[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2405-S2408]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            CORRECTIONS Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this afternoon, the House Judiciary 
Committee will begin to consider their version of a bill I have 
introduced here in the Senate with the junior Senator from Rhode 
Island, Mr. Whitehouse, called the CORRECTIONS Act. This legislation 
addresses prison reform--an issue at the forefront of how justice is 
administered in this country--by focusing on reducing rates of 
recidivism, or repeat offenders, and ensuring that those reentering 
society can become productive members of our communities without 
threatening the crime rate.
  Our efforts here are important, as reoffense rates in our country 
remain at high levels. In other words, our criminal justice system has 
become a revolving door, with reoffense rates of more than 75 percent 
for State prisoners and nearly 50 percent for Federal prisoners. So 
there is a 75-percent chance that somebody who goes to State prison 
will end up going back and a 50-percent chance that a Federal prisoner 
will end up going back unless we do something about it.
  In law school, students are taught that the bedrock principles of our 
criminal justice system are deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, 
and rehabilitation. The reality is that somewhere along the way, we 
forgot about rehabilitation, and our prisons have literally become a 
warehouse for people who have been convicted of criminal offenses. That 
reality is part of the reason that my State of Texas and several other 
States have led the way not just to be tough on crime but to be smart 
on crime too.
  Texas focused on the important role rehabilitation can play by 
implementing statewide prison reforms to help offenders learn to 
overcome the reasons they went to prison in the first place--whether it 
is a drug or alcohol habit or an addiction, whether it is simply being 
unprepared to enter the workforce because they dropped out of school 
or, perhaps, they have some sort of learning disability.
  By using recidivism reduction programs like job training or alcohol 
and drug rehabilitation and letting prisoners go to school while they 
are in prison to earn a GED or to learn a marketable skill, Texas has 
reduced its incarceration rate and crime rate by double digits at the 
same time. Let me say that again. We have reduced our incarceration 
rate and our crime rate by double digits at the same time.
  The end all and be all, in my view, of our criminal justice system 
must be to reduce the crime rate. In other words, whatever else we do, 
if the crime rate doesn't go down, we are not getting it right. As a 
result of the State-based reforms that I am talking about, we have 
actually been able to reduce incarceration rates and crime rates too.
  I must say that when we talk about rehabilitation of prisoners, we 
are not talking about something we do to them. They have to want it. 
They have to want to turn their lives around, and they have to take 
advantage of the opportunities we provide them to do so, because that 
sort of personal transformation requires extraordinary commitment. 
Again, it is not something the government can do to somebody. They need 
to do it for themselves with the help we provide.
  By doing so, we found that we can save billions of dollars for 
taxpayers, and we spared countless victims from further criminal 
activity. You have to wonder, from the time somebody comes out of 
prison to the time they reoffend and go back, how many crimes have they 
committed? How many people's lives have changed forever?
  Finally, when they get apprehended for committing a crime, we tend to 
look at that in isolation, but the truth is, for people who live lives 
of criminality, this is what they do full time. They commit numerous 
crimes against property and against people. If we can reduce the crime 
rate, we can help them get back on their feet and become productive 
members of society, and we can save money at the same time. It strikes 
me that this is a pretty good deal.
  For years I have tried to bring the successful State-based 
experiments and models to Washington, DC. That is why I felt it was 
important to reintroduce the bipartisan CORRECTIONS Act with the junior 
Senator from Rhode Island. Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island, my 
cosponsor of this legislation, and I have very different perspectives 
on the world. He is a Democrat. I am a Republican. I am a conservative, 
and I would say he is at least a liberal. I don't know if maybe he 
would call himself a progressive. The fact is that we tried this and it 
works. Rather than having the Federal Government and the entire country 
be a laboratory for experimentation when it comes to things like this, 
isn't it better to let the States do what they always were conceived of 
being capable of doing, which is to be the laboratories of democracy? 
See what works and then take those successful experiments and scale 
them up so the whole Nation can benefit--that is what this legislation 
does.
  This bill requires the Department of Justice to develop assessment 
tools that will assess the recidivism risk on all eligible offenders. 
In other words, we are not going to give hardcore multiple offenders--
violent criminals--the benefit of these programs. What we will do is to 
start with the low-risk and moderate-risk offenders. We have scientific 
tools, tests, and the like that can help us make better decisions on 
who ought to be eligible and who should not.
  We also shift the Federal Bureau of Prisons resources toward those 
most likely to commit future crimes. In other words, if we take low-
level and mid-level offenders and we give them a way out to turn their 
lives around and become productive and we reduce the crime rate, that 
gives us more opportunity to focus on the hardcore violent criminals 
that are the greatest threat to our communities across the board. 
Focusing on less restrictive conditions for lower risk inmates and 
focusing on the hardcore violent criminals gives us a chance to 
concentrate our efforts on the people most likely to commit future 
crimes and to reoffend.
  Our bill requires the Bureau of Prisons to partner with private 
organizations, including ones that are not-for-profit or faith-based, 
to promote recidivism reduction. We have had some very successful 
programs in Texas where religious organizations will go into the 
prisons and offer people a chance, not only to learn the skills they 
need in order to succeed on the outside but to turn their lives around 
by recognizing a higher power in their life. This is the

