[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 24, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1312-E1313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


           THE CRACK COCAINE EQUITABLE SENTENCING ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 24, 1997

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Crack Cocaine 
Equitable Sentencing Act of 1997. The bill, if enacted, would remove 
the arbitrary and unfair distinction between powder and crack cocaine 
sentencing. As predicted, earlier this month, the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission again concluded that Federal drug laws that treat crack 
cocaine defendants 100 times more severely than powder cocaine 
defendants cannot be justified. I am proud to be joined in sponsorship 
of this important bill by a majority of the Congressional Black Caucus.
  In 1995, the U.S. Sentencing Commission released a study of Federal 
sentencing policy as it relates to possession and distribution of all 
forms of cocaine. Specifically directed by the Omnibus Violent Crime 
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Sentencing Commission 
reported on the current structure of differing penalties for powder 
cocaine and crack cocaine offenses and to provide recommendations for 
modification of these differences. Again, following a congressional 
mandated study, the Sentencing Commission has restated their stance 
against the current 100 to 1 ratio. This time, the Commission voted 
unanimously to lower the sentencing disparity and asked Congress and 
President Clinton to address the issue within 60 days. Your support of 
the Crack Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act of 1997 as an original 
cosponsor will facilitate timely consideration of the Commission's 
request.
  Included in the mandatory minimum penalties enacted by Congress in 
1986 and 1988 was an arbitrary distinction between crack and powder 
cocaine that singled out crack cocaine for much harsher treatment. The 
laws had the effect of creating a 100 to 1 quantity ratio for 
triggering equal treatment for the two pharmacologically identical 
drugs. For example, under current law, if a person, tried in Federal 
court, is found in possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine, he would be 
subject to a mandatory 5-year penalty. If that same person is found 
with 5, 50, or 400 grams of powder cocaine, he would face a maximum 
penalty of 1 year in prison. It would take 500 grams of powder cocaine 
to bring the same punishment for possessing 5 grams of crack cocaine.
  One of the effects of this legislation is to punish small-scale crack 
cocaine users and dealers more severely than we punish their wholesale 
suppliers. Continuing this unfair treatment threatens to undermine the 
authority of the 14th amendment to the Constitution that guarantees 
equal protection under the law from disproportionate punishment. In 
addition, current policy threatens the 14th amendment's equal 
protection guarantees for those who live in areas where crack cocaine 
is more readily available and cheaper than powder cocaine, namely 
African-Americans and Latinos. These positions are outlined in the 
accompanying Letter to the Editor from a May 13, 1997, letter to the 
Wall Street Journal.
  The Crack Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act of 1997, brings back a 
sense of fairness to the Federal sentencing process. I challenge this 
Congress to adopt this legislation to promote that ideal.

       Letter to the Editor From the Honorable Charles B. Rangel

       I write regarding Mr. Wayne J. Rocques' opinion-editorial 
     that appeared in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. In the 
     article, Mr. Rocques' condemns Reverend Jesse Jackson and me 
     for our views regarding the mandatory Federal Crack Cocaine 
     sentencing law, which we regard as unjust due to its 
     disproportionate application to African American defendants, 
     who represent almost 90% of the defendants in these cases. 
     Current law mandates that persons convicted of possessing 5 
     grams of crack cocaine receive the same sentence (five years) 
     as persons convicted of possessing 500 grams of powder 
     cocaine. Since enactment of this law, the 100-1 quantity 
     ratio has had a devastating and disproportionate impact on 
     the African American community. The evidence is indisputable.
       First, almost 97% of all crack cocaine defendants are Black 
     or Latino despite the fact that these groups represent less 
     than 50% of all crack users and less than 25% of the general 
     population. In Los Angeles, from 1988 to 1991 the U.S. 
     Attorney's Office prosecuted no white suspects on Federal 
     crack cocaine charges while hundreds of white suspects moved 
     through the state court system. In 1992, this two track 
     system was repeated in 17 states.
       Second, although Mr. Rocques notes the difficulty of 
     attacking the wholesale marketing of crack cocaine, he 
     neglects to explain the reasoning behind this statement. 
     Crack cocaine and powder cocaine are virtually identical from 
     a pharmacological standpoint, and crack is derived directly 
     from powder cocaine. Consequently, wholesale powder cocaine 
     dealers also serve as wholesale crack cocaine dealers. The 
     consensus among drug control advocates, including Mr. 
     Rocques, is that this is the group that must be targeted for 
     severe sentencing. Meanwhile, small time street-level crack 
     dealers, who often produce the crack themselves can fill our 
     jails and face kingpin sentences with possession of as little 
     as $50 worth of crack.
       Third, to answer Mr. Rocques' question regarding why 
     advocates for fair sentencing would concern ourselves with 
     drug criminals, I would remind him that the Fourteenth 
     Amendment of the Constitution requires equal treatment under 
     the law. This sentencing disparity breaks that promise and 
     undermines the foundation of fairness that our country is 
     built upon.
       Finally, though Mr. Rocques would have your readers believe 
     that only Rev. Jackson and I have spoken out regarding 
     polarizing effects of the Crack Cocaine Sentencing Law, in 
     truth, we have been joined by others in-

[[Page E1313]]

     cluding the entire Congressional Black Caucus, Supreme Court 
     Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, former Drug Czar Lee Brown 
     and Senator Robert Dole.
       Even more significant are the Congressionally requested 
     studies produced by the bipartisan United States Sentencing 
     Commission, which in 1995 and yesterday, unanimously, 
     released studies that found such a disparity insupportable. 
     Furthermore, the Sentencing Commission explained that, ``the 
     current (100-1 sentencing) policy must be changed to ensure 
     that severe penalties are targeted at the most serious 
     traffickers.'' The rejection of the current biased system 
     should guide Congress to act on these recommendations in an 
     expeditious and responsible manner.
       The Sentencing Commission's report should also spur 
     immediate action in President Clinton, Attorney General Janet 
     Reno, and Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey. The challenge of 
     overcoming the zealous rhetoric of detractors demands that 
     they fight for the commission's responsible proposal rather 
     than issuing pensive and avoiding promises to give the 
     report, ``very serious consideration.''
       In addition, although Mr. Rocques' diatribe would label me 
     as a supporter of drug legalization, nothing could be further 
     from the truth. I have spent my entire professional career--
     first as a Federal prosecutor, then as a New York State 
     Assemblyman and finally as a United States Congressman--
     advocating for increased awareness of drug abuse and control.
       Despite the fact that I originally supported the Crack 
     Sentencing legislation, I now recognize that it's application 
     has revealed a strongly biased and flawed statute. My strong 
     advocacy against drug trafficking and abuse does not blind me 
     from my responsibility to correct failed policy, no matter 
     the author.

     

                          ____________________