Date: 2010-07-28
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the distinguished gentleman. The statistics are very clear that the burden fell on a population that suffered more by not getting into rehabilitation than others. It is very clear that those numbers are strong. So I would simply say that as we begin our work on establishing fairness. this is a first step. And I would say to the distinguished Members that we can do better on rehabilitation. drug court. interventionwhich allows people to get into rehabilitation and have an obligation to finish. And the main thing that I want to leave us with. doing this will help us detour any number of individuals to be able to support their family and maybe be real role models for children who we likewise want to detour away from crime by having an innovative juvenile justice system by passing this bill and going on to have criminal justice reform as we pass the Promise Act as well. I rise in support of S. 1789. a bill that seeks to amend the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act in order to lessen the disparity between penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine that permeates the Sentencing Guidelines. I also want to thank Senator RICHARD DURBIN (IL). for introducing this important legislation and being a leader on this issue. This act requires Congress to change existing legislation in order to increase the amount of a controlled substance or mixture containing a cocaine base (i.e.. crack cocaine) required for the imposition of mandatory minimum prison terms for trafficking. This bill also calls for an increase of monetary penalties for drug trafficking and for the importation and exportation of controlled substances. Last year I introduced a bill called the Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2009. H.R. 265. in which I proposed many of the reforms proposed in S. 1789. In H.R. 265. I proposed 1 to 1 for crack and cocaine and added a long list of drug treatment measures. It is widely known that it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the 5- and 10year mandatory minimum sentences. While it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the 5year mandatory minimum sentence. it takes just 5 grams of crack cocaine to trigger that sentence. Similarly. while it takes 5 kilograms of powder cocaine to trigger the 10year mandatory minimum sentence. 50 grams of crack cocaine will trigger the same sentence. This disparity made no sense when it was initially enacted. and makes absolutely no sense today. because cocaine base commonly known as crack cocaine. is made by dissolving cocaine hydrochloride. which is commonly known as powder cocaine. in a solution of sodium bicarbonate (or a similar agent) and water. Therefore. crack and powder cocaine are simply different forms of the same substance and all crack cocaine originates as powder cocaine. Both forms of cocaine cause identical physical effects. although crack is smoked. while powder cocaine is typically snorted or injected. Epidemiological data show that smoking a drug delivers it to the brain more rapidly. which increases the likelihood of addiction. Therefore. differences in the typical method of administration of the two forms of the drug. and not differences in the inherent properties of the two forms of the drug. make crack cocaine potentially more addictive to typical users than powder cocaine. Both forms of the drug are addictive. however. and the treatment protocol for the drug is the same regardless of the form of the drug the patient has used. Although Congress in the mid1980s was understandably concerned that the lowcost and potency of crack cocaine would fuel an epidemic of use by minors. the epidemic of crack cocaine use by young people never materialized to the extent feared. In fact. in 2005. the rate of powder cocaine use among young adults was almost 7 times as high as the rate of crack cocaine use. Furthermore. sentencing data suggest that young people do not play a major role in crack cocaine trafficking at the Federal level. The current 100 to 1 penalty structure undermines various congressional objectives set forth in the AntiDrug Abuse Act of 1986. Data collected by the U.S. Sentencing Commission show that Federal resources have been targeted at offenders who are subject to the mandatory minimum sentences. which sweep in lowlevel crack cocaine users and dealers. It is time for us to realize that the only real difference between these two substances is that a disproportionate number of the races flock to one or the other. It follows that more whites use cocaine. and more African Americans use crack cocaine. The unwarranted sentencing disparity not only overstates the relative harmfulness of the two forms of the drug and diverts federal resources from highlevel drug traffickers. but it also disproportionately affects the AfricanAmerican community. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commissions May 2007 Report. 82 percent of Federal crack cocaine offenders sentenced in 2006 were AfricanAmerican. while 8 percent were Hispanic and 8 percent were white. Like H.R. 265. my bill. S. 1789 will eliminate the fiveyear mandatory minimum prison term for firsttime possession of crack cocaine. It also encourages the U.S. Sentencing Commission to amend its sentencing guidelines to (1) increase sentences for defendants convicted of using violence during a drug trafficking offense. (2) incorporate aggravating and mitigating factors in its guidelines for drug trafficking offenses. (3) promulgate guidelines. policy statements. or amendments required by this Act as soon as practicable. but not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act. and (4) study and report to Congress on the impact of changes in sentencing law under this Act. For the foregoing reasons. I stand with Mr. DURBIN in support of amending the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act in order to lessen the disparity between penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine that permeate the Sentencing Guidelines. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. H.R. 265 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.