On the recordSeptember 29, 1995
I accept the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts. As is plain from its language, it does not request the Commission to send new guideline changes. Rather, it requests the Commission's recommendations for how the laws and guidelines should be changed. That is the course that in my view is appropriate for the Commission to take, since under current law, the sentences are largely dictated by mandatory minimums set by Congress. Accordingly, major changes in this area have to come from Congress, and until such changes are made the guidelines should conform with existing law. Thus, while the amendment does not detract from the Commission's existing statutory authority to propose amendments to the guidelines, that is not what the amendment asks the Commission to send us. Rather, the amendment merely asks for a policy recommendation. As I indicated on introducing this bill, I have some sympathy with some of the concerns the Commission has raised about present law. In particular, I am concerned that some powder defendants at the top of crack distribution networks seem to be getting lower sentences than retail distributors. I also think that while there is good reason for significant differential treatment of powder and crack, we should have a look more generally at whether the present differential represents the best policy.
Source
govinfo.gov




