Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?


111th Congress                                            Rept. 111-670
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                      Part 1

======================================================================



 
              FAIRNESS IN COCAINE SENTENCING ACT OF 2009

                                _______
                                

December 1, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Conyers, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                    ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3245]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 3245) to amend the Controlled Substances Act and the 
Controlled Substances Import and Export Act regarding penalties 
for cocaine offenses, and for other purposes, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and 
recommend that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     5
Committee Consideration..........................................     5
Committee Votes..................................................     5
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     7
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     7
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     7
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     8
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     9
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     9
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     9
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     9
Additional Views.................................................    12
Dissenting Views.................................................    15

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 3245, the ``Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 
2009,'' sponsored by Rep. Scott (D-VA) repeals the reference to 
cocaine base from 21 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 841, 844, 960. This bill 
also eliminates the 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for 
simple possession of cocaine base.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Subsequent to the Committee's ordering H.R. 3245 favorably 
reported, the Senate passed similar legislation, S. 1789, which, 
instead of eliminating the disparity in sentencing between crack and 
powder cocaine entirely, reduced the disparity from 100-to-1 down to 
18-to-1. S. 1789 was agreed to by the House, and became Public Law No. 
111-220. The Committee submits this report as a faithful description of 
the legislation approved by the Committee, as a contribution to the 
legislative history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Crack cocaine, also known as cocaine base, is a method of 
packaging powder cocaine, produced by heating a mixture of 
powder cocaine (cocaine hydrochloride), baking soda (sodium 
bicarbonate), and water. The chemical interaction between these 
ingredients creates a hard material similar to a rock.\2\ By 
1986, crack cocaine was widely available and relatively 
inexpensive in large U.S. cities. The availability of crack 
cocaine accordingly revolutionized inner-city drug markets.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Craig Reinarman & Harry G. Levine, Crack in Context: America's 
Latest Drug Demon, in Crack in America: Demon Drug, and Social Justice 
6-7 (Craig Reinarman & Harry G. Levine Eds., 1997).
    \3\Id. at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The growth of the inner-city crack cocaine market gave rise 
to dramatic claims about the effects of crack cocaine on users 
and communities. Many believed that crack was more addictive 
than powder cocaine\4\ and that it was associated with greater 
levels of violence. In addition, public attention on children 
who had been exposed to crack in utero, or ``crack babies,''\5\ 
gave rise to the perception that in-utero exposure to crack 
cocaine caused more pronounced developmental difficulties in 
children than in-utero exposure to powder cocaine.\6\ In June 
1986, public concern intensified as a result of the high-
profile death of Len Bias, a popular Washington area college 
basketball star. Bias's death, on the evening he was 
celebrating being drafted by the Boston Celtics of the National 
Basketball Association, was believed to be related to crack 
cocaine. Ironically, Len Bias's death was later shown to have 
been from a powder cocaine overdose--not a crack cocaine 
overdose as initially believed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\United States Sentencing Comm'n [hereinafter, ``USSC''], 2002 
Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (May 
2002) 93.
    \5\John P. Morgan and Lynn Zimmer, Social Pharmacology of Smokeable 
Cocaine, In Crack in America: Demon Drug, and Social Justice 149, 151-
152 (Craig Reinarman & Harry G. Levine Eds., 1997).
    \6\USSC, 2002 Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal 
Sentencing Policy (May 2002) 94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following the intense public reaction to Bias's death, 
Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, establishing 
mandatory minimum sentences triggered by specific quantities of 
cocaine and crack cocaine.\7\ Because many lawmakers at the 
time believed crack cocaine was more dangerous than the powder 
form of the drug, the 1986 Act imposed stricter penalties for 
crimes involving even small amounts of crack cocaine. The Act 
accordingly provided for a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence 
for convictions of crimes involving just 5 grams of crack 
cocaine, as compared to the same 5 year mandatory minimum for 
500 grams of powder cocaine.\8\ In addition, a 10 year 
mandatory minimum sentence was established for individuals 
convicted of crimes involving just 50 grams of crack cocaine or 
5000 grams of powder cocaine.\9\ The Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse 
Act of 1988 further widened the disparity in drug sentencing, 
by specifying that simple possession of 5 grams or more of 
crack cocaine is subject to a 5-year mandatory minimum 
sentence, up to a 20-year maximum.\10\ In contrast, the maximum 
penalty for simple possession of any other illegal drug, 
including powder cocaine, remains at 1 year incarceration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Pub. L. No. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207 (codified as amended at 21 
U.S.C. Sec. 801 et. seq. (2000)) [hereinafter ``1986 Act''].
    \8\21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)(ii) and (iii).
    \9\21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii).
    \10\21 U.S.C. 844(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the last 20 years, the assumptions about the more 
severe effects of crack cocaine compared to powder cocaine have 
been proven unfounded. In particular, the violence associated 
with crack, similar to violence associated with the trafficking 
of other drugs, has been shown to be related to the illegal 
drug market, rather than any physiological effects of the drug 
itself.\11\ The notable rise in violence in the mid-to-late 
1980's, when crack cocaine began to infiltrate cities across 
the country, was associated with the growing drug market and 
the resulting territorial disputes between low-level street 
corner drug dealers.\12\ Moreover, recent data indicates that 
significantly less trafficking-related violence is associated 
with crack than was previously assumed. For example, in 2005: 
1) 57.3% of overall crack offenses did not involve weapons with 
regard to any participant; 2) 67.6 % of crack offenders had no 
personal weapons involvement; and 3) only 2.9% of crack 
offenders actively used a weapon.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Paul J. Goldstein et al., Crack and Homicides in New York City: 
a Case Study in the Epidemiology of Violence, in Crack in America: 
Demon Drug, and Social Justice 120(craig Reinarman & Harry G. Levine 
Eds., 1997) [Hereinafter ``Crack and Homicides in New York City''].
    \12\Id. At 119-120.
    \13\USSC, 2007 Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal 
Sentencing Policy (2007) 32-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scientific and medical research has also found that crack 
and powder cocaine have essentially the same pharmacological 
and physiological effects on a person. In 2002, Dr. Ira J. 
Chasnoff, President of the Children's Research Triangle, 
testified before the United States Sentencing Commission that 
``since crack and powder cocaine are essentially the same drug, 
the effects on the fetal brain are the same whether the mother 
used crack cocaine or powder cocaine.''\14\ In November 2006, 
Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of the National Institute on Drug 
Abuse of the National Institute of Health testimony before the 
United States Sentencing Commission concluded the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\USSC, 2002 Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal 
Sentencing Policy (May 2002) E-4.

