, crack is a very dangerous drug. The response it calls for 
is surely not to lower penalties for the people who distribute it to 
one-half to one-sixth their present length.
  The second reason the Sentencing Commission's reasoning is unsound is 
that differential treatment of crack and powder cocaine is far from 
unique in drug sentencing. To the contrary, in other instances as well 
we treat source and derivative drugs differently in terms of the 
quantities an individual must distribute to trigger the same sentence.
  For example, a distributor of a given amount of heroin--a derivative 
of opium just as crack is a derivative of powder cocaine--gets the same 
sentence as somebody who has distributed 20 times that amount of opium. 
Similarly, a distributor of smokeable methamphetamine, or ice, gets the 
same sentence as somebody who has distributed ten times that amount of 
regular methamphetamine.
  Third, the Commission's proposed changes are incompatible with the 
statutory mandatory minimum sentences that Congress has established for 
distribution of crack cocaine.
  Congress set the trigger amounts based on its view of the seriousness 
of the crack epidemic and the key role played by retail distributors. 
Congress deliberately decided that Federal enforcement should focus on 
both traffickers in high places in the processing or distribution chain 
and the managers of retail level traffic. Congress thought both were 
serious traffickers because they keep the street markets going.
  The Commission recognized when it forwarded its amendments to the 
Congress that they are inconsistent with present law. Rather than 
adjusting its guidelines to conform with congressional directives, 
however, as has always previously been its practice, the Commission has 
instead elected to change the guidelines and ask Congress that it 
adjust the laws to accommodate the Commission's views.
  Finally, and most importantly, the Commission's solution to this 
unfairness is in fact quite unfair to the law abiding citizens 
everywhere trying to fight back against crack dealers. And many of 
these antidrug activists themselves are African-Americans.
  The Commission's proposals are not fair to the children in schools 
wracked by drug-induced violence. They are not fair to those children's 
parents, who want the Government to use every tool it can to protect 
their kids. And they are not fair to the vast majority of people living 
in communities, like Detroit, trying as hard as they can to defend 
their neighborhoods against unceasing attacks by crack dealers. The 
last thing most of these people want is for the Federal Government to 
relax its efforts in combatting the scourge of crack.
  That is not to say that I have no sympathy with the Sentencing 
Commission's concern that the higher crack sentences create a 
perception of unfairness. I am particularly troubled because present 
law has resulted, at least occasionally, in insufficiently severe 
punishment of kingpins at the top of crack distribution chains when 
compared with punishments meted out to retail dealers.
  The problem is that some of these kingpins take the precaution of 
distributing their product in powder rather than in crack form. Because 
of where the powder triggers are set, some of these individuals have 
received considerably less than the mandatory 5 year penalty even while 
the retail distributors, who are distributing the final product, are 
receiving at least 5 year sentences.
  As I said before, though, in my view, however, the answer to these 
problems is not to lower the crack sentences. Instead we should toughen 
the powder sentences.
  That is why the second bill I am introducing proposes to raise 
sentences for powder distribution by making the triggers for mandatory 
minimums 100 grams for 5 years and 1,000 grams for 10 years, rather 
than 500 and 5,000 as they are now. That would also mean that the 
quantity ratio for powder and crack would be 20 to 1, the same as the 
one between opium and its very dangerous and addictive derivative 
heroin.
  I am pleased that I have been joined in the effort to block the crack 
guideline changes by a number of distinguished colleagues, including my 
good friend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee Senator Hatch, the 
former chairman of that committee, Senator Thurmond, and Senators 
Grassley, Kyl, Feinstein, and Shelby.
  The Department of Justice likewise opposes the Sentencing 
Commission's proposals and has asked Congress to block them.
  It is my firm expectation that the Congress will act promptly on this 
measure to prevent these changes from taking effect on November 1.
  I also will ask the Congress to take up in short order my proposal to 
toughen the sentences for powder dealers. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues in promoting tough, fair sentences for all drug 
dealers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                                    ____
  Detroit Branch--National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
                                People,

                                      Detroit, MI, August 8, 1995.

                Detroit Branch--NAACP Official Statement

       Detroit, MI.--The current issue of the sentencing policy 
     regarding ``crack'' and powdered cocaine is one that grips at 
     the very heart and soul of our society. The jails are filled 
     with young people, particularly young African American and 
     Hispanic males and females, for the selling of these drugs.
       The Detroit Branch of the NAACP, which is the largest 
     branch in the nation with over 51,000 members, has 
     articulated a very specific concern in the gross inequities 
     in the sentencing policies for the sale of ``crack'' cocaine 
     as compared to the sale of powdered cocaine. Drugs are in 
     fact destroying the very spirit of our communities and are 
     usurping the energy and vitality of our youth. It has been 
     our very specific hope that legislation would be implemented 
     to equalize the penalties for identical quantities of 
     powdered cocaine and ``crack.'' 

[[Page S 13740]]
     Please note for the record that we do not condone, support, encourage 
     or sympathize with any of those who would sell this death and 
     destruction to our community. We believe that this is the 
     scourge of our nation. Yet, at the same time we recognize 
     that young African American and Hispanic individuals do not 
     fly, ship or transport these drugs into the streets of 
     Detroit, Chicago, Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles.
       We are very pleased to note the effort to address with a 
     more systematic commitment to equity, punishment that fits 
     the crime. We believe that reducing from 500 grams to 100 
     grams, the level of powdered cocaine determined in an illegal 
     sale of this drug does begin the process of a more equitable 
     application of crime and punishment. It is our belief that 
     both ``crack'' and powdered cocaine have a detrimental impact 
     on our community. Yet, we do not believe that the current 
     laws governing the illegal sale of ``crack'' cocaine versus 
     powdered cocaine and the subsequent sentencing for such 
     infractions are by any means fair and appropriate.
       Therefore, it is our position that the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee has a key opportunity to bridge the gap between 
     these inequities and to make more appropriate the type of 
     sentencing resulting from the sale of powdered cocaine. You 
     must know that the overwhelming sentiment within the African 
     American and Hispanic communities is that our young people 
     are being targeted, exploited and directed toward the jail 
     industrial complex. This is being done in numbers much 
     greater than those who sale more than they, profit more than 
     they and more often than not, are privileged more than they.
       We hope that both the Senate and the House will look 
     favorably on the recommendation to lower the level of powered 
     cocaine to maintain a mandatory, minimum, five-year sentence 
     for those guilty of the sale of this illegal drug.
                                             Rev. Wendell Anthony.
                                 ______