[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 24 (Thursday, February 12, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S961-S963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Department of Homeland Security Funding
Mr. President, I have concluded my remarks with respect to the
nomination of Dr. Carter, but I wish to speak for a moment on a
different topic.
We are in the midst of trying to provide appropriations for the
Department of Homeland Security. It is an action we must take and we
should take and we should do it without extraneous policy provisions.
Over the past few weeks, the State of Rhode Island has been beset by
a series of snowstorms. In fact, the State could face another foot of
snow this weekend. In coordinating a response to a disaster such as
this, my State depends upon the Rhode Island Emergency Management
Agency as well as local emergency managers. Those agencies, in turn,
depend on Federal funding through the Department of Homeland Security,
particularly the Emergency Management Performance grant and Homeland
Security grant programs, to build the capacity they need to respond to
snowstorms, to hurricanes, and to natural disasters of all forms.
However, uncertainty about Federal funding makes it harder on my
State to plan and prepare. It is harder for every State to plan and
prepare. It is one of the many reasons we ought to pass the bipartisan
bill that was negotiated by Democrats and Republicans on the Committee
on Appropriations without the provisions added by the House regarding
immigration.
A clean Department of Homeland Security bill would probably pass in
this Chamber by an overwhelming majority in a matter of minutes. We all
understand the security of the United States--not just with respect to
natural disasters but with respect to many of the issues that are
handed off, if you will, from the Department of Defense to the
Department of Homeland Security. When we are worried, as we all are,
about the lone wolves who may be in combat zones but coming to the
United States, that is quickly a Department of Homeland Security
responsibility. I don't think we want to confuse the issue of defending
the homeland and protecting communities from natural disasters with
other issues.
This is commonsense legislation. We have done it before. We have to
move I think with alacrity to get this done. It is about protecting the
American people from natural disasters as well as, unfortunately, in
this world we live in, the potential for terrorist activities that
emanate elsewhere but are directed against the United States.
Issues that are unrelated to funding the Department of Homeland
Security I think should be put aside. We can deal with them. We can
deal with them through the authorization process, but let's get this
Department fully appropriated so it can continue.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I support Dr. Ashton B. Carter to be
our next Secretary of Defense.
I have known Dr. Carter for many years, both inside government and
out, and especially as members of the Aspen Strategy Group. I have
found Dr. Carter to be deeply thoughtful and extraordinarily competent.
I am confident he will serve with distinction as our next Secretary of
Defense, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.
It is vital to swiftly confirm Dr. Carter because we face countless
threats around the world, many of which know no simple resolution. On
all these national security issues, I strongly believe we need someone
in charge who brings leadership, experience, intellect and a strategic
lens. Dr. Carter possesses all of these things, and I fully expect he
will put his expertise and counsel to good use in tackling our Nation's
pressing challenges.
[[Page S962]]
First and foremost, Dr. Carter will need to lead the Pentagon in
confronting and ultimately defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant, ISIL.
ISIL is an unconscionably evil terrorist organization. Its barbarity
knows no bounds. ISIL has burned alive Jordanian Capt. Moath al-
Kasasbeh, beheaded American journalists and aid workers, and inflicts
daily savagery on the people of Syria and Iraq, including the murder of
civilians, women, children, and minorities. To marshal international
support to sustain the global coalition and ensure ISIL is ultimately
eliminated, I trust Dr. Carter to serve his country well.
At the same time, Dr. Carter will need to focus on our drawdown in
Afghanistan. The Taliban is resurgent, ISIL is attempting to establish
itself in the country, and the Afghan National Security Forces need our
continued support. In 2011, the United States fully withdrew from Iraq
only to see that country fall apart due to sectarian violence and undue
foreign influence. We cannot afford the same in Afghanistan.
I have discussed with Dr. Carter my view that our drawdown in
Afghanistan should not be linked to an arbitrary timeline, but rather
to the needs on the ground and the necessity of an orderly transition.
Dr. Carter's deep history with nuclear nonproliferation issues will
also be important in the coming years. Unfortunately, many of our
nonproliferation programs with Russia have gone dormant due to our
worsening bilateral relationship. We cannot let this continue to
happen.
For decades the United States and Russia have worked together to
secure nuclear materials and reduce our nuclear arsenals because doing
so is important not only for U.S. security, but for global security.
Finding a way to work constructively with Russia on securing and
eliminating nuclear material, despite its invasion of Ukraine and
continued support for the Assad regime in Syria, is clearly a most
difficult assignment. I think Dr. Carter is up to the task.
Finally, Dr. Carter will need to deal with the extremely difficult
spending limitations created by the 2011 Budget Control Act. If
Congress cannot come together to find a bipartisan solution to raise
the spending caps, like we did for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, overall
security spending will only be allowed to increase by $1.8 billion this
year, that is a less than one-half of 1 percent increase.