        Research consistently shows that the crucial variables 
        at play are the immediacy, duration, and magnitude of 
        cocaine's effects, as well as the frequency and amount 
        of cocaine used rather than the form. In other words, 
        the physiological and psychoactive effects of cocaine 
        are similar regardless of whether it is in the form of 
        cocaine hydrochloride (powder) or crack cocaine.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Testimony of Nora D. Volkow, M.D. before the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission (November 14, 2006).

    While many of the dangers and consequences thought to be 
associated with crack cocaine did not materialize, the crack 
cocaine law and other Federal drug laws have resulted in 
staggering increases in the number of Federal drug offenders in 
prison. For example, since 1980 offenders in Federal prisons 
for drug offenses has increased from 4,900 then to 99,047 in 
2009.\16\ In 2009, drug offenders represent 52% of all Federal 
prison inmates.\17\ African Americans serve almost as much time 
in Federal prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as whites do 
for a violent offense (61.7 months), largely due to sentencing 
laws such as the 100-to-1 crack-powder cocaine disparity.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Marc Mauer and Ryan S. King, A 25-Year Quagmire: The War on 
Drugs and Its Impact on American Society, The Sentencing Project, 11 
(September 2007) update with 2009 statistics.
    \17\Id.
    \18\Id. at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Government data demonstrate that drug use rates are similar 
among all racial and ethnic groups. For crack cocaine, two-
thirds of users in the U.S. are white or Hispanic.\19\ 
Furthermore, research on drug market patterns demonstrates that 
drug users generally purchase drugs from sellers of the same 
racial or ethnic background.\20\ Despite these facts, people of 
color are disproportionately subject to the penalties for both 
types of cocaine. Indeed, 81.8 percent of crack cocaine 
defendants in 2006 were African American.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 
Results from the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed 
Table J (Washington, DC: Sept. 2006), Table 1.43a.
    \20\Dorothy Lockwood, Anne E. Pottieger, and James A. Inciardi, 
``Crack Use, Crime by Crack Users, and Ethnicity,'' in Darnell F. 
Hawkins, ed., Ethnicity, Race and Crime. New York: State University of 
New York Press, 1995, p. 21.
    \21\USSC, 2007 Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal 
Sentencing Policy (2007) 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Four reports issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to 
Congress on the Federal cocaine sentencing policy, in 1995, 
1997, 2002 and 2007, have all urged Congress to change the 
current Federal crack cocaine law.\22\ The Commission report in 
2007 reiterated its 2002 findings that the current severity of 
crack cocaine penalties mostly impacts minorities, overstates 
the harmfulness of crack cocaine in comparison with powder 
cocaine, and overstates the seriousness of most crack cocaine 
offenses.\23\ In order to address these findings, the 
Commission recommended that Congress repeal the mandatory 
minimum penalty for simple possession of crack cocaine under 21 
U.S.C. 844, reduce the 100-to-1 disparity, and increase the 
threshold quantities for crack cocaine offenses that result in 
5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences in order to 
concentrate on more major traffickers.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\United States Sentencing Commission [hereinafter, ``USSC''], 
2007 Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (May 
2007); USSC, 2002 Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal 
Sentencing Policy (May 2002); USSC, 1997 Special Report to the 
Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (As Directed by Section 
2 of Pub. L. No. 104-38) (April 1997); USSC, 1995 Special Report to the 
Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (As Directed by Section 
280006 of Pub. L. No. 103-322) (February 1995).
    \23\USSC, 2007 Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal 
Sentencing Policy 7-8 (2007).
    \24\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    The Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a day of hearings on May 
21, 2009 on legislation addressing this issue, including H.R. 
1459, the ``Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009''; H.R. 
2178, the ``Crack Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act of 2009''; 
H.R. 265, ``Drug Sentencing Reform and Kingpin Trafficking Act 
of 2009''; H.R. 1466, the ``Major Drug Trafficking Prosecution 
Act of 2009''; and H.R. 18, the ``Powder-Crack Cocaine 
Equalization Act of 2009.'' Testimony was received from four 
Congressional Members, including Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY); 
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX); Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-MD); 
and Rep. Maxine Waters, (D-CA).
    Testimony was also received from the Honorable Lanny A. 
Breuer, Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the Criminal 
Division of the Department of Justice; The Honorable Ricardo H. 
Hinojosa, Acting Chairman of the United States Sentencing 
Commission; Willie Mays Aikens, former Kansas City Royal and 
Federal drug offender; Marc Mauer, Executive Director of The 
Sentencing Project; Veronica Coleman Davis, President and CEO 
of the National Institute of Law and Equity (NILE); Scott 
Patterson, District Attorney, Easton, Maryland, on behalf of 
Joseph I. Cassilly, President of the National District 
Attorneys' Association; and Bob Bushman, Vice President, 
National Narcotics Officers Association. Additional materials 
were submitted by Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the 
American Bar Association, Harvard Law Professor Charles 
Ogletree, and the Justice Roundtable Coalition.
    H.R. 3245 was introduced by Crime Subcommittee Chairman 