[[Page S2406]]

sort of experience that causes many people' lives to be transformed 
forever. Again, it is not because of something government does to them 
but because of what they embraced and have done for themselves.
  I am more encouraged than ever that we will see some positive 
momentum on prison reform as the President and some of his closest 
advisers see prison reform as a top priority. Jared Kushner, the 
President's son-in-law, had a piece today--I believe it was in the Wall 
Street Journal--talking about this initiative. He has been a great 
partner, working with House colleagues and Senate colleagues to try to 
make this a priority, as well as urging the President and the Attorney 
General to do so as well.
  Earlier this year, the President held an important meeting on this 
subject after 6 months of exploring the issue with his team. Attorney 
General Sessions attended, as did my friend and fellow Texan Brooke 
Rollins, the head of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, whose Right on 
Crime Program has been on the leading edge of those prison reforms in 
Texas and, then, taking that message nationwide. That meeting with the 
President was very productive.
  In my discussions with colleagues and at the White House since that 
time, what we have repeatedly come back to is the idea of taking those 
success stories at the State level and scaling them up into a Federal 
reform package.
  Our State began this effort back in 2007. A number of States have 
done the same thing. Over the last decade, we closed or consolidated 
multiple prisons, saving significant taxpayer dollars. The crime rate 
has fallen Statewide, even while our State's population has exploded 
during that same period of time. Something is clearly working back home 
in the Lone Star State. It has worked in places like North Carolina, 
where the Presiding Officer played an important role in the reforms in 
his State, as speaker of the house. It has worked in places like Rhode 
Island and Georgia, just to name a few.
  That is part of the reason why prison reform has enjoyed such broad 
bipartisan support. It is an issue that unites liberals and 
conservatives around shared principles of saving money, reducing crime, 
and successfully reintegrating our citizens into society upon release.

