[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S739-S741]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. COTTON (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. 
        Perdue):
  S. 2514. A bill to require the Bureau of Justice Statistics to report 
on recidivism rates of Federal prisoners who are released early, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss the Sentencing 
Reform and Corrections Act that has been voted out of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  There is much debate about the wisdom of this bill. That is, like 
most bills we discuss in this Chamber, a judgment call. But there 
cannot be debate over the facts of this bill. We have to be very clear 
on what this bill, by its own text, is designed to do.
  Proponents of the bill often invoke four phrases to describe the 
felons to be released under the terms of the bill: ``first-time,'' 
``nonviolent,'' ``low-level,'' ``drug possession'' offenders. Yet none 
of these four terms is accurate.
  By its text, the bill will apply sentence reductions not to first-
time offenders but to repeat offenders--some many times over. These are 
felons who have made the conscious choice to commit crimes over and 
over.
  By its text, the bill will not just apply to so-called ``nonviolent 
offenders'' but to thousands of violent felons and armed career 
criminals who have used firearms in the course of their drug felonies 
or crimes of violence.
  By its text, the bill will reduce sentences not for those convicted 
of simple possession but for major drug traffickers--ones who deal in 
hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of heroin and thousands of 
pounds of marijuana. And let's be clear. Drug trafficking is not 
nonviolent, as the bill's proponents often claim. It is built on an 
entire edifice of violence, stretching from the narcoterrorists of 
South America to the drug-deal enforcers on our city streets. If you 
think dealing drugs on a street corner while armed with a gun is a 
nonviolent offense, you probably live in a rich suburb or a gated 
community.
  By its text, this bill will apply to felons convicted as juveniles of 
murder, rape, assault, and other crimes for which they were justly 
tried as adults.
  By its text, this bill will apply to repeat felons whose past crimes 
include kidnapping, carjacking, armed robbery, and other violent 
crimes.
  By its text, this bill will make eligible for early release into 
America's communities thousands of drug traffickers and other violent 
felons. And when we catch such criminals going forward, we will not be 
able to keep them locked up for the same sentences.
  It has been reported that the bill's sponsors are preparing to 
release a revised bill, one that would address some of the many 
shortcomings. Regarding this news, I thank the sponsors for 
acknowledging that the bill as passed by committee does, in fact, apply 
to serious drug traffickers and other violent felons. I look forward to 
evaluating the new legislative text, and I hope it addresses these 
problems. Until then, though, we can only examine more closely the bill 
as passed by the committee and its consequences.
  Make no mistake, the consequences of this bill are all too 
predictable. Sadly, more than half of released prisoners are rearrested 
within 1 year, and 77 percent are rearrested within 5 years. We can be 
sure, then, that we will see more crimes committed by those who might 
be released early--thanks to this bill. That is indisputable. Those new 
crimes will wreak havoc on the citizens, families, and communities in 
each of our States.
  This risk is not hypothetical. Sterile statistics do not adequately 
convey the severity of the threat of mass recidivism. Last month in 
Columbus, OH, a man named Wendell Callahan brutally killed his ex-
girlfriend and her two young daughters. In what was described as a 
``stabbing rampage,'' Callahan murdered Erveena Hammonds, her 10-year-
old daughter Anaesia, and Anaesia's little sister, 7-year-old Breya.
  These murders were an atrocity, and they were completely avoidable. 
Wendell Callahan walked out of Federal prison in August 2014, but his 
original sentence should have kept him in jail until 2018. If he had 
been in jail instead of on the streets, a young family would still be 
alive today.
  Callahan walked out of jail early because the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission reduced sentences retroactively for hardened violent 
criminals like him. The Commission first reduced sentencing guidelines 
in 2007. It did so again in 2010 and again in 2014. That is three major 
systemic sentencing reductions in the span of a mere 7 years. The 
result is that 46,000 Federal convicts will walk from jail early. 
Wendell Callahan was one among that 46,000. There will be many more 
like him. While we pray against all odds that none of them go on to 
commit a triple-murder like Wendell Callahan did--or any other heinous 
crime--I am afraid our prayers will go unanswered, at least in part.
  The U.S. Sentencing Commission is an independent judicial agency that 
provides uniform sentencing guidelines to judges. Congress didn't have 
a hand in those sentencing reductions, but with the Sentencing Reform 
and Corrections Act, the Senate would impose a fourth major sentencing 
reduction within 8 years--one that is deeper and broader than the 
reductions imposed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
  This is badly misguided. The Senate would be launching a massive 
social experiment in criminal leniency without knowing the full 
consequences of the first three reductions imposed by the Sentencing 
Commissions. This experiment threatens to undo the historic drops in 
crime that we have seen over the last 25 years.
  That drop in crime rate was no accident. It was the result of higher 
mandatory minimums put in place in the 1980s, coupled with vigilant 
policing strategies pioneered by scholars like Jim Wilson and practiced 
by elected leaders like Rudy Giuliani and other American mayors and law 
enforcement officials. The combination of mandatory minimums and 
innovative policing is not a haphazard anticrime strategy. It is one 
that was reached through tough trial-and-error performed at local, 
State, and, eventually, the Federal levels. It is one that arose from 
advocacy that originated in the communities and cities that were 
hardest hit by the drug trade. It is one that has a proven record of 
success, not in terms of crime rates but in terms of lives saved, 
families protected, and communities healed.
  The connection between higher mandatory minimums and lower crime is 
often lost on those unfamiliar with this history or blinded by 
ideology. For example, in 1997 the New York Times reported: ``Crime 
Keeps On Falling, but Prisons Keep On Filling.'' One year later, in 
1998, the Times added: ``Prison Population Growing Although Crime Rate 
Drops.'' In 2004 the Times reiterated yet again, just for good measure: 
``Despite Drop In Crime, An Increase In Inmates.'' You can't make this 
stuff up, yet it is real and appears to be all too soon forgotten.
  Like most conservative achievements, the reduction in crime over the 
past generation is built on the hard lessons of experience. We should 
not lightly abandon the criminal justice wisdom accumulated over 
decades to the passing fashions of current thinking. We

