[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1576-S1580]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         SMARTER SENTENCING ACT

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, we rise today to speak in favor of the 
Smarter Sentencing Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that would 
make targeted reforms to mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent 
drug offenders.
  I was proud to join my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator 
Durbin, in introducing this legislation. He and I wish to thank our 
cosponsors, Senators Jeff Flake, Cory Booker, Ted Cruz, Pat Leahy, Rand 
Paul, Sheldon Whitehouse, Johnny Isakson, and Chris Coons.
  I also wish to thank the lead sponsors of the House version of the 
Smarter Sentencing Act, Congressmen Rauul Labrador and Bobby Scott.
  It is not often that you see a political coalition such as this one 
on Capitol Hill. It reflects the importance of an issue whose time has 
come--reforming our Federal sentencing laws. We come to the floor today 
to explain what the Smarter Sentencing Act does and to address some 
common misconceptions about our bill that have been expressed on the 
Senate floor.
  I ask my friend and colleague Senator Durbin: What problems does the 
Smarter Sentencing Act seek to address?
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Utah not only 
for his leadership on this issue but for the fact that we have been 
able to work together on an issue that is not considered to be simple 
in nature. It is challenging, complex, and controversial in some 
respects. As the Senator mentioned at the outset, we have done it on a 
bipartisan basis. If one looks at the cosponsors of the Smarter 
Sentencing Act, they span the political spectrum.
  I was standing at our press conference--as the Senator from Utah was 
speaking--next to Senator Ted Cruz. Some said: Durbin and Cruz are on 
the same bill? As the saying goes around here, obviously one of us has 
not read it. The fact is that we both read it, and we both understand 
the importance of this undertaking.
  Our criminal justice system in America is in crisis. The United 
States of America holds more prisoners, by far, than any other country 
in the world. The Federal prison population has grown by 750 percent 
since 1980 and our Federal prisons are approximately 30 percent over 
capacity.
  Over the past 30 years, spending on Federal incarceration has 
increased more than 1,100 percent. Our exploding prison population now 
consumes a quarter of the Justice Department's

[[Page S1577]]

