[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 66 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2536-S2538]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 SENTENCING REFORM AND CORRECTIONS ACT

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, after many months of discussion and 
debate, today we announced a bipartisan piece of legislation to reform 
our criminal justice system.
  I have been in the Senate long enough to realize that even the best 
ideas that don't have bipartisan support go nowhere. The good news is, 
this is an issue that enjoys broad bipartisan support and actually 
represents the marriage of two distinct parts. The more I think about 
it, the more it represents a continuum in terms of the way we punish 
people who violate our criminal laws and how we treat them when they 
are in prison and how we prepare them--or not--for a life of reentry 
into civil society.
  Even in the polarized political environment that our country 
represents today, it is an example of an opportunity to demonstrate 
that when enough people identify a problem and work together, we can 
actually come up with viable solutions.
  In a previous life, I served 13 years as a State district court judge 
and then as attorney general. I have had an opportunity to witness some 
of the strengths and weaknesses of our justice system firsthand. Though 
we made some significant progress in reducing crime across the 
country--by the way, that ought to be the litmus test, the crime rate. 
If the crime rate is going down, to me, it indicates we are doing 
something right. If the crime rate goes up, that is pretty much a 
litmus test that we are doing something wrong.
  The truth is, our criminal justice system has been plagued with 
inefficiencies, overcrowding, and failures that are ultimately 
detrimental to public safety. We spend too much of our criminal justice 
resources locking up low-level, nonviolent offenders and not enough 
targeting the most dangerous and violent criminals. The good news is, a 
number of States, including Texas, have seen the need and have 
implemented statewide criminal justice reforms with positive results.
  As I said earlier, the longer I am here, the more things occur to me 
about how we do business, but the idea that somehow we can initiate 
reforms at the national level for 320 million people and then cram them 
down on a big and diverse country like the United States is pretty 
ludicrous.
  Actually, the Federal Government is rarely competent to do that sort 
of thing. We saw this with the health care reforms, which have resulted 
in prices actually going up and most people dissatisfied with the 
health care reforms.
  If we just tried things out at the local level, and if they were 
successful, then scale them up, I think we would have a much better 
chance for success. That is exactly what has happened in the criminal 
justice area.
  I know most people think about Texas as a State tough on crime, and 
that is true, but in the middle of the first decade of this millennium, 
we saw the need to deal with overcrowding. We saw high recidivism or 
repeat offenders, and we were facing a major budget shortfall. In other 
words, we tried to keep building prisons to build our way out of the 
problem.
  Instead of just spending more money to build more prisons and hoping 
the problems would go away, the major problem we overlooked before 
was--which we finally realized--that people in prison at some point 
will mostly get out of prison. The question is, Do they go back into 
prison after committing other crimes or can we help those who are 
willing to accept the help, turn their lives around, and become 
productive members of society?
  We opted for a different approach. We traded in our construction 
plans for plans to help lower-risk offenders turn their lives around 
and become productive members of society. As I said, that is because 
most offenders will one day get out of prison.
  Today Texas has improved and increased programs designed to help men 
and women behind bars take responsibility for their crimes and then 
prepare to reenter society as productive, law-abiding members of the 
community. I am not naive enough to say this is something we are going 
to be able to do for 100 percent of the people behind bars. That is 
just not true. I wish the world was the kind of place where once people 
made mistakes and ended up behind bars, they could transform their 
lives universally and then enter productive society. It is not true, 
but there are many who want to who need our help and can benefit from 
some of these programs.
  This includes training that could impact a prisoner's life, somebody 
with a drug problem, somebody with a mental illness, or somebody who 
has been drinking, exacerbating their problems. Those sorts of issues 
can benefit from treatment and from rehabilitation.
  Those who are educationally inadequately prepared to enter the 
workforce, we can help them through work programs and job training. 
Many of these programs have allowed local communities to get involved 
as well, by encouraging partnerships in Texas between prisons and 
faith-based organizations and people who believe in radical 
transformation of people's lives through their faith. They can focus on 
helping those prisoners who are willing and wanting to turn their lives 
around get the training and life skills they need in order to succeed.
  I will never forget my visit just a few months back to the H.H. 
Coffield Unit maximum security prison in East Texas, where I saw 
firsthand how important some of these types of programs are. I went to 
one section of the prison and was introduced to the shop instructor. He 
told me some of the inmates in his shop class came to him unable to 
read a simple tape measure.
  I think it is shocking. It was to me. I think it is shocking to most 
people that anybody can reach adulthood unable to do something so basic 
as to read a tape measure, but yet that was an example of the types of 
people who were in that prison.
  It is a remarkable example of how much opportunity there is through 
education to actually help: drug-alcohol treatment, mental health 
treatment, and to prepare people to reenter civil society.
  I am pleased Texas--in addition to our well-earned reputation for 
being tough on crime--is now known as being smart on crime and a good 
example what we could do nationally.
  We are not the only State. Other States have done things, too, but 
the results in Texas are remarkable. Between 2007 and 2012, our overall 
rate of incarceration fell by 9.4 percent. The crime rate dropped and--
as I have said--that is the gold standard. It is not the rate of 
incarceration. It is not how many people are in prison. It is what is 
happening to the crime rate. Our crime rate dropped and, not 
insignificantly, we saved more than $2 billion of the taxpayer money. 
We were able to physically close three prison facilities. That is the 
first time that has ever happened in our State.
  We are not the only ones. For example, Georgia reduced its crime rate 
by more than 10 percent with similar programs. South Carolina and Ohio 
reduced their crime rate by 14 percent. North Carolina and Texas have 
both reduced their crime rates by more than 20 percent.

