PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Sep 28, 2021
Eliminating a Quantifiably Unjust Application of the Law Act of 2021 or the EQUAL Act of 2021
This bill eliminates the federal sentencing disparity between drug offenses involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine.
Currently, different threshold quantities of crack cocaine and powder cocaine (e.g., 28 grams of crack cocaine and 500 grams of powder cocaine) trigger the same statutory criminal penalties.
This bill eliminates the lower quantity thresholds for crack cocaine offenses. Under the bill, the same threshold quantities of crack cocaine and powder cocaine trigger the same statutory criminal penalties.
The change applies to future cases and cases pending on the date of enactment. With respect to past cases, the bill authorizes a sentencing court to impose a reduced sentence on a defendant who was convicted or sentenced for a specified crack cocaine offense before this bill's enactment. A defendant does not have to be present at the sentence reduction hearing. Finally, the bill prohibits the reduction of a sentence that was previously reduced.
People & committees
Rep. Jeffries, Hakeem S. [D-NY-8] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 361 - 66 (Roll no. 297). (text: CR H5477)
House roll call 297 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 361 - 66 (Roll no. 297).(text: CR H5477)
House roll call 297 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5492-5493)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1693.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5477-5481)
Mr. Nadler moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 92.
Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged.
Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 117-128, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 117-128, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended).
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1693 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1693 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1693 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1693 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.