Scott on July 16, 2009, in light of the May 21 hearings.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 22, 2009, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security met in open session and ordered the bill H.R. 
3245 favorably reported without amendment, by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On July 29, 2009, the Committee met in 
open session and ordered the bill H.R. 3245 favorably reported 
without amendment, by a rollcall vote of 16 to 9, a quorum 
being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
following rollcall votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 3245:
    1. A motion by Rep. Issa to table the appeal of the Chair's 
ruling that an amendment offered by Rep. Darrell Issa was non-
germane. Agreed to 14 to 13.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................              X
Mr. Quigley.....................................................
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Maffei......................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................                              X
Mr. Poe.........................................................                              X
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................                              X
Mr. Rooney......................................................                              X
Mr. Harper......................................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             14              13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Motion to report H.R. 3245 favorably. Passed 16 to 9.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................              X
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................              X
Mr. Quigley.....................................................              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................
Mr. Sherman.....................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Maffei......................................................
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan......................................................                              X
Mr. Poe.........................................................                              X
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................
Mr. Rooney......................................................                              X
Mr. Harper......................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             16               9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 3245, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                 Washington, DC, September 1, 2009.
Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3245, the 
``Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009.''
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                      Douglas W. Elmendorf,
                                                  Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable Lamar S. Smith.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 3245--Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009.
    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3245 would lead to 
reduced spending by the Federal prison system of $3 million 
over the 2010-2014 period. Enacting the bill could affect 
direct spending and revenues, but CBO estimates that any such 
effects would not be significant.
    H.R. 3245 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would not affect the budgets of State, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Under current law, persons convicted of offenses involving 
crack cocaine or powder cocaine are subject to mandatory 
minimum prison sentences, but the drug quantity necessary to 
trigger the minimum sentence is lower for crack cocaine. H.R. 
3245 would eliminate this disparity and provide equal 
punishment for all cocaine offenses. In doing so, the bill 
would decrease prison sentences and potential fines for crack 
cocaine offenders.
    The U.S. Sentencing Commission analyzed the bill's impact 
on the Federal prison population. Based on this analysis, CBO 
estimates that the shorter sentences required under the bill 
would decrease the prison population by about 250 person-years 
over the 2010-2014 period. According to the Bureau of Prisons, 
a decrease in the Federal prison population of this magnitude 
would save about $10,000 a year for each prisoner. CBO 
estimates that the savings from implementing H.R. 3245 would 
total $3 million over the 2010-2014 period.
    Because those prosecuted and convicted for offenses 
involving cocaine could be subject to criminal fines, the 
Federal Government might collect smaller fines if H.R. 3245 is 
enacted. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, deposited in 
the Crime Victims Fund, and later spent. CBO estimates that any 
such effects would have negligible net costs over the 2009-2014 
and 2009-2019 periods.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz. 
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
3245, eliminates the distinction between crack cocaine (i.e. 
cocaine base) and powder cocaine in Federal law, as well as the 
mandatory minimum Federal sentence for cocaine base.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article I, section 8, clause 1 of the 
Constitution.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 3245 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of Rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.
    Sec. 1. Short title. Section 1 sets forth the short title 
of the bill as the ``Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 
2009.''
    Sec. 2. Elimination of increased penalties for cocaine 
offenses where the cocaine involved is cocaine base. Section 2 
eliminates distinction in penalties as between cocaine and 
cocaine base. Subsection (a) eliminates the distinction with 
respect to penalties for manufacturing, distributing, or 
dispensing, including the mandatory minimum sentence for simple 
possession of cocaine base. Subsection (b) eliminates the 
distinction with respect to importing and exporting.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     Part D--Offenses and Penalties

