[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 114 (Friday, July 30, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1498-E1499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FAIR SENTENCING ACT OF 2010

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                  HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 28, 2010

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 
1789, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. For too long, crack cocaine 
users, predominantly minorities, have been subject to excessive 
penalties when compared to users of powder cocaine even though both 
drugs are chemically identical. While this bill does not go far enough 
towards righting this injustice, it is a tremendous step in the right 
direction, and I commend Senator Durbin and the rest of the Senate for 
passing this long overdue piece of legislation and urge my colleagues 
to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, for too long users of crack cocaine were sentenced to 
prison terms that were much longer than prison terms for users of 
cocaine, a chemically identical drug. We all know why this is the case. 
In the 1980's, the United States was in the midst of a crack cocaine 
epidemic. While cocaine was often considered a harmless, even 
glamorous, ``recreational'' drug of privilege, crack cocaine was 
considered a more harmful drug and was associated with crime and 
destitution. The reality is that crack cocaine, though chemically 
identical to cocaine, is less pure and therefore sells for less on the 
street. As a result, this drug rapidly spread across already 
impoverished and crime-ridden areas of the country, in many cases 
making a bad situation worse. As we all know, low income Americans are 
disproportionately minority. Crack cocaine quickly became associated 
with minorities, particularly African Americans. It would be more 
accurate, however, to associate crack cocaine use with poverty than 
with African Americans. It is important to let the American people know 
that, at the height of the crack cocaine epidemic in this country, a 
1982 the National Survey on Drug Abuse found that 22 million Americans 
had used cocaine at one time or another. I say this to make it clear 
that cocaine was as much of an epidemic as crack cocaine during the 
1980s. The only difference between crack and cocaine is the user.
  In response to the crack cocaine epidemic, Congress passed the Anti-
Drug Abuse Act of 1986 in a reactionary effort to try and put a stop to 
the use of crack cocaine. The law was a part of the so called ``war on 
drugs,'' a popular political catch phrase at the time. This ``war'' was 
launched by stressing the serious social harms of violent crime, theft, 
social exclusion; with which crack cocaine use was associated.
  Current law provides that a person convicted of crack cocaine 
possession receives the same mandatory prison term as someone who 
possesses 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine and the law has 
mandatory minimums for simple possession. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat 
that. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 sets the penalty for possession 
of crack cocaine at 100 times the penalty for a chemically identical 
drug, cocaine and sets mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine 
users while setting a mandatory minimum sentence for cocaine users. As 
a result of this law, wealthy users of cocaine have received more 
lenient penalties than poor minority users of crack, a chemically 
identical drug. According to U.S. government statistics, 82 percent of 
Federal crack cocaine offenders are African American and only 9 percent 
are white. African-Americans and Latinos were incarcerated at a higher 
rate because of their drug use preference. In this country, where 
everyone is born equal, it is absolutely outrageous that the law could 
be so slanted. It simply makes no sense. As a former Magistrate Judge 
and defense attorney, I firmly believe that there should be no 
difference in the ratio of sentencing for crack cocaine and powder 
cocaine possession.
  Over the years, there have been numerous efforts to lower this ratio 
to a more reasonable difference in sentencing for crack cocaine and 
powder cocaine. In 2007, The United States Sentencing Commission voted 
to recommended that this disparity be rectified and existing sentences 
reduced. Also in 2007, The Supreme Court ruled in Kimbrough v. United 
States that the guidelines for cocaine are advisory only, and that a 
judge may consider the disparity between the guidelines' treatment of 
crack and powder cocaine offenses when sentencing a defendant. Finally, 
today, the United States House of Representatives will consider and 
hopefully pass a bill that will lower the ratio of sentencing from 100 
to 1, to a new ratio of 18 to 1. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill but 
18 to 1 is still unnecessary and discriminatory. An 18 to 1 ratio still 
preserves and institutional disparity between drug sentences of wealthy 
cocaine users and predominantly poor and African American crack cocaine 
users.
  I support the direction that this bill takes the country however I am 
disappointed that, after all these years, an institutional disparity 
will be preserved. I firmly believe that there should be no disparity 
in the ratio of sentencing between users of crack cocaine and powder 
cocaine. The ratio should be one to one. This view is shared by both 
Republicans and Democrats alike. Former D.C. prosecutor, later D.C. 
Superior Court judge, and present D.C. Federal judge, Judge Reggie B. 
Walton, a Republican nominated by former President George W. Bush, 
supports an equalization of the sentencing disparity. Even President 
Obama stated in 2008 that the sentencing disparity ``has 
disproportionately filled our prisons with young black and Latino drug 
users.'' He cited figures that African Americans serve almost as much 
time for drug offenses, at 58.7 months, as whites do for violent 
offenses, at 61.7 months. Finally, in early 2009, Attorney General 
Holder

[[Page E1499]]

made it clear where the Administration stands when he said, ``One thing 
is very clear. We must review our Federal cocaine sentencing policy. 
This administration firmly believes that the disparity in crack and 
powdered cocaine sentencing is unwarranted. It must be eliminated.''
  There is absolutely no justification for this racial disparity in 
federal cocaine sentencing policy. The playing field must be leveled to 
bring total equality for all races in sentencing for drug use for all 
variations of the same drug.
  I urge my colleagues to take an enormous step in the right direction 
by supporting this bill to greatly improve this outdated and 
discriminatory law. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                          ____________________