The House Judiciary Committee endorsed legislation today that would establish the same sentencing guidelines for powder cocaine and crack offenses.

The Democrat-backed “Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009” was reported out of committee by a 16-9 vote along party lines. The legislation would eliminate the 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine penalties put in place by Congress in the 1980s. The decades old law gives the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the sale of five grams of crack cocaine as it does for the sale of 500 grams of powder cocaine. The legislation supported by the panel today also would abolish mandatory minimum sentences for crack and remove distinctions between powder cocaine and crack offenses.

“This distinction is no longer considered rational,” Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), chair of the House Judiciary crime, terrorism and homeland security subcommittee, said at the meeting today.

Panel Republicans tried to kept mandatory penalties for powder cocaine and crack offenses in place, but were unsuccessful. The committee tabled an amendment offered by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) that would have maintained a mandatory minimum prison sentence for powder cocaine and crack offenses.

“The bill sends the wrong message to drug dealers and those who traffic in ravaging human lives,” said House Judiciary Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) at the meeting. “It sends the message that Congress does not take drug crimes seriously.”

Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer has stood in support  of Congress’s efforts to eliminate the differences between crack and powder cocaine sentencing. He said at a hearing in May that the current sentencing policies – which disfavor blacks because crack is generally sold in poor urban communities – are “hard to justify.”

This post has been corrected from an earlier version.

Former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh urged members of the House Judiciary crime, terrorism and homeland security subcommittee this afternoon to revamp federal laws that over-criminalize conduct.

Richard Thornburgh (K&L Gates)

The ex-federal prosecutor said at a hearing today that many statutes in the Federal Criminal Code unfairly punish individuals who do not have a “evil-meaning mind [and] evil-doing hand.” The panel hearing included testimony from Kathy Norris, whose husband was imprisoned for importing orchid bulbs without the proper paperwork.

“True crimes should be met with true punishment. While we must be ‘tough on crime,’ we must also be intellectually honest,” said Thornburgh, who served as Attorney General under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and is of counsel at K&L Gates LLP. “Those acts that are not criminal should be countered with civil or administrative penalties to ensure that true criminality retain its importance and value in the legal system.”

Thornburgh said problems with over-criminalization could be fixed by streamlining the federal criminal code, establishing standards that protect companies from “rogue” employees and curbing the increase in criminal offenses that are imposed by regulatory agencies and not enacted by Congress.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said the Federal Criminal Code hasn’t been updated for 50 years and includes a number of overlapping statutes. Panel Chair Bobby Scott (D-Va.) and Gohmert agreed that the patchwork of federal criminal laws must be revised. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) introduced legislation this year to “modernize, shorten and simplify” the code.

“Such a rewrite would be a tremendous undertaking, but would be valuable to both practitioners and members of Congress,” Gohmert said.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) had a lot on his mind going into a House subcommittee hearing today on the Bureau of Prisons.

John Conyers (Gov)

His wife, former Detroit City Council member Monica Conyers, pleaded guilty in federal court last month to one count of conspiring to commit bribery and could spend up to five years in prison. Last week, a conservative legal group asked the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate whether he was a player in his wife’s corruption scandal.

At the panel hearing, Conyers wanted BOP Director Harley Lappin to give him a general assessment of U.S. prison life.

“I don’t know if there’s anything called prisoner morale, but what’s it like in the slammer?” Conyers asked.

The House Judiciary chair and House Judiciary crime, terrorism and homeland security subcommittee members also had concerns about prison overcrowding and insufficient staffing.

BOP received $5.6 billion last year. President Obama requested almost $6 billion for the bureau this year. The House Appropriations Committee report that accompanied the legislation on the DOJ budget called the understaffing “chronic.” The report said staffing problems were the result of “inadequate budget requests.”

“Our number one priority right now in the Bureau of Prisons  is increasing the number of staff in our institutions that directly supervise inmates,” Lappin said.

Former Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan urged members of the House Judiciary crime, terrorism and homeland security subcommittee this morning to retain mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes.

Michael J. Sullivan (Ashcroft Sullivan)

The panel is considering four bills that seek to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes including crack cocaine offenses and law enforcement officials who use their guns in a crime while on duty.

The bills under consideration are:

-H.R. 834: Ramos and Compean Justice Act of 2009

-H.R. 2934: Common Sense in Sentencing Act of 2009

-H.R. 1466: Major Drug Trafficking Prosecution Act of 2009

-H.R. 1459: Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009

Sullivan said that the risk of a long mandatory sentence entices drug offenders to cooperate during investigations.

“Without the mandatory minimum, a lot of the regional and national drug investigations would be stalled,” said Sullivan, a partner at Boston law firm Ashcroft Sullivan, which was founded by former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Julie Stewart, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, said at the hearing today that prosecutors in white collar cases and other complex cases are still able to get cooperation without imposing mandatory minimum sentences.

