Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009

I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for being a champion of this issue of eliminating the disparities that have so long plagued so many communities. I thank the chairman, John Conyers, for being persistent over the years on the criminal justice issues--even coming to Houston, Texas, and listening to a teeming room of individuals who came to tell him how they had been discriminated against by this overwhelming inequitable law dealing with crack cocaine. Thank you.

Today we're doing something that is not going to be soft on crime. But let me see if you understand this.

It takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the 5-year mandatory minimum. It just takes 5 grams of crack cocaine. Similarly it takes 5 kilograms of powder cocaine to trigger the 10-year mandatory minimum but 50 grams of crack cocaine.

And so it is important that this 1-to-18 be put in place in response to the 1980s when we thought this devastating act of using drugs was the underpinnings of crime. But what we have seen and what the U.S. Sentencing Commission has seen is that we're creating crime by throwing these individuals in jail instead of rehabilitation and by keeping this oppressive sentencing structure.

So for the first time, we're eliminating the 5-year mandatory minimum prison term for first-time possession of crack cocaine and it encourages the U.S. Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing guidelines.

In addition, however, there's more to go. Passing the Promise Bill to detour young people away from crime. H.R. 265, the bill I introduced, which was the underpinnings of the S. 1789, had a number of other provisions that would be dealing with rehabilitation and drug courts.

So there's more work to be done, Mr. Speaker. But I believe this is a first step and all good-thinking Americans who understand justice will appreciate the fact that we are eliminating these disparities. And in particular, I will say to you that this fell heavily on the poor African American and Hispanic communities.

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, intervention--which 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 10-year mandatory minimum sentences. While it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the 5- year 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 10-year 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 mid-1980s was understandably concerned that the low-cost 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 Anti-Drug 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 low-level 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 high-level drug traffickers, but it also disproportionately affects the African- American community. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission's May 2007 Report, 82 percent of Federal crack cocaine offenders sentenced in 2006 were African-American, while 8 percent were Hispanic and 8 percent were white.

Like H.R. 265, my bill, S. 1789 will eliminate the five-year mandatory minimum prison term for first-time 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, those who fail to learn the lessons of history often pay a price. Unfortunately, the real cost usually falls on others. In the 1980s, America faced an epidemic created by a new, more potent form of cocaine known as crack. Its abuse spread through major cities and across the country at a stunning speed. Along with crack came guns and violence, which riddled many urban communities.

These communities cried out for help, and in 1986 Congress responded. We enacted tough penalties to protect these neighborhoods and bring an end to the scourge of crack cocaine. The penalties helped make America's communities safer.

Now Congress is considering legislation to wind down the fight against drug addiction and drug-related violence. Reducing the penalties for crack cocaine could expose our neighborhoods to the same violence and addiction that caused Congress to act in the first place.

Twenty-five years ago, crack was cheap, easily available, and highly profitable. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, never before had any form of cocaine been available at such low prices and at such high purity. As a result, the number of Americans addicted to cocaine increased dramatically. Crack cocaine devastated many communities, especially inner-city communities. Black Americans who lived in these communities bore the brunt of the violence associated with the drug trade.

Today, crime rates, particularly for violent crimes, are at their lowest levels in more than 30 years, thanks in large part to the enactment of tough penalties for drug trafficking and other offenses. Crack and powder cocaine use has dropped by almost two-thirds in the past 20 years, from 5.8 million users in 1985 to 2.1 million users in 2007. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, crime victimization rates for black Americans have fallen by more than two- thirds since enactment of these tough Federal trafficking penalties. What's wrong with that? Why do we want to risk another surge of addiction and violence by reducing penalties?

Many argue that Federal prisons are filled with addicts convicted of simple possession of cocaine, but that's not true. The vast majority of Federal drug offenders are convicted for drug trafficking. In fiscal year 2009, the U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that there were 25,000 Federal drug trafficking convictions compared to fewer than 300 convictions for simple possession. So why do we want to make it more difficult to take drug traffickers off the streets and easier for them to peddle their lethal product?

Crack cocaine is associated with a greater degree of violence than most other drugs. Crack offenders are also more likely to have prior convictions and lengthier criminal histories than powder cocaine offenders. It is these aggravating factors, which are more common to crack cocaine trafficking, that contribute to higher Federal

crack sentences. These aggravating factors also render many Federal crack offenders ineligible for the so-called ``safety valve provision.'' The safety valve allows low-level offenders to be sentenced below the statutory mandatory penalties if they meet certain criteria, including no significant criminal history.

So why should we reduce the ratio for defendants who are more violent, more likely to have criminal records, and less likely to benefit from the safety valve provision that already provides a mechanism for reduced penalties? Why are we coddling some of the most dangerous drug traffickers in America?