discretionary budget. These runaway expenditures are undermining other 
law enforcement efforts. The U.S. attorney's office and the Drug 
Enforcement Administration have already lost hundreds of positions, and 
resources for State and local law enforcement have decreased 
dramatically.
  The biggest drivers of growth in the Federal prison population are 
drug sentences. There are almost 50,000 more drug offenders in Federal 
prisons now than 20 years ago--50,000. This problem is made even worse 
by mandatory minimum sentences which have grown by 155 percent over the 
past 15 years. One-third of all Federal prisoners are now subject to 
mandatory minimums and 50 percent of those are drug offenders.
  These mandatory penalties don't allow our courts to distinguish 
between the big-time career offenders, who ought to be the focus of our 
effort, and lower-level offenders. Now, that just is not very smart, 
and it is not effective when it comes to holding offenders accountable 
and protecting public safety.
  We are expected to be joined at any minute by the Senator from New 
Jersey, Mr. Booker, and I thank my friend for joining us in this effort 
to spotlight this important issue of criminal justice reform.
  I will turn the floor over for my colleague and the lead sponsor of 
this bill, Senator Lee, to respond to the question of the importance of 
this undertaking.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, we have new research that shows there are 
two big problems we face as a result of these mandatory minimum 
sentences within our Federal system. First, they are not needed to 
ensure public safety in many instances, and second, they are having a 
very negative impact on certain disadvantaged communities.
  Last year, the National Research Council of the National Academies 
issued a major study of incarceration in the United States. One of 
their main conclusions is that mandatory sentencing and excessively 
long sentences generally do not have a significant deterrent effect and 
are ineffective unless targeted at offenders with a very high rate of 
recidivism or extremely dangerous offenders.
  The National Research Council concluded: ``[We] have reviewed the 
research literature on the deterrent effect of such laws and have 
concluded that the evidence is insufficient to justify the conclusion 
that these harsher punishments yield measurable public safety 
benefits.''
  And recent data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, an independent 
and bipartisan Federal agency, shows that shorter sentences can 
accomplish the same goals without compromising public safety.
  Our communities have paid a high cost for the stiff sentences that 
mandatory minimums require. The National Research Council found that 
high incarceration rates are concentrated in poor, minority 
neighborhoods, and that the incarceration of significant numbers of 
residents in these neighborhoods actually compounded existing social 
and economic problems such as unemployment, poverty, family disruption, 
poor health, and drug addiction.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, if I could ask the Senator from Utah if 
he would yield for a moment.
  Mr. LEE. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Senator Booker has joined us, and we are happy to have 
his cosponsorship on this legislation. I hope he might be able to make 
some of his own observations on the very issue the Senator from Utah 
has been discussing.
  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I wish to pick up where my friend left 
off. I thank, from the bottom of my heart, the leadership of Senator 
Lee and Senator Durbin on what is an extraordinary piece of legislation 
in terms of its impact.
  My colleagues have made it clear time and again--in the last Congress 
and in this Congress--that the application of mandatory minimum 
sentences, especially in drug cases, feeds the perception of pervasive 
unfairness in our criminal justice system just for the points that 
Senator Lee was making. This perception is based in that reality.
  When I was mayor, I used to always say, ``In God we trust,'' but 
everyone else, ``Bring me data.'' The data is clear from the U.S. 
Sentencing Commission, which shows that mandatory minimums have a 
disparate impact on minority communities.
  Let's be clear. The majority of illegal drug users and dealers in our 
country are white, but three-quarters of all the people incarcerated 
for drug offenses are Black and Latino, and the large majority of 
individuals subject to Federal mandatory minimum penalties are African 
American and Hispanic. That perception is fed by this reality: African 
Americans are granted relief from mandatory minimum penalties as are 
other citizens under the so-called safety valve, but Blacks get the 
safety valve far less than other groups.
  For example, the data shows that in 2010, 63.7 percent of White 
offenders received the safety valve relief while only 39.4 percent of 
Black offenders received that benefit.
  In 2012, Blacks were 26.3 percent of all drug offenders, but they 
were 35.2 percent of the drug offenders who received no safety valves 
whatsoever--no relief from the mandatory minimum penalties.
  I will now yield back for Senator Lee, again, the lead sponsor of 
this bipartisan legislation, and I ask the Senator: What does this 
legislation do, specifically, to address mandatory minimums?
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for 
this question, which really cuts to the heart of many of the most 
important reasons why we feel this bill needs to become law.
  First, the Smarter Sentencing Act would reduce Federal mandatory 
minimum penalties for drug offenses in a very targeted way. Our bill 
would allow Federal judges to determine--on a case-by-case basis--when 
the harshest penalties should apply. We don't repeal any mandatory 
minimum sentences, and we do not lower any maximum sentences. This 
approach maintains a floor below which no offenders can be sentenced, 
but it gives judges the discretion to determine when the very harshest 
penalties should apply in a particular case.
  These changes in mandatory minimum sentences do not apply to violent 
offenses, and they do not apply to offenders who import drugs into the 
United States unless, of course, the offender's role is limited solely 
to transporting or storing drugs or money.
  Second, the Smarter Sentencing Act would modestly expand the Federal 
safety valve, which allows Federal judges to sentence a limited number 
of nonviolent drug offenders at levels below the mandatory minimum 
sentence. Our bill would expand the safety valve to nonviolent 
offenders with only a minor criminal history. Individuals who use 
weapons or play a leadership role in the offense in question would be 
ineligible for the safety valve in those circumstances.
  I ask the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to explain other 
important provisions of our bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Utah.
  When I was a Member of the House of Representatives many years ago, 
we were told there were some dramatic changes when it came to the use 
of narcotics in America. In fact, they came to us and said: We are 
worried. There is a new form of cocaine called crack cocaine. It is 
dirt cheap. It is $5 for a hit. It is deadly addictive, and if a woman 
is addicted to it and happens to be pregnant, it could seriously damage 
the baby she is carrying.
  We did something at the time which seemed like the right thing to do. 
What we did was to establish a sentencing standard for crack cocaine 
dramatically larger than powder cocaine--100 times larger. I voted for 
it, and the belief was that we were sending a clear message to anyone 
in America: If you get caught with crack cocaine, we are going to throw 
the book at you. That is what we voted for.
  I remember that the rollcall in the House of Representatives was 
bipartisan. We felt--all across the spectrum: Let's get the message out 
and get it out now before crack cocaine causes its damage.
  Under the law at the time, it took 100 times more powdered cocaine 
than crack to trigger the same mandatory minimum sentences--100 times. 
For example, possessing 5 grams of crack carried the same 5-year 
mandatory minimum sentence as selling 500 grams of powdered cocaine. 
That was the 100-to-1 crack-powder sentencing disparity.

