[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 161 (Wednesday, October 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10255-H10284]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         DISAPPROVAL OF CERTAIN SENTENCING GUIDELINE AMENDMENTS

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 237 and ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page H 10256]]

  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 237

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2259) to disapprove certain sentencing 
     guideline amendments. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2(1)(2)(B) of rule XI 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
     and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of S. 1254, as passed by the 
     Senate, shall be considered as adopted in the House and in 
     the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. No further amendment 
     shall be in order except the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, which may be offered only by 
     Representative Conyers of Michigan or his designee, shall 
     be considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to 
     the House with such further amendment as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill, as amended, and any amendment thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. After passage of H.R. 2259, it shall be in order to 
     take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 1254 and to 
     consider the Senate bill in the House. All points of order 
     against the Senate bill and against it consideration are 
     waived. It shall be in order to move to strike all after the 
     enacting clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu 
     thereof the provisions of H.R. 2259 as passed by the House. 
     All points of order against that motion are waived. If the 
     motion is adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, 
     then it shall be in order to move that the House insist on 
     its amendment to S. 1254 and request a conference with the 
     Senate thereon.

                              {time}  1645

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall], my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purposes of debate only.
  (Ms. PRYCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 237 provides for the orderly 
and expedited consideration of H.R. 2259, legislation reported from the 
Judiciary Committee to disapprove certain sentencing guidelines 
proposed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
  Specifically, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The rule waives clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI, which requires the 
inclusion in committee reports of rollcall votes, against consideration 
of the bill. It also provides for the adoption in the House and in the 
Committee of the Whole of an amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
consisting of the text of the Senate-passed bill, S. 1254.
  The rule provides that the bill, as amended, shall be considered as 
the original bill for the purpose of amendment, and shall be considered 
as read.
  The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
which may be offered by Representative Conyers or his designee. That 
amendment, if offered, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
for 1 hour, and shall not be subject to amendment. As is the right of 
the minority, the rule also permits one motion to recommit the bill, 
with or without instructions.
  The rule further provides that after passage of the House bill, it 
will be in order to consider the Senate bill, and all points of order 
against the Senate bill, and all points of order against the Senate 
bill and against its consideration are waived.
  Under the rule, it will be in order to move to strike the text of the 
Senate bill and insert the House-passed text, and all points of order 
against such a motion are waived. Finally, the rule provides that if 
the motion is adopted and the Senate bill is passed, then it will be in 
order to move that the House request a conference with the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation which this rule makes in 
order, H.R. 2259, responds to the strong opposition expressed by 
America's law enforcement community to recent recommendations made by 
the U.S. Sentencing Commission which would result in reduced sentences 
for certain crack cocaine-related and money laundering offenses.
  The House is compelled to act on this disapproval measure in a timely 
manner because the Commission's recommendations in these two areas will 
take effect automatically unless Congress intervenes before November 1.
  The other body has already passed substantially similar legislation. 
Under this structured rule, the House will still have the opportunity 
to debate outstanding concerns about this legislation, while also 
minimizing the need for the lengthy conference process.
  Mr. Speaker, as a former judge and prosecutor, I witnessed firsthand 
many cases which involved drug-related offenses. More than I would like 
to remember. I certainly sympathize with the concerns expressed by 
Representative Conyers, and others who testified before the Rules 
Committee yesterday, about the disparity in sentences involving 
different forms of cocaine and its relationship to the African-American 
community. In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with one of my Rules 
Committee colleagues who commented yesterday that neither the status 
quo, nor the proposed solution, is acceptable.
  I am confident, however, that this legislation moves the debate in 
the right direction by giving the Commission time to consider other 
sentencing options for cocaine-related offenses, while signalling our 
firm resolve that drug-related and money laundering offenses will not 
go unpunished.
  The war on drugs is clearly far from over. We owe it to our citizens 
and especially to our young people, whether they live in the inner 
cities or in more affluent suburban neighborhoods, to teach them that 
drug use is a certain path to self-destruction.
  As the committee report on H.R. 2259 points out, witnesses at the 
Crime Subcommittee's hearing on crack cocaine acknowledged important 
differences between crack and powder cocaine. For example, crack is 
more addictive than powder cocaine; it accounts for more emergency room 
visits; it is more popular among juveniles; it has a greater likelihood 
of being associated with violence; crack dealers have more extensive 
criminal records than other drug dealers and they tend to use young 
people to distribute the drug at a greater rate. In short, the hearing 
evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated significant distinctions between 
crack and powder cocaine.
  While the evidence clearly indicates the differences between crack 
and powder cocaine which may warrant differences in sentences, the 
committee notes that the current 100-to-1 quantity ratio used to 
evaluate the severity of crimes involving either powder or crack 
cocaine is not the appropriate ratio. I agree that the goal must 
ultimately be to ensure that the uniquely harmful nature of crack is 
reflected in sentencing policy, while also upholding the basic 
principles of equity in our criminal code.
  Our colleagues should also note that if the Commission's guidelines 
were to go into effect without Congress lowering the current statutory 
mandatory minimums, it would create gross sentencing disparities. 
Sentences just below the statutory minimum would be drastically 
reduced, but mandatory minimums would remain much higher.
  For example, an offender convicted of distributing 5 grams of crack 
would, under the statutory mandatory minimum penalty, face a mandatory 
prison term of 5 years.
  However, an offender convicted of distributing 4.9 grams of crack 
could, under the Commission's guidelines, receive a sentence within a 
range of 0 to 6 months of imprisonment. Just traces, 

[[Page H 10257]]
means the difference between days of incarceration and years of 
incarceration.
  I am also pleased to note that the administration supports the bill's 
intent with regard to penalties for trafficking, as well as the section 
related to money laundering offenses.
  The Commission's money laundering amendment would deprive prosecutors 
of an important law enforcement tool used in attacking criminal 
enterprises that engage in a wide variety of illegal activities, and 
whose very existence depends on their ability to deposit and launder 
the proceeds from these activities. Stiff sentences, which treat the 
act of money laundering itself as a serious offense, should be 
preserved.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me reassure Members that the debate on 
how best to close the sentencing disparity in cocaine-related cases 
will not come to an end with passage of this legislation. In fact, the 
debate is certain to continue as the Commission fulfills the mandate 
included in H.R. 2259 too examine additional alternatives to current 
proposals.
  This is a fair and balanced rule, Mr. Speaker, which will allow 
Members to debate the basic question of whether the distinction between 
different forms of cocaine and their impact on society should warrant 
differing sentences.
  It also provides the minority with two separate opportunities to 
amend the base legislation. First, through a complete substitute, if 
offered by Representative Conyers or a designee; and second, through a 
motion to recommit which, if offered with instructions, can include 
almost any amendment as long as it is consistent with the rules of the 
House.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule was reported by the Rules Committee by voice 
vote, as was the underlying legislation, and I strongly urge its 
adoption by the House today.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                            [As of October 17, 1995]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 51                 73
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 16                 23
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  3                  4
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................                104                100                 70                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                            [As of October 17, 1995]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                2/95).          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                7/95).          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-100; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-127 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            

[[Page H 10258]]
                                                                                                                
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226....................  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  .................
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: Voice Vote (10/
                                                                                                11/95)          
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   .................
                                                                        Guidelines.                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 237 is a modified 
closed rule which will allow consideration of H.R. 2259, a bill to 
disapprove sentencing guidelines amendments scheduled to take effect 
November 1, 1995, unless Congress intervenes. Some of these guidelines 
relate to the sale and possession of crack cocaine and cocaine powder, 
and money laundering.
  As my colleague from Ohio, Ms. Pryce, has ably described, this rule 
provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Under this modified closed rule, the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, or his designee, may offer an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute. No other amendments may be offered.
  I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not grant an open 
rule. I believe that a full and open discussion about the sentencing 
guidelines is the best way to consider this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of the speakers who will be 
following me are African Americans, and some Members are going to come 
to the conclusion that the issue we will be discussing today is a race 
issue. It really is not. It is a fairness issue, and to vote to support 
the Sentencing Commission is not a matter of whether you are tough on 
crime or whether you support law and order issues. It is really a 
matter of whether you are willing to do the right thing, the fair 
thing. It goes to the heart of what is on America's mind today, the 
different perceptions between the black and white communities within 
America as to the integrity of our judicial system.
  Why should a person with a high income who might get caught with $200 
of powdered cocaine in their fancy automobile and more likely in an 
affluent neighborhood, why should they have, in the first place, less 
chance of being caught and, in the second place, much less chance of 
getting a severe penalty than a young child really holding a $20 piece 
of crack cocaine in a drug-infested neighborhood?
  But the reality is that we created this system of disparity. All I 
want is what the Sentencing Commission wants, which is equal justice 
under the law, and the fact is we do not have that today, because at 
the time there was a rage about crack cocaine. So we imposed mandatory 
penalties on crack cocaine that do not apply to powder cocaine.
  But it is the affluent who buy the powder cocaine, who have much more 
choice within their lives, and it is the young, poor children and youth 
of low-income neighborhoods, whether they be black or white or 
Hispanic, who are much more likely to have crack cocaine in their 
possession, and they are the ones that the criminal justice slams and 
puts them away for much of their productive lives. If you are going to 
do that, do that to the affluent people as well, the people who have 
much more choice in their lives, who are paying much more for their 
cocaine habit and have less excuse.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Sentencing Commission to do what 
is fair and right and to start the healing process within our great 
country.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

                              {time}  1700

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time and for his kindness and leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the real issue is the role of this Congress? How 
do we stop drug addiction and drug abuse, and how do we explain to the 
American people the travesty of our acts today? Disapproving a report 
regarding reforming of a system that racially discriminates against 
some defendants versus other defendants who commit the same drug 
related crime. That is what is happening on the Republican side of the 
aisle.
  The U.S. Sentencing Commission is not a biased body. It is comprised 
of prosecutors and Judges from around this Nation. It is not an 
organization that is in the hip pocket of some inner city or some local 
urban gang.
  But what the U.S. Sentencing Commission came to tell the Committee on 
the Judiciary was that this Nation has a problem. Our Federal judges 
are forced to be unfair with this cruel sentencing structure. The 
courts are unable to make decisions, that do punish, but do not 
sentence certain races of people more extreme than any other.
  It also ties the hands of Federal courts to cure drug-addicted 
defendants through fair treatment programs.
  It is clear that we all abhor the use of drugs, crack, and powder 
cocaine, but we also support the Constitution and fairness and equality 
for all. This report clearly speaks to the question of fairness, and I, 
like the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] wish there were an open rule so 
we could be fair and for instance increase the time served for those 
possessing cocaine.
  We are not going to be fair. We are going to continue to send those 
living on street corners in inner-city America to their death by way of 
incarceration for 5 years and 10 years and 35 years, and then those who 
are in Beverly Hills or somewhere else possessing cocaine can get away 
with 6 months or less.
  Let us be fair. That is what we need.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the debate we are going to see quite a bit of 
this afternoon about drugs, and powder versus crack cocaine, is a very 
important one to have right now, because there is a lot of 
misunderstanding. There is a misunderstanding about what this rule and 
the bill that is going to ensure does or does not do.
  We are dealing with 27 recommendations of the Sentencing Commission 
to change the guidelines on a whole range of sentences the Commission 
made last May, I guess it was now. Two of those recommendations we are 
suggesting we disapprove, and we have until November 1, Congress does, 
to do that. Those two recommendations deal with questions of lowering 
the amount of the penalty for crack cocaine possession and for 
trafficking, and the other one deals with money laundering.

[[Page H 10259]]

  On the crack cocaine side, drawing all of the debate here in the 
rules discussion, we are talking about something that is probably not 
even well understood even then, because there is a fundamental 
difference between crack and powder cocaine and its treatment in the 
law that the Sentencing Commission can have nothing to do with.
  The fact of the matter is we have minimum mandatory sentences for the 
crack crystal form of cocaine, which is the most deadly, most 
addictive, most dangerous, most widely used, and the one we want to get 
at the most. The penalty for that is a 5-year minimum mandatory 
sentence for even the simple possession of five grams of that. It takes 
500 grams of powder to get the same 5-year minimum mandatory sentence.
  There is a real reason for that distinction in history. We are not 
out here debating that today. We can debate it, but we are not in any 
format to change it, because the Sentencing Commission can only address 
that which is below 5 grams or below 500 grams. Their changes actually 
would create a greater disparity for that reason. They have proposed 
changes for those who possess 4.9 grams and under, but they do nothing 
for anybody who possesses 5 grams, one-tenth of a gram greater.
  What we are dealing with as well is the truth of the matter, that 
when you talk about crack, as opposed to powder, you are talking about 
something that is always dealt in in small quantities. So when somebody 
has 5 grams of crack, they are probably a trafficker. There is a 
presumption in the law for the most part that they are. Maybe we do not 
need the possession penalty at all, because a prosecutor quite probably 
could go into court and prove trafficking on simply 5 grams of crack 
cocaine being possessed by somebody, as well as a lesser quantity 
probably than 500 grams on powder.

  But the issue is do we today want to disavow the Sentencing 
Commission guidelines and send it back to them to try to work through a 
better guideline, while we look at maybe concerns we have over these 
minimum mandatories, which we have a right to do separately, and in the 
Subcommittee on Crime we may well do over the next year.
  In the meantime, let the Sentencing Commission work again to find a 
way out of the problem it created. It created a problem in this area 
because it is only addressing those underneath the 5-gram level and 
under the 500 in the case of the powder cocaine.
  I would suggest the prudent thing to do is to follow what this rule 
does today; allow us by virtue of enacting this rule to adopt the 
Senate provisions, which are refined over what came out of the 
Committee on the Judiciary in the House in the sense that it recommends 
that we send this back to the Sentencing Commission and orders them in 
essence to produce certain results following broad guidelines that we 
give them in their own realm where they have jurisdiction. Then let the 
rule of the House and the way we normally work things through the 
committee structure deal with the other concerns being expressed today.
  We really do have a problem with crack cocaine. It is really 
dangerous stuff. We have had testimony from the police chief and the 
chief prosecutor as well as the chief trial judge in the District of 
Columbia, who are all African-Americans, that they do not want to see 
us make the actual equalization between the punishments for crack and 
powder. They see a need, as most prosecutors and other people do, 
whether they are black or white, to keep a distinction. I just urge 
that consideration.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from 
Texas for yielding me this time to debate on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I am opposed to the 
rule because the rule does not give sufficient time to debate this 
important issue. Of course, I guess I should not be surprised, if we 
are talking about debating the Medicare bill for 1 or 2 or 3 hours 
tomorrow, that we are giving only a small amount of time to this issue. 
But I do think that my colleagues need to understand what this debate 
is about and why it is important.
  I start by making reference to 2 days ago. Two things significant 
happened 2 days ago. First of all, the President of the United States 
addressed this Nation about the Issue of race relations in this 
country. Here is what he said, part of what he said:

       And blacks are right to think something is terribly wrong 
     when African-American men are many more times likely to be 
     victims of homicide than any other group in this country; 
     when there are more African-American men in our corrections 
     system than in our colleges; when almost one in three 
     African-American men in their twenties are either in jail, on 
     parole, or otherwise under the supervision of the criminal 
     system. Nearly one in three, and that is a disproportionate 
     percentage in comparison to the percentage of blacks who use 
     drugs in our society. Now, I would like for every white 
     person here in America to take a moment to think how he or 
     she would feel if one in three white men were in similar 
     circumstances. We are at a dire position in this country 
     insofar as the number of black men incarcerated or in the 
     prison system is concerned.

  On the same day, on Monday, 1 million black men stood up and came to 
this Nation's Capitol and said we want to take responsibility for our 
families and our communities and what is going on in our communities, 
and all we are asking from this Congress is fairness. This is an 
introspective look at ourselves, and all we want is fairness.
  Now, there is not anybody going to come on this floor today--we heard 
Ms. Pryce say when she talked about the rule, we have heard everybody 
who gets up on this floor today on this issue--who is going to submit 
that the disparity that exists in the sentencing between crack cocaine 
and powder cocaine is a fair disparity. There is nobody who is going to 
come in here and argue that. So what this issue is about, as the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has indicated, is fairness. It is 
about fairness.
  Crack cocaine and powder cocaine are two forms of the same drug. They 
are cocaine. Crack cocaine is 30 minutes of baking of powder cocaine. 
That is all it is. You put it in an oven and it comes out the other end 
crack cocaine. Yet 5 grams of crack cocaine will get you a mandatory 
minimum penalty, whereas 500 grams of powder cocaine will get you a 
similar penalty. If somebody is convicted of selling $225 worth of 
crack cocaine, they get the same penalty as somebody get who sells 
$50,000 worth of powder cocaine.
  Crack cocaine is the only drug that we have subject to a mandatory 
minimum sentence. Now, I am not going to stand here and argue that 
crack cocaine is not a serious drug, but it is no more serious than 
heroin. There is no mandatory minimum for heroin. It is no more serious 
than LSD. There is no mandatory minimum for LSD. Methamphetamines, you 
name it, there is no other drug that has a mandatory minimum. And yet 
we have singled out crack cocaine for a 5-year mandatory minimum.
  Why? I do not know. They said because it was a dangerous drug. But is 
not heroin a dangerous drug? Is not powdered cocaine a dangerous drug? 
Is not LSD a dangerous drug? So how could we discriminate in that way?
  What is the impact of that discrimination? Poor young kids who can 
only afford crack go to jail. Rich young kids who can afford powder 
cocaine go home and sleep in their own beds at night.
  Then people ask, why is one in three black persons, who happen to be 
the poorest people, in jail, when that is not the case for white young 
people? Why are there more black teenagers or college age kids in jail 
than there are in college?
  This is a fairness issue, my friends, and this bill does not even put 
any time limitation for the Sentencing Commission to report back. I 
tried to correct that by offering an amendment, and the Committee on 
Rules said no, we will not even let you put a time limitation. We are 
going to discuss this to death. Let the Sentencing Commission go back 
and study it for 10 years so we do not have to deal with it in the 
Congress of the United States.
  That is what this is all about. Justice delayed is justice denied, 
and we are delaying and denying justice to the very people who need it 
in our society.

                              {time}  1715

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 

[[Page H 10260]]
  time. I just wanted to respond. I respect my good friend from North 
Carolina a great deal, but one thing about which he said is, I think, a 
mistake, and I suspect he does not realize it.
  The Sentencing Commission has to report back next May. They report 
every May, and we are asking them to send this back to us the next time 
they get the chance, and that is in the language of the bill as 
adopted.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman 
there is absolutely nothing in this bill that says the Sentencing 
Commission must report back by next May. The Sentencing Commission 
might report back by next May on some other issue, but there is no 
requirement in this bill that requires it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would simply say 
they do report back next May.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, the present law, as has already been stated, 
finds that five grams of crack will get you 5 years mandatory minimum. 
That is a couple hundred dollars worth. Five hundred grams of powder is 
what you have to sell to get the same amount of time. That is tens of 
thousands of dollars.
  The facts we have found are that 95 percent of those convicted of 
crack are black or Hispanic, although the majority of users are white. 
For powder, 75 percent of those convicted of powder cocaine offenses 
are white.
  The Sentencing Commission equalized the base sentence for both of 
those offenses with enhancements. You will get extra time after the 
base if a firearm is used, violence, death, if juveniles are used, if 
there is a prior record, depending on an individual's role in the 
enterprise, whether or not they are near schools, if other crimes are 
involved. The way crack is distributed generally will get more 
enhancements. But they will be getting a higher sentence because of 
what they did not because of their race.
  We have the Commission to get the sentencing policy out of politics 
and into reason. In fact, over 500 prior recommendations have been 
made. None have been rejected.