“There are ways to bring conviction without mandatory minimum sentences,” said Stewart, the wife of Office of Legislative Affairs head Ron Weich. The Assistant Attorney General has said he will recuse himself from all matters involving mandatory sentencing policies because of his wife’s advocacy work.

Subcommittee Democrats said mandatory sentencing laws unfairly target blacks and do not fit the crime.

The panel held a hearing in May about the legislation that will revise the 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine penalties put in place by Congress in the 1980s. The decades old law gives the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the sale of five grams of crack cocaine as it does for the sale of 500 grams of powder cocaine.

Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer has stood in support  of Congress’s efforts to eliminate the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing.

“We know the mandatory minimum sentences do not work,” said subcommittee Chair Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.)

Panel Republicans said some of the laws could be tweaked, but mandatory minimum sentences should not be eliminated completely.

“When the thermostat is swung from one extreme temperature to another, people get sick,” said subcommittee Ranking Member Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

Sullivan agreed with the Republicans. He said there are very few examples of mandatory minimum sentences that were unwarranted.

“The vast majority received sentences that are appropriate under the current sentencing scheme,” Sullivan said.

The panelists at the hearing also discussed the Ramos and Compean Justice Act, which would eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for law enforcement officials who use their guns in a crime while on duty.

The bill is named for former Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who shot a fleeing Mexican drug smuggler in the buttocks and tried to cover the incident up. Former Bush aide Johnny Sutton, the former U.S. Attorney in San Antonio, led the 2005 prosecution that outraged conservative commentators and even many Democrats, most prominently Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California.

Ramos was sentenced to 11 years. Compean received a 12 year sentence. They received the sentences because of mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), sponsor of the Ramos and Compean Justice Act, successfully lobbied President Bush to commute their sentences in January, which set them free.

National Border Patrol Council President T. J. Bonner, whose organization represents border law enforcement officials, said at the hearing that mandatory minimum sentencing laws affect the morale of agents trying to do their job.

“This is a problem that needs to be addressed,” Bonner said.

D.C. U.S. District Court Judge Paul Friedman became one of the first judges to employ the same sentencing guidelines for powder cocaine and crack offenses, The Blog of the Legal Times reported today.

Defendant Anthony Lewis was sentenced to 162 months for possessing 18.7 grams of crack, but yesterday Friedman lowered his sentence to 130 months, according to The BLT. Northern District of Iowa U.S. District Court Judge Mark Bennett implemented the same standards as Friedman last month, The BLT said.

“Thus, in the future, this Court will apply the 1-to-1 ratio in all crack cocaine cases and then will separately consider all aggravating factors applicable in any individual case, such as violence, injury, recidivism or possession or use of weapons,” Friedman wrote, according to The BLT.

The House Judiciary crime, terrorism and homeland security subcommittee is considering a series of bills that will revise the 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine penalties established by Congress in the 1980s. The decades old law gives the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the sale of five grams of crack cocaine as it does for the sale of 500 grams of powder cocaine.

The Justice Department has called for the end of the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing. DOJ Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer the current sentencing policies – which disfavor blacks because crack is generally sold in poor urban communities – are “hard to justify.”

Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer continued to stand in support today of Congress’s efforts to eliminate the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing.

The House Judiciary crime, terrorism and homeland security subcommittee is considering a series of bills that will revise the 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine penalties put in place by Congress in the 1980s. The decades old law gives the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the sale of five grams of crack cocaine as it does for the sale of 500 grams of powder cocaine.

Breuer said at the subcommittee hearing that the current sentencing policies –which disfavor blacks because crack is generally sold in poor urban communities – are “hard to justify.”

“The Obama administration firmly believes that our criminal and sentencing laws must be tough, predictable, fair, and not result in unwarranted racial and ethnic disparities,” Breuer said.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) said simply scrapping the ratio would not be the answer to the disparity.

“As Congress considers revising the sentencing disparity, we should not discount the severity of crack addiction or ignore the differences between crack and powder cocaine trafficking,” Smith said in a statement prepared for the subcommittee. “Nor should we presume that the only solution to the disparity is to lower the crack penalties. Cocaine is still one of the most heavily trafficked and dangerous drugs in America.”

Breuer did not discount the severity of crack addiction or trafficking. He said in his statement that cocaine is “a serious risk to the health and safety of Americans,” but he would not take a position on mandatory minimum penalties for cocaine offenses, when asked by the subcommittee chair Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.)

“Ultimately, we all share the goals of ensuring that the public is kept safe, reducing crime and substance abuse, and minimizing the wide-reaching, negative effects of illegal drugs,” Breuer said.