At a time when threats to our Nation are increasing, not decreasing,
I am deeply concerned that, under current law, our defense budget will
not be allowed to rise to meet current threats. Dr. Carter understands
this. In his confirmation hearing, he said, ``I very much hope that we
can find a way together out of the wilderness of sequester.'' I fully
agree, and I urge my colleagues to work together to increase the
spending caps for both defense and non-defense programs.
Dr. Carter is a rare combination of a strategic foreign policy
thinker and an expert on the roles and procedures of the Department of
Defense. In his time as Assistant Secretary of Defense under President
Clinton, he focused on key national security issues like proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and relationships with other major world
powers.
In his two recent positions at the Pentagon--as Undersecretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and as the Deputy
Secretary--Dr. Carter has managed the Department's business functions
and ran its day-to-day operations. As Secretary, he will bring his
unique experience in both sides of the job to the numerous challenges
the Department and the Nation face.
Dr. Carter returns to the Defense Department at a time of immense
global upheaval. Leading the Defense Department in such a time is no
easy task, but I believe he will prove to be an excellent pick to help
our country address these challenges head-on. He has the support of the
President, the military, the civilian leadership of the Department, and
by virtue of this vote, the U.S. Senate.
Mr. REED. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Realities of Drug Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, as chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary, I have mentioned publicly that I am
open to certain Federal sentencing, or prison, reforms, and I have
tried to make it very clear that I am very opposed to others.
Today I wish to address the realities of drug sentencing in the
Federal criminal justice system. I do so because there are many myths
that surround this topic.
The myth is that there are thousands of low-level drug offenders,
such as people smoking marijuana, in Federal prison for very long
terms. This is supposed to mean a waste of Federal tax dollars,
overcrowding, and unfairness to people who should not be in prison.
These myths are often used to justify lenient and, frankly, dangerous
sentencing proposals in the U.S. Senate. One of those proposals is the
so-called Smarter Sentencing Act.
It is time to set the record straight, and that is why I am here. It
is important to know how many people are in Federal prison for drug
possession, who they are, and why they are in prison. Then it will be
clear why it is unwise to make wholesale, one-way lenient changes in
drug sentencing. In fiscal year 2013, the most recent year we have
statistics, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission there were
2,332 drug possession cases in the Federal prison. Almost 94 percent
involved marijuana, more than 86 percent were against noncitizens, and
88 percent of the cases arose along the southwest border, so it is
clear why so many noncitizens were charged. Federal drug possessors
were rarely prosecuted for small quantities.
The median amount of drug possession in these southwest border cases,
which are 88 percent of the Federal drug possession cases, was about 48
pounds. Understand, we are not talking about a few ounces of possession
of marijuana. The average is 48 pounds. Can you imagine being in
possession of 48 pounds of illegal drugs? These are not low-level,
casual offenders by any stretch of the imagination. Moreover, well over
90 percent of the drug possession cases are along the southwest border.
So more than 80 percent of all Federal drug possession cases were
brought in the State of Arizona.
In that district, the U.S. attorney will agree to charge a drug
trafficker with only drug possession if the offender is a first-time
offender who acted only as a courier. Again, the median quantity of the
amount of possession is 48 pounds, and many who actually committed
trafficking there are charged only with mere drug possession.
Since 88 percent of all Federal drug possession cases derive from the
southwest border, only 270 simple drug possession cases arose anywhere
else in the United States. Get this, please. The odds of an American
being subject to a Federal prosecution for drug possession in any given
year are less than 1 in 1 million. It is also imperative to remember
that mandatory minimum sentences are not an issue in these cases. The
average Federal sentence for drug possession is 5 months; that is, only
5 months--I say that for emphasis--not the years of imprisonment some
of the proponents of lenient sentencing would have us believe.
The brevity of Federal drug possession sentences is emphasized by how
in the vast majority of these cases the median amount of drugs at issue
was 48 pounds. In the 270 cases not along the border, the median amount
of drugs the offender possessed was only 4 grams. The average sentence
was 1.3 months. Most of those convicted were sentenced to probation.
There is no basis whatsoever to advocate change in Federal mandatory
minimum sentencing laws based on drug possession cases since they are
not subject to such mandatory minimums. Anyone who raises drug
possession as an argument against Federal mandatory minimum sentences
is using a stalking horse to lower sentences for much more serious
offenders.
[[Page S963]]
There is no separate Federal offense for what is called possession
with intent to distribute. Those who possessed with that intent are
treated the same as those who distribute. We need to look at drug
distribution sentences in the Federal system as well.
Drug trafficking cases are sometimes subject to mandatory minimum
sentences. For instance, just under half of all drug courier offenders
were subject to mandatory minimum sentences, but under 10 percent were
subject to mandatory minimum sentences at the time of their sentencing.