  The evidence we have seen in drug courts, Mr. Speaker, is that it 
makes more sense to have users of drugs treated by drug treatment 
rather than go to jail anyway. When we had drug courts consider, we 
found those we sent to prison would have a recidivism rate of 68 
percent, whereas those sent to treatment would have a recidivism rate 
of 11 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, by having this mandatory minimum for those who are 
guilty of possession only of a couple of hundred dollars worth of 
crack, we will have more crime and spend more money and lock up a group 
that is 95-percent black or Hispanic.
  So we have the rule. The rule does not allow an amendment for the 
money laundering part. We had no hearings on that, so we do not know 
what that is about and no amendment has been ruled in order. There is 
no date for the reporting back for the Sentencing Commission, other 
than their normal reporting back. There is, Mr. Speaker, a report from 
the Justice Department, but not the Sentencing Commission.
  We have recommended in this legislation that they study this issue 
for another year. Mr. Speaker, last year we told them to study it. They 
studied it and they came back and told us that it was wrong to have the 
disparity.
  I hope that we will reject the rule and reject the bill.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time. I was sitting in my office and listening to some of the debate. 
The gentleman from South Carolina was speaking as I walked out the 
door, and the suggestions were being made that there was some racist 
motivation behind the question of minimum mandatory sentencing for 
crack cocaine and possession thereof. And also the question was raised 
as to how did this ever get into the law.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the gentleman how it got into the 
law. It was an amendment I put into the law, and I put it in when I was 
on the Judiciary Committee. At that time I felt that it was a very 
important provision to be in the law. There was no racist motivation 
whatsoever in putting that in the law.
  It was about in 1986, right about then. I was on the Judiciary 
Committee. Crack cocaine was almost a recent phenomenon, but it was 
growing like Topsy. This was something back in 1981 or 1980, back when 
I was mayor of Fort Lauderdale, when a crack was a thing in the 
sidewalk. We knew nothing about crack cocaine. This came in in the 
early 1980's, and we found the instant addictive nature of this 
substance was absolutely debilitating.
  We also found that where it was being used most, and where it was 
creating its worst problems were in minority areas because of the 
cheapness of it. We found this was an area that was being unfairly, 
unconscionably impacted by cocaine, crack cocaine, as it is even today.
  So I would say to the gentleman from South Carolina that it was 
because of concern for what this was doing in minority neighborhoods, 
how it was tearing up these neighborhoods, and it has. The gentleman 
well knows this from his own background. The problem that we have in 
the inner cities, particularly in minority areas right now, the crime 
and all of this, is that the drug problem in this country has 
absolutely torn these neighborhoods apart.
  What did it seem to be the best thing to do? The best thing to do was 
to go after the dealers. We set quantities we felt that would qualify 
people as dealers, not users but dealers, people who were going in and 
exploiting the poor people and stealing their lives and their future by 
selling them crack cocaine.
  There was no racist motivation at all. As a matter of fact, it was a 
question of trying to save the minority neighborhoods from this awful 
curse that had gone all across this country, and it is not only 
confined in the minority areas. I will not suggest that. But it seemed 
that was where it was having its biggest impact, and this is where we 
had to go after the problem, and this is why we did it.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say to 
the gentleman that I am from North Carolina. We take those distinctions 
pretty seriously in my part of the country.
  Mr. SHAW. I apologize.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Some of my best friends do live in South 
Carolina.
  Mr. SHAW. I hope one day to have a home in your State.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the 
gentleman, whose integrity and honesty has preceded me in this body. I 
have heard about the gentleman's integrity, and I have never suggested 
that the motivation 10 years ago, or whenever this was put into the 
law, was a racist motivation. However, the impact of this law has been 
very, very, very substantially racist in its impact. To defend a 
provision in the law 10 years later, based on knowledge that the 
gentleman did or did not have 10 years ago, is something that I would 
hope that the gentleman would not do.
  I agree that 10 years ago the gentleman did not have knowledge about 
crack. But the information that has been submitted to the Committee on 
the Judiciary now suggests that the gentleman happened to have been 
wrong about a lot of the assumptions that the gentleman was making; 
that this drug was more addictive than powder cocaine. Both of those 
drugs are addictive.
  And, Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the drug is accompanied by 
violence or other surrounding things, they are socioeconomic things, 
and the Sentencing Commission's recommendations would take where there 
was violence or enhancing the penalty where children were involved.
  So notwithstanding the fact that your motives were good 10 years ago, 
the fact is that now hindsight is a lot better than foresight. And I am 
not questioning the gentleman's foresight. I am questioning the 
gentleman's motivation in putting this into the law at the time he did. 
But we now know better, and we should not just stand up 

[[Page H 10261]]
and say, OK, we made a mistake 10 years ago, so let us prolong the 
mistake and make it again.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from 
North Carolina for clearing that up, and I will be sure not to make 
that mistake again.
  I would go back to the point that what we were after was dealers. We 
were not after users on minimum mandatory. And the gentleman made the 
statement in his remarks earlier as to why did we go after heroin and 
some of those other drugs. Heroin use back in 1986 had fallen way down, 
and we did have certain information about crack cocaine, and it really 
scared us very much about what would happen to our neighborhoods.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield 
further, that is the point I am asserting to this body.
  I do not argue with the facts that were available 10 years ago or 
whenever it occurred. Len Bias had just died. There were a lot of facts 
that would have justified our making that assumption. But two wrongs, 
as my mama used to tell me, do not make a right; and we can correct 
that wrong now if we will do it. If we will have the courage to do what 
is just now, not 10 years ago.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would close by just 
saying to the gentleman that the inner-city neighborhoods, the poor 
minority neighborhoods, are the most fragile in the entire country. 
They are the ones that have to be protected. They are the ones where we 
have to rid the neighborhood of the drug dealers. I think we must all 
work together to see this does not happen.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point, as much as 
I wish it were changed, as the gentleman from North Carolina is 
suggesting, I see in the crime subcommittee the same statistics today 
as when the law was passed.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the former chairman and now the ranking 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very glad my friend, the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Shaw], is still on the floor, because there are two 
points that I would like to make that are very important here.
  First of all, we appreciate his concern for our neighborhoods that 
are ravaged with drugs. The gentleman referred to the minority 
community. We now have 40 African-American Members, men and women, in 
the Congress that are, with all due respect, as concerned as he is, if 
not more so, about the pernicious effects of drugs in our community. We 
welcome the gentleman to this concern that we all mutually have, and 
now we invite him to listen carefully to the points that we are making.
  The first one has already been made, and it is that there is no 
accusation of a racist motive when this disparity was first brought 
into the law. But the second one is much more important, and that is 
that we can now correct what has now been proven to be a disparity that 
turns on race and economic ability.
  In other words, what has happened in the sentencing disparity is that 
more and more African-Americans and Hispanics, minorities in poorer 
neighborhoods, have been deliberately targeted. That has increased the 
incarceration rate.
  Another study that I would refer you to shows now that the number of 
young African-American males caught in the criminal justice process is 
not one out of four but is now one out of three. One of the main 
reasons is this disparity.
  And so it would seem from the gentleman's comments that I could 
invite him to join us in my amendment that merely ends the disparity of 
100 to 1.

                              {time}  1730

  We will now make the possession part, and that is what you complained 
of, and that is what we complained of. We are not talking about sale or 
trafficking. We are talking only about possession. We should understand 
here that this debate and the amendment that will follow deals only 
with possession. People who have never committed an offense, never been 
incarcerated, have no record, and are yet being sentenced to 5 years 
for mere possession. Would that amendment have some appeal to the 
gentleman from Florida under these circumstances?
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my friend from Michigan 
that I always listen to him, sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not 
voluntarily, but I have certainly listened to the remarks that he has 
just made. And I would say to the gentleman that we are not talking 
about mere possession here.
  Before reaching the minimum mandatory sentencing guidelines, for the 
law now, one has to have over 5 grams of crack cocaine. That qualifies 
them as a trafficker, not a casual user. And if the gentleman does not 
believe that qualifies them as a trafficker, I would suggest that he 
might want to argue that further within the committee to change the 
level, the committee on which the gentleman is the ranking Democrat 
member.
  But I would say to the gentleman that we need to go after drug 
traffickers of all these drugs that are destroying the future of the 
young Americans, and that is exactly what this crack cocaine continues 
to do.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution of disapproval. The Congress has no business overriding the 
expertise of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Crack cocaine mandatory 
minimums make a mockery of justice. Yes, this is a fairness issue and, 
yes, whether we like it or not, it is a race issue.
  The U.S. Sentencing Commission was designed to take the politics out 
of criminal sentencing, to be bipartisan. Yet its judgment, based on 
years of experience and a responsibility to justice, is being summarily 
rejected in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, Federal sentences for crack are 100 times greater, 100 
times greater, than those for powder cocaine. The implications of this 
disparity are severe. Yes, this is a fairness issue and, whether my 
colleagues like it or not, it is a race issue. Young white males are 
not filling up those jails. Let me tell my colleagues, that statistic 
that was given of young black males between the ages of 20 and 29, one 
of three in our communities are in the criminal justice system.
  We do not like drugs. We do not want drugs. We want to prosecute 
people who traffic, but we do not want to take a silly young man who 
happens to get a crack or two pieces of crack and put him in jail. They 
could get 10 years mandatory minimums under this law that we are 
operating under now.
  Members know it is wrong. The Sentencing Commission knows that it is 
wrong. They want to correct it. What are we doing? Why do we not let 
their work go into effect? It does not make good sense.
  Further, let me tell my colleagues what is happening. Minorities 
represented an average of 96 percent of those prosecuted for crack 
cocaine nationally in Federal courts from 1992 to 1994. This is a 
fairness issue, sir, and it is a race issue.
  I do not know why we have taken the time of this House to try to 
overrule the Sentencing Commission, who spends hours, who have all of 
the data, all of the statistics.
  Mr. Speaker, we had a march out there just the other day. We had a 
march with 1 million black men who came to this city, and they said,

       We are going to take responsibility but we want a little 
     fairness in the system. We want you to know that we cannot 
     continue to live, we cannot continue to live in a system that 
     disregards us, that marginalizes us, a system that is not 
     fair, that is not equal.

  Did Members not hear them? Did Members not see them? Why do Members 
persist in this kind of unfairness? I am telling my colleagues, we need 
do nothing but let the Sentencing Commission's recommendations go into 
effect.
  I want to tell my colleagues those young men said, ``We are going to 
take 

[[Page H 10262]]
responsibility, we are going to help clean up our communities, but we 
need you to give us some help.'' Let us be fair. Let us stop sending 
young black and Latino males off to jail at 18 and 19 years old to give 
5 and 10 years of their lives and never be rehabilitated.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman from 
California, who would not yield to me, that she is talking about these 
innocent young blacks with just a few things in their pocket. We are 
talking about 20 to 50 doses. Nobody walks around with that unless they 
are selling and unless they are trafficking, and those are the ones we 
are after.
  I do not know how it is in California, but I can tell you that in 
Dade County, in Broward County, and Palm Beach County that I represent, 
and as a matter of fact right here in this Nation's Capital in the 
minority areas, they are saying come in and arrest the drug 
traffickers, get them out of our neighborhood. Put them in jail and 
throw the key away.
  That is the voice of America. That is the voice of the minorities in 
the areas that are responsible who want to get their areas up out of 
poverty, get out of the gutter, get the problems out of their 
neighborhoods and get the crimes out of the streets so again they can 
walk their streets and sit on their front porch and they can enjoy 
life.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman, that I believe 
that he is sincere, but I want him to know that the gentleman does not 
love my community more than I do. The gentleman does not care about it 
more than I do.
  Mr. Speaker, I care about those who are hungry. I care about the 
young people who are not going to be able to work because of the 
policies of the other sides of the aisle. I care about the babies. I 
care about the welfare mothers, and I want real welfare reform.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I do not want the gentleman to ever believe that he 
cares more about my community than I do. I do not want the gentleman to 
think that somehow his policies and his beliefs are right for my 
community. I would like the gentleman to ask me sometime, and ask us 
sometimes, those who work in those communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentleman, no black leader has said to him: 
Lock up our kids and have this disparity in law. Nobody said that to 
the gentleman.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  [Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it has been well-demonstrated and 
well-said here today that there is a disparity in the way African-
Americans are treated and the way other Americans are treated, 
particularly minorities, when it comes to cocaine and crack cocaine.
  The facts have been revealed to us. The figures have been revealed to 
us. So what more do we need? What we see here is a study and what keeps 
this country in a turmoil is when we do not look at the facts and the 
impact of the facts on the people we all represent.
  Mr. Speaker, I think each of us saw the 1 million black men who were 
here the day before yesterday. They are crying out for fairness. That 
is all they are asking for. Fairness. So, that if someone uses crack, 
they will get a sentencing. If someone uses cocaine, they will get a 
sentencing. That there will not be a disparity just because one is 
convicted of crack cocaine and the other one is using cocaine.
  Mr. Speaker, that is all that is being asked for here. When we usurp 
the sentencing guidelines, that means that we are saying that they do 
not know what they are doing. They have not studied this situation. 
Here we come in Congress and do some micromanaging from here, when we 
have not tested any of these theories.
  Let me tell my colleagues something. Minorities represent, and not 
only African-Americans but other minorities, represent--our jails are 
full of them. This is the newest industry we have. I say to my 
colleagues, go down there. They will see the jails. They are full. Know 
why? An average of 96 percent of those prosecuted for crack cocaine in 
Federal courts from 1992 to 1994 were African-Americans and minorities. 
These are facts. And that is all we are saying today. Why not do this?
  Mr. Speaker, I want this particular rule or resolution killed, 
because it needs to be. I do not think it is bipartisan. It is just a 
matter of saying we want to be fair. We want to treat all Americans the 
same. We should not have a different yardstick; one for crack cocaine 
and one for cocaine. One yardstick for all with liberty and justice for 
all. That is all we ask.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Baker].
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am going to surprise 
everyone. I am a conservative Republican on law and order. I am for 
``Three Strikes, You're Out,'' and I am for this particular motion that 
is being made by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. Speaker, we did not address this problem. We did not attempt to 
straighten out money laundering when people did not launder money. We 
have a perception that we do not want to be to the left of anybody. We 
are tough on crime. We are tougher on crime than my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are.
  Mr. Speaker, their perception is because we have a 100-to-1 ratio in 
weight between rock cocaine and powder cocaine, that this is a race 
issue; just because 96 percent of the people arrested under rock 
cocaine are black. Imagine that.
  Mr. Speaker, we did not lock the Sentencing Commission, which is 
housed in the Department of Justice and staffed by the Department of 
Justice, in the room with the Justice Department so they could come 
over here and play each other against each other. We do not know these 
folks. They are too lenient; we are really tough.
  They know and they both admit these ratios are wrong. And the black 
people feel like they are being picked on. Why? I would say to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], because it is 10 doses versus 5,000 
doses in my white suburbia.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know why they feel they are being picked on, 
just because if someone is arrested with 10 doses, they are presumed to 
be a pusher and they have to have 5,000 doses of my powder to be a 
pusher. They get 5 automatic years, with the judge not able to say this 
guy has never been arrested before.
  Mr. Speaker, in money laundering it is even more egregious. If a 
person wants to steal poker chips from their employer, because they 
work for Harrah's, they should be convicted of stealing. That is 18 
months. When they go to cash that in, that is money laundering. They 
don't hide it. They do not change their name. They cash the chips in. 
Forty-six months.
  If one of my colleagues takes a bribe from a Federal Bureau of 
Investigation agent who works long and hard and spends months to set 
them up and says, ``Thank you for your vote on the B-2 bomber. Here is 
a check. We want to see you come back.'' If my colleagues do not stop 
them and say, ``Wait a minute. There is no connection between my vote 
and your check,'' because they have known they are being set up, they 
get 18 months for taking the bad check.
  They get 46 months for depositing it in their own name, reporting it 
in the FEC, paying State income tax and Federal income tax, if it were 
an honorarium, prior to their being gone, or if it is a campaign fund. 
It is money laundering.
  They did not commit money laundering. But, they need this tool in 
order to get them to cop to the other, because they do not think they 
took that check in bad faith from Lockheed, or whoever the lobbyist is, 
because that member believes in the B-2 bomber. It is built in 
California and I will walk over coals to support it. But if my 
colleagues do not correct that man when he hands them a check and 
innocently says, ``This is because you voted for the B-2 bomber,'' they 
are going to jail. But not for stealing or bribery. They going for 
money laundering.
  The Commission is right. A stopped clock is right twice a day. The 
Clinton administration is right twice a day. 

[[Page H 10263]]
Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], we 
should lock up the Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice 
in a room and make them tell us what is the correct ratio for crack 
cocaine? What is money laundering, if it is not depositing a check? Let 
us address these problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote to vote with these folks, because 
they are dead right.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration, H.R. 2259, would overturn 
the sentencing guideline recommendations of the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission concerning penalties for money laundering and crack cocaine. 
The rationale for this legislation is that we have to be tough on 
criminals, and that any reduction in sentencing for these specific 
crimes sends the wrong signal to those who participate in these illegal 
activities.
  I understand this very real concern, and it is one that I share. I 
have been in public office for 15 years, during which I have been at 
the forefront of the fight against crime. From truth in sentencing to 
three strikes, you're out, my legislative history is clear: We must 
have zero tolerance for criminal activity.
  At the same time, we must be sure that our penalties are just and our 
justice system itself is fair. And that's why I'm opposing H.R. 2259 
today. The bipartisan Sentencing Commission has called for reform of 
the mandatory sentencing guidelines for money laundering. The 
Commission does not want to reduce sentences for drug kingpins or major 
fraud operations. The Commission has recommended making sentences for 
money laundering in keeping with the gravity of the crime. In fact, 
sophisticated fraud would receive more serious punishment than under 
current law.
  But the Commission does call for less severe mandatory sentences on 
those who have engaged in less serious fraudulent activity. For 
example, in the case of United States versus Manarite, a defendant who 
skimmed casino chips was convicted of money laundering for cashing in 
the chips at the casino. In another instance, United States versus 
LeBlanc, a bookmaker who accepted checks in payment for gambling debts 
was convicted of money laundering for negotiating the checks.
  Yes, theft is a criminal action that deserves punishment--yet for the 
law to view depositing ill-gotten gains into a bank account as money 
laundering is silly. These minor-league crimes are simply not on par 
with sophisticated operations in which millions of dollars are 
laundered through the banking system. Due to mandatory minimum 
sentencing, such minor offenders are filling our Federal prisons--
prisons now crowded beyond capacity.
  In a word, the hands of Federal judges are tied--they are compelled 
to send low-level crooks to jail with violent, dangerous offenders. 
When a convicted rapist is spending less time in jail than a bank 
teller who took $1,500 and deposited it into a bank account, something 
is obviously wrong.
  The Sentencing Commission--a bipartisan group of Republicans and 
Democrats--is calling for stiffer penalties on those who engage in 
sophisticated money laundering schemes. But the Commission also wants 
to give judges greater discretion in the sentencing of minor offenders. 
This is not softness on crime--it fits in perfectly with the 
conservative philosophy of cracking down on thugs while at the same 
time avoiding the micromanagement of the criminal justice system at the 
Federal level.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2259. This is a 
matter of justice and of true federalism--letting local judges decide 
how best to punish wrong-doers. In our zeal to fight crime, let's not 
trample on the prerogatives of State and municipal authorities. Let's 
fight crime--not common sense.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, it is idiotic for us to have a disparity in 
these ratios for powder cocaine or crack. In fact, I would say to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum], one has to have powder cocaine in order to make crack 
cocaine.