Proponents of reducing or eliminating the crack/powder ratio argue that crack penalties impact a larger number of minorities than powder cocaine penalties. But the percentage of minority defendants for Federal crack and powder cocaine offenses is quite similar. Eighty-two percent of crack offenders and 90 percent of powder cocaine offenders are minorities, though black Americans comprise the majority of Federal crack cocaine offenders.

Crack and powder cocaine offenders are even sentenced with mandatory penalties at similar rates. In 2009, 80 percent of crack cocaine offenders and 77 percent of powder cocaine offenders were convicted under a mandatory penalty statute. The bill before us today, S. 1789, lowers the ratio for Federal crack cocaine offenses from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. The bill also eliminates the mandatory penalties for crack cocaine possession, making it only a misdemeanor under Federal law. Why enact legislation that could endanger our children and bring violence back to our inner-city communities?

S. 1789 includes a requirement that the U.S. Sentencing Commission review and amend the applicable guidelines for crack offenses involving violence. However, since Federal judges are not required to adhere to the guidelines, there is no guarantee that any increased penalty will be imposed under this provision.

Last year, the House Judiciary Committee reported legislation, over Republican opposition, that would have eliminated entirely the ratio between crack and powder cocaine. Before that, the Obama administration relaxed enforcement of marijuana laws.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Party teeters on the edge of becoming the face of deficits, drugs, and job destruction. I cannot support legislation that might enable the violent and devastating crack cocaine epidemic of the past to become a clear and present danger.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), a senior and active member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Paul).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, more than any other drug, the majority of crack defendants have prior criminal convictions. Despite claims by some, this is not an issue of one-time crack users being prosecuted for possession. This is about offenders who perpetually peddled this dangerous drug and should pay the price for their actions.

Despite the devastating impact crack cocaine has had on American communities, this bill reduces the penalties for crack cocaine. Why would we want to do that? We should not ignore the severity of crack addiction or ignore the differences between crack and powder cocaine trafficking. We should worry more about the victims than about the criminals.

Why would we want to reduce the penalties for crack cocaine trafficking and invite a return to a time when cocaine ravaged our communities, especially minority communities?

This bill sends the wrong message to drug dealers and those who traffic in destroying Americans' lives. It sends the message that Congress takes drug crimes less seriously than they did. The bill before us threatens to return America to the days when crack cocaine corroded the minds and bodies of our children, decimated a generation, and destroyed communities.

Mr. Speaker, I hope, sincerely, that those who support this legislation are prepared to take responsibility if cocaine trafficking increases, if our neighborhoods and communities once again become riddled with violence, and the lives of Americans are unnecessarily destroyed.

I hope that doesn't happen, but at least today we have gone on record as saying that there was a warning, and I can only hope that at some point in the future it will be heeded and responded to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. It's called the Fair Sentencing Act. I'd like to rename it, though. I'd like to call it the Slightly Fairer Resentencing Act, because it really makes an attempt to correct a very, very serious problem in equal justice in our systems, and that effort I think we should all applaud. I would have much preferred H.R. 3245. I was an original cosponsor of that along with Congressman Scott, but I think this is a typical example of trying to fix a problem that we invite upon ourselves.

In economics, I adhere to the position that once you want to do some good in the economy, with all the best motivations, we do things and we create new problems and we have to go back. If you get two new problems for every intervention, then you're constantly writing laws.

Well, in social policy, I believe the same thing. It was trying to improve social policy with crack cocaine. There was no evidence on this. It was designed to help people, especially the minorities that were using crack cocaine, and they thought this was terrible, and it turned out that its law backfired. It actually hurt minorities, didn't help them. Here we are trying to correct this disparity, and it just, to me, confirms the fact that government management, whether it is the economy or social policy, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

When this country decided it was very dangerous to drink alcohol and we had to stop it, back in those days, in the teens of the last century, they decided in order for the government to do this they had to amend the Constitution. Can you imagine anybody being concerned today by what we do here and say we have to amend the Constitution? Oh, no. We amended the Constitution. It was a bomb. It made alcohol much more dangerous. All the drug dealers sold the alcohol, and the alcohol was more concentrated and less pure. People died. People woke up and they repealed it.

This is what's going to have to happen someday. We need to repeal the war on drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support for S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing Act. My support is reluctant because S. 1789 is an uncomfortable mix of some provisions that reduce the harms of the federal war on drugs and other provisions that increase the harms of that disastrous and unconstitutional war. I am supporting this legislation because I am optimistic the legislation's overall effect will be positive.

Congress should be looking critically at how we can extricate America from the four decades of destruction that has ensued since President Richard Nixon announced the federal war on drugs in 1972. As a medical doctor with over 30 years' experience, I certainly recognize the dangers that can arise from drug abuse. However, experience shows that the federal drug war creates many additional dangers, while failing to reduce the problems associated with drug abuse. Like 14 years of federal alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and '30s, America's federal drug war has failed to

ameliorate the problems associated with drug use, while fostering violence and disrespect for individual rights.

