John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. One reminder about the substitute that is before us, it is dealing with crack possession only, not trafficking, not people working in the underworld. Small amounts of crack, 5 grams, about one-sixth of an ounce is all that is involved. We implore Members to consider this substitute favorably, which comports with the recommendations of the Sentencing Commission, which we, in fact, created a number of years back. It is a small but very, very important step forward. We hope that with this debate we have illuminated the minds of many of our colleagues who may have been wondering just what this was really all about. Support my substitute amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings]

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to continue the dialog with the chairman of the subcommittee. As the gentleman knows, this is a disparity that comes about because one community uses one drug and that this drug has been pinpointed by law enforcement officers and the arrest rate has gone up astronomically. As the gentleman also knows, the rate of usage of even crack is exceeded in the white community and there is no 95 percent conviction rate for that same drug. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, Reverend Flake. (Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, would my colleague, the chairman of the committee, remember, we do not have to checkout the statement of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters]. I brought that before the Subcommittee on Crime's attention months ago. This is not something we ought to have to check out. The second thing I would like my friend from Florida to remember is that, and he has repeatedly said this during this debate, 5 grams possession of cocaine or crack is no presumption that they are selling. Sale and trafficking is a completely different crime. So the gentleman should remember that there is no way that the gentleman can presume that someone that has 5 grams of anything is indeed dealing in sale. That turns on the facts and the evidence in the court. If the prosecutor finds someone selling, he will prosecute for sale. Now, Mr. Chairman, we are going to be working on this subject of crime and race for the rest of our career, I would say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], so we do not want to get off into space tonight on it. What I want the gentleman to know, and perhaps we will have to deal with this more carefully in our committee, is that African-Americans by more than one study are more likely to be arrested, more likely to be charged with more offenses, more likely to be prosecuted, more likely to receive heavier sentences, more likely to go to death row. That is because of the racial injustice in the criminal justice system. Please remember this as we proceed on into other related subjects about race and the criminal justice system. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne], who serves now as the current chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have here from the sentencing project, which did a study called ``Young Black Americans and the Criminal Justice System Five Years Later.'' They end their summary of that report with a chart showing the percentages of African-Americans in the population among the monthly drug users, what percentage they constitute of drug arrests, of drug convictions and prison sentences. Here I think, I say to my colleagues, is where we can get an idea about the unfairness of the system without any doubt whatsoever. The first chart, the first bar is of the U.S. population of African- Americans by percentage, 12 percent. The next bar is monthly drug users who are African-Americans, 13 percent. The third bar is drug arrests, African-Americans arrested for drug use, 35 percent of all those arrested. But 13 percent are drug users, 35 percent arrested. The next bar is drug convictions, 55 percent. And the last bar is prison sentences, 74 percent. So from 12 percent of the population, to 13 percent of the monthly drug users, to 35 percent of the drug arrests, to 55 percent of the drug convictions, to 74 percent of the prison sentences, it seems to me a good time this evening, Mr. Chairman, for the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Committee on the Judiciary, that we begin to plan for an investigation into the relationships between race and the criminal justice system. Now, we have done that in a couple of important respects this year. I would like all of our colleagues to know [[Page H 10279]] about what the gentleman has done in that regard, because we are having hearings on the militia in America very soon, next month. That was a result of the gentleman's cooperation and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman, that we would look into these militia, also these other organizations, the skinheads, the Aryan Nations and other sorts of groups. I have been trying to get that investigation and hearing for many years. We now have another request in to the chairman, not unrelated to this subject, about investigating police activity in America now that we have found that, in Philadelphia, police have been planting drugs, planting evidence to the extent that they have spoiled hundreds of cases pending and that have occurred in the criminal justice system in that city. We know about the Fuhrman tapes, 12 hours of tapes that recount an incredible amount of intentional lawbreaking not only on the part of former Detective Fuhrman but that was endemic throughout the police department in which he served for many years. We have complaints coming from as close in as Maryland, as far as New York. New Orleans has been a problem that the Department of Justice has been investigating with a long list of others. So what we are talking about, and I think we are having an intelligent discussion on it, is race and crime and the criminal justice system. Tonight we focus 48 hours after a million people have visited the Capital. We are now focusing on one item of this huge, complex, difficult-in-America subject to discuss. I commend the gentleman