                              {time}  1745

  The reality is that the people who have the powder cocaine are 
directly responsible for the creation of the crack cocaine. So, if one 
wanted to root out the evil and punish it, one would create the 
disparity in the reverse.
  Now, what we have here is a situation where I think that most people 
in this country can recognize that on one hand we have most of the 
people arrested for crack happen to be white, but most of the people 
who are convicted and serving these mandatory minimums happen to be 
black. There is a problem right there. We have had a number of studies 
that show in every case the sentencing for crimes in our country is 
racially influenced and more severe. Every time the crime is the same, 
there is a differential in the sentencing. So, unfortunately it falls 
upon people in minority communities to bear the brunt of that.
  One does not have to recognize that. But I think that the American 
people can see the sheet being pulled away from what is a racist 
implementation of the criminal justice system in this country, and we 
shall reap what we sow. People who serve on juries are right not to 
feel comfortable with our criminal justice system, not to feel as 
though it is balanced. What do we create when we send a kid away or a 
young adult for 5 years in jail? Are we educating them while they are 
in jail? Are we giving them drug treatment while they are in jail? Are 
we doing anything for them? No. In fact, proposals from this side of 
the aisle want to make that 5 years the roughest 5 years of their life.
  Then I would suggest that we reap what we sow. They will return to 
these same communities, having learned nothing other than how to be 
hardened criminals when they were, in fact, just innocent victims of 
the allowance of our Government to allow these drugs to flow into these 
communities from the beginning. The coca leaf is not grown here. We do 
not see a lot of African-American young people from Philadelphia or 
Watts flying these fancy airplanes or speedboats across the ocean 
bringing this cocaine in here. To have a disparity in which we make 
crack more evil than powder cocaine, when one needs the powder to make 
the crack, is asinine.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, 48 hours ago this Nation, perhaps the 
world, was galvanized by the resolve that has never happened before 
publicly in our community. A million African-American males came 
together to pledge to restore and fight for family values, to build up 
their neighborhoods, to fight crime, to root out evil and wrongdoing. 
Now, 2 days later, we come here to reexamine whether we will deal with 
this moment of fairness in terms of crack and powder disparity in 
sentencing.
  Please listen to the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and 
their friends that bring us not expert testimony, but they live in, 
represent, have grown up with, are a part of the communities that are 
being wracked by this unfair sentencing.
  I want to deal with one problem that the gentleman from Florida has 
raised in which he has cavalierly said time and time again that, if you 
have 5 grams of crack, it is presumed that you are a dealer. A gram is 
one-thirtieth of an ounce. You have to prove that you are a dealer. If 
you are arrested for possession, possession is possession. Trafficking 
is a different crime entirely.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow Members, as they have been doing 
for the last hour, to debate the basic question of whether the 
distinction between different forms of cocaine and their impact on 
society should warrant different sentences. I urge passage of this 
rule. It will allow Members of different opinions on this very 
important issue to debate them fully.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
237 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2259.

                              {time}  1750


                     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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2259) to disapprove certain sentencing guideline 

[[Page H 10264]]
amendments, with Mr. Bereuter in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] each will be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, each year, the Sentencing Commission amends its 
sentencing guidelines with the aim of promoting more consistent Federal 
sentencing policy. The Commission is to follow Congress' lead as 
Congress--not the Sentencing Commission--sets sentencing policy. The 
Commission's congressionally established mandate is to fill in the gaps 
in Federal sentences.
  This year, the Commission sent up 27 proposed amendments to the 
guidelines for congressional review. H.R. 2259 would prevent 2 of 
them--amendments 5 and 18--from taking effect. Amendment 5 would 
dramatically reduce crack penalties, by treating crack cocaine the same 
as powder cocaine. Amendment 18 would dramatically reduce money 
laundering penalties. H.R. 2259 keeps the penalties where they 
currently are.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2259 is the right thing to do. It preserves the 
current penalties for crack cocaine traffickers and white collar money 
launderers. It continues the congressionally established policy of 
treating crack cocaine and powder cocaine differently, by refusing to 
lower the crack trafficking penalties. And it avoids allowing the 
Sentencing Commission to lower guideline sentences so substantially 
that our Federal sentencing policy would be plagued with severe 
sentencing disparities for similar crimes.
  The evidence is clear: Crack and power cocaine are different, and 
should be punished accordingly: crack is more addictive than powder 
cocaine; it accounts for more emergency room visits; it is most popular 
among juveniles; it has a greater likelihood of being associated with 
violence; and crack dealers have more extensive criminal records than 
other drug dealers and make greater use of young people in distributing 
crack. Congress is right to maintain the current stiff sentences for 
crack trafficking.
  As I stated when the Judiciary Committee considered the bill in 
September, the current distinction between crack and powder cocaine 
offenses may not be perfect. When Congress established these penalties 
in 1986 and 1988, we attempted to set punishments that fit the crimes 
and that sent the unmistakable message that drug trafficking will 
simply not be tolerated. To that end, Congress established a 100 to 1 
quantity ratio that provides mandatory minimum sentences for offenses 
involving 5 grams or more of crack cocaine and 500 grams or more of 
powder cocaine. Such actions are always subject to occasional review 
and I for one am certainly willing to consider alternative proposals. 
Indeed, this bill requires the Sentencing Commission to recommend an 
adjustment to the quantity ratio. It may be that Congress will want to 
change the 100 to 1 quantity ratio by increasing the penalties for 
powder cocaine. But I am unwilling to retreat in the attack on drug 
traffickers by sending a message to crack dealers that Congress is 
softening its stance regarding the acceptability of their behavior. Our 
goal must ultimately be to ensure that the uniquely harmful nature of 
crack is reflected in sentencing policy and, at the same time, uphold 
basic principles of equity in the United States Code.
  In June 1995, the House Crime Subcommittee heard dramatic testimony 
from the police chief, the U.S. attorney, and the chief judge in the 
District of Columbia about how crack has devastated the Nation's 
Capital. They warned us in unmistakable terms not to reduce crack 
penalties to those of powder offenses because of the more destructive 
nature of the crack market. As we debate this bill today, we must all 
remember the following fact: No one is more opposed to reducing the 
crack cocaine sentences than those who have been devastated by the 
scourge of crack trafficking and the violence and death that it brings. 
Ultimately, H.R. 2259 is about whether or not this Congress has the 
courage to continue to fight the war on drugs by being tough on those 
who traffic in death.
  H.R. 2259 responds to the overwhelming opposition expressed by 
America's law enforcement community to the Sentencing Commission's 
crack proposal. The Justice Department strongly opposes the 
Commission's crack amendment because tough crack cocaine penalties are 
vital tools for Federal prosecutors who are attempting to uproot deadly 
drug trafficking organizations.
  H.R. 2259 also prevents the Commission's recommendations concerning 
the possession of crack cocaine from taking effect. The Commission's 
recommendation would treat the possession of crack in the same manner 
as simple possession of powder cocaine. This would be a mistake. The 
crack possession offense is not used by prosecutors for mere simple 
possession cases. The possession of even relatively small amounts of 
crack is frequently inseparable from the trafficking of crack. The 
crack trafficking trade is unique, and generally involves trafficking 
in much smaller quantities of crack than in the powder cocaine trade. 
An offender caught with 5 grams or more of crack, as provided under the 
statute, can be reasonably presumed to be engaged in trafficking even 
though the quantity possessed is relatively small; furthermore, it is 
the street level dealers who are the only ones visible to law 
enforcement and who can lead to the arrest of larger traffickers.
  The Crime Subcommittee is aware that the Commission's amendment No. 8 
will change the methodology used to calculate the weight of marijuana 
plants. The Crime Subcommittee will be carefully following the 
implementation of this amendment to ensure that it in no way represents 
a step backward in the war on drugs. I would like to thank my friend 
from Oregon, Mr. Bunn, for his assistance in ensuring that amendment 
No. 8 does not undermine our counterdrug efforts. Any retreat at this 
time in our battle against the evil of illegal drugs, and in particular 
crack cocaine, would be a mistake this Congress would long regret. 
Congress must not lose its resolve.
  H.R. 2259 would also prevent the Commission's amendment No. 18 
regarding the money laundering amendment from taking effect. The 
Commission's money laundering amendment would substantially reduce the 
base offense level in the sentencing guidelines for money laundering 
activities of all types. The Commission's amendment then proposes that 
certain enhancements corresponding to specific offenses be added to the 
base offense level. Even with the proposed enhancements, however, the 
amendment would significantly reduce the sentences for various serious 
offenses, including arms violations, and murder for hire.
  The Commission's amendment defines a category of offenses to be less 
serious when the offense that underlies the money laundering activity 
is closely associated with the money laundering activity itself. These 
offenses would receive a base offense level corresponding to the 
underlying crime only, and receive no enhanced sentence for the money 
laundering activity itself. Such a proposal is troubling because it 
fails to provide at least some additional punishment for the money 
laundering activity itself.

  Under amendment 18 a wide range of money laundering cases of varying 
severity would receive reduced sentences. For example, laundering 
$100,000 or more of fraud proceeds so as to conceal the source would be 
reduced from a range of 27 to 46 months to a range of 21 to 27 months.
  It is clear that the current money laundering guidelines can be 
improved. There are undoubtedly cases where money laundering sentences 
have appeared to be disproportionate to the underlying crime. Starting 
in November, I intend to work with Members of both parties, the Senate, 
the Justice Department, and the Sentencing Commission to develop a 
sensible amendment to the money laundering guidelines. Such a change 
must address the problem of overly harsh penalties for receipt and 
deposit cases where the money laundering activity is minimal, while 
avoiding the sweeping across-the-board reductions that the Commission's 
amendment would produce. At 

[[Page H 10265]]
the same time, we must not lower the sentences for significant money 
laundering.
  At a time when organized criminal enterprises are growing and 
expanding their operations, we must not support a proposal that would 
substantially reduce the sentence for so many criminal activities, even 
serious ones.
  H.R. 2259 also requires the Sentencing Commission to submit to 
Congress recommendations proposing revision of the sentencing 
guidelines and the statutes that deal with crack cocaine and powder 
cocaine sentences. The bill further requires the Justice Department to 
submit to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, not later than May 
1, 1996, a report on the charging and plea practices of Federal 
prosecutors with respect to money laundering. I support these 
requirements. However, I want to make an important point about the 
language of the bill that calls for the Commission's recommendations 
for a revised drug quantity ratio. The recommendations called for in 
section 2(a) (1) and (2) should not be understood to be an invitation 
for the Commission to recommend again, as they did this year, that the 
drug quantity ration be changed to a ratio of 1 to 1. Such a ratio, 
even with penalty enhancements, fails to reflect the many substantial 
differences between crack cocaine and powder cocaine.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2259 is an important piece of legislation. It will 
ensure that Federal law enforcement continues to have the tools 
necessary for combating drug trafficking and money laundering. This is 
no time for Congress to back off the war on drugs.

                              {time}  1800

  I think it is very important at this point in time we realize that 
November 1 is a deadline looming. If we do not adopt this bill today 
before us, and send it over to the other body, and get it enacted into 
law and signed by the President, these 2 provisions, the 2 out of the 
27 that we do not agree with, will become law automatically and be the 
new sentencing guidelines on November 1. So the deadline is to act now. 
It will be nice to correct things around the edges where we see the 
problems, but we need more time to work on those. The best course of 
action is to adopt this bill, send the matter of these two issues of 
crack cocaine and money laundering back to the Sentencing Commission, 
get them to report back to us, get the Justice Department to issue a 
report, and next year make the changes that are more responsible than 
those contained in the two amendments we disapprove today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I point out to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum], my good friend with whom I have worked on Committee on the 
Judiciary across the years, that sending this bill back is the best way 
to dodge the issue. The one thing we do not want to do is, after the 
Sentencing Commission has taken years of studying this, to tell them to 
go back and study it some more. That is what they have done.
  Mr. Chairman, what we need to do is give it to them one way or the 
other, and now is the moment to correct the disparity between crack 
cocaine and powdered cocaine. Let us do it today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I hope very much that we 
reject this rejection of the Sentencing Commission.
  Many Members of this body have a speech in which they talk about our 
efforts to fight poverty, our efforts to house people, our efforts to 
defeat hunger, and they say we spend all this money and it has not 
worked. They point to gross statistics that say, ``Gee, there are still 
poor people, there is still bad housing.'' Mr. Chairman, I do not think 
much of that method of argumentation, but I also would expect them at 
least to be consistent in applying it because, if we want to look at an 
area where a policy that has cost an awful lot of money does not on its 
face appear to have worked, let us look at the policy of trying to 
combat drug abuse by locking up for long periods of time people who 
have committed no violent crime, have taken nothing from anybody by 
force, have struck no one, have attacked physically no one, and are at 
most very, very low-level, bottom-of-the-chain members of drug sales or 
may not be sellers at all. They may simply be users, and they may, by 
that, be users who share with one or two other people.
  Mr. Chairman, what we have is a policy which has locked up large 
numbers of mostly young men for very long periods of time, and it has 
not worked very well. I know it is popular, and I have to say one of 
the things that is the oddest I have heard in this debate is Members 
who say, ``Let's have the courage to reject the Sentencing Commission, 
let's have the courage to continue to lock these people up for many, 
many years.'' I cannot think of anything that takes less courage in 
America today than the perpetuation of this policy.
  I think courage is, ``Let's think about it.'' But we are not simply 
talking here about what I think is a mistaken policy of locking up 
nonviolent violators of the drug law for very long periods of time, as 
dumb and as wasteful as I think that is. That is a policy I cannot 
change right now.
  We are talking about one particular aspect of this which says given 
that we are going to lock up these mostly young men who have done no 
violent crime against anybody and who have not been caught selling 
anything, because then they would be charged differently, but who are 
holding, what, almost a quarter of an ounce or a half an ounce, that we 
will treat them very harshly, but we will do it in a way which, and let 
us be very clear, no one has called into question the premise here. The 
sentencing disparity is overwhelmingly objectively a racist one.
  Now maybe my colleagues think it is justified, but no one has denied 
that the effect of the policy is to treat young black men much more 
harshly for the possession of a given quantity of this substance of 
cocaine in this form than others. I can think of no policy which we 
have which in fact ends up so racially distorted, and I have to say I 
have had people on the other side say, ``Well, it is because we care 
about these communities.''
  Mr. Chairman, I am one who believes that elections are meaningful in 
this country. I am skeptical when I hear large numbers of voters 
complain about the actions of this Congress because they sent us here. 
No one parachuted into this dome, no one got appointed here, and I 
believe that people on the whole elect people who represent them.
  So when, and I have to say this to the overwhelming white majority of 
which I am a part in this House, when our African-American colleagues 
come here in large numbers and plead with us to allow a nonpartisan 
body of experts to change this racially disparate policy, it is a march 
to this floor of our African-American colleagues who are pleading with 
us to alleviate the most racially unfair policy in America, and, 
please, even if my colleagues disagree, do not tell them, ``Oh, this is 
in the interest of your community, this is what the people you 
represent really want.'' I believe that we do not stay in this place 
very long if we do not reflect the people who sent us here, and when we 
have this extraordinary expression from the wide spectrum of opinion we 
often get within the Congressional Black Caucus saying we are doing a 
terrible disservice to this Nation and to these young people when we 
perpetuate this racially disparate situation, then it seems to me 
people ought to listen.
  We have talked about the racial problems reflected in the verdict of 
O.J. Simpson. Many Members here, and let us be honest, many Members 
here were disappointed that a march led by Louis Farrakhan got such 
enthusiasm. I ask, ``Why do you think it is happening? Why do you have 
this great disparity?'' It is partly because of the kinds of policies 
we have here. Can we really be so sure about maintaining this disparity 
in sentencing in the face of the Sentencing Commission's argument, even 
if my colleagues think that maybe they can make some technical 
justification because of the chemistry of the powder versus the 
chemistry of the crack? Is it worth perpetuating the anger, and the 
anguish, and the sense of manifest unfairness that it brings? I do not 
see how anyone in good faith can argue that we, as a Nation, are well 
served by maintaining this. 

[[Page H 10266]]

  Mr. Chairman, no one is talking about letting people walk. No one is 
talking about letting people off the hook. We are asking for a 
recognition of a very grave racial injustice.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Bryant], a member of the committee.
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
2259. This bill disapproves of 2 of 27 proposed amendments to U.S. 
Sentencing Commission Guidelines. Those two proposals pertain to 
cocaine sentencing and money laundering.
  This legislation is necessary in order to keep these recommendations 
from taking effect on November 1, so we must act now.
  On first glance it may sound sensible to have the same penalties for 
crack and powdered cocaine, but the difference between the two types of 
substances justifies the greater penalties for crack.
  Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Crime, of which I am a member, and 
many of those people speaking tonight are on that committee, heard 
testimony from the Sentencing Commissioner who wrote the minority 
report, and from an Assistant Attorney General in the Department of 
Justice who, among others, recommended our regarding this present 
differential between crack and powder. Now their testimony was in favor 
of keeping stronger penalties for crack cocaine. It was compelling. 
Crack cocaine offenses should be punished severely because of the 
threat it poses to society and, in particular, the communities in which 
it is used and sold. Crack cocaine is more psychologically addicting 
than powdered cocaine and more likely to lead to drug dependence. It 
produces a more intense high and, thereafter, produces a quicker and 
sharper drop from this intense high. Crack cocaine accounts for many 
more emergency room visits than powdered cocaine, and importantly crack 
is cheap. It is popular among teenagers, and it is most likely to be 
associated with violent crimes, burglaries, carjackings, drive-by 
shootings, whatever.
  Let there be no mistake about it: Crack cocaine threatens our 
society's future. Because crack is cheap,its market is easy to get 
into.
  One study has found ``* * * that crack distribution lacks a set of 
highly centralized or formally organized distribution syndicates. It 
relies heavily on the `low end' dealer [and] users [who] * * * occupy a 
shadowy ground between dealing and consuming.''
  Crack is cheap and it is widely available, and, because of its 
popularity among teenagers and its close association with violence, 
crack directly threatens our next generation.
  My colleagues, we have a duty as a civilization, as a lawful society, 
to do all that we can to fight this threat and to try to protect our 
young people of all races. That is why I do not understand this 
argument of race, this objection to the current crack-powder ratio, 
that it unduly punishes blacks.
  In a recent speech on The Mall, and I think it has been referenced 
already, the Reverend Jesse Jackson stated that, and I quote:

       Why are there so many blacks in jail? Is it behavior or is 
     it the rules? Let me talk about the rules here. Five grams of 
     crack cocaine, five years mandatory. Five hundred grams of 
     powdered cocaine, you get probation.

  Mr. Jackson then went on to charge, and again, I quote:

       That's wrong; it's immoral; it's unfair; it's racist; it's 
     ungodly; it must change.

  Some of my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
seem to use the same argument, and I have a great deal of respect for 
their intelligence, and their honesty, their integrity, and their 
position in this. I just disagree with them. I do not think this is 
racial.
  It is my hope that as a legislative body, we, as representatives of 
the millions of Americans who sent us here to protect them from the 
hopelessness of the American drug culture and the rampant violence 
which results from it, can look above and beyond these charges leveled 
by Mr. Jackson and others with a sense of purpose and reason.
  Make no mistake about it though. Our penal system must not begin to 
be tailored around race, socioeconomic status, or anything else for 
that matter. We do not need prosecution by quota. We need to crack down 
on crack cocaine.
  My colleagues, do not be misled by the weightless argument by the 
time-honored issue of race concerning crack and powder cocaine. As a 
former prosecutor, U.S. attorney, I learned that we must prosecute the 
crimes regardless of the neighborhood in which they occur. Can we turn 
our backs on the many inner-city areas where crack is an epidemic, 
killing its youth who are the victims? Are the victims of the crack-
associated crime any less deserving of the full weight and support of 
the prosecution and our law simply because those victims are black? No. 
Penalties must continue to be consistent with the nature of the crime 
without regard to outside factors which have no bearing on the 
commission of that crime.
  Indeed, let us not forget that the sentencing Commission reported 
that in regard to the penalty differences between crack and powder 
cocaine, and I quote, ``The penalties apply equally to similar 
defendants regardless of race.''
  This is what the Sentencing Commission said:

       No, it is not the rules. Blacks are not in jail because the 
     system treats them differently than anybody else. These 
     blacks in jail are there because they were dealing with one 
     of America's most dangerous drugs that is plaguing our 
     society.