[[Page S2537]]

  These reforms make our communities safer, which again is the first 
objective of criminal justice reform, it is the second objective of 
criminal justice reform, and it is the third objective of criminal 
justice reform. Does it make our community safer? The answer, from the 
evidence, is yes.
  I think there is no question but that we should consider some of 
these reforms at the Federal level. Let's take State successes and 
scale them up so the rest of the country can benefit where they are not 
otherwise already doing this and where we can do this in the Federal 
prison system and not just in the State system.
  That is where the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act comes in. 
This bill includes legislation that I introduced last year that takes 
this Texas model and builds on it to help restore an important part of 
our criminal justice system that is too often forgotten; that is, 
rehabilitation.
  When I went to law school more years ago than I wish to admit, we 
were told that the purpose of criminal law was punishment and 
deterrence, to deter others from committing similar acts. The third was 
we were told it was rehabilitation. We were going to help people change 
their lives if they made a mistake. Instead, over time our prisons have 
become warehouses where we just warehouse people and don't do enough to 
try to rehabilitate people, those who are willing to take the 
opportunity to deal with their problems in a constructive sort of way 
and turn their lives around.
  I have introduced legislation, along with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse 
of Rhode Island. As anybody who follows the Senate knows, we agree on 
very little, but we agree on this. We were both former attorneys 
general. He was a former U.S. attorney, and he has seen a similar 
experience in his State.
  So we introduced this portion of the legislation to encourage 
programs that would help inmates learn valuable skills they can 
transfer back home to their communities and help them turn from a life 
of crime. It is important to note that not only does reduced recidivism 
impact an individual life--which is reason enough to do what we can to 
help--but it also helps that individual's family because the collateral 
damage from somebody making a mistake and ending up in prison does not 
stop with them. It stops with their families, including their children, 
and their whole community, but it also makes financial sense too.
  The Justice Department spends around 30 percent of its budget 
detaining Federal inmates. By reinvesting more of this money in 
recidivism reduction programs instead of building more Federal prisons, 
we have an opportunity to save tax dollars and plow more of the money 
back where it can have the best impact. Inmates can be rehabilitated, 
neighborhoods can be made safer, and tax dollars can be better put to 
use.
  We have also made other changes in the legislation that represent the 
give-and-take that usually happens in the Senate. Legislating is a 
consensus-building process, and that is a good thing. Initially, when 
the corrections act was introduced, there was a separate piece of 
legislation called the Smarter Sentencing Act, which focused on, as the 
name would suggest, sentencing with a goal to reduce some of the 
mandatory minimum sentences which were a part of the 1990s effort to 
get tougher on crime. This is where we have actually benefited a lot 
from the input from those who initially were unpersuaded about the 
merits of that part of the legislation.
  For example, we have categorically taken out, removed, any benefit of 
the Smarter Sentencing Act provisions for somebody who has committed a 
serious crime, as defined by Federal law. So somebody who is a violent 
offender, somebody who has committed a serious crime, cannot benefit 
from the Smarter Sentencing Act.