[[Page S1578]]

The crack-powder disparity disproportionately affected African 
Americans, who made up more than 80 percent of those convicted of 
Federal crack offenses.
  At a hearing I held in 2009, former Bush administration DEA head Asa 
Hutchison, known to many of us as a former colleague in the House, 
testified: ``Under the current disparity, the credibility of our entire 
drug enforcement system is weakened.''
  What was happening? African Americans were noting what was going on 
here. They were being sent, as Senator Booker said, over to the prison 
system and put away for years and years for the use of a tiny amount of 
crack cocaine because of the sentencing guidelines that we established 
in the House of Representatives. The Smarter Sentencing Act addresses 
this issue.
  I might add that in 2010, I joined with Senator Jeff Sessions, a 
Republican from Alabama, in sponsoring the Fair Sentencing Act. We 
decided that we would address this issue of the 100-to-1 disparity and 
try to make sense out of it. I support 1 to 1. I think that is what the 
science backs. But we reached a political agreement--that is the nature 
of the Senate and the House. The bill unanimously passed the Senate and 
the House and was signed into law by the President. The Fair Sentencing 
Act reduced the sentencing disparity between crack and powdered 
cocaine.
  The Smarter Sentencing Act--the bill we are considering today--
addresses this again. It would allow some inmates who were sentenced 
before the Fair Sentencing Act to petition for the sentence reductions 
that this law put in place in 2010. This provision would not 
automatically reduce a single sentence of anyone serving under the old 
100-to-1 standard, but it would allow Federal judges and prosecutors to 
conduct a case-by-case, singular, individual review as to whether the 
individual should have their sentence reduced. Responding to our 
decreased reliance on prisons, the Smarter Sentencing Act would direct 
the Justice Department to report to Congress on how the cost savings 
from our bill would be used to reduce crime and prevent recidivism.