  This is important to me. I could go on, but let me try to summarize 
what I am saying here.
  The fact that the penalties apply equally to each and every American, 
regardless of their race, is the essential point to keep in mind. If 
the Members of this body have a problem with equal treatment under the 
law, then they should voice that concern. But there really is no such 
concern, because the current penalties do in fact treat everyone the 
same.
  Mr. Chairman, let me finish, and, if I have time, I would like to 
yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], but I do want 
to make this final point in conclusion. Congress may later decide to 
modify the quantity ratio of crack cocaine and powdered cocaine, and I 
trust that we will retain substantially more severe penalties for crack 
offenses. However, H.R. 2259 is not the vehicle for changing the 
quantity ratio.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation, disapprove these two 
of the Sentencing Commission recommendations, and allow the Committee 
on the Judiciary to revisit the quantity-ratio issues through a 
reasonable process.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a Member who has concentrated his efforts on 
this activity.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess I have to eat my words now, because I thought 
nobody was going to come to this floor and say that what we are doing 
is fair. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant] has said it and he 
said it with a straight face. I just find that absolutely unbelievable.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues have to understand what is going on here. 
Crack cocaine and powder cocaine are both cocaine. Crack cocaine 
happens to be used by poor people who are predominantly black people 
because it is cheap. Powder cocaine happens to be used by white people 
who happen to be richer, and as a consequence, you get this disparity 
in the application of the law.
  Mr. Chairman, I said in an earlier debate here on the floor, I made a 
mistake; I said that it is 30 minutes to get from powder cocaine to 
crack cocaine. I was corrected. It is actually 10 minutes. I am told 
that if you put a tablespoon of baking soda with powder cocaine and you 
put it in a microwave and bake it for 10 minutes, that converts it to 
crack cocaine. You cannot get to crack cocaine without going through 
powder cocaine. So how we can justify a greater penalty for crack 
cocaine than for powder cocaine I just simply do not understand.
  So, then you presume that if somebody has 5 grams of crack cocaine, 
they are dealing in cocaine. Five hundred grams of powder cocaine is 
necessary before you get to that same presumption. Five grams of crack 
cocaine 

[[Page H 10267]]
produces 10 doses. Five hundred grams of powder cocaine produces 5,000 
doses. Five grams of crack costs $225. Five hundred grams of powder 
cocaine costs $50,000. So what do we end up with? The rich guys have to 
have $50,000 worth of this substance, 500 grams of it, to even think 
about getting the same sentence that the poor person has.
  The gentleman says that is fair? There is no way that we can assert 
to the American people that that is fair. There is no way that I can 
assert to my community, to the black community, to the black residents 
that live throughout America and who live in my congressional district 
that that is fair. If I cannot assert to them that the laws are fair, 
then I cannot assert to them that they have to abide by them. Fairness 
is the basis of every law, or should be.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot say to black people in the country, you 
deserve to go to jail for something that white people do not go to jail 
for. It is unfair, it is outrageous, it is despicable, that we would 
sit here on this floor of Congress, 2 days after the President has 
talked about fairness, 2 days after a milion people have come here and 
begged for fairness, and we say, let us go do business as usual, let us 
keep this in effect while we study it some more.
  We have been studying this issue for a long, long time, and it is 
time for us to deal with it and deal with it in a way that is fair to 
the American people and to our communities.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a member of the committee.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2259. This debate has begun 
to touch on an issue which is broader than we can possibly cover today, 
and that is disparate representation in the criminal justice system of 
the races. We all know that there is a disparate number of African-
Americans in prison and other custody today than of non-African-
Americans. That does not mean that African-Americans are a majority, 
but they are represented in the criminal justice system more frequently 
than their percentage in the population. I personally believe that 
occurs for a number of reasons.
  For example, law enforcement is oriented towards street crimes. The 
fact of the matter is, less educated criminals tend to commit street 
crimes, whereas more educated criminals tend to commit the more 
sophisticated crimes, like fraud and embezzlement. In fact, with 
respect, I think many Americans may not know that when they hear about 
the crime rate, it does not include every crime. Only street crimes are 
counted. Murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, 
auto theft, and arson. If anyone commits any one of those crimes, then 
the crime rate goes up. If someone commits a sophisticated crime like 
embezzlement, the crime rate does not go up.
  Now, I think that that kind of approach will have a disparate impact. 
However, I do not think the solution is to prosecute fewer burglary or 
arson or larceny cases. I think the solution is to prosecute more fraud 
and embezzlement cases and the like which are generally committed by 
otherwise middle class, probably non-African-American individuals.
  That is how I feel about this particular debate. I think a number of 
arguments have been made that crack cocaine in fact is worse for a 
number of reasons than powder cocaine. For example, in my own community 
of Albuquerque, NM, tragically, just a short time ago, a young child, 
under 2 years old, virtually a baby, died from eating crack cocaine 
that was available in the house where the baby was. I suppose this 
could happen ultimately with any drug, but it happened with crack.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make the point that if disparity is the 
issue, and if fairness is the issue, and there really is not a logical 
reason to distinguish crack cocaine from powder cocaine, then there is 
another solution, which is raise the penalty on powder cocaine. I think 
to be reducing drug penalties is to send the exact wrong message to the 
Nation at this time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say, we heard this before at the Committee on 
the Judiciary, our colleague from Virginia, Mr. Scott, tried to offer 
an amendment to do what the gentleman said, to raise the powdered 
penalty, and a Republican made a point of order and was ruled out of 
order. The majority carefully drew this bill so that any effort to 
raise the penalty for powder would be out of order. So the gentleman 
says that, but we are presented with the situation where no one can do 
it.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this particular bill 
came before us according to the law to accept or reject specific 
recommendations from the sentencing guidelines commission, and that 
amendment, if even seriously made, was out of order at that time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, why did the gentleman put out such a bill?
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, it is my time.
  I am saying that I am willing to pursue the idea further about 
whether there is a legitimate difference between crack and powder 
cocaine, and if there is not, I will support a bill, a separate bill on 
this floor to raise the penalty for powder cocaine. If we raise the 
penalties, there is no disparity and no unfairness, as the other side 
has argued.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, Members on the other side 
have said at the committee and here: well, the answer is to raise, if 
you think the disparity is unfair, the penalty for powder. Some of us 
do not think that is the answer, but let us be very clear. Neither do 
they. Because I never saw people with a worse case of the gonnas. They 
are gonna do it, but they do not do it.
  Nobody on that side has put out such a bill. They have put this bill 
before us in a way that makes it out of order. So for people to try to 
argue that the real way to deal with disparity is to raise the penalty 
for powder and then do nothing to accomplish that, they are rebuking 
that argument.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Conyers] for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his 
statement on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to talk about Judge Lyle Strom. Judge Lyle Strom 
was appointed by President Reagan. He is the chief judge of the U.S. 
District Court in Nebraska, not a State known for a lot of radicals. 
They look like they have great common sense out in Nebraska, especially 
a Reagan appointee.
  Well, let me tell you about Judge Lyle Strom. This brave judge has 
stood up and become the first Federal judge to refuse to impose a 
mandatory minimum sentence in a crack case, because he thought it was 
totally unfair, as did the Sentencing Commission who has studied this 
and is saying it is totally unfair.
  Mr. Chairman, crack cocaine is minutes away from being powder 
cocaine. What you are really doing by protecting powder cocaine, which 
is what the other side is really doing, I think here today, is that 
they are protecting the entrepreneurs. They take the powder cocaine and 
cook it up and can sell it. Oh, well, we do not want to get the big 
guys. We want to get the little guys at the end of the line, and we 
have a disparity of 100 to 1. We are not talking a little disparity. It 
is a 100 to 1 disparity that we are talking about here when we look at 
the differences in the sentencing.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that when you look at people like 
the judge who is head of the court in Nebraska, and when you look at 
the Sentencing Commission, which is not a radical bunch of people, they 
are saying to us that if we want this justice system to be considered 
fair and equal, and if we are going to sew up the holes in Miss 
Justice's blindfold so she is not peaking out to see whether this is a 
little entrepreneur that has powder and is 

[[Page H 10268]]
going to make it into a lot of things, and who knows, it could be 
healthful later on, then we really need to act on what they are saying 
rather than throw what they are saying aside.
  I really find it amazing that people are coming here and saying, oh, 
no, this is fair, this is fine, and then the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] just pointed out that the other things that 
are being said on this floor are also untrue, and that is that if you 
really think you ought to raise powder cocaine up, then raise it up. 
Who is stopping you from doing it? However, every time that is tried, 
no, they have a reason for not doing that, either.
  Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely no wonder that people think this is 
unfair, because it is unfair. Every objective soul that has really 
looked at this, including 8 of the 10 witnesses that appeared in front 
of the subcommittee and testified on this, and I tell you, it is the 
other side who called them, 8 of the 10 witnesses, when polled, 
disagreed with this bill. They were called to testify on this bill and 
they did not think that we should do this bill. They thought we should 
introduce fairness into our legal system. What a radical concept, that 
this 100 to 1 ratio was unfair, and that if we could not figure out 
that the root cause of crack cocaine was power and we were going to 
insist on protecting powder possession, but going after crack 
possession, we really look like we got it all backward.
  I would say that 8 out of 10, when they are called by the people 
trying to push the bill and could not get a better vote than that, is 
enough to say we all ought to sit up and take notice and we ought to 
listen to the many, many fair and objective people who have studied 
this and say we should move forward. Otherwise, we are never, never 
going to be able to look African-Americans in this country in the eye 
and say we are treating them fairly, because we are not, and we better 
deal with it. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues vote for this bill 
tonight, they are not treating them fairly, and they are allowing this 
injustice to continue.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant], a former law enforcement officer.
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the Republicans are 
trying to be unfair; I just believe they are wrong.
  Cocaine is listed under Federal law as a narcotic. Cocaine is, in 
fact, a central nervous system stimulant. To really look at the 
severity of the abuse of drugs in our country, we have to understand, 
and Congress does not even understand the phenomenon. As a result, our 
laws are all screwed up.
  Show me an abuser of a central nervous system stimulant such as 
methamphetamine administered intravenously and I will show you someone 
as strung out and as dangerous as a crack cocaine abuser. Cocaine is 
imported, not crack. Cocaine and crack cannot be separated.
  The right thing to do would be to treat both of these lethal drugs 
under the same mode. The problem that we have out in society today is 
we misidentify drugs, we confuse the scene, and we have so many 
powerful burdens and powerful penalties that no one really understands 
it.
  I tell my colleagues the truth. Working in the field for 11 years, I 
worry about that youngster getting ahold of cocaine, mixing it with 
heroin, with that speed ball; and after a while they will throw the 
cocaine away, and they will be strung out on the street corner, be the 
toughest person to rehabilitate. There is no rehabilitation. These 
youngsters have never been anywhere.
  Let me make this statement. To treat crack differently than cocaine 
has no defensible merit and no argument on this floor, none whatsoever 
for any professional who understands it.
  Vince Lombardi was loved by all, the great Hall of Famer. Willie 
Davis was asked, ``Why do you love Vince Lombardi so much?'' He said, 
``I love him because he treated us all alike, like dogs, but all 
alike.''
  Let me tell Members something. The kids on the streets have crack 
because they want to get them strung out as fast as possible, but we 
should not treat these drugs differently. They are one and the same, my 
friends, and we are wrong if we do that.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, 5 grams of crack, 10 doses, a couple of 
hundred dollars worth, 5 years mandatory minimum; 500 grams of powder, 
5,000 doses, tens of thousands of dollars to get the same penalty. In 
fact, possessing the 10 doses only gets a person more time than 
distributing tens of thousands of dollars worth of powder cocaine.
  Ninety-five percent of those convicted for crack offenses are black 
and Hispanic. Seventy-five percent of those convicted of powder 
offenses are white. The Commission decided to equalize the base 
sentence with enhancement. Some say that crack dealers ought to get 
more because of the nature of the distribution. The enhancements will 
take that into consideration. Because you will get more time if you 
have a firearm, violence or death, juveniles, prior prison records, 
near schools, leadership role in the enterprise, other crimes, the 
sentencing will be based on the crime and based on an objective 
determination, not because the group happens to be 95 percent black.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason that we have a Commission is to take the 
politics out of the sentencing. Over 500 prior sentence changes have 
been made. None have been rejected. They can consider the evidence.
  For example, the evidence in possession is that there is a 68-percent 
recidivism rate for those that go to prison, 11 percent recidivism rate 
for those who get treatment. So we spend more money, end up with more 
crime if we send people to prison for simple possession. The Commission 
can act intelligently and make that decision without regard to the 
political implications.
  The reason for the Commission is to put things in perspective, Mr. 
Chairman. Five-year mandatory minimum for users and small-time street 
dealers with a couple of hundred dollars worth, 95 percent black and 
Hispanic. Street dealers will be replaced as soon as they get arrested. 
Those distributing tens of thousands of dollars of uncooked crack or 
pre-crack or powder can get probation, a group 75 percent white. The 
Commission can treat large-scale dealers of tens of thousands of 
dollars of uncooked crack more seriously than street dealers or simple 
possession without regard to political implications.
  This bill rejects the intelligent, nonpolitical analysis of the 
Commission in an unprecedented act. The bill suggests that we should go 
back, to send the issue back to the Sentencing Commission to study it. 
Yet there is no date for the end of the study. And there is nothing to 
study.
  Because they told us what they thought. They told us that there is an 
unjustified disparity with racial overtones. We should defeat the bill, 
let the nonpolitical Sentencing Commission recommendations become law. 
It is the fair thing to do.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr], a member of the committee.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I think the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and 
Criminal Justice, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this really has to be one of the most bizarre debates 
that I have witnessed in the 10 months that I have had the honor of 
serving in this Congress of the United States. I was just reminded of 
how bizarre it is listening to one of the proponents of the sentencing 
guideline recommendations, the sentencing commission recommendations 
talk about us protecting powdered cocaine users. That is bizarre.
  Then we have people saying there is absolutely no difference 
whatsoever between powdered cocaine and crack cocaine when there are in 
fact substantial differences, in terms of the effect it has on the 
person, how quickly it has that effect on that person and how much more 
deeply and quickly addictive crack cocaine is than powdered cocaine. 
Yes, they come from the same base; yes, they are chemically similar, 
but in their effects they are very, very different and the crack 
cocaine is much more dangerous.

[[Page H 10269]]

  I am also reminded in this debate, Mr. Chairman, about how out of 
touch Members on the other side are from the real world. The real 
world, Mr. Chairman, is a world that I have visited, have worked in and 
talked with people in when I had the honor of serving as the United 
States attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. Not simply 
content with staying in the Federal Building or in the United States 
courthouses, myself and police officers and Federal agents and 
assistant United States attorneys regularly went out into the community 
to determine are, in fact, our priorities the priorities of the people 
who want to be protected from drug dealers, murderers and thieves in 
their communities.
  In many of those visits, Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to talk 
with men and women and mothers and fathers in housing projects, many of 
them in Atlanta where we have some of the oldest and poorest housing 
projects in the country, many of them populated not exclusively but in 
terms of the number of people predominantly by black families, and in 
talking with those mothers and those fathers and those children and 
those brothers and sisters, they do not share the belief of our 
colleagues on the other side.
  They told me than, they tell us now, they tell law enforcement 
officers now, I do not care whether that person is black or white who 
is dealing death in the form of crack cocaine, I do not care whether 
that person who murders people either deliberately or inadvertently by 
drive-by shootings because they are high on crack cocaine or because 
they think that person may have snitched on them, they want those 
people off the streets. They want them off the streets and they deserve 
to have this Congress heed that cry and not be diverted, not be drawn 
off target by specious arguments, absolutely specious arguments that we 
are hearing from the other side that simply because we want to punish 
very strongly, very strictly and hopefully very swiftly people that 
deal in a very, very addictive, very dangerous mind-altering drug such 
as crack cocaine, that we think because much smaller quantities can 
result and are used in fact for trafficking and distribution than 
larger quantities of powdered cocaine, that those people ought to be 
punished more because it is those people who are going into the housing 
projects where our black youth are being killed and those mothers 
particularly tell me. They told me this when I was United States 
attorney, they tell me now as a Representative in the United States 
Congress, ``Get those people off the streets and put them away for a 
long period of time.''
  That is the real world. Those are the real arguments. In fact, Mr. 
Chairman, those are also the arguments of this administration. The 
Clinton administration came to the Congress of the United States and 
they said, yes, we may argue that there has to be or perhaps might be 
some different equation we use but even this administration recognizes 
that there is in fact a difference, a very big difference between the 
effects of crack cocaine and powdered cocaine and it is appropriately 
and has been appropriately for going on a decade now reflected in the 
difference in sentencing because it reflects differences in the real 
world use and effect of these drugs.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the 
gentleman from Georgia just said, but when you go into white houses and 
white neighborhoods, they want white dealers put away, that sell it to 
white people. But they do not say put them away for a longer period of 
time than black people, or put black people away for a longer period of 
time than white people. It is a crime problem.
  You know what cocaine does in the suburbs? People shoot people in the 
suburbs. They beat their children. They beat their spouses. They screw 
up their businesses. They leave home. They have dissolutions of 
families, of marriages and children are left and are wards of the 
State.
  It is the same drug. It is the same scourge on communities. The 
suggestion that somehow because black people believe in law enforcement 
and do not like people selling drugs in the streets that that means 
they are for the unequal treatment of people is crazy, is absolutely 
crazy. We ought to deal with this as it is.
  You have a little luxury because you come through parts of my 
district and pick it up in your BMW and go to a home where a cop would 
not go unless you called them and you get the luxury of using it and 
dealing it, you get a different penalty.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell this to my colleague from Georgia. I live 
in my district. I live in the city of Atlanta. I know the people of 
Atlanta. I have visited and stayed overnight on more than one occasion 
in the projects. I served on the city council in that city for almost 6 
years, served on the public safety committee. I know the police 
department of that city.
  This amendment is about fairness, equality and justice. It is about 
treating our poor and minorities the same way we treat others in our 
society.
  Chemically, crack and powder cocaine are the same drug. They are the 
same in every way but one. Poor people use crack. People of color use 
crack. People who use crack go to jail.
  On the other hand, more affluent people use powdered cocaine; and 
when they are caught and arrested and prosecuted, they often go free or 
get lighter sentences than those who use crack cocaine. This is not 
only wrong, it is unjust, and it should not be.
  These are the facts. The way the law is designed, it sends poor 
people to jail. It sends people of color to jail. This is not justice. 
This law is not right. It is not fair.
  My colleagues, cocaine is cocaine. Breaking the law is breaking the 
law. It is time to stop discriminating against the poor and people of 
color. It is time to treat poor people the same way we treat the rich. 
It is time to treat each and every person who uses cocaine the same.
  The Conyers amendment will go a long way to restoring fairness to our 
justice system. It will restore faith and confidence. As recent events 
have shown, many of our citizens see two different judicial systems. 
They see different laws for different people. They see statutes that 
discriminate and a system that does not treat all people equally under 
the law. That is not the American way. That is wrong. It is dead wrong, 
and it must be changed. We have an opportunity tonight to change it.
  I urge my colleagues to support justice, equality, fairness and 
integrity. Support the Conyers amendment.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that cocaine is all bad and 
it should all be strongly discouraged, crack or powder.
  The issue should not be the lowering of standards to conform with 
another but perhaps the raising of one standard to bring them all up to 
equal status. So I rise today in strong support of disapproving certain 
drug sentencing guidelines as recommended by the Sentencing Commission.
  I think that fighting our Nation's war on drugs has got to be swift 
and sure. By accepting a rollback in punishment for crack cocaine 
offenses, we would be sending precisely the wrong message. That is why 
I introduced legislation in this Chamber to block the Commission's 
recommendations.
  According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation bulletin of a mere 5 
months ago:

       The sentencing tables used in drug cases base punishments 
     on the type and amount of the drug as well as the criminal 
     history of the defendant. Offenses involving crack cocaine 
     receive substantially higher sentences than those dealing 
     with cocaine in its powdered form due to crack's higher 
     addictive qualities.