                      prohibited acts a--penalties

  Sec. 401. (a) * * *
  (b) Except as otherwise provided in section 409, 418, 419, or 
420 any person who violates subsection (a) of this section 
shall be sentenced as follows:
  (1)(A) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this 
section involving--
          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(iii) 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance 
        described in clause (ii) which contains cocaine base;]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (B) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this 
section involving--
          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(iii) 5 grams or more of a mixture or substance 
        described in clause (ii) which contains cocaine base;]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     PENALTY FOR SIMPLE POSSESSION

  Sec. 404. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly 
or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such 
substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid 
prescription or order, from a practitioner, while acting in the 
course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise 
authorized by this title or title III. It shall be unlawful for 
any person knowingly or intentionally to possess any list I 
chemical obtained pursuant to or under authority of a 
registration issued to that person under section 303 of this 
title or section 1008 of title III if that registration has 
been revoked or suspended, if that registration has expired, or 
if the registrant has ceased to do business in the manner 
contemplated by his registration. It shall be unlawful for any 
person to knowingly or intentionally purchase at retail during 
a 30 day period more than 9 grams of ephedrine base, 
pseudoephedrine base, or phenylpropanolamine base in a 
scheduled listed chemical product, except that, of such 9 
grams, not more than 7.5 grams may be imported by means of 
shipping through any private or commercial carrier or the 
Postal Service. Any person who violates this subsection shall 
be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year, 
and be fined a minimum of $1,000, or both, except that if he 
commits such offense after a prior conviction under this title 
or title III, or a prior conviction for any drug, narcotic, or 
chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, has 
become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment 
for not less than 15 days but not more than 2 years, and shall 
be fined a minimum of $2,500, except, further, that if he 
commits such offense after two or more prior convictions under 
this title or title III, or two or more prior convictions for 
any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the 
law of any State, or a combination of two or more such offenses 
have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of 
imprisonment for not less than 90 days but not more than 3 
years, and shall be fined a minimum of $5,000. [Notwithstanding 
the preceding sentence, a person convicted under this 
subsection for the possession of a mixture or substance which 
contains cocaine base shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years 
and not more than 20 years, and fined a minimum of $1,000, if 
the conviction is a first conviction under this subsection and 
the amount of the mixture or substance exceeds 5 grams, if the 
conviction is after a prior conviction for the possession of 
such a mixture or substance under this subsection becomes final 
and the amount of the mixture or substance exceeds 3 grams, or 
if the conviction is after 2 or more prior convictions for the 
possession of such a mixture or substance under this subsection 
become final and the amount of the mixture or substance exceeds 
1 gram.] Notwithstanding any penalty provided in this 
subsection, any person convicted under this subsection for the 
possession of flunitrazepam shall be imprisoned for not more 
than 3 years, shall be fined as otherwise provided in this 
section, or both. The imposition or execution of a minimum 
sentence required to be imposed under this subsection shall not 
be suspended or deferred. Further, upon conviction, a person 
who violates this subsection shall be fined the reasonable 
costs of the investigation and prosecution of the offense, 
including the costs of prosecution of an offense as defined in 
sections 1918 and 1920 of title 28, United States Code, except 
that this sentence shall not apply and a fine under this 
section need not be imposed if the court determines under the 
provision of title 18 that the defendant lacks the ability to 
pay.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


    SECTION 1010 OF THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES IMPORT AND EXPORT ACT

                      prohibited acts a--penalties

  Sec. 1010. (a) * * *
  (b)(1) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this 
section involving--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(C) 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance 
        described in subparagraph (B) which contains cocaine 
        base;]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (2) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this 
section involving--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(C) 5 grams or more of a mixture or substance 
        described in subparagraph (B) which contains cocaine 
        base;]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            Additional Views