  Let's respond to a few misstatements that have been made about the 
Smarter Sentencing Act. One of our colleagues said: ``We are not 
sending huge numbers of nonviolent drug offenders to Federal prison 
under lengthy mandatory minimum sentences.''
  I ask the Senator from New Jersey how he would respond to that 
comment?
  (Mr. GARDNER assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. BOOKER. I appreciate that, and I hope we all in the Senate can 
deal with the same set of facts. We are entitled to different opinions 
and different conclusions regarding the facts, but we should not be 
debating facts when we have them here before us.
  So let's take a look at those facts. In 2011, the sentencing 
commission issued a comprehensive study about mandatory minimum 
sentences. The study found that almost 55,000 people were in Federal 
prisons serving mandatory minimum sentences for a drug crime. That was 
more than 50 percent of all Federal drug offenders and more than a 
quarter--25 percent--of all Federal prisoners, period.
  Second, the great majority of Federal drug offenders do not use 
violence. Let me say that one more time because it is very important. 
We are talking about in this bill nonviolent offenders, and the great 
majority do not use violence. The sentencing commission's most recent 
data shows that less than 1 percent of offenders used or threatened 
violence in committing their crime, and no weapons--no weapons--were 
involved in more than 80 percent of drug cases.
  Third, many of those serving mandatory minimum drug sentences are 
low-level offenders. It is true that certain low-level offenders such 
as the couriers don't often receive mandatory minimums. But other low-
level offenders frequently are sentenced to mandatory minimums.
  For example, among those who are most likely to receive a mandatory 
minimum sentence are street-level dealers--those who sell less than 1 
ounce of a drug. Almost 45 percent of street-level dealers are serving 
mandatory minimums in Federal prison.
  Finally, these mandatory minimum sentences are lengthy. They are 
costly. They drain taxpayer resources. A recent sentencing commission 
study shows that the average sentence for mandatory minimums was 132 
months--11 years in Federal prison without parole.
  Some claim also that mandatory minimum prison sentences are not a 
major factor in the massive increase in the Federal prison population 
and overcrowding in Federal prisons. Remember, in the last 30 years, we 
have had an explosion in our Federal prison population--800 percent. 
Some people say that mandatory minimums have had nothing to do with 
that. I look to my colleague from Utah to respond. Is that true?
  Mr. LEE. It is not true. It is simply inaccurate. So those who insist 
that our exploding Federal prison population somehow has nothing to do 
with the explosive use of mandatory minimum prison sentences within our 
Federal system are simply wrong.
  In its 2011 report, the U.S. Sentencing Commission concluded that 
mandatory minimums have had ``a significant impact on the Federal 
prison population.''
  From 1995 through 2010, the number of Federal prisoners serving a 
mandatory minimum sentence grew from 29,603 to 75,579. That is a 155-
percent increase. It represents over one-third of all Federal 
prisoners.
  As of December 2014, over 59 percent of the 210,567 Federal inmates--
125,000 inmates over all--had been convicted of an offense carrying a 
mandatory minimum. Of these, 74.3 percent, which represents 91,806 
inmates, were required to serve that mandatory minimum sentence or 
more.
  In 2013, 62.1 percent of all drug offenders were convicted of an 
offense carrying a mandatory minimum. Over 60 percent of them received 
no safety valve relief and 70 percent of them did not receive relief 
for cooperating with authorities.
  Some have argued that those serving sentences for nonviolent drug 
offenses have long and violent criminal histories, but sentencing 
commission data shows this is inaccurate. In 2013, 49.6 percent of drug 
offenders had little or no criminal history, and only 7 percent of drug 
offenders were sentenced under the ``career offender'' sentencing 
guideline, which requires two prior convictions for a drug offense or a 
crime of violence.
  But here is the important point: The Smarter Sentencing Act reduces 
certain mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses, but 
we do not lower the maximum sentence. That means a judge can sentence 
offenders all the way up to the statutory maximum if she determines it 
is appropriate under the circumstances.
  Some have raised concerns about how reducing mandatory minimum 
sentences might impact serious problems such as the heroin epidemic or 
narcoterrorism. Can the Senator from Illinois address that?
  Mr. DURBIN. I want to address that because it is a problem in my 
State and across the United States. We are finding that high school 
students are turning to heroin. It is affordable, sadly. It is 
affordable, and they are using it as an alternative to other drugs. We 
certainly know the peril and dangers from narcoterrorism. The Smarter 
Sentencing Act which we are cosponsoring only reduces mandatory minimum 
sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. There is a separate mandatory 
minimum of 20 years that applies when the drugs have resulted in death 
or serious bodily injury. Any dealer who sells drugs that killed or 
hurt someone, such as an accidental overdose, will still be subject to 
the same mandatory minimum of 20 years. Our bill does not touch that 
provision of the law.
  As for narcoterrorism, a special Federal sentencing guideline 
applies. The truth is charges under that statute are very rare. Between 
2008 and 2012, only three cases--three--out of almost 200,000 were 
sentenced under that guideline. But the Smarter Sentencing Act does not 
change the sentencing guideline enhancement for narcoterrorism or any 
of the enhancements for terrorism. We don't cut corners when it comes 
to that serious crime.
  In fact, our bill directs the sentencing commission to ensure that 
severe sentences for ``violent, repeat, and serious drug traffickers 
who present public safety risks remain in place.'' Also, there will 
continue to be dozens