  We cannot play ostrich by sticking our heads in the sand and thinking 
America's drug problem is simply going to solve itself and go away. Our 
constituents expect us to stand up for 

[[Page H 10270]]
them and to make their, our, neighborhoods safer. By disapproving the 
Sentencing Commission's recommendations, we will be doing that.
  Let us look at the facts. Drug trends prove the need for stiff 
punishment. There is no question about that. The sale, the manufacture, 
the possession of cocaine, according to the Federal arrest rates, has 
skyrocketed in this last decade alone.
  In addition, the number of Federal cocaine seizures has jumped from 
nearly 8,000 kilograms in 1983 to more than 78,000 in 1992, and 
according to the Justice Department's uniform crime reports for 1993, 
nearly 2 out of every 3 people arrested for selling and manufacturing 
drugs was in the heroin or cocaine and their derivatives category, 
while almost half of everyone arrested for drug possession fell into 
that same category.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say that H.R. 2259 absolutely needs to 
be rejected. It flies in the face of what we consider to be the notion 
of equality under the law.
  It is interesting that my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Barr], can talk about how he has traveled the highways and byways of 
inner-city Atlanta. But let me say to you that it is all in the asker 
of the question as to what the responder says. I asked the same 
question in neighborhoods that I grew up in, and I asked a group of 
African-American ministers, ``How many of you enjoy your community 
using drugs? Would you raise your hands?'' I got no takers. But then I 
asked the fairness question: ``How many of you understand that those 
who sell crack get 100 times more sentencing than those who sell 
cocaine?'' Shock came across their faces because they really understand 
the needs of their members day after day after day. They are in the 
homes of crying mothers who say, ``He simply wanted to have a job.'' 
They are in the homes of crying families who say, ``Where is the 
treatment facility for those who are addicted?'' That is what the 
question becomes.
  Then we want to reject the language of a sentencing commission that 
is bipartisan, which, if I might simply read on page 105 in a report 
from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, February 1995, ``Cocaine and 
Federal Sentencing Policy,'' and it says, ``Thus, the media and public 
fears of a direct causal relationship between crack and other crimes do 
not seem to be confirmed by empirical data.''
  What is the Congress talking about? By this action today this 
Congress is unfairly saying ``Throw them in the jailhouse and throw the 
key away.'' Ninety-five percent of them are minorities. Throw equality 
under the law out the window.
  I abhor drugs. But what I am saying to you is you are not fixing 
something. You are destroying a community, and then we find out in this 
same report, on page 105, that the members of inner-city communities 
are not cocaine or heroin abusers or criminals. Basically, factors such 
as prospects of employment in the crack trade for young persons who 
most likely will be unemployed are the key to getting them out on the 
street selling drugs. Where are the real jobs to solve this problem?
  Where are the solutions from my colleagues, the Republicans, on job 
creation, on job training?
  I am going on the record, I do not want to see drugs proliferating in 
our communities across this Nation. But as a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, understanding the Constitution, equal protection under 
the law, I think it is atrocious that we stand here today, rejecting a 
bipartisan commission that simply says equalize the sentencing, and 
likewise documents that other crimes do not necessarily come out of 
crack usage.
  What we need are jobs in our communities, treatment in our 
communities. This is an abomination. Let us stop the abomination. Let 
us not support H.R. 2259 and support the Conyers substitute which 
affirms the fair U.S. Sentencing Commission's recommendation. The 
Commission's recommendations help stop crime. This Republican 
legislation destroys lives.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to S. 1254, 
which has been made in order as original text for the bill to 
disapprove sentencing guidelines that would equalize the sentencing for 
the sale and possession of powder and crack cocaine.
  The current sentencing guidelines are an affront to our professed 
notion of equality under the law. There is a 100-to-1 disparity in 
sentencing for offenses concerning crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. 
If an individual possesses 5 grams of crack cocaine, he is subject to a 
mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years. Whereas an individual who 
possesses 500 grams of powder cocaine is subject to a maximum sentence 
of 1 year. This is patently unfair.
  Moreover, the racial disparity in sentencing of crack cocaine 
offenders is unacceptable.
  The statistics show that 88 percent of the convictions for crack 
cocaine are against African-Americans. In the city of Los Angeles, no 
white American has been convicted of a crack cocaine offense since 
1986. Despite this evidence of racial disparity around the country with 
respect to cocaine sentencing, this bill would destroy the opportunity 
to reduce such disparity and make our criminal justice system more 
equitable.
  The recommendations of the Sentencing Commission are sound and the 
result of significant research and deliberation. This commission is 
comprised of a distinguished group of men and women who have reviewed a 
significant amount of data and heard testimony from interested parties 
on this critical matter. Some proponents of this bill are using stories 
and anecdotes from a few members of the law enforcement community that 
crack cocaine offenders should be subject to such harsh sentencing.
  The commission voted 5 to 4 in approving the new sentencing 
guidelines. All of the commissioners, however, agree that the current 
sentencing disparity between offenses for crack cocaine and powder 
cocaine is too high.
  A rejection of this bill would be a perfect opportunity for Congress 
to help all Americans have a greater confidence in our Criminal Justice 
System. In the Subcommittee on Crime and in the full Judiciary 
Committee, we had an opportunity to vote on amendments that would 
accept the recommendations of the U.S. Sentencing Commission but that 
would lead toward some reduction in this disparity. However, those 
amendments were defeated on a party line basis. Some Members may argue 
that this bill, S. 1254, is a better bill than the bill that was 
reported out of the Judiciary Committee. This bill is still bad public 
policy.
  Let us use this opportunity to restore a sense of fairness in the 
Criminal Justice System. It is not a matter of being tough on crime but 
a matter of whether our Judicial System will have any credibility by 
millions of Americans.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Buyer], a member of the committee.
  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].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
to point out to my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary that, 
first of all, my substitute does not include dealers, trafficking. It 
only deals with possession.
  Second, the majority of crack users in America are not African-
Americans. They are white.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remakes.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill and in 
support of the Conyers substitute.
  The distinguished jurist, Judge Learned Hand on one occasion stated, 
``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment, Thou 
shalt not ration justice.''
  Indeed, this Nation is the leading democracy in the world because we 
labor to ensure that our citizens are governed by one standard of 
justice--equal under law, according to the inscription above the U.S. 
Supreme Court Building.
  It troubles me that this bill seeks to disapprove the proposed 
sentencing guidelines regarding crack cocaine.
  The question is why?
  Do the recommendations of the Sentencing Commission create a dual 
standard of justice?
  The answer is ``no.''
  In fact, the recommendation of the Sentencing Commission is to create 
a single standard for all cocaine offenses--whether the offense 
involves powder or crack cocaine.
  That, it seems to me, meets the mandate of equal justice.
  Do the recommendations of the Sentencing Commission call for a change 
in sentencing for cocaine offenses?
  Again, the answer is ``no.''
  The recommendations simply provide for cocaine offenses involving 
crack to be equal to those involving powder cocaine--the penalty for 
both will be the same, and the penalty for powder cocaine remains 
unchanged.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not forget that the 1994 crime bill directed the 
Sentencing Commission to examine the disparity between sentencing for 
crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
  The Commission followed that directive, and made 27 recommendations 
on May 1, 1995, including recommendations to equalize the penalties for 
crack and powder cocaine.
  The Commission did what Congress told them to do.
  Now--because the Commission did not do what some would have preferred 
that they do--we are faced with an effort to undo what they did.
  The Sentencing Commission is composed of judges and lawyers and 
others, expert in the field of sentencing.
  They conducted their business within the administrative authority 
given them by an act of Congress.
  No proponent of this bill has argued that the Commission acted 
without authority.
  They stayed within the banks of the law that created them.
  Why then do some now seek to negate the legitimate actions of the 
Sentencing Commission?
  Why are some willing to accept a dual standard of justice in our law 
enforcement system?
  Why are some willing to allow minority citizens, low income citizens, 
to bear a stricter sentencing burden than nonminorities bear--for the 
same offense?
  Why are some willing to overlook the fact that African-Americans 
account for almost 90 percent of those convicted of Federal crack 
cocaine charges?
  Those are the questions, Mr. Chairman, and they are compelling.
  I hope we will get some honest answers.
  Then, let us reject this ill-advised, constitutionally awkward 
legislation.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by making a couple of 
points. First of all, what we are all about here tonight in this bill 
is to disavow two of the Sentencing Commission recommendations, one of 
them dealing with money laundering, that has hardly been discussed. 
Clearly, we need to veto that. We do not want it to go into effect. It 
would dramatically reduce the penalties for money laundering in this 
country. We may need to revise them a little bit, but not as 
dramatically as they have done.
  Second, this question of revising the issue of disparity, difference, 
if you will, between the quantities of crack and the quantities of 
powder that trigger mandatory minimum sentencing and sentencing 
guidelines; we cannot change the minimum mandatory here tonight. That 
is not what it is about. For 5 grams of crack, the minimum mandatory is 
going to remain equal to 500 grams of powder. We can debate that for a 
long time to come. But that is the case.
  By failing to enact this tonight, we will let the Sentencing 
Commission guidelines go into effect that I think would be far worse 
than what we have today because there would be even greater disparity 
in the crack sentencing proposition. I am sure we will get a chance to 
debate it in a few minutes.
  The decision of the Sentencing Commission was 5-to-4. It was very 
close on this issue for a lot of the reasons we have been debating 
tonight, and I look forward in a few moments to the debate on the 
amendment the gentleman from Michigan is going to offer, because we can 
discuss then how possession indeed in this case is the same as 
trafficking.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, today we vote on legislation which would 
disapprove the U.S. Sentencing Commission's guideline amendments 
regarding the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences.
  When Congress created the Sentencing Commission in 1984, it entrusted 
an independent body with the difficult task of establishing and making 
recommendations regarding guidelines for Federal crimes. During 
deliberations on last year's crime bill, Congress directed the 
Sentencing Commission to study the sentencing disparity in cocaine.
  Under current law, individuals who are convicted of crack cocaine 
offenses are subject to penalties that are 100 times more severe than 
those convicted of powder cocaine offenses. In other words, a defendant 
who sells 5 grams of crack cocaine will receive the same 5-year 

[[Page H 10272]]
mandatory minimum sentence as a defendant who sells 500 grams of 
powdered cocaine. In addition, possession of 5 grams of crack results 
in the imposition of the 5-year penalty, but possession of 5 grams of 
powdered cocaine will only result in a 1-year maximum sentence.
  Earlier this year, the Commission produced a report in which it 
strongly supported the elimination of the current 100 to 1 ratio. 
Despite an indepth study that took into consideration empirical and 
scientific data, this House now seeks to dismiss the Commission's 
recommendations and thereby allow the sentencing disparity to continue. 
Passage of this bill would mark the first time that the Congress has 
rejected the guideline amendments proposed by the Sentencing 
Commission.
  Americans have looked upon the judicial system with increasing 
mistrust partly in light of the controversy surrounding the disparity 
in setencing involving cocaine. The findings of the Commission indicate 
that African-Americans accounted for 88.3 percent of Federal crack 
cocaine trafficking convictions in 1993, Hispanics 7.1 percent and 
whites 4.1 percent. The low cost of crack cocaine makes it the drug of 
choice for poorer Americans, many of whom are African-American. The 
Commission found that ``the high percentage of blacks convicted of 
crack cocaine offenses is a matter of great concern . . . Penalties 
clearly must be neutral on their face and by design.'' The presence of 
such a racial disparity calls into question the integrity of a judicial 
system that premises itself on fairness.
  The harshness of the penalty ratio has been shown to be unfairly 
focused upon low-level drug dealers and addicts rather than cartels, 
smugglers, and large scale traffickers who deal in powder cocaine 
before it is converted into crack for sale at the street level.
  These problems are further aggravated by law enforcement practices 
wherein minority areas are targeted. Earlier this year, a Federal 
appeals court dismissed a case against four African-Americans accused 
of selling crack because the Government refused to provide evidence 
that might determine if the defendants had been unfairly targeted. 
Joining the majority opinion, Justice Stephen Reinhardt stated that the 
statistics compiled by the Federal public defender's office raised ``a 
strong inference of invidious discrimination'' against minorities.
  Conversely, not a single white has been convicted of a crack cocaine 
offense in Federal courts serving Los Angeles and its surrounding 
counties since Congress enacted its mandatory sentences for crack 
dealers in 1986. Rather, these defendants are prosecuted in State 
courts where sentences are far less. In their dissenting opinion, 
Democrats on the Committee on the Judiciary properly expressed concern 
in stating that ``the existence of such a facially flawed sentencing 
scheme undermines the credibility of our entire system of Federal laws 
and might invite discriminatory behavior by Federal law enforcement 
personnel.''
  According to research conducted by the Sentencing Commission, 
mandatory minimum penalties for powder and crack cocaine have not been 
uniformly applied. This is due in large part to lower State penalties 
for crack. Thus the decision to prosecute in Federal rather than State 
court can have a tremendous impact on an individual sentence. As such, 
the choice of forum is a significant factor in determining sentence 
length.
  The problems that have arisen with the current cocaine sentencing 
disparity highlight the basic problem with mandatory minimum sentencing 
laws. These laws were designed as an added crime deterrent and were 
intended to reduce sentencing disparity by eliminating the discretion 
that judges and parole boards exercise. However, mandatory minimum 
sentences prevent judges from making the time fit the crime.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill 
and support the findings of the U.S. Sentencing Commission which 
examined this issue closely and opposed the current penalty scheme.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2259, a 
bill that disapproves of the sentencing guideline amendments. Let me 
state from the beginning that I recognize the challenge we face in 
curbing drug abuse in our Nation. In fact, I have been a longstanding 
advocate for strong congressional action to reduce and prevent the 
scourge of drug abuse and addiction from our Nation's communities. 
Nonetheless, I cannot support this measure before us today because it 
creates two brands of justice, one white and one black.
  H.R. 2259, disapproves of the U.S. Sentencing Commission's proposed 
sentencing guideline amendments regarding crack cocaine and money 
laundering. The 1994 crime bill directed the U.S. Sentencing Commission 
to examine the disparity between sentencing for crack cocaine and 
powder cocaine offenses. On May 1, 1995, the Commission made 27 
recommendations, including recommendations to equalize the penalties 
for crack and powder cocaine. The action proposed in this legislation 
will short-circuit the recommendations of the acknowledged experts in 
this field, the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
  While the most recent FBI uniform crime report states that, since 
1989, the number of crimes per 100,000 inhabitants is down 4 percent, 
the African-American community has increasingly become the target of 
the criminal justice system. A Washington-based advocacy group, known 
as the ``Sentencing Project,'' confirmed this fact when it reported 
that a shocking one-third or 32.2 percent of young black men in the age 
group 20-29 is in prison, jail probation or on parole. In contrast, 
white males of the same age group are incarcerated at a rate that is 
only 6.7 percent.
  As the Nation experiences a slight overall decline in the crime rate, 
5,300 black men of every 100,000 in the United States are in prison or 
jail. This compares to an overall rate of 500 per 100,000 for the 
general population, and is nearly five times the rate which black men 
were imprisoned in the apartheid era of South Africa. America is now 
the biggest incarcerator in the world and spends approximately $6 
billion per year to incarcerate black men. The number of African-
American males under criminal justice control, 827,440 exceeds the 
number enrolled in higher education.

  When we examine why African-Americans are increasingly being targeted 
for punishment by the justice system, one factor stands out as a 
primary contributor--the mandatory minimum sentences associated with 
crack cocaine offenses. The evidence clearly establishes a disparity 
under current law in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder 
cocaine. Those persons convicted of crack possession receive a 
mandatory prison term of 5 years by possessing only one-hundredth of 
the quantity of cocaine as those charged with powder cocaine 
possession.
  The U.S. Sentencing Commission found that blacks accounted for 84.5 
percent of Federal crack convictions in 1993. Because of this and other 
unbalanced drug control laws, the number of incarcerated drug offenders 
has risen by 510 percent from 1983 to 1993. In addition, the number of 
African-American women incarcerated in State prisons for drug offenses 
increased a staggering 828 percent from 1986 to 1991. Clearly, the 
African-American community has been disproportionately represented in 
this dramatic increase that is the direct result of the crack mandatory 
minimums.
  Mr. Chairman, the time has come for the Congress to have the courage 
to do the right thing, end this racist and unfair targeting of African-
Americans for punishment. The time has come for all of us to take this 
small step in favor of justice and equality for all Americans. I urge 
my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support of H.R. 
2259.
  As my colleagues may know, on July 19, I introduced H.R. 2073, 
legislation similar to H.R. 2259 and S. 1254. We need to remain tough 
on crime, and my legislation and the bill being considered today 
represent a commitment against drug abuse and drug traffickers. The 
scourge that crack cocaine brings to communities all across America 
must be stopped, and the proposal by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to 
change Federal sentencing guidelines pertaining to crack cocaine was, 
quite simply, wrong and wholly inappropriate.
  As a former law enforcement officer, I fully understand the 
overwhelming need to prevent the Sentencing Commission's proposal from 
being implemented. The guidelines, if allowed to become law in just 2 
weeks, would mean that some offenses that are now subject to 5-to 10-
year mandatory prison sentences could potentially result in sentences 
involving no required prison term at all. This is the completely wrong 
message to be sending out to traffickers and users of crack cocaine.
  A major part of our effort to fight crime and defeat criminals rests 
with punishing those dealing drugs, the pushers and traffickers who 
have inflicted tremendous harm on literally thousands of individuals, 
tremendous harm on families all across America, and tremendous harm on 
communities and neighborhoods in our own congressional districts.
  There are some who point to the apparent disparity in sentences for 
crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine. I actually believe that 
there should be an adjustment in these respective sentences, but I 
prefer to see an increase in the penalties for powder cocaine, instead 
of lowering the penalties for crack cocaine, as the Sentencing 
Commission has proposed.
  Mr. Chairman, this response to the guidelines proposed by the 
Sentencing Commission is responsible and fair. Most of all, this 
legislation represents our continued commitment to combatting drug 
abuse and stopping those who wish to destroy the lives of thousands of 
our fellow citizens.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Conyers 
substitute. It is ironic 

[[Page H 10273]]
that we are in the House of Representatives to consider a proposal that 
is the opposite of our concept of justice and fair play. The scales of 
justice must be balanced. Yet, this measure seeks to arbitrarily place 
a greater value on possession of crack cocaine over powdered cocaine. 
During this evening's dialog, I have heard many speaker's argue that 
crack cocaine is more devastating to our community than powder cocaine. 
To this I say--a rose by any other name still has thorns.
  The distinguished manager for the Republican majority has argued that 
this measure is color blind. I dare say, it is anything but that. Such 
an assertion is confounding in light of the fact that it is now common 
knowledge that one in three African-American males is in some way 
impacted by the judicial system. This fact alone makes it clear that 
African-Americans will be disproportionately affected. This is anything 
but color blindness.
  What is the motivation behind this measure? Is it to get tough on 
crime by locking them up and throwing away the key by any means 
necessary? Or, is there a conspiracy among the Republican majority to 
incarcerate as many African-American males as possible?
  This bill is nothing more than a narrow minded effort to ostracize 
those who already bear the brunt of the injustices within our judicial 
system.
  We must combat crime. We must make our streets safer for our 
families. However, this must not be done at the expense of individuals 
who some have an embedded fear, if not hate for. If in fact the 
Republican majority wants to establish a color blind society, as it 
professes, it is dishonesty, if not intellectual heresy, to introduce a 
bill such as this. This bill is blatantly biased, it is not based on 
sound legal rationale, and is direct in contradiction with our 
standards of justice.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am outraged that we are not given the 
option to support both fairness in our criminal justice system and a 
strong stance against crime and illegal drugs. The issue here is 
extremely important. There is no excuse for a young man in the ghetto 
to be arrested for crack cocaine possession and get 5 years in prison 
when the more affluent powder cocaine user risks only 1 year in jail. 
The simple fact is that the poor and the black minority are treated 
unfairly under current sentencing guidelines.
  Don't get me wrong. This Congressman thinks that drugs are a scourge 
on America and I strongly believe we must fight cocaine use in any 
form. We should be addressing the fairness issue by raising the 
punishment for powder cocaine, not lowering the sentence for crack 
offenses. I am deeply disturbed that this was not given as an option 
today.
  I come from an almost all white State and I know that the people of 
Vermont want tough law enforcement and tough penalties against drug 
dealers. But they do not believe that a white cocaine user should be 
treated far more leniently than a black cocaine user. And that is what 
the issue is here today. The criminal justice system must be fair and 
unbiased or it is simply not just.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of S. 1254, as passed by the Senate, is adopted, 
and the bill, as amended, is considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of further amendment, and is considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of 
the text of S. 1254 is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DISAPPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS RELATING TO LOWERING OF 
                   CRACK SENTENCES AND SENTENCES FOR MONEY 
                   LAUNDERING AND TRANSACTIONS IN PROPERTY DERIVED 
                   FROM UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY.

