[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.