  There is an area where I am afraid there is some misunderstanding by 
some folks, and some people are actively spreading disinformation, 
suggesting that as a result of the Smarter Sentencing Act provisions, 
there is a get-out-of-jail-free card; that we are automatically going 
to come in and cut prison sentences for people to get out on the 
street. That is just not true. They need to take another look at the 
legislation.
  Under some circumstances, and only if you are a low-level, nonviolent 
offender, you can ask the court--the court in which you were actually 
convicted and before the judge who actually dispensed the sentence and 
before the prosecutor who actually put you in prison--for a reduction 
retroactively of long-term mandatory minimum sentences. For example, 
under some circumstances, back in the days of three strikes and you are 
out, you could get a life sentence for three relatively minor offenses. 
Now, where appropriate, the judge could say: Well, we are going to 
reduce that to 25 years. That is still a long time, particularly if you 
are talking about three relatively minor offenses. There is one other 
example where a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence could be reduced to 
15 years. So if you haven't served 15 years, you are certainly not 
going to get out of prison.
  But the whole point is that this is a negotiated piece of legislation 
for which we tried to garner as much support as we could, and I am 
pleased to announce today that we have five new cosponsors of this 
legislation. I believe there are now 37 Senators on a bipartisan basis 
who support this legislation as cosponsors.
  Earlier this week, we got a very important endorsement from an 
organization for which I have tremendous respect. This is the largest 
organization of prosecutors in America. It is the National District 
Attorneys Association. They represent about 1,500 district attorneys 
and 30,000 assistant district attorneys across the country. They have 
endorsed this legislation.
  Yesterday, at the Republican lunch and conference, we had people such 
as former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served 20 years on the 
Federal bench in New York, talk about how he thought this was a well-
balanced and worthwhile piece of legislation.
  The bottom line is that we need to make sure that violent offenders 
and hardened criminals stay in prison and away from our communities. I 
am talking about the people who will not take advantage of the 
opportunity to turn their lives around, the people who must be 
separated from society because they have made a decision to pursue a 
life of crime.
  At the same time, while we have focused on the hardened criminals and 
the most violent, we have to address our expanding prison system that 
too often perpetuates a life of crime. When I was a younger lawyer, I 
was told that often our prison system is an organization of higher 
education in crime because, of course, that is who is there--people who 
have committed crimes. And people who have committed rather low-level, 
nonviolent offenses, particularly when they are housed with people who 
have chosen a more violent life of crime, can suffer terrible 
detrimental impacts.
  The idea is to focus on the hardened criminals, the violent 
criminals, and take a look at the low-level, nonviolent offenders and 
see if some will take advantage of the opportunity to turn their lives 
around. Local communities in conservative States--red States such as 
Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina--have already proven it is possible 
to do both. After months of discussion, I am confident we can bring 
this success to the rest of the country with this legislation.
  Like every piece of legislation, though, we know there is an arduous 
path forward. While this bill was voted out of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, it still needs to come to the floor of the Senate, where all 
100 Senators will have an opportunity to help improve that product. And 
then there is the House of Representatives. Earlier today, Senator 
Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I met with 
Congressman Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, 
about our ideas together and how we can move this legislation forward. 
And I know the President is anxious to sign a criminal justice reform 
bill. This could actually be a good bipartisan accomplishment of the 
114th Congress.
  I appreciate the bipartisan effort on all sides to work 
constructively toward a bill that can win broad bipartisan support. For 
those who don't like parts of the bill, bring your ideas to us. That is 
the way this process is supposed to work. Let's make it better. Let's 
build bipartisan support and consensus.

[[Page S2538]]

  Let me just say in closing that I particularly want to thank the 
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Grassley, for his 
stewardship of this legislation through the process. As an experienced 
Member of the Senate, somebody who has been at this a while, he knows 
better than most how to shepherd legislation--particularly potentially 
controversial legislation--through this process. He has been masterful 
in bringing us this far.
  I think we owe it to our constituents and to the country to take the 
lessons we have learned at the State and local level and bring those to 
benefit the rest of the country. Let's make our criminal justice 
system, as the name suggests, more just and at the same time more 
effective. And let's save taxpayers a buck or two in the process.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________