[[Page S1579]]

of statutory penalties and sentencing enhancements in the sentencing 
guidelines allowing judges to impose heightened sentences for violent 
and repeat offenders.
  The Smarter Sentencing Act which we are describing doesn't 
automatically reduce a single sentence and it doesn't eliminate any 
mandatory minimum or reduce any maximum sentence at all. Our bill 
simply restores the traditional authority of a Federal judge to impose 
a sentence that fits the crime and the criminal, based on the 
circumstances of the case, while maintaining a floor below which no one 
person can be sentenced.
  Can the Senator from New Jersey discuss the impact the Smarter 
Sentencing Act will have on communities that have been most negatively 
impacted by the crisis in our Federal justice system?
  Mr. BOOKER. I appreciate that question. This is one of the reasons I 
am so passionate about the legislation originally introduced by Senator 
Lee and the Senator from Illinois, because the mandatory minimums are 
patently unfair to people all across America. Whether one is White or 
Black, to have a disproportionate sentence unnecessary to punish a 
person and prevent a person from doing a future nonviolent crime is bad 
enough, but when we are talking about, as the Senator from Illinois was 
before, so negatively concentrated in certain urban areas, it creates 
an invasive belief that begins to undermine faith in our criminal 
justice system alone. As we said earlier, the overwhelming majority of 
drug users and sellers are White, but the overwhelming number of people 
incarcerated and arrested for it are Black, as well as those receiving 
mandatory minimums.
  But what people have to understand is that this has a punishing 
effect on us all. No. 1, it is hurting families. A friend of mine 
brought to my attention a ``Sesame Street'' clip where even the 
educators in public broadcasting are seeing that certain communities 
have so many of their men--nonviolent offenders--being sucked into the 
prison system for these long sentences that we have created a 
generation of children growing up without their parents. That has a 
difficult impact when it comes to the poverty of that family, when it 
comes to the challenges of having a provider pull away. So the Smarter 
Sentencing Act is a tool to help to relieve that problem, as well as 
the costs to us all.
  What is wonderful--at a time when we have debt, when we need to 
invest in infrastructure and many other needs, the current system is 
costing us hundreds of billions of dollars annually. This legislation I 
have signed on to as a cosponsor offers a savings that can be 
redirected to community efforts that prevent crime in the first place--
evidence-based programs that undermine crimes in the first place--as 
well as to helping people coming out of prison stay out of prison. We 
can save money and still protect public safety with lower rates of 
incarceration and a greater reliance on community revision and 
treatment.
  The wonderful thing about this is that what I am saying is not 
speculation. It is the facts we are experiencing in States that have 
already embraced reducing mandatory minimums. In fact, many of these 
States--and it is wonderful that this is bipartisan legislation--many 
States are red States. We are seeing this path of reducing crime, 
reducing prison populations, creating savings, being shown to us in 
State after State model that the Federal Government should follow--
models seen in Texas and in Georgia.
  Senator Flake encouraged us to pay attention to overcriminalization 
in the Federal system. He too is a champion of reforming the system and 
making it better. I wish to ask the Senator from Arizona: How does the 
Smarter Sentencing Act address the problem of overcriminalization?
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator from New Jersey, and I thank Senator 
Durbin and Senator Lee. It is great to be a part of this bipartisan 
effort, the Smarter Sentencing Act.
  This is important because this section requires the Attorney General 
and the heads of certain Federal agencies to each submit a public 
report that identifies all criminal offenses that are established by 
statute or regulation that each agency enforces. These reports must 
provide information on the elements of each offense, the potential 
penalty and the required intent for each offense, and the number of 
prosecutions for each offense for the last 15 years. This is valuable 
information.
  This section also requires the Attorney General and the relevant 
agencies to establish a publicly accessible index for these offenses. 
This information is an important step toward understanding the scope of 
the overcriminalization problem. When we have this information, we will 
have a better idea of why these sentences are being imposed and we can 
make better recommendations moving ahead.
  There are some who argue that long mandatory prison sentences 
encourage defendants to plead guilty and to cooperate with prosecutors. 
They claim that by reducing mandatory minimum sentences, our bill will 
reduce the incentive for defendants to plead guilty and thus cooperate.
  How would the Senator from Utah respond to that complaint?
  Mr. LEE. Those who make that argument--those who suggest that by 
passing this bill we would reduce the bargaining power of prosecutors--
are mistaken.
  The sentencing commission data on this point shows that the longer a 
mandatory minimum sentence is, the more likely a defendant is not to 
plead guilty and to cooperate and instead to insist on going to trial.
  Sentencing commission data also showed that rates of cooperation for 
crimes that have no mandatory minimum sentence are the same and even 
higher for drugs that do have rigid mandatory minimum sentences.
  The reality is that defendants are most likely to cooperate when they 
have information to give. That is why high-level drug offenders receive 
relief of mandatory minimum sentences at much higher rates than lower 
offenders. Defendants who organize or manage a drug trafficking 
enterprise have the most information with which to bargain as they 
enter into discussions with prosecutors. Low-level offenders who have 
less responsibility and less knowledge often don't have much 
information to offer, no matter how long a mandatory minimum sentence 
they might face in a particular case.
  Judge William Wilkins, who was appointed to the bench by President 
Reagan and served as the first chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 
said the following:

       There are few Federal judges engaged in criminal sentencing 
     who have not had the disheartening experience of seeing major 
     players in crimes before them immunize themselves from the 
     mandatory minimum sentences by blowing the whistle on their 
     minions, while the low-level offenders find themselves 
     sentenced to the mandatory minimum prison term so skillfully 
     avoided by the kingpins.

  Some of them claim the Smarter Sentencing Act will add up to $1 
billion in Federal spending.
  Senator Flake, is that true?
  Mr. FLAKE. That is creative accounting, to put it mildly. Here is the 
reality. The Congressional Budget Office has taken a look at this and 
has analyzed the impact of passing the Smarter Sentencing Act. It is 
true there will be costs incurred mainly because of benefits that are 
paid to people who are not in prison for so long, but the CBO estimated 
that in the first 10 years alone, our bill would save approximately $4 
billion, for a net savings of about $3 billion. Those savings can be 
redirected to efforts to reduce and prevent crime in the first place.
  Senator Booker, I think it is partly because of this reason, the cost 
savings, that we have such broad support of the bill. Would the Senator 
discuss some of the groups that are supporting this legislation?
  Mr. BOOKER. This incredible convergence of people from all different 
stripes in our country, all different backgrounds, races, religions, 
and political philosophy--let's just start with the bipartisan U.S. 
Sentencing Commission and the Judicial Conference have both urged 
Congress to reduce mandatory minimum penalties and both have stated 
their support for this legislation, the Smarter Sentencing Act.
  It is supported by faith leaders such as the Justice Fellowship and 
the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is supported by 
advocacy groups across the political spectrum and has been endorsed by 
conservative leaders such as Grover Norquist and

[[Page S1580]]