  I believe in the essential dignity of every human life. If there is a 
human life we can help salvage by giving people access to some of these 
programs and by changing the way we look at incarceration as--not just 
a warehouse where we put people, but also by providing people who are 
willing to take advantage of these programs the opportunity to turn 
their life around--it strikes me that we are giving people a second 
chance. It seems to me like the right and just thing to do.
  Are we going to be able to save everybody? I am not naive enough to 
think that we are going to be able to save everybody. Some people are 
simply going to have to be incarcerated and kept off the streets so our 
communities can be safe, but that is not true for everybody. Looking at 
low-level and mid-level offenders, doing the sort of risk assessments I 
am talking about, giving them access to these programs where they 
themselves can turn their lives around while making our communities 
safe, and giving them an opportunity for a second chance and to save 
money--that strikes me as something we need to do.
  Every day we fail to act on this issue we allow our prisons in the 
United States to become more bloated, more inefficient, and more 
wasteful. State and local governments spend more than $200 billion a 
year on criminal justice, and a large fraction of that is spent on 
locking people up. I know there are some people who think we ought to 
lock them up and throw away the key, but that doesn't happen. People 
get out after a few years. The question is, Are they going to be 
prepared to reenter lawful society or will they simply go back to the 
same old lifestyle, reoffend, and end up back in prison?
  There are even more consequential and less tangible costs on our 
communities when people continue to reoffend, because they don't find a 
way out of their life of crime. There is the cost on strained and 
broken families, on lost incomes and savings, on children who have to 
grow up without one or both parents. Those are some of the collateral 
damages of our criminal justice system when we don't take advantage of 
commonsense, proven reforms like I am talking about.
  When people go to jail, the ripple impact affects all of us. It 
affects all of our families, all of our friends, and all of our 
neighborhoods. Some people need to go to jail. They need to stay there 
to pay for their crime and to be separated or segregated from law-
abiding society to keep our communities safe.
  Again, if we can help address the problems by expanding programming 
like substance abuse treatment and vocational training, which have been 
proven to reduce recidivism, these programs can help break the vicious 
cycle of imprisonment. For people who want a better life but simply 
have not found a way out of it, by investing in programs that focus on 
job training, education, drug rehabilitation, and mental health 
treatment, we can save taxpayer dollars and lower crime and 
incarceration rates and decrease recidivism.
  More importantly, in the end, I think we can help people to change 
their lives for the better. We can give them hope and give them some 
opportunity and let them accept the power of transforming their lives 
and the promise that provides to them and to all of us.
  I applaud the administration and the Attorney General's efforts to 
refocus our criminal justice reforms on the prison reform issue and for 
their work so far. I am encouraged by Speaker Ryan's meeting with 
members of the President's staff last week and by the House Judiciary's 
action starting today. I know it will not end today, but they are 
taking up a version that closely mirrors the CORRECTIONS Act, which I 
have addressed in these remarks.
  I also greatly appreciate the leadership of my cosponsor, Senator 
Whitehouse. I know that other people have other ideas--perhaps about 
sentencing reform and the like--but in this political environment, I am 
for doing what we can do rather than spinning our wheels being 
frustrated about things we can't do because there is simply not the 
political support in the House, the Senate, and at the White House to 
get it done.
  The prison reform bill, I believe--the CORRECTIONS Act--is the way to 
go. I am looking forward to working with all of my colleagues in the 
House and the Senate, as well as the President, to get this done.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I am glad to be here today to be on the 
Senate floor to rise to urge my colleagues to confirm Mike Pompeo as 
our next Secretary of State.
  The Senate is an institution built on history and tradition. We hear 
that quite a bit as we walk the halls, particularly where it comes to 
confirmations.
  Confirming the President's Cabinet, confirming judges, confirming a 
Supreme Court Justice, I think, is one of the greatest honors that we 
enjoy as Senators.
  Recent Secretaries of State have enjoyed strong bipartisan support 
from this Chamber during their own confirmation process. Hillary 
Clinton was confirmed by a vote of 94 to 2. John Kerry was confirmed by 
a vote of 94 to 3. These are overwhelming, bipartisan votes, and it is 
not because everybody in this Chamber agrees with everything Secretary 
Clinton or Secretary Kerry would have done on most of the foreign 
policy questions. The result is the Senate's strong tradition of 
confirming qualified nominees to represent the United States on the 
world stage. This very crucial position, Secretary of State, gives the 
President his or her voice around the world in the diplomatic 
realm. But when it comes to the confirmation of this nominee, Mike 
Pompeo, many of my colleagues have

[[Page S2407]]

seemed way too ready to brush aside this long-held tradition. What is 
the reason for this? I think you would agree with me--the reason is 
pretty obvious--that it is just flat-out partisanship. Partisanship is 
the only explanation because it certainly could not be, is not, and 
will not be the nominee's qualifications.

