[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2028-S2029]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 619. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent 
unjust and irrational criminal punishments; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Paul to introduce 
the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013, which will start to take on the 
problem of the ever-increasing Federal prison population and spiraling 
costs that spend more and more of our justice budget on keeping people 
in prison, thereby reducing opportunities to do more to keep our 
communities safe. This bill will combat injustice in Federal sentencing 
and the waste of taxpayer dollars by allowing judges appropriate 
discretion in sentencing.
  As a former prosecutor, I understand that criminals must be held 
accountable and that long sentences are sometimes necessary to keep 
violent criminals off the street and deter those who would commit 
violent crime. I have come to believe, however, that mandatory minimum 
sentences do more harm than good. As Justice Kennedy said, ``In too 
many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.''
  Currently a ``safety valve'' provision allows low-level drug 
offenders to avoid mandatory minimum penalties if certain conditions 
are met. The bill we introduce today would extend that safety valve to 
all Federal crimes subject to mandatory minimum penalties, allowing a 
judge to impose a sentence other than a statutorily designated 
mandatory sentence in cases in which key factors are present. The judge 
would be required to provide notice to the parties and to state in 
writing the reasons justifying the alternative sentence.
  The United States has a mass incarceration problem. Between 1970 and 
2010, the number of people incarcerated grew by 700 percent. Although 
the United States has only 5 percent of the world's population, we 
incarcerate almost a quarter of its prisoners. At the end of 2011, 2.2 
million people were in jail or prison in the United States. That means 
we incarcerate roughly 1 in every 100 adults.
  As of last week, the Federal prison population was over 217,000. 
Almost half of those men and women are imprisoned on drug charges. 
Compare this with 1980, when the Federal prison population was just 
25,000. Since 2000 alone, the Federal prison population has increased 
by 55 percent.
  As more and more people are incarcerated for longer and longer, the 
resulting costs have placed an enormous strain on the Justice 
Department's budget and have at the same time severely limited the 
ability to enact policies that prevent crimes effectively and 
efficiently. At a time when our economy has been struggling to recover 
from the worst recession in the last 75 years and our budget is 
limited, we must look at the wasteful spending that occurs with 
overincarceration.
  At the federal level, over the last 5 years, our prison budget has 
grown by nearly $2 billion. In 2007, we spent approximately $5.1 
billion on Federal prisons. Last year, the Federal Bureau of Prisons 
requested more than $6.8 billion. That means less money for Federal law 
enforcement, less aid to State and local law enforcement, and less 
funding for crime prevention programs and prisoner reentry programs. In 
short, we have less to spend on the kinds of programs that evidence has 
shown work best to keep crime rates down. Building more prisons and 
locking people up for longer and longer--especially nonviolent 
offenders--is not the best use of taxpayer money and is, in fact, an 
ineffective means of keeping our communities safe.
  The proliferation of Federal mandatory minimum sentences is not the 
only factor driving the increase in incarceration rates, but it is an 
important factor. The number of mandatory minimum penalties in the 
Federal code nearly doubled from 1991 to 2011. Even those defendants 
not subject to mandatory minimums have seen their penalties increase as 
a result of mandatory penalties being incorporated into the U.S. 
sentencing guidelines.
  In addition to driving up our prison population, mandatory minimum 
penalties can lead to terribly unjust results in individual cases. This 
is why a large majority of judges oppose mandatory minimum sentences. 
In a 2010 survey by the U.S. Sentencing Commission of more than 600 
Federal district court judges, nearly 70 percent agreed that the 
existing safety valve provision should be extended to all Federal 
offenses. That is what our bill does.

[[Page S2029]]

Judges, who hand down sentences and can see close up when they are 
appropriate and just, overwhelmingly oppose mandatory minimum 
sentences.
  Congress has too often moved in the wrong direction by imposing new 
mandatory minimum sentences unsupported by evidence while failing to 
reauthorize crucial programs like the Second Chance Act to rehabilitate 
prisoners who will be released to rejoin our communities. Our reliance 
on mandatory minimums has been a great mistake. I am not convinced it 
has reduced crime, but I am convinced it has imprisoned people, 
particularly nonviolent offenders, for far longer than is just or 
beneficial. It is time for us to let judges go back to acting as judges 
and making decisions based on the individual facts before them. A one-
size-fits-all approach to sentencing does not make us safer.
  This is a bipartisan issue. Sentencing reform works. States, 
including very conservative States such as Texas, that have implemented 
sentencing reform have saved money and seen their crime rates drop.
  I thank Senator Paul for his dedication to this cause and for working 
with me on this legislation. I hope other Senators will join us in 
advancing this legislation and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used 
more efficiently to better prevent crime rather than simply building 
more prisons.
                                 ______