While imperfect, I am optimistic that the Senate bill being considered today will reduce the harms of the federal drug war. I also hope consideration of this legislation will enliven interest in ending the federal war on drugs.

It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives is today considering this compromise legislation from the Senate instead of Representative Bobby Scott's H.R. 3245, the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act. I am an original cosponsor of Representative Scott's bill, which passed the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary on July 29, 2009--one year ago tomorrow. Representative Scott's legislation is a short and simple bill that repeals a handful of clauses, sentences, and subparagraphs of federal drug laws to eliminate the 100 to one drug weight basis for sentencing disparity for crack cocaine violations in comparison to powder cocaine violations.

I will vote for the Senate legislation today because it rolls back some of the enhanced mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine that the federal government created in 1986. These enhanced mandatory minimum sentences have caused people convicted for small amounts of crack cocaine to serve much longer sentences in prison than people convicted for the same amount of powder cocaine.

While the Senate legislation reduces the drug weight basis for mandatory minimum sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine convictions for many individuals to only 18 to one compared to the total elimination of the disparity in Representative Scott's bill, the Senate bill does make a step in the right direction. The Senate bill eliminates entirely the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine and reduces significantly the mandatory minimum sentence for many people convicted of crack offenses by raising the number of grams of crack cocaine a person must possess for each mandatory minimum sentence level to apply. In addition, the Senate bill allows courts to show compassion for individuals with compelling cases for leniency by reducing sentences for some people convicted of controlled substances violations who a court determines meet requirements including having minimum knowledge of the illegal enterprise, receiving no monetary compensation from the illegal transaction, and being motivated by threats, fear, or an intimate or family relationship.

Unfortunately, while the Senate bill reduces some of the most extreme and unjust mandatory minimum sentences in the federal drug war, it also contains expansions of the federal drug war that I fear may yield results destructive to individual liberty and public safety. In particular, the Senate bill significantly increases maximum allowed monetary penalties for violations of federal restrictions on controlled substances and increases sentences for people convicted of controlled substances violations whose circumstances include certain aggravating factors.

Some people will argue that the increased penalties in the Senate legislation are desirable because they target people who are high up in the illegal drug trade or who took particularly disturbing actions, such as involving a minor in drug trafficking. But, the history of the federal drug war has shown that ramping up penalties always results in increasing rather than decreasing the harms arising from the federal drug war. Such enhanced penalties increase the risks of the drug trade thus causing illegal drug operations to be more ruthless and violent in their tactics. Enhanced penalties also can result in even more inflated prices for illegal drugs, leading to more thefts by individuals seeking funds to support their drug use. High monetary fines for drug trafficking also tend to provide police and prosecutors with a perverse incentive to focus on nonviolent drug crimes instead of violent crimes.

Each successive ramping up of the federal war on drugs has made it more evident that this war is incompatible with constitutional government, individual liberty, and prosperity. It is time for Congress to reverse course. I am optimistic that S. 1789--even with its faults-- may signal that Congress is ready to begin reversing course. It is imperative that the House of Representatives pursue a dialogue on how we can end the federal war on drugs--a war that has increasingly become a war on the American people and our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1789) to restore fairness to Federal cocaine sentencing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, is a bipartisan compromise that was negotiated and drafted by Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It then passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate by unanimous consent.

The legislation will reduce the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine in Federal law from 100-to-1 down to 18-to-1. The crack penalties, under present law, for example, it only takes five grams of crack to trigger a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence, but for powder cocaine it takes 500 grams to trigger the same 5-year mandatory sentence, a 100-to-1 ratio.

This disparity is particularly egregious when you consider that the Sentencing Commission has concluded that there is no pharmacological difference between the two forms of cocaine, and that 80 percent of the crack defendants are black, whereas only 30 percent of the powder cocaine defendants are black.

The crack penalties also create bizarre sentences when you consider sentences such as the 24 \1/2\-year sentence given to Kimba Smith for behavior that was just inferentially involved with her boyfriend's cocaine dealing.

The legislation moves the threshold amount for the 5-year mandatory minimum from five grams to one ounce, reducing the disparity from 100- to-1 to 18-to-1. The legislation does not fully eliminate the 100-to-1 disparity in sentencing for crack and powder, but it does make good progress in addressing what is widely recognized as unfair treatment of like offenders based simply on the form of cocaine they possessed.