    As part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Congress 
enacted statutory mandatory minimum sentences for various 
illegal drugs, including a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence 
for trafficking 5 grams of crack cocaine and 500 grams of 
powder, and a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for 
trafficking 50 grams of crack cocaine and 5 kilograms of powder 
cocaine, creating the 100 to 1 disparity that exists today.
    Based upon the information available at the time, it was 
believed that crack and powder cocaine were different 
substances and that they did in fact have a different impact. 
We know now, however, that as far as substances are concerned, 
they are basically the same. Crack and powder cocaine have 
identical effects. There is some evidence that suggests that 
crack is slightly more addictive because it is smoked rather 
than snorted. Smoking the drug causes it to reach the brain 
faster, and it also wears off more quickly. This makes users 
want to smoke it more often, but that hardly justifies imposing 
the same mandatory minimum sentence for possession of 5 grams 
of crack as is imposed for 500 grams of powder. Both the 
Supreme Court and the U.S. Sentencing Commission have 
recognized the unfairness in this disparity and have acted to 
reduce it, but only Congress is able to eliminate the disparity 
altogether.
    Passed at a time when a crack cocaine epidemic was ravaging 
inner cities and fueling gang violence, the law was intended to 
target the kingpins at the top of the crack trade. According to 
a 2002 report by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, it has swept 
up mostly small-time, street-level dealers. When low-level 
crack dealers are punished more harshly than wholesale 
suppliers of powder cocaine, a necessary ingredient to make 
crack, it undermines people's confidence in the criminal 
justice system. In order for a law to be respected, it has to 
be consistent, and it has to make sense.
    Instead of reducing drug addiction and crime, our current 
drug policy has contributed to the swelling of the inmate 
population in our prisons. The United States currently has more 
than 2.3 million people behind bars, which is the most 
prisoners of any country and the highest per capita rate of 
prisoners in the world. One in 31 Americans is currently in 
prison, on parole, or on probation, and over 50% of these 
inmates are imprisoned for drug crimes. Expanded use of prison 
sentences for drug crimes has caused a dramatic increase in 
state and Federal corrections costs. Since the enactment of 
mandatory minimum sentencing for drug users, the Federal Bureau 
of Prisons' budget increased from $220 million in 1986 to $5.4 
billion in 2008.
    Since enactment, it has become apparent that the incidence 
of this sentencing differential falls disproportionately on 
African-American defendants. While African Americans comprise 
only 12.3 percent of the U.S. population in general, they make 
up 81.8 percent of crack cocaine offenders. They are 
incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites.
    Criminal sentencing should be uniform between similarly 
situated offenders and proportional to the crime, but mandatory 
sentences for crack cocaine have resulted in excessively severe 
sentences. Because crack offenses carry longer sentences than 
equivalent powder cocaine offenses, African-American defendants 
sentenced for cocaine offenses wind up serving prison terms 
that are greater than those served by other cocaine defendants. 
Statutes that provide for the mandatory minimum sentences for 
crack cocaine and the Federal sentencing guidelines have in 
effect violated the equal protection component of the Fifth 
Amendment due process clause. The Equal Protection Clause 
commands that ``all persons similarly circumstanced shall be 
treated alike.'' Due process demands that the law shall not be 
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and the means selected 
shall have a real and substantial relation to the object.
    Cocaine has a devastating effect on our society, but we 
cannot address the problem through law enforcement alone. Many 
inmates struggle with drug addiction, and not all inmates get 
the treatment they need. According to the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, less than 15 percent of Federal offenders with drug 
problems receive treatment while in prison. Funding shortages 
for addiction recovery programs, a lack of in-prison treatment, 
and inadequate rehabilitation options create a bleak reentry 
situation for drug offenders.
    Treatment interventions for substance abuse are far more 
cost-effective than a continued reliance on our overburdened 
prison system. A series of studies in recent years have 
demonstrated that drug treatment both within and outside of the 
criminal justice system is more cost effective in controlling 
drug abuse and crime. A study by the R.A.N.D. Corporation 
concluded that spending one million dollars to expand the use 
of mandatory sentencing for drug offenders would reduce drug 
consumption nationally by 13 kilograms, but spending the same 
amount on treatment would reduce consumption by almost eight 
times that number. The bottom line is that inmates who receive 
treatment are less likely to revert back to drugs than those 
who do not. The best solution is one that combines tough 
enforcement with robust prevention and treatment efforts.
    There is growing concern that there should not be a 100:1 
ratio in the amounts of powder and crack cocaine that trigger 
mandatory minimum sentences. In 2007, the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission, which sets the advisory guideline range that 
Federal judges use when sentencing defendants, unanimously 
voted to reduce lengthy sentences for people convicted of crack 
cocaine related offenses. It was intended as a step toward 
reducing some of the unwarranted disparity. The amendment went 
unchallenged by Congress and went into effect on November 1, 
2007. In December of the same year, the Commission made the 
guideline change retroactive to persons sentenced prior to 
November 1st. Retroactivity of the crack cocaine amendment 
became effective on March 3, 2008. Not every crack cocaine 
offender will be eligible for a lower sentence under the 
decision. A Federal sentencing judge will make the final 
determination of whether an offender is eligible for a lower 
sentence and how much that sentence should be lowered.
    The Sentencing Commission addressed the sentencing policy 
on its own, and the Supreme Court has taken a similar approach. 
On January 12, 2005, a momentous Supreme Court decision in 
United States v. Booker changed the terrain of Federal 
sentencing. The decision essentially made room for reform 
within the Federal system by changing the sentencing guidelines 
from mandatory to advisory, returning discretion to the 
sentencing judge.
    In late 2007, in United States v. Kimbrough, the Supreme 
Court made a fundamental change in how Federal judges apply 
sentencing guidelines regarding cocaine. The Kimbrough decision 
extended the Booker principle to the issue of crack cocaine. 
The Court ruled that a Federal judge hearing a crack cocaine 
case may consider the disparity between the treatment of crack 
and powder offenses, allowing Federal judges to sentence 
outside the sentencing guidelines range and impose more 
reasonable prison sentences for persons convicted of offenses 
involving crack cocaine. This decision clarified that both the 
Sentencing Guidelines and the crack to powder ratio are 
considerations for the district court to take into 
consideration when sentencing a defendant.
    H.R. 3245, the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009 
would eliminate the current 100-to-1 sentencing disparity 
between crack and powder cocaine sentences. The bill would 
remove references to ``cocaine base'' from the U.S. Code, 
effectively treating all cocaine, including crack, the same for 
sentencing purposes. It is important to note that the 
possession and sale of any amount of either drug is still a 
felony. The bill only addresses the trigger levels for 
mandatory minimum sentencing, not whether or not it is a 
felony. All cocaine, in whatever form, will be punished at the 
current level of powder cocaine. This ensures that those 
individuals who have violated the law will be punished fairly 
relative to the punishment. I fully support efforts to address 
the disparity in crack and powder cocaine sentencing and hope 
the full House takes this up as soon as possible.
                                   Daniel Maffei.