for the way he has been forthcoming across the months, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. I know that the gentleman indeed has some reservation about this disparity. The gentleman does not support the sentencing commission, but I do. Most of the Members, I think, in this Congress, after having listened to this debate tonight, will support the substitute that I make to the Senate bill merely to bring into focus one of two recommendations that the gentleman has sought to have rejected by the sentencing commission. Please, let us give it a shot. It does not change the statutory, mandatory offenses, as the gentleman well knows, but it is the beginning step. It is the beginning step toward undoing this mischief that creates 95 percent of the crack cocaine prosecutions being brought to African-American and Hispanic citizens. Please join us in this effort. It will not break the bank. It will not change the problems in the criminal justice law. It will not end racism in America. But it will be one small but all-important step toward us making this a better place to live. It will restore some confidence that is badly needed in the system. I urge the gentleman to give it his utmost consideration. I hope that all of the Members of this House that have heard this debate will come in and vote freely and fairly about whether or not this disparity between powder and crack should be eliminated this night in this place on this vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, to point out to my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary that, first of all, my substitute does not include dealers, trafficking. It only deals with possession. Second, the majority of crack users in America are not African- Americans. They are white. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remakes.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], a former law enforcement officer. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, 48 hours ago this Nation, perhaps the world, was galvanized by the resolve that has never happened before publicly in our community. A million African-American males came together to pledge to restore and fight for family values, to build up their neighborhoods, to fight crime, to root out evil and wrongdoing. Now, 2 days later, we come here to reexamine whether we will deal with this moment of fairness in terms of crack and powder disparity in sentencing. Please listen to the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and their friends that bring us not expert testimony, but they live in, represent, have grown up with, are a part of the communities that are being wracked by this unfair sentencing. I want to deal with one problem that the gentleman from Florida has raised in which he has cavalierly said time and time again that, if you have 5 grams of crack, it is presumed that you are a dealer. A gram is one-thirtieth of an ounce. You have to prove that you are a dealer. If you are arrested for possession, possession is possession. Trafficking is a different crime entirely.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I point out to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], my good friend with whom I have worked on Committee on the Judiciary across the years, that sending this bill back is the best way to dodge the issue. The one thing we do not want to do is, after the Sentencing Commission has taken years of studying this, to tell them to go back and study it some more. That is what they have done. Mr. Chairman, what we need to do is give it to them one way or the other, and now is the moment to correct the disparity between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine. Let us do it today. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very glad my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], is still on the floor, because there are two points that I would like to make that are very important here. First of all, we appreciate his concern for our neighborhoods that are ravaged with drugs. The gentleman referred to the minority community. We now have 40 African-American Members, men and women, in the Congress that are, with all due respect, as concerned as he is, if not more so, about the pernicious effects of drugs in our community. We welcome the gentleman to this concern that we all mutually have, and now we invite him to listen carefully to the points that we are making. The first one has already been made, and it is that there is no accusation of a racist motive when this disparity was first brought into the law. But the second one is much more important, and that is that we can now correct what has now been proven to be a disparity that turns on race and economic ability. In other words, what has happened in the sentencing disparity is that more and more African-Americans and Hispanics, minorities in poorer neighborhoods, have been deliberately targeted. That has increased the incarceration rate. Another study that I would refer you to shows now that the number of young African-American males caught in the criminal justice process is not one out of four but is now one out of three. One of the main reasons is this disparity. And so it would seem from the gentleman's comments that I could invite him to join us in my amendment that merely ends the disparity of 100 to 1. We will now make the possession part, and that is what you complained of, and that is what we complained of. We are not talking about sale or trafficking. We are talking only about possession. We should understand here that this debate and the amendment that will follow deals only with possession. People who have never committed an offense, never been incarcerated, have no record, and are yet being sentenced to 5 years for mere possession. Would that amendment have some appeal to the gentleman from Florida under these circumstances?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a Member who has concentrated his efforts on this activity.