Americans for Tax Reform, Eli Lehrer and the R Street Institute, Pat 
Nolan, former president of the Justice Fellowship, Marc Levin of the 
Texas Public Policy Institute, and Freedom Works.
  It is supported by law enforcement leaders, including the Major 
Cities Chiefs Association and the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, 
which represents many of the largest district attorney's offices in the 
country--big cities. They represent county, Federal, State, and local 
prosecutors--prosecutors at every level.
  The bill is supported by the Council of Prison Locals, which 
represents more than 28,000 correctional workers in the Federal Bureau 
of Prisons. The bill is also supported by crime victims themselves, 
including the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, 
a coalition of more than 1,000 different organizations that advocate on 
behalf of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking. As they explain, mandatory minimum drug 
sentences are draining the resources needed for victims. Women who are 
victims of domestic violence sometimes end up serving long sentences 
that the Congress intended for kingpins and other drug organization 
leaders. All of that unity in this country supports this act.
  I wonder, is there anything else Senator Lee would like to say about 
this bipartisan, widely supported by both the data and the advocates 
across the quantum spectrum--is there anything else the Senator would 
like to add?
  Mr. LEE. Yes, and I would like to conclude my remarks in a moment by 
wrapping up. Before I do that, though, I notice on the floor with us is 
my friend Senator Whitehouse, who happens to be another supporter and 
cosponsor of this bill and who is also the ranking member on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, and I would ask Senator Whitehouse to say a few 
words about this bill.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Lee. I am glad to be a part of 
this conversation. I share the concern that we all have for a Federal 
prison system that is 30 percent over capacity and costs $6 billion a 
year already. We have to add, if we are going to take care of the 30 
percent over capacity--that is $6 billion under the present 
circumstances, and that $6 billion comes out of law enforcement budgets 
and community support budgets that could be making our streets safer.
  At the beginning of every sentence, a judge imposes the duration of 
the sentence, and at the end of every sentence, a prisoner makes a 
decision about how he or she is going to engage with the public upon 
their release. There is a bill that deals with the latter part, helping 
prisoners make better decisions and be better prepared to reengage with 
the public once they are released. I hope very much the bill Senator 
Cornyn and I are leading in the Senate Judiciary Committee can, as this 
moves forward, be connected because the two are linked thematically, 
and it makes a big difference.
  The reason we care about how people at the end get back into regular 
society is because if they reoffend they go back to prison again and 
add to the prison population and add to the costs. If they are in 
longer than they should be, then we are not getting any public safety 
benefit out of all of this.
  So I look very forward to working with all my colleagues to try to 
see if we can get together in the Senate a comprehensive piece of 
sentencing reform legislation. Having been a prosecutor myself, having 
used mandatory minimums, I appreciate that they can, in certain 
circumstances, have value, but I think if one looks at the big picture, 
this sentencing reform legislation is important and will serve the 
public interest in a great variety of respects, including safer 
communities. So that is why I am cosponsoring it and that is why I am 
an ardent supporter of it.
  In closing, let me thank Senator Durbin and Senator Lee for their 
leadership as the lead coauthors of this legislation and Senator Flake 
and Senator Booker for their efforts on behalf of this as fellow 
cosponsors.
  Mr. LEE. I thank Senator Whitehouse.
  Mr. President, I would like to conclude by thanking my colleagues for 
their help. First of all, thanks to Senator Durbin for working with 
this Senator over the last couple of years in developing this 
legislation. I thank my other cosponsors as well. I thank Senator 
Booker, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Flake, who have joined us 
today.
  This is truly a bipartisan, bicameral effort that brings support from 
across the political spectrum. Excessive mandatory minimums do not make 
us safer. The last 30 years have shown us that they are applied 
unevenly and they leave a gaping hole in the communities they impact 
most heavily. Now we as a society have to pick up the tab. We must 
decide if we will continue to pay the high fiscal and social costs that 
mandatory minimums impose. It is important for us to remember these 
costs do have many manifestations.
  Sometimes in this body we focus only on the fiscal pricetag that can 
be expressed in raw numbers, but doing that allows us to ignore too 
often the high human costs--the families and the communities that have 
lost brothers, sons, fathers, uncles, and nephews, people who could be 
back in their communities contributing meaningfully to their success, 
who are instead sent away for sometimes far too long of a prison 
sentence. We can continue down this current path or if we could try 
something smarter, that perhaps would be better.
  The Smarter Sentencing Act gives us an opportunity to do precisely 
that--to do something smarter, to rely less on prison, and to do more 
with scarce resources. Instead of just paying for prisons, it would 
allow us to work smarter in pursuit of justice.
  I hope all my colleagues will join us in supporting the Smarter 
Sentencing Act.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

                          ____________________