FEENEY AMENDMENT

The News-Journal editorial of Nov. 19 ("Cruel and irrational: A
55-year sentence for selling a few joints' worth?") makes a compelling
case for tougher sentences for rape, murder and terrorism. As chairman
of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, I
believe the editorial's suggestion that we should feel sorry for
Weldon Angelos, a convicted drug dealer who carried firearms on
repeated drug sales, is less compelling. In addition to the three drug
sales while armed with a Glock pistol, a search of Angelos' apartment
revealed almost $20,000 in cash, additional drugs and firearms,
including one that was stolen, with more stashed at his girlfriend's
apartment.

The editorial's assertion that the sentence imposed on Angelos was
somehow affected by the Feeney Amendment is simply wrong. The sentence
was mandated by statutes passed by Democrat-controlled Congresses. The
Feeney Amendment to last year's crime bill passed the House with a
bipartisan vote of 357 to 58. It mandates that federal judges can
depart below applicable federal sentencing guidelines for only
justifiable reasons stated on the record and subject to meaningful
appellate review. This was in direct response to a creeping return of
disparity in federal criminal sentencing, to prevent similarly
situated defendants' receiving vastly different sentences depending
upon the judge.

It disserves readers to suggest the Feeney Amendment has anything to
do with the Angelos sentence.

U.S. Rep. Howard Coble

Washington, D.C.