       In accordance with section 994(p) of title 28, United 
     States Code, amendments numbered 5 and 18 of the ``Amendments 
     to the Sentencing Guidelines, Policy Statements, and Official 
     Commentary'', submitted by the United States Sentencing 
     Commission to Congress on May 1, 1995, are hereby disapproved 
     and shall not take effect.

     SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF SENTENCING DISPARITY.

       (a) Recommendations.--
       (1) In general.--The United States Sentencing Commission 
     shall submit to Congress recommendations (and an explanation 
     therefor), regarding changes to the statutes and sentencing 
     guidelines governing sentences for unlawful manufacturing, 
     importing, exporting, and trafficking of cocaine, and like 
     offenses, including unlawful possession, possession with 
     intent to commit any of the forgoing offenses, and attempt 
     and conspiracy to commit any of the forgoing offenses. The 
     recommendations shall reflect the following considerations--
       (A) the sentence imposed for trafficking in a quantity of 
     crack cocaine should generally exceed the sentence imposed 
     for trafficking in a like quantity of powder cocaine;
       (B) high-level wholesale cocaine traffickers, organizers, 
     and leaders, of criminal activities should generally receive 
     longer sentences than low-level retail cocaine traffickers 
     and those who played a minor or minimal role in such criminal 
     activity;
       (C) if the Government establishes that a defendant who 
     traffics in powder cocaine has knowledge that such cocaine 
     will be converted into crack cocaine prior to its 
     distribution to individual users, the defendant should be 
     treated at sentencing as though the defendant had trafficked 
     in crack cocaine; and
       (D) an enhanced sentence should generally be imposed on a 
     defendant who, in the course of an offense described in this 
     subsection--
       (i) murders or causes serious bodily injury to an 
     individual;
       (ii) uses a dangerous weapon;
       (iii) uses or possesses a firearm;
       (iv) involves a juvenile or a woman who the defendant knows 
     or should know to be pregnant;
       (v) engages in a continuing criminal enterprise or commits 
     other criminal offense in order to facilitate his drug 
     trafficking activities;
       (vi) knows, or should know, that he is involving an 
     unusually vulnerable person;
       (vii) restrains a victim;
       (viii) traffics in cocaine within 500 feet of a school;
       (ix) obstructs justice;
       (x) has a significant prior criminal record; or
       (xi) is an organizer or leader of drug trafficking 
     activities involving five or more persons.
       (2) Ratio.--The recommendations described in the preceding 
     subsection shall propose revision of the drug quantity ratio 
     of crack cocaine to powder cocaine under the relevant 
     statutes and guidelines in a manner consistent with the 
     ratios set for other drugs and consistent with the objectives 
     set forth in section 3553(a) of title 28 United States Code.
       (b) Study.--No later than May 1, 1996, the Department of 
     Justice shall submit to the Judiciary Committees of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives a report on the charging 
     and plea practices of Federal prosecutors with respect to the 
     offense of money laundering. Such study shall include an 
     account of the steps taken or to be taken by the Justice 
     Department to ensure consistency and appropriateness in the 
     use of the money laundering statute. The Sentencing 
     Commission shall submit to the judiciary Committees comments 
     on the study prepared by the Department of Justice.

  No further amendment is in order except the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute printed in House Report 104-279, which may be offered 
only by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] or his designee, is 
considered read, is debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment and is not 
subject to amendment.
  It is now in order to consider the amendment printed in House Report 
104-279.

                              {time}  1900


     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Conyers: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. DISAPPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS RELATING TO LOWERING OF 
                   CRACK SENTENCES AND SENTENCES FOR MONEY 
                   LAUNDERING AND TRANSACTIONS IN PROPERTY DERIVED 
                   FROM UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY.

       In accordance with section 994(p) of title 28, United 
     States Code, amendments numbered 5 and 18 (except to the 
     extent they amend section 2D2.1) of the ``Amendments to the 
     Sentencing Guidelines, Policy Statements, and Official 
     Commentary'', submitted by the United States Sentencing 
     Commission to Congress on May 1, 1995, are hereby disapproved 
     and shall not take effect.

     SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF SENTENCING DISPARITY.

       (a) Recommendations.--
       (1) In general.--The United States Sentencing Commission 
     shall submit to Congress recommendations (and an explanation 
     therefor), regarding changes to the statutes and sentencing 
     guidelines governing sentences for unlawful manufacturing, 
     importing, exporting, and trafficking of cocaine, and like 
     offenses, including unlawful possession, possession with 
     intent to commit any of the forgoing offenses, and attempt 
     and conspiracy to commit any of the forgoing offenses. The 
     recommendations shall reflect the following considerations--
       (A) the sentence imposed for trafficking in a quantity of 
     crack cocaine should generally exceed the sentence imposed 
     for trafficking in a like quantity of powder cocaine;
       (B) high-level wholesale cocaine traffickers, organizers, 
     and leaders, of criminal activities should generally receive 
     longer sentences than low-level retail cocaine traffickers 
     and those who played a minor or minimal role in such criminal 
     activity;

[[Page H 10274]]

      (C) if the Government establishes that a defendant who 
     traffics in powder cocaine has knowledge that such cocaine 
     will be converted into crack cocaine prior to its 
     distribution to individual users, the defendant should be 
     treated at sentencing as though the defendant had trafficked 
     in crack cocaine; and
      (d) an enhanced sentence should generally be imposed on a 
     defendant who, in the course of an offense described in this 
     subsection--
      (i) murders or causes serious bodily injury to an 
     individual;
      (ii) uses a dangerous weapon;
      (iii) uses or possesses a firearm;
      (iv) involves a juvenile or a woman who the defendant knows 
     or should know to be pregnant;
       (v) engages in a continuing criminal enterprise or commits 
     other criminal offenses in order to facilitate his drug 
     trafficking activities;
       (vi) knows, or should know, that he is involving an 
     unusually vulnerable person;
       (vii) restrains a victim;
       (viii) traffics in cocaine within 500 feet of a school;
       (ix) obstructs justice;
       (x) has a significant prior criminal record; or
       (xi) is an organizer or leader of drug trafficking 
     activities involving five or more persons.
       (2) Ratio.--The recommendations described in the preceding 
     subsection shall propose revision of the drug quantity ratio 
     of crack cocaine to powder cocaine under the relevant 
     statutes and guidelines in a manner consistent with the 
     ratios set for other drugs and consistent with the objectives 
     set forth in section 3553(a) of title 28, United States Code.
       (b) Study.--No later than May 1, 1996, the Department of 
     Justice shall submit to the Judiciary Committees of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives a report on the charging 
     and plea practices of Federal prosecutors with respect to the 
     offense of money laundering. Such study shall include an 
     account of the steps taken or to be taken by the Justice 
     Department to ensure consistency and appropriateness in the 
     use of the money laundering statute. The Sentencing 
     Commission shall submit to the Judiciary Committees comments 
     on the study prepared by the Department of Justice.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed will 
be recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer a very simple substitute to the Senate bill 
that we are dealing with this evening. I offer my amendment as a 
substitute to the language in S. 1254. My bill is exactly the same in 
the language as S. 1254 in every respect, except that it deletes the 
section disapproving the Sentencing Commission's recommendation that 
the penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine be equalized.
  To make it clear, we are now dealing with my substitute amendment. I 
urge that it be carefully considered.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is sincere in what he wants to 
do, and I know that there is considerable concern about the difference 
between the quantities that are involved in the possession offense for 
crack and the quantities involved with respect to powder. That has 
really been the discussion through the general debate and some of the 
rule debate this evening.
  My own judgment personally is the Sentencing Commission ultimately 
should come back both for trafficking and possession with something 
that closes that gap, but does not go to the 1 to 1 ratio, that does 
not completely eliminate it, which is what the gentleman would do with 
regard to the so-called possession offense.
  But one point really needs to be made. When we are dealing with 5 
grams of crack, which is what we are talking about tonight, we are 
dealing with 20 to 50 doses at least of crack. We are not really 
dealing with possession in the simple sense of mere use. We are dealing 
with a dealer.
  When somebody is out on that street and he has 5 grams in his 
possession, he does not have it there for the purposes of consuming it 
or using it. He has it there because he is out there to sell it, to 
make money, to traffic in it. That is the common amount, and a very 
sizeable amount that is used by those who are out there selling it.
  If you want to look at how this all takes place, the Colombian 
cartel, for example, sends the powdered cocaine to New York or Chicago 
or San Francisco or Atlanta or wherever. They probably have somebody 
here, maybe legally or illegally, who is a Columbian, part of the 
Columbian mafia, if you will, and they divide up that powder. And they, 
more likely than not, are the one that converts it to crack in a large 
warehousing operation, not a little operation where we are going to 
take a spoon and put it in the microwave, although you can do that and 
get results.
  The truth is, they make very large quantities of crack, and they get 
their folks out there in New York or Atlanta or Jacksonville or Miami 
or wherever, that distribute or sell this crack in these doses of about 
20 to 50, in that kind of quantity. So 5 grams is a very common amount 
for a major crack distribution ring member to be carrying around.
  Prosecutors do not prove their case on proving a sale. It is very 
difficult to do. Even when you are dealing with the large powder 
Colombian cartel members, in proving huge quantities, it is usually 
proved by circumstantial evidence of proving they have had this huge 
quantity, and inferring from that or having the jury infer from that 
that indeed, there is a trafficking going on here.
  Occasionally they are fortunate enough to be able to prove by some 
technical method that money transferred or occurred. If we take away 
from the law the sentencing distinctions on the possession of 5 grams 
of crack, as the gentleman from Michigan wants to do, we have 
undermined the Federal prosecutors in doing any kind of effort to 
prosecute effectively those who are the dealers for the most part in 
the United States. They may still be able to catch occasionally one of 
the Colombian cartel members or one of his honchos from Colombia 
sitting up in the big cheese of New York, but they are not going to be 
able to deal with street crime effectively at all anymore. I want all 
Members to understand what the gentleman is proposing is a dramatic 
reduction in the sentencing for those who are dealers in crack.
  Now, one other point needs to be made, and that is that because we 
are dealing with what the Sentencing Commission can do, if literally it 
is 5 grams of crack that we are talking about, then in that situation 
the minimum mandatory sentence is not going to be altered by anything 
we do tonight. The Sentencing Commission has no power over that. It is 
not before us tonight. The Congress would have to go in and alter it. 
It is a minimum mandatory sentence, as is the 500-gram minimum 
mandatory sentence for powder. That disparity that so many are talking 
about will remain on the books tonight, no matter what we do.
  What we will do is to have the strange anomaly, if we were to adopt 
the gentleman's amendment, of having somebody dealing in 4.9 grams of 
crack being able to get a very much lower sentence than the minimum 
mandatory sentence for the 5 gram dealer.
  Do not believe there are not going to be a lot of people out there 
trying to weigh cocaine very carefully to be sure they are only 
carrying around 4.8 or 4.9 grams and not 5, because they are going to 
get a huge difference in the sentence they could get in the Federal 
courts for this particular situation.
  In addition to that, you are going to mess up the chain reaction the 
prosecutors need. They need to grab that guy who is the dealer on the 
street. They do not care about the user. If you look at the thousands, 
and there are thousands of those locked up who are dealers on the 
streets in Federal prisons today, we are not talking about hundreds of 
thousands, but several thousand, most of them, 99 percent of them are 
not there for any use. They are there because they are a dealer, and 
they are there because they did not cooperate in helping getting the 
bigger guy who actually provided them with the stuff.
  This is an important leverage tool for our prosecutors, the ability 
to prosecute the 5 grams of crack, the street dealer with this 20 to 50 
doses in his pocket out there, and threaten him, even if we do not 
actually put him in jail, with the fact that he can go there for a long 
period of time.

[[Page H 10275]]

  A few of them decide that they are not going to squeal, and they are 
not going to tell who the other person is upstairs, and they do wind up 
serving their sentences, perhaps longer than maybe some others might 
like to see happen. But we cannot relent now in the war against drugs 
at the street level and expect to be able to be successful in any way 
if we adopt the Conyers amendment. It is not an appropriate amendment 
to adopt tonight.

  I would also make one or two other points while I am up here about 
the racist question. I have heard it debated ad nauseam and I 
understand the sincerity of those making it, but let me suggest to you 
that the fact that there are more blacks in jail, whether it is for 
this reason or a lot of other reasons, and they are there for a lot of 
other reasons, whether there are more blacks on death row, which we 
have debated out here when we debated the death penalty, proportionate 
to their population numbers and ratios to the whites or other races in 
our society, or in the case of the crack cocaine issue, it is not 
racist that they are there. It is not, in my judgment, at all racist.
  If you think about those words, the idea of racism implies prejudice. 
It implies that we in Congress or those in law enforcement are out 
there intentionally attempting to put somebody in jail because of the 
color of their skin or to make them serve a longer sentence. That is 
not so. What we are talking about is the truth of the matter, is that 
for better or worse, many African-Americans, especially these juveniles 
who do not have the jobs that have been discussed out there tonight as 
well, who for a variety of root causes, welfare, and so forth, look to 
the way of crime, particularly dealing in crack, as a way to make 
money. They are naturally going to be the ones that are most often 
caught up in it, but it does not mean the fact that we are equally 
applying the laws, which we are, to whites and blacks and Asians and 
Hispanics and everybody else, that the law is racist or that the end 
result is racist. It is not, It is not.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, let me give the gentleman a fact, and tell 
me whether or not this is racist. In Los Angeles, the U.S. district 
court prosecuted no whites, none, for crack offenses between 1988 and 
1994. This is despite the fact that two-thirds of those who have tried 
crack are white, and over one-half of crack's regular users are white. 
I will give you that fact again. None. Not one white in the U.S. 
district court in Los Angeles was prosecuted for crack offenses between 
1988 and 1994. Check it out.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if I can reclaim my time, I will check it 
out. I would suggest to the gentlewoman, unless there is an 
extraordinarily good reason why, that perhaps the prosecutor you just 
named may himself have been in some way prejudiced or biased. That is 
the implication you have given. But the statistics alone do not prove 
racism, just as they do not prove disparate impact. Statistics do not 
prove it. They suggest we ought to look into it. I would not question 
we should look into it. But by and large, the truth of the matter is, 
if we are applying it equally, the law itself is not racist.
  Perhaps an individual prosecutor might be racist. I believe though 
that the issue tonight does not have bearing on directly, though we are 
concerned about it, with what an individual prosecutor might do, but 
rather what are the guidelines that we are giving them? What are the 
guidelines of the law, what are the guidelines of the Sentencing 
Commission, what are the guidelines of the Department of Justice. We 
can then go back and should go back in our committee work and in our 
jobs as Members of this Congress and as the executive branch in its 
role in the Department of Justice in ferreting out racial bias and 
discrimination and improper processing.
  If it is a U.S. attorney that does something improper and 
discriminatory in nature, he ought to be disciplined. We should take 
advantage of making sure that happens. But the law itself, which is 
what we are dealing with tonight, should be colorblind, and it is 
colorblind in this regard.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, would my colleague, the chairman of the committee, 
remember, we do not have to checkout the statement of the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Waters]. I brought that before the Subcommittee on 
Crime's attention months ago. This is not something we ought to have to 
check out.
  The second thing I would like my friend from Florida to remember is 
that, and he has repeatedly said this during this debate, 5 grams 
possession of cocaine or crack is no presumption that they are selling. 
Sale and trafficking is a completely different crime. So the gentleman 
should remember that there is no way that the gentleman can presume 
that someone that has 5 grams of anything is indeed dealing in sale. 
That turns on the facts and the evidence in the court. If the 
prosecutor finds someone selling, he will prosecute for sale.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, we are going to be working on this subject of 
crime and race for the rest of our career, I would say to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. McCollum], so we do not want to get off into space 
tonight on it. What I want the gentleman to know, and perhaps we will 
have to deal with this more carefully in our committee, is that 
African-Americans by more than one study are more likely to be 
arrested, more likely to be charged with more offenses, more likely to 
be prosecuted, more likely to receive heavier sentences, more likely to 
go to death row. That is because of the racial injustice in the 
criminal justice system.
  Please remember this as we proceed on into other related subjects 
about race and the criminal justice system.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Payne], who serves now as the current chairman of the Congressional 
Black Caucus.
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, I rise 
in strong opposition to this outrageous attempt to thwart the 
recommendations of the Sentencing Commission and I rise in strong 
support of the Conyers amendment. The sentencing guidelines are an 
effort to restore some degree of fairness to our criminal justice 
system by addressing the enormous disparities that exist between the 
penalties for crack cocaine and those for powder cocaine.
  Mr. Chairman, the Sentencing Project, a national nonprofit group, 
recently noted that while African-Americans constitute 13 percent of 
all monthly drug users, they represent 35 percent of arrests for drug 
possession, 55 percent of convictions and 74 percent of prison 
sentences. One of the primary reasons we have experienced a rise in 
minority incarcerations is the imbalance in our national drug policy 
not an increase in crime.
  Is this equal justice under the law--to say that if you can afford 
powdered cocaine you will be given preferential treatment in the 
courts? I don't think any fair-minded American supports this blatant 
inequity in our system.
  Our drug policy has become a tale of two cities, or, more accurately, 
a tale of two classes--rich and poor.
   Mr. Chairman, it was the U.S. Congress which created the Sentencing 
Commission in 1984 to allow criminal justice professionals to establish 
sentencing guidelines for Federal crimes. Now, Congress has decided 
that they don't like the decision that the Commission has made, after 
careful study and analysis, to equalize the penalties for crack and 
powder cocaine. The Commission specifically noted that ``blacks 
comprise the largest percentage of those affected by the penalties 
associated with crack cocaine.''
  As some of my colleagues have pointed out, the Million Man March this 
past Monday highlighted the importance of racial justice as we work to 
rid our communities of drugs and violence and to restore hope to 
Americans who have been living too long with no hope and little faith 
in our system of justice. Restore fairness and equity to our criminal 
justice system--oppose this attempt to disapprove the Sentencing 
Commission recommendations and support the Conyers amendment.