The bill also addresses another concern. Arguments are made that crack defendants are more likely to use violence or minors in the distribution, and this bill specifically requires the Sentencing Commission to significantly increase penalties for drug violations involving violence, threats of violence, or use of minors, and another long list of aggravating activities that would be involved. This way the defendant is sentenced for what he or she actually did, not the form of cocaine involved.

Many organizations are supporting S. 1789, including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Police Officers, the Council of Prison Locals, and several conservative religious organizations such as Prison Fellowship and the National Association of Evangelicals. And all of the civil rights organizations that one can imagine are also supporting the legislation.

I would like to thank the sponsors of the Senate bill, Senators Durbin of Illinois and Sessions of Alabama, and Orrin Hatch of Utah, who came together to pass this important bipartisan legislation.

There are many Members of the House who have worked tirelessly over the years to reform this disparity, including chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers; Sheila Jackson Lee; Maxine Waters; Charlie Rangel; and Mel Watt.

On behalf of the organizations and Members of Congress who support S. 1789, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the majority whip, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas who has sponsored one of the many bills on this issue and has worked hard to eliminate the disparity altogether, Ms. Jackson Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to make a brief comment.

The gentleman from California just mentioned the 1986 law. We are not blaming anybody for what happened in 1986, but we have had years of experience and have determined that there is no justification for the 100-to-1 ratio. We know that's what we know now, and so we're not blaming anybody for what happened in 1986, but we are fixing what we have learned through years of experience.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not reduce the disparity from 100-to-1 to 1-to-1. It does not eliminate the mandatory minimums, but it is a step in the right direction and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to support S. 1789.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1789, but as someone who helped to write the Drug Control Act of 1986 that we seek to amend, I'd like to make a few observations to set the record straight.

It is indeed true that the death of basketball star Len Bias served as an exclamation point concerning the threat posed to our Nation by the scourge of illegal drug use. The fact that someone who seemed bigger than life could fall prey to the growing cocaine epidemic brought home the reality of the danger to every home with a television set that had tuned into the University of Maryland basketball games. And that reality was not lost on this body.

The number of Americans addicted to cocaine dramatically increased in the 1980s thanks in major part to the escalation in crack use. Hospital emergencies increased by 110 percent in 1986. From 1984 to 1987, cocaine incidents increased fourfold. The crack epidemic was associated with a dramatic increase in drug gang-related violence.

A 1988 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that in New York City, crack use was tied to 32 percent of all homicides and 60 percent of all drug-related homicides.

I would add that even 5 years after the drug bill was considered on this floor there was a growing concern over the crack epidemic which plagued minority neighborhoods. The acclaimed depiction of this scourge was even portrayed in the movie ``New Jack City.'' Director Mario Van Peebles, also one of the main characters in the film, observed that ``the immediate problem is that crack is and was a killer in the Black community today.''

That's what we faced at the time we passed this bill. This is the context of the crack epidemic and the 1986 drug bill. The concern about crack cocaine was, and in my view remains, a valid one. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, crack causes faster and shorter highs than powder, which results in more frequent use. Crack cocaine is also associated with gang activities and violence, as evidenced by U.S. Sentencing Commission data. There is, in my view, a basis for disparate treatment of those who traffic in crack versus powder.

Having said that, the inclusion that there is a basis for treating crack and powder differently is in no way a justification for the 100- to-1 sentencing ratio contained in the 1986 drug bill. We initially came out of committee with a 20-to-1 ratio. By the time we finished on the floor, it was 100-to-1. We didn't really have an evidentiary basis for it, but that's what we did, thinking we were doing the right thing at the time.

Certainly, one of the sad ironies in this entire episode is that a bill which was characterized by some as a response to the crack epidemic in African American communities has led to racial sentencing disparities which simply cannot be ignored in any reasoned discussion of this issue. When African Americans, low-level crack defendants, represent 10 times the number of low-level white crack defendants, I don't think we can simply close our eyes.

I thank the gentleman.

Although I cannot, and could not, support the legislation reported out of our committee to completely eliminate any disparity in the treatment of these illicit substances, that is not what we have before us today on this floor. I must say that from a law enforcement standpoint, perhaps the most important factor here is the amount of the substance that is covered. According to narcotics officers I have spoken with, you want to reach the wholesale and mid-level traffickers who often trafficked in 1-ounce quantities.

That is why S. 1789 would raise the amount of crack cocaine necessary to trigger a mandatory 5-year sentence from 5 grams to 28 grams, which is close to the 1 ounce. This does seem to make some sense. It is a fair and just treatment of the problem. It serves the interests of law enforcement in reaching wholesale and mid-level traffickers while reducing the crack powder ratio to 18-to-1 from the current 100-to-1.

I think this is tough but fair. I would not support going further. I support this bill very strongly. I believe that this is what justice should be about. This is a well-crafted bill. It is a good compromise. It serves the ends of justice and fairness. I hope people will support it.