[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.
____________________