[[Page H 10276]]


                              {time}  1915

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  I just wanted to make a response to the gentleman from Michigan in 
particular, my good friend who is the ranking member on the minority 
side of the full committee. I certainly recognize, as he suggests, that 
we do have to deal, as a committee, and the subcommittee on crime 
particularly, with the potential for racial bias and concerns in law 
enforcement and in our judiciary. And I am willing and ready to do 
that.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the issue tonight is really not over that, it is 
over the law. The cold hard law that is going to be applied to whites 
and blacks and everybody else. Whether or not it is applied equally by 
individuals who are in the system is another separate matter. We are 
talking now about the actual guidelines, the sentence guidelines.
  I, for one, and I think a lot of us who do believe in fairness and 
equity, do not want to reduce the penalties for crack cocaine. We do 
not want to do it. We might consider later on, and hope the Sentencing 
Commission does some leveling of the process of disparity that has been 
discussed by raising perhaps the powder, but the way to deal with it is 
to send this back to the Sentencing Commission tonight, not attach an 
amendment that dramatically lowers these penalties.
  Where there is a problem with bias in the system, let us work to get 
it out of the system. The bias is not in the sentencing, it is not in 
that part of the law. The bias is in, if it is there, in the 
individuals and how they are enforcing the law.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to continue the 
dialog with the chairman of the subcommittee.
  As the gentleman knows, this is a disparity that comes about because 
one community uses one drug and that this drug has been pinpointed by 
law enforcement officers and the arrest rate has gone up 
astronomically.
  As the gentleman also knows, the rate of usage of even crack is 
exceeded in the white community and there is no 95 percent conviction 
rate for that same drug.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, 
Reverend Flake.
  (Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, some of us who stand on this floor tonight 
have been put in a very untenable position by persons who indicate that 
periodically they have an opportunity to go into these communities and 
they make a determination on what is best for the persons in that 
community by the basis of those periodic trips.
  I stand tonight, Mr. Chairman, as a person who lives in such a 
community as they visit, a community where I also happen to pastor a 
church of some 8,300 members. I think I am in a position to do a pretty 
good job of judging that which is imperative for a change in the 
quality of life there.
  Let me make it very clear that the position that some of us are put 
in to night is to give the appearance that we do not want to see drugs 
dealt with harshly. Let us make sure that it is understood that that is 
not the case. What we do want is fairness. We want equality. We want 
justice. The reality is we have seen too many of our young men become 
the fodder for the development of the growing criminal justice 
enterprise in this Nation. Too many young people with promise and 
prospects and possibilities have been cut short largely because our 
laws are not justifiable.
  Over the last several weeks we have come face-to-face with the 
reality that the Commission report was in fact not only projective but 
has become reality, in that we do have two societies with two views on 
almost everything. And undergirding most of those views is the reality 
of race.
  I cannot imagine that we in the U.S. House of Representatives cannot 
see that differential. We react very violently. We react in such ways 
to declare. We cannot imagine how people could possibly react to 
decisions they see in society based on what they perceive to be the 
evidence. It is because of circumstances like those that we face today, 
Mr. Chairman, circumstances where there is a class of people who 
believe that they are being dumped on by the very system that has a 
responsibility to protect them, a system that has a responsibility to 
deal fairly, not on the basis of misperceptions, not on the basis of 
stereotypes, not on the basis of anecdotal evidence that has no real 
support.
  Indeed, Mr. Chairman, in this case, persons were put on a commission. 
They had an obligation to look at all sides of an issue. They looked 
and what they discovered was a disparity. It seems to me that the 
Congress ought to accept that recommendation. They ought to understand 
that what all people in this Nation want, regardless of their color, is 
to make sure that in our laws there is justice.
  They will see no justice in what we do tonight, and we will wonder 
the next time there is a march, whether it is a million men or whether 
it is 400,000 does not matter, why are they marching? Why are they 
demanding so much? What do they want? What they want is justice. What 
they want is a system that is fair.
  Mr. Chairman, if we cannot raise the standards as it relates to 
crack, we cannot raise the standard as it relates to heroin, then we 
ought to at least find a way to make it equal. It ought not to be based 
on race, and it is, whether we say it or not.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding me time.
  I just want to follow up on some of the comments being made tonight 
and continue the reference to these statutes and penalties being race-
based and basing that primarily on statistical data of sheer numbers of 
people in the penitentiary. As most people who have worked in this 
industry and who have been involved in the prosecution and 
investigation of these types of cases understand, the typical drug 
scheme out of Colombia, or wherever, is somewhat an upside-down 
pyramid, where we have the source country sending out drugs. And as 
they go further away from Colombia and enter into the United States, 
and further into the central United States, they are distributed to 
more and more people, again, much like an upside-down pyramid, to the 
point that they begin to reach the streets and reach the communities.
  They are readily available, because they are easily hid. We are 
talking about small rocks here. Because they are very cheap, they are 
very accessible to our young people, our teenagers, people who do not 
have a lot of money to spend, people who will very oftentimes commit 
acts of violence to get the money to purchase these. And primarily 
because these drugs are extremely addictive, I question those people 
that stand up and say that they are the same thing.
  Mr. Chairman, that process of cooking that cocaine makes a tremendous 
difference on that crack. I think the evidence clearly shows that crack 
cocaine, as I have mentioned before, is not only more addictive but it 
causes a more intense addiction, a more intense high, as well as a more 
intense drop off of that high, which creates the addiction. Again, they 
may be the same thing beginning and end, but that process which results 
in the crack cocaine makes a dramatic difference to the users, and I 
cite those statistics of the sheer numbers of people who use those.
  Because of that, Mr. Chairman, we cannot ignore this problem that is 
sweeping our communities. If we do, as has been alluded to by the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] and so many other people, what do we 
tell these people who come up and rise up in the communities, the 
mothers of these children, that we would like to choose to ignore at 
this point; that we are not going to prosecute these cases; that we are 
working under some sort of quota system because so many blacks at that 
level in this upside-down pyramid are in prison?
  That is not the way our system works. In fairness and equality, we 
have to prosecute all those cases. It may be at some point in the 
future this ratio of 100 to 1 is too high and that we will have to 
revisit this. But I think most of us would agree we do not want to 
lessen the penalties for cocaine but rather increase those at the 
appropriate time. 

[[Page H 10277]]

  I, for one, Mr. Chairman, and I think the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum], the committee chairman, has indicated he shares that same 
desire of perhaps bringing those ratios closer together, but let us not 
send the wrong message to our society by lessening penalties for crack 
cocaine.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott], a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment exposes the bill for what it 
is. Ten doses of crack, about a couple hundred dollars' worth, 
possession only, 5 years mandatory minimum. No amount of possession of 
uncooked crack, that is powder, can get an individual a mandatory 
minimum. In fact, it takes almost $50,000 worth of cocaine for 
conviction of distribution to get the 5 years mandatory minimum.
  So we have the situation where we can catch someone distributing 
20,000 dollars' worth of powder, they get probation; and the person 
caught with a couple hundred dollars' worth of possession only, crack 
cocaine, gets a 5-year mandatory minimum.
  Mr. Chairman, 95 percent of those who are charged with crack offenses 
are black or Hispanic, 75 percent of those charged with powder offenses 
are white. This amendment addresses possession only.
  We have heard, through evidence in drug courts, that the best way to 
deal with nonviolent, low level, first offense, possession only drug 
offenders is through treatment. If we send them to jail we can expect a 
recidivism rate of 68 percent, which would cost us, at 5 years, $25,000 
a year, it costs us $125,000. If we give them treatment, an 11-percent 
recidivism, an 80-percent drop, at $1,600 in cost, that is less than 2 
percent of what it took to send them to prison.
  So if we lock up a group, virtually all black and Hispanic, it will 
cost us more and we will end up with more crime. That does not make 
sense.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not have a mandatory jail sentence for any drug 
possession charge other than crack, for which virtually all the 
defendants are black and Hispanic. Not uncooked crack, that is powder, 
not heroin, PCP, LSD. Nothing for possession only. The 5-year mandatory 
minimum for possession of crack costs more, results in more crime, and 
locks up minorities. That is why the Commission voted to change it.
  Mr. Chairman, we have never rejected a Commission recommendation. At 
least let the recommendations as far as possession of crack go forward. 
Vote ``yes'' on the Conyers amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, we have been before this body this evening 
pointing out the disparity, pointing out the inequality, pointing out 
the injustice of the system as it operates now. I am surprised at much 
of the rhetoric and all of these so-called conversations that my 
friends on the other side of the aisle have been having in minority 
communities.

                              {time}  1930

  I am glad to know that my colleagues are going there. I am glad to 
know that they are communicating. But let me tell my colleagues what 
the mothers in my community say where I live.
  They say: Ms. Waters, why do they not get the big drug dealers? What 
is this business under Bush that stopped resources going to 
interdiction? Why is it large amounts of drugs keep flowing into inner 
cities? Where do they come from and why do not they get the real 
criminals, Ms. Waters, why is it 19-year-olds, who are just stupid? 
They are not drug dealers; 19-year-olds who wander out into the 
community and get a few rock crack cocaine. Why is it they end up in 
the Federal system? Why is it they end up with these 5-year minimum 
mandatory, up to 10 years mandatory sentences? Why can you not get the 
big guys?
  They say: We believe there is a conspiracy. This is what mothers in 
these communities say. We believe there is a conspiracy against our 
children and against our communities. They do not understand it when 
policymakers get up and say, Oh, it is not interdiction that we should 
be concerned about. As long as there is a desire for drugs, they are 
going to continue to flow and what we have got to do is just 
concentrate on telling them, Just say no.
  They say: Ms. Waters, we do not understand that and we do not know 
why a first-time offender, who happens to be black or Latino, ends up 
with a 5-year sentence. And why is the Federal Government targeting our 
communities? They are targeting our communities and they are not 
targeting white communities who are the major drug abusers. They are 
targeting our communities from the Federal level. Thus, our kids go 
into the Federal system and the whites, who are drug abusers and 
traffickers, go into the State systems. They get off with their fancy 
lawyers with probation, with 1 year, with no time, and our kids are 
locked up.
  Mr. Chairman, for those of my colleagues who say, Well, we know it is 
unfair, but just keep letting it go on for a while and we will take a 
look at it, are they out of their minds? How can they stand on the 
floor of Congress pretending to support a Constitution and a democracy 
and say, ``We know it is not fair, but just let it continue and we may 
take another look at it''?
  When I give them the facts and they know them to be true, and I will 
say it again. In Los Angeles, the U.S. District Court prosecuted no 
whites, none, for crack offenses between 1988 and 1994. And my 
colleagues tell me that they think it may be applied unequally? This is 
despite the fact that two-thirds of those who have tried crack are 
white and over one-half of crack regular users are white. This is a 
fairness issue and it is a race issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not care how they try and paint it. I do not care 
what they say. This is patently unfair. It is blatant and my colleagues 
ought to be ashamed of themselves. It is racist, because their little 
white sons are not getting caught up in the system. They are not 
targeted. Our children are.
  Mr. Chairman, they are going into the Federal system with mandatory 
sentences and it is a race issue. It is a racist policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr], a member of the committee.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, do my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle know what they all are applauding? They are applauding going 
lenient on people who traffic in death in their communities. In their 
communities in Los Angeles and in Georgia and all across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, if it is so improper, it is so outrageous for this 
Congress to be debating whether to disapprove proposals, and that is 
all the Sentencing Commission's amendments are, is proposals, if it is 
so outrageous as these folk on the other side of the aisle would have 
the country believe, to be debating whether or not we, as 
representatives of the people, believe that these guidelines are in 
fact appropriate or not appropriate, then I am tempted, I will not ask, 
but I am tempted to ask many on the other side of the aisle who were 
here a decade ago when the Sentencing Reform Act was passed that gave 
rise to the mechanism that brings us here this evening, why they in 
fact voted for that. Why the Congress a decade ago voted for that, when 
in fact the law itself provides for this review mechanism itself.
  Mr. Chairman, the law passed by previous Congresses, in which they 
were in a majority, passed a Sentencing Reform Act that set up the 
Sentencing Commission and set up the mechanism that says in each and 
every instance when these amendments are proposed by the Sentencing 
Commission, that they shall in fact be reviewed or either adopted or 
rejected by the Congress of the United States.
  That is, in fact, Mr. Chairman, very appropriate, lawful, and clearly 
contemplated by them when this law was passed. The mechanism that 
brings us here this evening. And it is extremely disingenuous for those 
very people to now say, we should not be passing judgment on the 
Sentencing Commission. After all, they were set up by statute. The same 
statute said explicitly that we should pass judgment on these.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, the mechanisms and the penalties we are 
debating here tonight reflect reality. Not 

[[Page H 10278]]
what is going on on the other side of the aisle, but reality in the 
real world.
  In the real world, Mr. Chairman, crack cocaine kills people. It kills 
people quicker than powdered cocaine. It creates a more intense, more 
serious, and much more rapid high in much less quantities than powdered 
cocaine. It is reflective of those proven scientific facts, Mr. 
Chairman, that have led prosecutors utilizing these statutes, adopted 
previously by the Sentencing Commission, to say to drug dealers, drug 
traffickers, those who possess more than 5 grams of crack cocaine, 
which is a significant quantity of crack cocaine. It might not be a 
significant quantity of marijuana or powdered cocaine to the same 
extent, but it is a significant quantity. It is, in fact, these 
quantities that deal the death in the communities by people that they 
wish to protect here this evening.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman it provides law enforcement an important tool. 
Law enforcement goes where the crack cocaine is. They do not make it 
up. They go where the crack cocaine is being distributed and is being 
trafficked. These sentencing guidelines with the mandatory minimums, 
Mr. Chairman, give them essential tools, very essential tools to root 
out these dealers and runners who operate in broad daylight. It gives 
our law enforcement officials, Mr. Chairman, in many instances the only 
vehicle that will take them from those daylight sales of those 
quantities. They may appear small, but they are numerous, they are 
frequent and they are dangerous, to get them inside to the 
distributors, the top level distributors, which, in fact, Mr. Chairman, 
we as Federal prosecutors, deal with. We do prosecute top-level drug 
traffickers through Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces and 
other task forces across the country.

  So, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to stand here and listen to the 
demagoguery on the other side saying that we do not prosecute these 
cases. We do prosecute them. They are being prosecuted and let us not 
let up now.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Hastings]
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr] to be responsive to a question that I would like to 
put to him, if he would.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman from Georgia say that this gives 
law enforcement a tool for the purpose of being able to get inside the 
larger portions of the operation. I gather that to be the essence of 
what you said. You were a prosecutor and I was a judge. Name me one 
crack case that led to a Colombian drug dealer being put in jail. Name 
one.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. How about Operation Polar Cap, Judge?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Operation Polar Cap did not start with a 
crack cocaine operation whatsoever.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. It dealt in crack cocaine.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. You said that street dealers lead to that 
kind of tool. You know doggone well that is not true.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. I am not gong to be lectured here by you. We are 
dealing with the real world, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. What real world are you talking about?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. The real world that you are not operating in any 
longer, Judge.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. When you stand there and give forth with 
pontification as if you were God, we live these circumstances every day 
of our lives. You have not lived there and don't you dare come forward 
in that manner.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The gentleman from Florida 
did control the time. The committee will follow proper procedural order 
here.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to be measured in my 
response, because this is an issue that is of utmost importance because 
it deals with fairness. And some of our perceptions of fairness are 
different than other folks' perception of fairness.
  But I just want to appeal to my colleagues, and anybody who is 
listening, to understand what we are talking about. Five grams. That is 
what I have got in my hand here. That will get you 5 years in prison. 
Take this and multiply it times 100 of powder cocaine and you still 
will not get 5 years in prison. This is 5 grams.
  Now, if anybody can say to me that that is fair, whether you live on 
the white side of town or the black side of town, on this side of the 
tracks or that side of the tracks, if the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Barr] can stand up with a straight face and say that that is fair, if 
he can sleep with himself at night, that is fine. I do not have a 
problem with that.
  But my colleagues ought to know that my constituents do not think 
that that is fair. It is not about being soft on crime. It is not about 
condoning drugs. It is not about wanting drugs in our communities. It 
is about being able to look our children in the face and say: There is 
fairness in our system of justice. There is fairness in our laws.
  That is what this debate is about. My colleagues can say that it is 
about let us study it again until next year. They can say it is about 
trying to protect us from ourselves in our communities, and we do not 
know what is good for our own communities. They can stand up and 
lecture us about what is good in our communities.
  They can say that it ain't about race. They can say that we ought to 
make the judgment today, based on what we thought was the case 10 years 
ago when this law was passed. But they ought not be able to go home 
tonight and look at themselves in the mirror and say that that is fair, 
because they know it ain't.
  The American people know that it is not. And the people who gathered 
out here on this Mall several days ago know that it is not fair. My 
colleagues are asking them to have respect for a system of justice that 
they know, and we know, and they know is not fair.
  When they do not have respect for that system of justice, we cannot 
be responsible for them. My colleagues want us to be responsible, and 
we try to be responsible. But in order to be responsible, my friends, 
we must have equity and fairness in the system.
  So, I do not want to belabor this. My friends can pass the buck. They 
can say we will deal with it next year. But the reason we set up the 
Sentencing Commission and gave them this authority was to come back 
with tough decisions and recommendations just like this. And when we 
draw it back into the political process and politicize these issues of 
fairness, that we tried to take the politics out of, so that we can go 
back and say I was tough on crime, I was tough on drugs, my colleagues 
have got to understand that there is an issue of fairness that 
everybody knows exists. And if they are not fair, it is going to come 
back to bite them and they can count on it.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have here from the sentencing project, which did a study called 
``Young Black Americans and the Criminal Justice System Five Years 
Later.'' They end their summary of that report with a chart showing the 
percentages of African-Americans in the population among the monthly 
drug users, what percentage they constitute of drug arrests, of drug 
convictions and prison sentences. Here I think, I say to my colleagues, 
is where we can get an idea about the unfairness of the system without 
any doubt whatsoever.
  The first chart, the first bar is of the U.S. population of African-
Americans by percentage, 12 percent. The next bar is monthly drug users 
who are African-Americans, 13 percent. The third bar is drug arrests, 
African-Americans arrested for drug use, 35 percent of all those 
arrested. But 13 percent are drug users, 35 percent arrested.
  The next bar is drug convictions, 55 percent. And the last bar is 
prison sentences, 74 percent.
  So from 12 percent of the population, to 13 percent of the monthly 
drug users, to 35 percent of the drug arrests, to 55 percent of the 
drug convictions, to 74 percent of the prison sentences, it seems to me 
a good time this evening, Mr. Chairman, for the Subcommittee on Crime 
of the House Committee on the Judiciary, that we begin to plan for an 
investigation into the relationships between race and the criminal 
justice system.