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, congratulations to the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], the subcommittee chairman, and the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], who has worked with him across the years. I am a cosponsor and strong supporter of H.R. 587 which resolves the confusion created by two conflicting appellate court decisions on the standards for granting process patents to biotechnology companies. Though this is a matter that could have been resolved by the courts, the matter has been pending since November 1992 without any resolution. Further delays could be costly to American biotech companies. The legislation prohibits the Patent and Trademark Office from rejecting applications for process patents using or resulting in a composition of matter that is novel and nonobvious. This legislation serves the important purpose of protecting the rights of American companies to bring patent infringement claims against importers who are able to evade the law by processing cells outside the United States and importing the finished products into the United States on the technicality that there has been no use of patented host cells in the United States. Without a process patent, the importation of the final product cannot be challenged. I urge passage of this worthy bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, my congratulations again to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], who was joined by the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] to make sure that we got to this point. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the measure. The sounds of harmony that I hear today on H.R. 1506 are, well, music to my ears. I am truly delighted that our friends in the recording industry, the performing rights societies, the broadcasters and the background music services have, under the auspices of this subcommittee, done the tough job of hammering out a compromise agreement that is acceptable to all. When Mr. Moorhead asked me to join with him as a lead cosponsor of H.R. 1506, we both knew that such a process would be essential to the final resolution of this matter. We both knew that H.R. 1506 as introduced would not be the final word, but rather the logical starting point of a process which broke down in an unfortunate manner last year. Three major issues were critical to the resolution of this matter. First, there was disagreement about the exclusive rights to license performances of digital music on interactive or audio-on-demand services and whether this would be a right shared with the performance rights societies. Second, the commercial music services, like MUZAK, wanted an exemption such as provided for them in the House bill but not in the Senate bill. Third, there was a dispute over when there is a digital delivery which affects the record companies' ability to collect royalties. Under your leadership, Mr. Speaker, these three sticky matters have now become transformed into harmonic convergence. The agreement requires the interactive music distributor to obtain licenses from both the record company, for the sound recording, and from the performing rights societies, for the musical composition. That seems fair to me. Commercial background services, so long as they do not alter their operations to make copying easier, are fully exempt, and that, too, is similar to the exemption for broadcasters. Finally, the recording industry will pay mechanical royalties at two different rates, one when records are actually sold and the customer makes a permanent copy, and one in situations where there may be copying of albums by someone who is paying only for the right to listen to the music. This settles a dispute that received a lot of discussion at the June 21 hearing. By passing this legislation, Congress will open the door to a golden age of digital technology where--as described in a Boston University Law Review article--consumers may never have to set foot in a record store, yet have the ability to choose a musical selection from everything ever recorded without fear that it is out of stock, and be able to copy the album, at any time of the day or night, over a fiber optic cable by using a remote control while sitting in the comfort of their living rooms. Best of all, all this will be possible without the industrial meltdown that many had feared would put the record companies out of business as a result of the new digital technology or cut off a stream of income to the creative geniuses who are America's composers and song writers. I am especially pleased that performing artists will also benefit from this legislation. One estimate is that in 1987, performing artists should have received as much as half of the $120 million that is collected worldwide for the public performance of sound recordings; now they stand to recover royalties when recordings of their performances are distributed digitally. I urge strong support for this compromise.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the most outstanding jazz artists of our time, Eddie Harris. As a great musician, he has composed hits such as ``Listen Here'' [[Page E 1932]] and ``Exodus,'' which sold over a million copies. As a distinguished pedagogue, he has written seven books on music and taught in Detroit, Chicago, New Orleans, and throughout Europe. Eddie Harris was born in Chicago where he discovered his love for music by playing piano and singing with gospel choirs. He soon extended his musical studies to the vibraphone, the clarinet, and the saxophone and later traveled widely with the 7th Army Symphony Band. His saxophone, piano, and experimentalism with synthesizers and trumpets thrust him into international spotlight as an innovative and creative symbol of jazz where he remains today. Once called a musical Michelangelo, Harris earned a reputation by experimenting with different playing techniques, most notably by exploring the possibilities of electronic saxophone amplification. His interests are as broad as his talents, and he is known for his influence on funk and for the revolutionary impact of his introduction of rock music into jazz fusion. I am pleased that Legends of Jazz is honoring this great musical force who holds well-deserved respect and admiration.