                            Dissenting Views

    We oppose H.R. 3245, which effectively removes crack 
cocaine from the Federal drug laws, and, by doing so, 
eliminates any distinction between penalties for crack and 
powder cocaine trafficking offenses. This legislation sends the 
wrong message to drug dealers: that Congress does not take 
drug-trafficking crimes seriously.
    Twenty-five years ago, crack cocaine trafficking strangled 
many communities--especially inner-city communities--where 
residents lived in fear of dealers who controlled the street-
corners. In 1986, the Democratic-controlled Congress responded 
to this epidemic of drug-dealing and its attendant violence by 
rightly enacting tough Federal drug sentencing policies, 
including different penalties for crack and powder cocaine 
trafficking. And these drug-sentencing policies have reduced 
drug-related violence in our cities.
    Crack and powder cocaine use has dropped by almost two-
thirds in the last 20 years, from 5.8 million users in 1985 to 
2.1 million users in 2007.\1\ The substantial increase in 
violence in the mid and late 1980s was attributed to the 
introduction of crack cocaine in 1985. Today, crime rates--
particularly for violent crime--are at their lowest in more 
than thirty years, thanks in large part to the enactment of 
tough penalties for drug trafficking and other offenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See infra note 2; see also infra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 401 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
Sec. 841) imposes penalties for trafficking various illegal 
drugs based upon threshold amounts that are specific and unique 
to each drug. While 1000 kilograms are required to trigger 
penalties for major traffickers of marijuana, only 1 kilogram 
is required for heroin. The same is true for crack cocaine. It 
would be imprudent for Congress to eliminate thresholds 
specific to crack cocaine from the Federal drug statutes. To do 
so ignores the distinction between crack and powder cocaine 
consumption and distribution.
    That is why organizations on the front lines in keeping our 
communities safe, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the 
National Sheriff's Association, the International Association 
of Chiefs of Police, the National Narcotics Officers 
Association Coalition, and the National District Attorneys 
Association, all oppose eliminating the sentencing ratio 
between crack and powder cocaine.