  Now, we have done that in a couple of important respects this year. I 
would like all of our colleagues to know 

[[Page H 10279]]
about what the gentleman has done in that regard, because we are having 
hearings on the militia in America very soon, next month. That was a 
result of the gentleman's cooperation and the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hyde], the chairman, that we would look into these militia, also 
these other organizations, the skinheads, the Aryan Nations and other 
sorts of groups.
  I have been trying to get that investigation and hearing for many 
years. We now have another request in to the chairman, not unrelated to 
this subject, about investigating police activity in America now that 
we have found that, in Philadelphia, police have been planting drugs, 
planting evidence to the extent that they have spoiled hundreds of 
cases pending and that have occurred in the criminal justice system in 
that city.
  We know about the Fuhrman tapes, 12 hours of tapes that recount an 
incredible amount of intentional lawbreaking not only on the part of 
former Detective Fuhrman but that was endemic throughout the police 
department in which he served for many years.
  We have complaints coming from as close in as Maryland, as far as New 
York. New Orleans has been a problem that the Department of Justice has 
been investigating with a long list of others.
  So what we are talking about, and I think we are having an 
intelligent discussion on it, is race and crime and the criminal 
justice system. Tonight we focus 48 hours after a million people have 
visited the Capital. We are now focusing on one item of this huge, 
complex, difficult-in-America subject to discuss.
  I commend the gentleman for the way he has been forthcoming across 
the months, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. I know that the 
gentleman indeed has some reservation about this disparity. The 
gentleman does not support the sentencing commission, but I do. Most of 
the Members, I think, in this Congress, after having listened to this 
debate tonight, will support the substitute that I make to the Senate 
bill merely to bring into focus one of two recommendations that the 
gentleman has sought to have rejected by the sentencing commission.
  Please, let us give it a shot. It does not change the statutory, 
mandatory offenses, as the gentleman well knows, but it is the 
beginning step. It is the beginning step toward undoing this mischief 
that creates 95 percent of the crack cocaine prosecutions being brought 
to African-American and Hispanic citizens.
  Please join us in this effort. It will not break the bank. It will 
not change the problems in the criminal justice law. It will not end 
racism in America. But it will be one small but all-important step 
toward us making this a better place to live. It will restore some 
confidence that is badly needed in the system.
  I urge the gentleman to give it his utmost consideration. I hope that 
all of the Members of this House that have heard this debate will come 
in and vote freely and fairly about whether or not this disparity 
between powder and crack should be eliminated this night in this place 
on this vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would observe that the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. McCollum], has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to follow such 
speakers as my distinguished colleagues from the other side of the 
aisle, my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary, the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott], and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], 
who always give serious, measured, well-reasoned debate to any issue 
that they deal with and to which, while I may disagree with them many 
of the times, I always try very hard to listen and understand and 
follow their logic, which is always there. But I think we just have 
oftentimes philosophical differences, recognizing the same problem out 
there but just having different ways to get to the solving of those 
problems.
  My colleague from North Carolina held up five packets of sugar as an 
example of how little amount we are talking about here. But if we were 
not talking about sugar but rather five packages of rock cocaine and 
how that would translate in the real world, how much havoc would that 
wreak, how many lives that would destroy, how much hope that would 
destroy, I think we would all be shocked at how much addiction that 
small amount, that small quantity can cause. I think this Congress 
recognized that 10 years ago and has consistently recognized that over 
the last 10 years, up to this point.
  The laws mentioned that no prosecution of any particular race, color 
or creed, these laws apply to all. They are equal laws for all people. 
It may be, if I am hearing from the other side, they are being applied 
maybe not uniformly. It may be we need more investigators and officers 
to go out there and ferret out all of the people that are using crack 
cocaine. But I can tell Members, in the inner city, for all those 
reasons I have mentioned in the past, how cheap it is, how easy it is 
hidden, how addictive it is, what a high it can cause. The 
concentration consistently seems to be in minority areas in the city.
  I know from personal experience that is where the law enforcement 
officers tend to go, where the crime, where the majority of the crime 
is. They go out to the highways, interstates to catch the speeders. 
There are people speeding elsewhere, but most speed there, so they are 
going to be out there where most of these crimes are committed.
  Yes, there are substantially higher drug dealers caught. We seem to 
focus on the crack cocaine, the street dealers, but they are used to 
build bigger cases, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] mentioned. 
While it may not cause the downfall of the Colombian kingpin, I can 
assure Members that these people have been used to make bigger and 
bigger cases, as we go up that or back up the other side of that 
inverted pyramid and cause other cases to be made over the years.
  The people are being prosecuted for powder cocaine as well as crack 
cocaine. We are having some success there, but we have got a long way 
to go. Again I urge my colleagues not to water down these penalties, 
not to send the wrong message, not only to our young people but to 
those drug dealers out there that we are lessening that deterrent for 
drug dealing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has the right 
to close, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  One reminder about the substitute that is before us, it is dealing 
with crack possession only, not trafficking, not people working in the 
underworld. Small amounts of crack, 5 grams, about one-sixth of an 
ounce is all that is involved.
  We implore Members to consider this substitute favorably, which 
comports with the recommendations of the Sentencing Commission, which 
we, in fact, created a number of years back. It is a small but very, 
very important step forward. We hope that with this debate we have 
illuminated the minds of many of our colleagues who may have been 
wondering just what this was really all about.
  Support my substitute amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to tell the gentleman from 
Michigan, as he well knows, that I respect him and his suggestion with 
regard to our working together and continuing to work together on 
trying to resolve matters that involve the problems of the criminal 
justice system, including those problems where there may be bias or 
discrimination, those continued relationships will go on. And we will 
have hearings that indeed will examine those types of problems, 
particularly when they involve Federal law enforcement officers and 
which are under our jurisdiction.
  With respect to those matters that I think he alluded to a few 
moments ago, involving some of the State officers, it may well be that 
is more appropriate 

[[Page H 10280]]
in another subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, but I am willing to work with him on 
all levels about all of that.
  Also he probably is well aware that yesterday I joined some of his 
colleagues on that side of the aisle and some of mine on this side in 
both races in an effort to encourage the President to form a new Kerner 
Commission to examine the problems of racial tensions in this country. 
I personally think it is time we do that again. I think some of the 
misunderstandings would be helped by a dialog that that commission 
would represent.
  But I think tonight the discourse we have had reflects some divisions 
of opinion over what is indeed the nature of the subject of criminal 
justice and sentencing and what is indeed the law and what is impartial 
and what is cold about it and what should be equal to everybody and 
what may indeed be perceived as prejudicial or biased or in some way, 
as someone put it awhile ago, I think the gentleman from North 
Carolina, unfair.
  It is my considered judgment, in all honesty, that the sentencing 
guidelines that we are wanting to retain and would otherwise be 
disturbed by the Sentencing Commission if we do not reject the 
guidelines or if we were to adopt the gentleman's amendment, I believe 
those underlying guidelines are fundamentally fair. There may be an 
appropriate time in the future to raise the punishment for powder 
cocaine to a higher level. But I believe there is nothing about it that 
is unfair or racially motivated or biased in any way to say, as I do 
and many of my colleagues, that we want to keep the punishment for 
crack cocaine and dealing in crack cocaine at the level it is now.

                              {time}  2000

  Send that message. Have a mandatory sentence for 5 grams of crack 
cocaine. That message needs to be out there on the street, and we need 
to give law enforcement at the Federal level every tool it can have to 
get crack and cocaine off the streets. I do not want to lower it, and 
tonight my colleague's amendment, if it were adopted, make no mistake 
about it, would lower the amount of the punishment for the trafficking 
in 5 grams or so of crack cocaine, which is 20 to 50 doses, which is 
the street dealer, which is the runner who is out there who, as a 
couple of folks on my side have pointed out earlier this evening, is 
the person we see every day as a police officer on the street, the one 
we can go after, and the one we can get, and the one who leads on, 
hopefully, in cases to larger dealers. It is that person who is selling 
that crack not just in the ghetto, but in the schools of our country, 
in the schools that are inhabited by all races of all colors and all 
nationalities, exposing our youth to the death that crack and cocaine 
do imply and do occur at times, and while I can be sympathetic to the 
concerns that there are more blacks in jail today because of dealing at 
this level in crack cocaine, I am sympathetic because of the fact that 
I know that they come from problem families because their youths 
oftentimes are starting into this effort at the ages of 10, 12, 14, not 
19 as somebody said earlier, but very young ages to deal maybe because 
of poverty, maybe because they got involved in a gang, maybe because 
they do not have the right education. Who knows the reason? But they 
are there because they dealt in the cocaine at the time. They are not 
there because of the problems that created the environment out of which 
they came, and, while I would like to deal with that environment, and I 
will be glad to work with those on the other side of the aisle as well, 
as those on my side, to deal with it, the place and the time is not 
tonight. It is not in dealing with the question of sentencing 
guidelines.
  What we are here about tonight is simple. We are here tonight to say 
that 25 of the 27 recommended amendments of the Sentencing Commission 
be allowed to go into effect, but we are here tonight to reject two of 
them, two of them to lower the punishments dramatically for money 
laundering and crack cocaine, and I, for one, believe that those are 
simple, straightforward messages. We do not have the opportunity 
tonight to eliminate, or reduce, or mitigate minimum mandatory 
sentences for crack cocaine or anything else. We are simply here to 
reject or accept the question with regard to the recommendations of the 
Sentencing Commission, and with respect to the crack cocaine issue and 
the gentleman's specific concerns as are addressed in the Conyers 
amendment, we are dealing with a recommendation that came to us split 
5-to-4. The minority, four, fought strongly against, and we are here 
tonight dealing with a matter where we have heard from law enforcement 
of all levels, of all races, of all colors, telling us that they 
believe there should be a distinction between powder and crack, that 
crack is more dangerous. We have heard the experts. They told my 
subcommittee that it is more addictive, it does lead to more problems, 
it is the major problem, and we do need to keep differences, and we are 
here tonight to send this back to the Sentencing Commission and say, 
``Look, there may be some mitigation you want to do. Go look at it 
again, but don't bring us back a 1-to-1 ratio between crack and powder. 
We want to see something different.''

  The gentleman from Michigan's amendment would go to an absolute 1-to-
1 ratio between powder and crack tonight. It would reduce substantially 
the amount of punishment for crack dealers. It does not increase the 
powder. it is not permitted tonight under the rules. It is, make no 
mistake about it, if adopted, a reduction, a dramatic reduction, in the 
punishment for crack cocaine dealing in this country as we know it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman about the Conyers 
amendment itself; it just deals with possession. It does not do 
anything dealing with distribution, dealing. It discourages all of 
that.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it deals with 
possession of 5 grams or so of crack, and it is that possession--not 
use, not consumption--that we are concerned about. It is that 
possession which is in fact dealing. It is trafficking.
  If I can retain my time, I say to the gentleman, you do not possess 5 
grams of crack, which is 20 to 50 doses, for your personal consumption. 
That is the normal routine street-dealer amount that it's cut up in and 
divided and sold in. This is a dealer, and it is the way prosecutors 
prove their case. They don't have the ability to prove the actual cash 
transactions in most instances. That is true of the bigger 
transactions, as well as the smaller transactions, so we are dealing 
now with the possession question, but a possession question concerning 
trafficking, not simple use.
  So, let us make no mistake about it. If we take this tool away from 
our Federal prosecutors, we are not going to be allowing them to do 
their job, we are not going to get crack dealing off the streets, and 
we are not going to get the major prosecutions that we want to have.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Subcommittee Chairman on Crime, ask any prosecutor. 
Five grams of possession is possession. Trafficking--sale--is a 
different crime, and, if there is evidence for that, that is what the 
charge will be. Please do not muddy the waters as we conclude this 
debate.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, I would suggest that the muddied 
waters are there because the reality of prosecution is that in this 
area of the law in dealing with crack we are talking about 
distributors, we are talking about possession of large quantities, 
dealing quantities. That in and of itself is proof of dealership, and 
that is the way cases are made. We are tonight talking about something 
very significant and very important that would, if adopted--the Conyers 
amendment--destroy the underlying prosecutions of crack dealers on the 
streets of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers].

[[Page H 10281]]

  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 98, 
noes 316, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 723]

                                AYES--98

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Baker (CA)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Engel
     Ensign
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stokes
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--316

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bateman
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Chapman
     Fields (LA)
     Furse
     Harman
     Rangel
     Spence
     Stark
     Studds
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wilson

                              {time}  2025

  Ms. ESHOO, Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin, and Mr. OBERSTAR changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CONDIT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute is rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. No further amendments are in order.
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Walker) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2259) to 
disapprove certain sentencing guideline amendments, pursuant to House 
Resolution 237 he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment 
adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


        motion to recommit offered by mr. watt of north carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Watt of North Carolina moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     2259 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       In section 2(a)(1), strike ``The United States'' where it 
     appears immediately after ``In General.--'' and insert ``Not 
     later than March 1, 1996, the United States''.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious from the 
last vote that the Members of this body wish to have this matter 
studied further and have a recommendation made back by the Sentencing 
Commission. But there is an oversight in this bill and the motion to 
recommit simply would correct that oversight. That oversight is to 
specify a date by which the Sentencing Commission would report back to 
the Congress. The motion to recommit would simply set March 1, 1996, as 
that date.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] is a co-offeror of this 
motion to recommit and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, we have never before rejected a 
recommendation of the Sentencing Commission although we have had 500 or 
so opportunities. We are going to send this back to the Commission to 
study. They have already studied it. They said the disparity between 
crack cocaine and powdered cocaine sentencing is not justified and that 
there are severe racial implications. The purpose of the Commission is 
to take the politics out of sentencing.
  This bill makes no sense because it gives a person convicted of 
possession of only a couple of hundred dollars' worth of crack cocaine, 
95 percent of that group are black or Hispanic, they give them a 
tougher sentence than those who are caught distributing tens of 
thousands of dollars' worth of powdered cocaine, 75 percent happen to 
be white. The Commission eliminated this disparity after due 
deliberation and if 

[[Page H 10282]]
we are going to tell them to reconsider, we ought to at least give them 
a date certain by which they ought to report. I stand in support of the 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Scott].
  Mr. Speaker, this is really not a controversial motion to recommit. 
All it does is specify the date by which the Sentencing Commission is 
to report back to this Congress.

  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the 
subcommittee, conceded during the general debate on this bill that he 
thought there was a date specified in the bill by which we would expect 
the Sentencing Commission to report back. In fact, there is no date 
specified in this bill as to when the Sentencing Commission will report 
back. The Sentencing Commission has already studied this issue at some 
length. Everybody knows that there is a major unfairness and disparity 
in the sentencing, and we need to correct that disparity as quickly as 
we can possibly correct it if there is going to be any faith in our 
justice system.
  I would ask my colleagues to support the motion to recommit for that 
purpose.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  I recognize the gentleman's sincerity in wanting to put a technical 
date in here for reporting time for the Sentencing Commission, but I do 
not believe that is necessary, and I think it could be 
counterproductive. I will tell why.
  First of all, the Sentencing Commission will regularly, in due 
course, report May 1 of next year; and I believe that it is very 
inherent and implicit if not explicit in what we are sending out today 
that we want them to report back on that date, when they routinely do 
anyway, with some new suggestions in the two areas that we are 
disapproving, which are the reductions of the amount of time in money 
laundering and the amount of time in crack cocaine.
  We are saying today to them by rejecting their two recommendations 
that what they have done is simply too severe. They have dramatic 
reductions in the punishments both in money laundering across the board 
and in crack cocaine trafficking and dealing.
  Second, and I think this is really the most important part of this, 
the gentleman has come back with not the May 1 date but a March 1 date; 
and a date at all like this being put into the bill by this motion to 
recommit would be different from what the other body has done. They 
have already passed exactly what we have done, and we have a deadline 
of November 1, just 12 days from now, to reject the Sentencing 
Commission's recommendations or they go into effective law.
  We do not have a lot of time for the other body to mess around or to 
have a conference, and I do not think that the concern over the 
reporting date merits the problematic issue that would result in our 
having the potential for this whole thing to go down because the other 
body did not timely act or we did not get together.
  The Sentencing Commission will report in due course May 1 of next 
year. We directed them by explicit language in this bill that they are 
to come back to us on the issues of the crack cocaine and the issue of 
the money laundering.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule 
XV, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes 
the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if 
ordered, will be taken on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 149, 
noes 266, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 724]

                               AYES--149

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--266

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bateman
     Berman
     Boucher
     Chapman
     Fields (LA)
     Furse

[[Page H 10283]]

     Harman
     Rangel
     Royce
     Smith (MI)
     Spence
     Stark
     Studds
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Wilson

                              {time}  2053

  Mr. HORN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I demanded a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 332, 
noes 83, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No 725]

                               AYES--332

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--83

     Abercrombie
     Baker (CA)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Engel
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Martinez
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Packard
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pombo
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bateman
     Berman
     Boucher
     Chapman
     Fields (LA)
     Furse
     Harman
     McKinney
     Rangel
     Royce
     Spence
     Stark
     Studds
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Wilson

                              {time}  2104

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Ms. Harman for, with Mr. Berman against.

  Mrs. THURMAN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of House 
Resolution 237, I call up from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 
1254) 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, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The text of S. 1254 is as follows:

                                S. 1254

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DISAPPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS RELATING TO LOWERING OF 
                   CRACK SENTENCES AND SENTENCES FOR MONEY 
                   LAUNDERING AND TRANSACTIONS IN PROPERTY DERIVED 
                   FROM UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY.

       In accordance with section 994(p) of title 28, United 
     States Code, amendments numbered 5 and 18 of the ``Amendments 
     to the Sentencing Guidelines, Policy Statements, and Official 
     Commentary'', submitted by the United States Sentencing 
     Commission to Congress on May 1, 1995, are hereby disapproved 
     and shall not take effect.

     SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF SENTENCING DISPARITY.

       (a) Recommendations.--
       (1) In general.--The United States Sentencing Commission 
     shall submit to Congress recommendations (and an explanation 
     therefor), regarding changes to the statutes and sentencing 
     guidelines governing sentences for unlawful manufacturing, 
     importing, exporting, and trafficking of cocaine, and like 
     offenses, including unlawful possession, possession with 
     intent to commit any of the forgoing offenses, and attempt 
     and conspiracy to commit any of the forgoing offenses. The 
     recommendations shall reflect the following considerations--
       (A) the sentence imposed for trafficking in a quantity of 
     crack cocaine should generally exceed the sentence imposed 
     for trafficking in a like quantity of powder cocaine.
       (B) high-level wholesale cocaine traffickers, organizers, 
     and leaders, of criminal activities should generally receive 
     longer sentences than low-level retail cocaine traffickers 
     and those who played a minor or minimal role in such criminal 
     activity;
       (C) if the Government establishes that a defendant who 
     traffics in powder cocaine has knowledge that such cocaine 
     will be converted into crack cocaine prior to its 
     distribution to individual users, the defendant should be 
     treated at sentencing as though the defendant had trafficked 
     in crack cocaine; and
       (D) an enhanced sentence should generally be imposed on a 
     defendant who, in the course of an offense described in this 
     subsection--
       (i) murders or causes serious bodily injury to an 
     individual;
       (ii) uses a dangerous weapon;
       (iii) uses or possesses a firearm;
       (iv) involves a juvenile or a woman who the defendant knows 
     or should know to be pregnant;
       (v) engages in a continuing criminal enterprise or commits 
     other criminal offenses in order to facilitate his drug 
     trafficking activities;
       (vi) knows, or should know, that he is involving an 
     unusually vulnerable person;
       (vii) restrains a victim;
       (viii) traffics in cocaine within 500 feet of a school;

[[Page H 10284]]

       (ix) obstructs justice;
       (x) has a significant prior criminal record; or
       (xi) is an organizer or leader of drug trafficking 
     activities involving five or more persons.
       (2) Ratio.--The recommendations described in the preceding 
     subsection shall propose revision of the drug quantity ratio 
     of crack cocaine to powder cocaine under the relevant 
     statutes and guidelines in a manner consistent with the 
     ratios set for other drugs and consistent with the objectives 
     set forth in section 3553(a) of title 28 United States Code.
       (b) Study.--No later than May 1, 1996, the Department of 
     Justice shall submit to the Judiciary Committees of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives a report on the charging 
     and plea practices of Federal prosecutors with respect to the 
     offense of money laundering. Such study shall include an 
     account of the steps taken or to be taken by the Justice 
     Department to ensure consistency and appropriateness in the 
     use of the money laundering statute. The Sentencing 
     Commission shall submit to the Judiciary Committees comments 
     on the study prepared by the Department of Justice.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This bill is the companion Senate bill that is referred to in the 
rule of the bill we just adopted. I ask for its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the Senate bill.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.
  A similar House bill (H.R. 2259) was laid on the table.

                          ____________________