[[Page S740]]

should not blithely move from a proven strategy of accountability and 
vigilance to an experimental theory of leniency. We should not trade 
away concrete, hard-won gains when the results may be devastating to 
American communities.
  The Senate and the American people need to consider any change to our 
sentencing laws with full information. We need to know if this 
sentencing leniency bill will return us closer to the days of the 1970s 
and 1980s, when our cities were besieged by the drug trade and whole 
communities were being rotted out as a result. We need to debate 
sentencing changes with all the data available to us, and we need to do 
this with eyes wide open.
  That is why today, together with Senators Hatch, Sessions, and 
Perdue, I am introducing the Criminal Consequences of Early Release 
Act. This is a simple but very needed bill. It will require the Federal 
Government to report on the recidivism rates of the 46,000 Federal 
inmates to be released early under the Sentencing Commission's 
reductions, and it will require the same reporting for any prisoners 
released early under any future reductions mandated by Congress.
  The report required by this bill will make clear how many crimes are 
being committed by released felons who would otherwise still be in 
prison. It will make clear what types of crimes--from drug trafficking 
to assault to robbery to murder--are being committed by these felons. 
It will make clear in which States these crimes are occurring.
  Currently this type of data is extremely hard to compile. It is not 
reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and any information we do 
have comes mostly through anecdotes and sporadic media reports. Full 
information on the criminal consequences of early release must be 
published in detail. Before voting on any bill to reduce sentences, 
Senators need to understand fully the criminal consequences of prior 
sentence reductions.
  To hold Senators accountable for their votes, the American people 
need to understand how their communities are being affected. When the 
Federal Government decides to release thousands of violent criminals 
onto the streets, no legislator or official should be able to plead 
ignorance. If people are being killed, drugs trafficked, property 
stolen, and children kidnapped by felons who should have been in prison 
but instead are out on the streets, then the people in our States and 
communities deserve to know that.
  I want to be clear. To those who support the Sentencing Reform 
Corrections Act, we are not in full disagreement. Like you, I oppose 
jail for first-time drug users with no prior record. It is vanishingly 
rare for such offenders to be prosecuted and jailed in the Federal 
system, of course, but it remains true that the better option for 
them--particularly if they are addicts--would be drug treatment. Like 
you, I believe that our prisons should not be an anarchic jungle that 
is a danger to both prisoners and corrections officers. Like you, I 
believe that those prisoners who will someday complete their sentences 
and reenter society should be given a chance to rehabilitate and redeem 
themselves while in prison so they do not commit additional new crimes 
once they are out of prison. Like you, I do believe there exists a 
possibility of a manifestly unjust sentence.
  So I suggest: Let's work on that bill. Let's work on a bill that 
identifies and addresses all first-time drug possession inmates in the 
Federal system but keeps drug traffickers and other violent offenders 
in prison to finish their sentences. Let's improve prison conditions 
and give prisoners a shot at redemption and a better life while 
protecting our communities. If you wish, let's work on a bill to speed 
the consideration of commutation and pardon applications because, if 
you want to undo manifestly unjust sentences, we can help the President 
use his constitutional power of pardon and commutation as a precise 
scalpel to identify and remedy those very rare cases of manifestly 
unjust sentences. What we should not do is use the blunt instrument of 
releasing thousands of violent felons and major drug traffickers back 
onto our streets early.
  The President has a constitutional power to remedy unjust sentences, 
but you know what power he doesn't have? The power to bring back to 
life the victims who are murdered by prisoners released early or 
sentenced inadequately.
  In the discussion about the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, 
there is much talk about legacy, and, in particular, a legacy of 
President Obama after he leaves office. If considerations of legacy 
should factor into the debate, I would close with this observation. 
Legacies are not necessarily positive. They can be negative and deeply 
tragic. If supporters of this bill and President Obama are wrong, if 
this grand experiment in criminal leniency goes awry, how many lives 
will be ruined and how many dead? How much of the anticrime progress of 
the last generation will be wiped away for the next?
  Those are the questions we must ask as we consider this bill. If we 
ask them honestly, soberly, and with full information, we will 
invariably be led to one conclusion: We should not grant early release 
to thousands of drug traffickers and other violent criminals nor should 
we shorten their sentences in the future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Perdue):
  S. 2519. A bill to provide for incentives to encourage health 
insurance coverage, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it has been more than 5 years since 
ObamaCare was signed into law. Since then, the American people have 
only seen higher health care costs, less access, decreased quality of 
care, and fewer choices.
  Every day I hear from Arizonans who have been forced to give up the 
health insurance plans they liked and now face skyrocketing monthly 
premiums and never-ending wait times for appointments. Moreover, I have 
spoken with small business owners across my State who have been forced 
to choose between complying with costly government mandates, laying off 
employees or, worse, closing their doors.
  For 5 long years, the American people have been unfairly burdened by 
this failed law, and the negative effects are only expected to grow. 
According to the Department of Health and Human Service's own data, 24 
insurance plans in the ObamaCare exchanges were expected to see double-
digit rate hikes in 2016, while residents of Phoenix, AZ, were expected 
to see their premiums increase by roughly 19 percent. The highest 
average premium increase in Arizona was projected to reach a whopping 
78 percent.