          REPEATING HISTORY: THE CRACK EPIDEMIC OF THE 1980'S

    In the 1980s, cocaine was primarily shipped to the United 
States through the Bahamas. A large supply of cocaine powder in 
these islands caused the price to drop by 80 percent. Faced 
with plummeting prices, drug dealers made the shrewd decision 
to convert the powder to ``crack''--a smokeable form of 
cocaine. Crack was cheaper than powder cocaine, simple to 
produce and highly profitable. As early as 1981, crack appeared 
in Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, and in the Caribbean.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\The Crack Epidemic, DEA History, 1985-1990, Drug Enforcement 
Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, available at http://
www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/history/1985-1990.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Powder cocaine was sold on the street for $100 per gram but 
with only 55 percent purity. In contrast, crack had 80 percent 
or higher purity and could be bought in some major cities for 
as little as $2.50 per dose. Crack produced an instant high 
that caused its users to become addicted in a very short 
time.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The number of Americans addicted to cocaine dramatically 
increased thanks to the escalation in crack use. In 1985, 5.8 
million Americans admitted to using cocaine on a routine basis, 
according to the Department of Health and Human Service's 
National Household Survey. According to DAWN statistics, 
cocaine-related hospital emergencies rose by 12 percent in 
1985, from 23,500 to 26,300. Hospital emergencies increased by 
110 percent in 1986, from 26,300 to 55,200. From 1984 and 1987, 
cocaine incidents increased fourfold.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1986, crack distribution skyrocketed and was now 
available in 28 states and the District of Columbia. According 
to the 1985-1986 National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers 
Committee Report, crack was available in Atlanta, Boston, 
Detroit, Kansas City, Miami, New York City, Newark, San 
Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Dallas, Denver, Minneapolis, and 
Phoenix.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By the late 1980s, more than 10,000 gang members were 
dealing drugs in some 50 cities across the country. The crack 
epidemic had spawned a dramatic increase in violence and crack-
related murders in many large cities skyrocketed. For example, 
a 1988 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that in 
New York City crack use was tied to 32% of all homicides and 
60% of drug-related homicides.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        CRACK AFFECTS ITS USERS DIFFERENTLY THAN POWDER COCAINE

    The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) reported in 
2008 on the effects of cocaine on the human body.

        Abusing cocaine has a variety of adverse effects on the 
        body. For example, cocaine constricts blood vessels, 
        dilates pupils, and increases body temperature, heart 
        rate, and blood pressure. It can also cause headaches 
        and gastrointestinal complications such as abdominal 
        pain and nausea. Because cocaine tends to decrease 
        appetite, chronic users can become malnourished as 
        well. Different methods of taking cocaine can produce 
        different adverse effects. Regularly snorting cocaine, 
        for example, can lead to loss of the sense of smell, 
        nosebleeds, problems with swallowing, coarseness, and a 
        chronically runny nose. Ingesting cocaine can cause 
        severe bowel gangrene as a result of reduced blood 
        flow. Injecting cocaine can bring about severe allergic 
        reactions and increased risk for contracting HIV and 
        other blood-borne diseases. Binge patterns of use may 
        lead to irritability, restlessness, anxiety, and 
        paranoia. Cocaine abusers can suffer a temporary state 
        of full-blown paranoid psychosis, in which they lose 
        touch with reality and experience auditory 
        hallucinations. Regardless of how or how frequently 
        cocaine is used, a user can experience acute 
        cardiovascular or cerebro-vascular emergencies, such as 
        a heart attack or stroke, which may cause sudden death. 
        Cocaine-related deaths are often a result of cardiac 
        arrest or seizure followed by respiratory arrest.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\NIDA InfoFacts: Cocaine, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Aug. 
2008, available at http://www.nida.nih.gov/pdf/infofacts/Cocaine08.pdf.

    Although cocaine's physiological effects on the body may be 
the same when one ingests it in either powder or crack form, 
research shows that crack results in a faster and shorter high, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
resulting in more frequent use. According to NIDA:

        The intensity and duration of cocaine's effects, which 
        include increased energy, reduced fatigue, and mental 
        alertness, depend on the route of drug administration. 
        The faster cocaine is absorbed into the bloodstream and 
        delivered to the brain, the more intense the high. 
        Injecting or smoking cocaine produces a quicker, 
        stronger high than snorting. On the other hand, faster 
        absorption usually means shorter duration of action. 
        The high from snorting cocaine may last 15 to 30 
        minutes, but the high from smoking may last only 5 to 
        10 minutes. In order to sustain the high, a cocaine 
        abuser has to administer the drug again. For this 
        reason, cocaine is sometimes abused in binges--taken 
        repeatedly within a relatively short period of time, at 
        increasingly high doses.

    A study by the University of Minnesota entitled ``Crack 
Cocaine and Cocaine Hydrochloride: Are the Differences Myth or 
Reality?'' found that:

        The physiological and psychoactive effects of cocaine 
        are similar regardless of whether it is in the form of 
        cocaine hydrochloride or crack cocaine (cocaine base). 
        However, evidence exists showing a greater abuse 
        liability, greater propensity for dependence, and more 
        severe consequences when cocaine is smoked (cocaine-
        base) . . . compared with intranasal use (cocaine 
        hydrochloride). The crucial variables appear to be the 
        immediacy, duration, and magnitude of cocaine's effect, 
        as well as the frequency and amount of cocaine used 
        rather than the form of the cocaine.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\D.K. Hatsukami and M.W. Fischman, Department of Psychiatry, 
Division of Neurosciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (1996).