There are two main reasons so few of these offenders are actually
sentenced to a mandatory minimum. The first is they may fall within the
safety valve Congress has enacted to prevent mandatory minimum
sentences from applying to low-level, first-time drug offenders or,
second, they may have provided substantial assistance to prosecutors in
fingering high-level offenders in a drug conspiracy.
That is an intended goal of current Federal sentencing policy, to put
pressure on defendants to cooperate in exchange for a lower sentence so
evidence against more responsible criminals can be attained. As a
result, even for drug couriers the average sentence is 39 months. That
seems to be an appropriate level.
We are not sending huge numbers of nonviolent drug offenders to
Federal prison under lengthy mandatory minimum sentences. I want to
make it very clear, this is the biggest sentencing myth of them all.
When Federal drug sentencing is discussed, we need then to keep in mind
the facts. There are hardly any nonviolent drug-offending Americans in
Federal prison for mere drug possession. The quantities of drugs
underlying the vast majority of Federal possession cases are high and
sentences are fair. For drug courier distribution cases, only 10
percent of offenders are subject to mandatory minimum sentences at the
time of sentencing.
I hope you will be on notice and be on guard. Don't let anyone tell
you Federal mandatory minimum sentences are putting large numbers of
nonviolent offenders in jail for long periods of time at great taxpayer
expense. Don't let anyone tell you such offenders are the reason for
the increase in Federal drug prisoners over the years. Don't let anyone
tell you harsh mandatory sentences for low-level nonviolent offenders
are decimating various communities.
Apart from the clear evidence from the Sentencing Commission
regarding Federal drug offenders, I want to draw attention to the
responses to questions from witnesses before our Judiciary Committee
just this month. Testifying before the committee, Milwaukee County
Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr., stated: ``Federal mandatory minimum
sentences have struck terror into the hearts of career criminals . . .
and have provided longer periods of respite from the impoverished and
crime-riddled communities that can least afford their return.''
The sheriff said he feared the effect in his inner-city community of
changing Federal drug mandatory minimum sentences. I have told my
colleagues I am going to be open to lowering some Federal mandatory
minimum sentences but only where specific situations may warrant that
and if we can add or raise new ones for such offenses as arms export
control violations, financial crimes, and child pornography
possessions. Those three categories do not have to be extremely long
sentences under present law, but too many judges are systematically
sentencing these offenders to probation. Especially when the Supreme
Court has taken away any other means of making sure judges do not let
these offenders walk, mandatory minimum sentences are the only way
Congress can require these offenders serve any time at all.
I am trying to inform my Senate colleagues through the use of facts.
In doing that, by looking at the facts, we will not make unwise and
dangerous changes to our Federal sentencing laws. I ask my colleagues
to stick to the facts and avoid repeating myths. I pointed out those
myths. It is a myth to say sentences for drug possession and nonviolent
offenders justify the Smarter Sentencing Act. That bill does not apply
to possession at all. Many drug offenses necessarily involve violence.
Drug conspiracies operate with the threat or the use of force.
Whatever the offense charged, if the offender has a history of
violent crime, he is a violent offender, and the sentence will and
should reflect that fact. It is a myth to say the Smarter Sentencing
Act would save money. All it would do is shift costs from incarceration
to the victims who bear the cost of the crimes that earlier released
offenders would commit. That is one of the reasons the bill is
dangerous.
The Congressional Budget Office also says it would add billions of
dollars in mandatory spending, regardless of what upfront discretionary
savings there may be. I would ask my colleagues to get this: It is a
fact the Smarter Sentencing Act would cut sentences for a range of
heroin offenses, including importation and dealing, while the entire
Nation is in the midst of a heroin epidemic and a rising number of
deaths from heroin overdoses.
I would ask my colleagues to get this: It is a fact from the heads of
the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency and Federal police
organizations that mandatory minimum sentences spur cooperation from
defendants and enable the successful prosecution of high-level drug
criminals who cause most of the tremendous harm. That includes
cooperation from defendants charged with narcoterrorism.
I would ask my colleagues to get this: It is a fact the so-called
Smarter Sentencing Act would cut in half the mandatory minimum
sentences Congress put in place for distributing drugs to benefit
terrorists or terrorist organizations. It would cut in half the
mandatory minimum sentences for members of Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS or
Hezbollah who deal drugs that fund terrorism. That would mean less
cooperation to bring charges of narcoterrorism, get terrorists off the
streets, and obtain intelligence to help prevent future attacks.
As President Obama's U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New
York has remarked, ``[T]here is a growing nexus between drug
trafficking and terrorism, a threat that increasingly poses a clear and
present danger to our national security.
So I ask my colleagues to get this: It is a fact that the so-called
Smarter Sentencing Act is dangerous not only because of its effect on
increased crime and victimization but on national security as well.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.