  ObamaCare's numerous failures are well established. Take, for 
example, the President's broken promise that Americans who liked their 
health care plans and doctors could keep them; skyrocketing premiums 
and deductibles; 21 tax increases that both the CBO and the Joint 
Committee on Taxation predict would be passed on to the consumer; over 
$1 billion wasted on failed ObamaCare-established health care co-ops; 
and an estimated 2 million full-time equivalent workers expected to 
lose their jobs by 2024, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  For these reasons, a majority of Americans today oppose the 
President's failed health care law. They are counting on us, their 
elected representatives in Congress, to fight to fully repeal and 
replace it. That is why I was proud to partner with my Republican 
colleagues in sending the first ObamaCare repeal to the President's 
desk. That is also why I am proud to stand before the Congress today to 
reintroduce the Empowering Patients First Act along with my friend, the 
Senator from Georgia, Mr. Perdue, to replace the President's failed law 
with health care reform that puts patients and physicians back in 
charge of their health care decisions. The Empowering Patients First 
Act is companion legislation to a bill introduced in the House of 
Representatives by Congressman Tom Price that would fully repeal the 
Affordable Care Act and replace it with solutions that put patients, 
families, and doctors back in charge of their medical decisions--not 
Washington bureaucrats.
  It is past time for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
wake up to the reality that ObamaCare is the wrong solution to health 
care reform. Just consider a recent report by the Galen Institute which 
notes that since the President's health care law was

[[Page S741]]

passed in 2010, it has undergone 70 significant changes through either 
acts of Congress, administrative actions, or the U.S. Supreme Court. 
Let me repeat that. ObamaCare has been changed a total of 70 times--in 
many cases through unilateral action--in order to protect the American 
people from its damaging effects.
  I am as convinced today as I was 7 years ago when I stood on this 
floor to propose the first Republican amendment to ObamaCare that this 
law is the wrong approach to health care reform.
  The bill I am reintroducing today would create policies that empower 
patients and doctors to take charge of their health care decisions, 
including by ensuring no one is priced out of the market, including 
individuals with preexisting conditions; building on and expanding 
health savings accounts and other models to drive down costs; 
establishing age-adjusted tax credits for health insurance; equalizing 
tax treatment of employer-sponsored plans and plans purchased by 
individuals by letting individuals buy health insurance with pretax 
dollars; enhancing coverage options by letting small business owners 
band together across State lines through association health plans to 
create more affordable and comprehensive health care; letting consumers 
buy insurance across State lines; curbing defensive medicine and 
lawsuit abuse through tort reform; and making coverage more affordable 
by enabling individuals to own their insurance, like a 401(k) plan, so 
they can take it with them across State lines and if they change jobs. 
That only makes sense.
  Americans deserve an alternative to the mandates, high costs, and 
bureaucratic mess that have been created by ObamaCare. The Empowering 
Patients First Act would repeal ObamaCare once and for all and replace 
it with health care reform that gives patients, families, and doctors 
the power to make medical decisions--not bureaucrats in Washington.

                          ____________________