    When smoked, cocaine (i.e. crack) results in a quicker 
onset and faster penetration. ``Generally, smoked cocaine 
reaches the brain within 20 seconds; the effects last for about 
30 minutes, at which time the user, to avoid the effects of a 
`crash,' re-uses.''\9\ The Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) reports that a crack user will consume between 3.3 to 
16.5 grams of crack a week, which translates to an average of 
13.2 grams to 66 grams per month.\10\ Crack has a higher purity 
and is therefore more potent than powder cocaine. While powder 
cocaine is between 47.6 and 53.1% pure, crack's purity is as 
high as 60 to 63.5%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Statement of Joseph I. Cassilly, President-Elect, National 
District Attorneys' Association, before the House Judiciary Committee 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, Feb. 26, 2008.
    \10\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When powder cocaine is snorted, it has a slower onset. 
Psychological effects on the user from snorting cocaine peak 
within 20 minutes and the physical effects will manifest 
themselves within 40 minutes. Ultimately, the effects from 
snorting cocaine typically last for as long as an hour beyond 
when the user's high peaks.\11\ ``A typical user snorts between 
two and three lines at a time and consumes about 2 grams per 
month. Using these amounts, the cost per user per month for 
crack cocaine is between $1,300 and $6,600 as compared to a 
cost for powder cocaine of $200 per month; a 6.5:1 to 33:1 
ratio in cost.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Id.
    \12\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRACK OFFENSES ARE MORE-OFTEN ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER AGGRAVATING FACTORS

    While cocaine base--crack--and cocaine hydrochloride--
cocaine powder--are chemically similar, there are significant 
differences in the predominant way the two substances are 
ingested and marketed. Because crack is distributed in such 
relatively small amounts in transactions that often occur on 
street corners, control of small geographic areas by 
traffickers takes on great importance. As a result, crack 
offenders are more likely to possess a weapon, and crack is 
often associated with serious crime related to its marketing 
and distribution, especially violent street crime connected 
with gangs, guns, serious injury and death.
    Cocaine trafficking patterns, moreover, lead to high rates 
of violence associated with both powder and crack cocaine 
trafficking, but especially with crack trafficking. Although 
crack trafficking methods vary widely, generally, they are 
conducted at three broad levels, namely, wholesale trafficking, 
mid-level distribution, and retail selling. Wholesale crack 
traffickers purchase cocaine in kilogram or multi-kilogram 
allotments from traditional cocaine sources.
    Sentencing Commission data show that crack cocaine is 
associated with violence to a greater degree than most other 
controlled substances. In fiscal year 2008 28.1% of all federal 
crack offenders either received a weapons enhancement under the 
sentencing guidelines or were convicted of a separate weapons 
charge.\13\ In fiscal year 2008, only 16.9% of powder cocaine 
offenders either received a weapons enhancement or were 
convicted of a weapons charge.\14\ In addition, in fiscal years 
2007 and 2008, the average criminal history category for crack 
cocaine offenders was Category IV, compared to Category II for 
powder cocaine offenders.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Statement of Ricardo H. Hinojosa, Acting Chair, United States 
Sentencing Commission, before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, May 21, 2009, at 10.
    \14\Id.
    \15\Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Much of the crack cocaine violence is associated with gang 
activity, and drug gang violence has increased in recent years. 
Many drug gangs that traffic in crack cocaine include very 
young members who carry and use guns to promote their drug 
trafficking. Crack cocaine is associated more with street level 
gang violence than is cocaine powder, although gangs also deal 
in methamphetamine, PCP, and many other controlled substances.
    National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) National Drug 
Threat Survey (NDTS) data for 2007 show that 40.1 percent of 
state and local law enforcement agencies report cocaine or 
crack cocaine as the greatest drug threat in their area-higher 
than for any other drug.\16\ Moreover, NDTS data show that 
nationally, the percentage of state and local agencies that 
identified cocaine [powder or crack] as the drug that most 
contributed to violent crime (46.9%) and property crime (40.9%) 
was much higher than for any other drug. Compounding the 
problem posed to the nation by cocaine-related crime is the 
relatively high number of cocaine abusers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\National Drug Threat Assessment 2008, National Drug 
Intelligence Center, U.S. Department of Justice, available at http://
www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs25/25921/25921p.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) data for 
2006 show that more than six million individuals aged 12 and 
older used cocaine within the past year, similar to 2005 (5.5 
million users) and at a rate higher than for all other illegal 
drugs except marijuana.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CONCLUSION

    H.R. 3245 threatens to return America to the days when 
crack cocaine decimated a generation and destroyed communities. 
We cannot support legislation that ignores the violent and 
devastating crack cocaine epidemic of the past and the horrible 
effects of crack cocaine on our neighborhoods and communities 
nationwide.

                                   Lamar Smith.
                                   F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
                                   Howard Coble.
                                   Elton Gallegly.
                                   Bob Goodlatte.
                                   Daniel E. Lungren.
                                   Darrell E. Issa.
                                   Steve King.
                                   Trent Franks.
                                   Louie Gohmert.
                                   Jim Jordan.
                                   Ted Poe.
                                   Jason Chaffetz.
                                   Tom Rooney.
                                   Gregg Harper.