  We have all heard Mike Pompeo's resume by now. His list of experience 
and accomplishments make him more than qualified to serve as this 
Nation's top diplomat. I think some of his qualifications are worth 
repeating.
  He was first in his class at West Point. He was a cavalry officer in 
the U.S. Army and served honorably. He is a graduate of Harvard Law 
School. He was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and the Harvard 
Journal of Law & Public Policy.
  After law school, Mike worked at one of the country's very 
prestigious and top law firms before he cofounded a company where he 
served as CEO. He then joined another company where, again, he served 
as the CEO.
  That was all before Mike was elected to serve four terms in the U.S. 
House of Representatives, where I was very fortunate, in my years as a 
U.S. Congresswoman, to serve and work alongside him and to call him my 
colleague.
  During his time in Congress, he served on the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence. Just on the title alone, ``Permanent 
Select''--it is a committee selected by the Speaker and the minority 
leader--you know that it is extremely important because it deals with 
all of the Nation's intelligence.
  We know that after he left that position as a Congressman, he became 
President Trump's Director of the CIA. By all accounts and by all 
reports, he has done an absolutely exceptional job. He revitalized the 
morale within the CIA and put us on even footing on one of our core 
missions.
  I think it is an impressive list of qualifications that he has, 
especially when you compare some of our previous Secretaries of State.
  I would ask the question: What does it take for a military officer, a 
lawyer, a CEO, a Congressman, and now a CIA Director to get one 
Democratic vote out of committee? Why is there such pushback on such a 
qualified nominee? I believe it is because of a partisan campaign to 
obstruct. We have seen it on other nominations and certainly on this 
one.
  This sort of obstruction does not help our government function. It 
doesn't help the career folks over at the State Department do their 
job--and they are ready. It doesn't help our country lead on the global 
stage, and it certainly doesn't help the people we serve.
  This is an important time in our Nation's history, particularly 
around the world. You and I just heard the French President--the Chief 
Executive--talk about the needs of Europe and his views on terrorism 
and America's place as a world leader. Now, more than ever, we need a 
strong and qualified Secretary of State. We need a leader to negotiate 
with North Korea. These negotiations are coming up rapidly, and we know 
that Mike Pompeo has already developed a relationship.
  We need him to counter the Russian aggression we see cropping up in 
other areas all around this globe. We need a strong leader to address 
the chemical weapons situation in Syria, as tragic as it is. The list 
could go on and on.
  And do you know what? Mike Pompeo is up to this job, and we should 
give it to him. We should give it to him in this Chamber by 
confirmation.
  The American people want Washington to work. They want us to work 
together. They want us to work as a team. That is how we are set up. So 
how can that happen if the President can't even get the opportunity to 
put his own team in place?
  I am going to vote for Mike Pompeo to be our next Secretary of State 
because I want the President to have his team. I want the Nation to 
have a strong leader. I want our State Department to be functioning as 
fully, as vibrantly, and as aggressively as we can around the world in 
these dangerous times.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to put partisanship aside and confirm 
Mike Pompeo as our next Secretary of State.
  I yield back.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I rise to join the Presiding Officer and 
others who have been on the floor hoping that we will move this week to 
support the confirmation of Mike Pompeo, who has been nominated to be 
the Secretary of State.
  It is a critically important time for the country. I think we heard 
this morning in a joint meeting from the President of France the 
importance of our country and those who agree with our defense of 
freedom and security to stand up for that. There are threats all over 
the globe, and certainly everybody realizes that Mike Pompeo, the 
current Director of the CIA, would have the knowledge he needs to do 
the job. He clearly has the experience he needs to do the job, and he 
has the support of the President, whom he would be representing.
  Historically, this body, until recent years, always dealt with 
foreign policy as if we were sure that bipartisanship starts at the 
water's edge and partisanship ends at the water's edge. That long 
tradition was always evident, particularly in the Secretary of State's 
job and confirming people to important positions that relate to our 
national security.
  John Kerry was confirmed as Secretary of State by a vote of 94 to 3. 
Hillary Clinton was confirmed by a vote of 94 to 2, Condoleeza Rice 
received 85 votes when she was confirmed, and Colin Powell was 
confirmed unanimously. That is the tradition the country has always set 
for this job.
  My colleague from New York Senator Schumer said in 2013--and this is 
an exact quote: ``Who in America doesn't think a President, Democrat or 
Republican, deserves his or her picks for who should run these 
agencies? Nobody.'' That is end of that quote. That is the answer to 
his own question. Apparently, that is no longer the answer to that 
question on the part of Senator Schumer and others.
  Senator Kerry, and later Secretary of State Kerry, said in 2009:

       It is essential that we provide the President with the 
     tools and resources he needs to effect change. That starts by 
     making sure he has the national security team he has chosen 
     in place as soon as possible.

  Secretary Kerry and Secretary Clinton were not confirmed because 
Republicans agreed with every single one of their policy positions. 
They weren't confirmed because their colleagues in the Senate agreed 
with every one of their votes. They were confirmed because they were 
qualified to do the job, and the President, who had nominated them, 
deserved to have his team in place to carry out the policies he had 
been elected to carry out.
  Now the same standard should be extended to Director Pompeo, who is 
eminently qualified for the job. Director Pompeo graduated first in his 
class at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1986, and he served 
as a cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the 
Berlin Wall.
  After leaving Active Duty, Director Pompeo graduated from Harvard Law 
School where he edited the Harvard Law Review. This is a man of great 
accomplishment before he entered politics.
  In addition to those things, he also ran two successful businesses 
before he was elected to the House of Representatives in 2010. He 
served in the House from 2010 to 2017. He was a member of the 
Intelligence Committee. In that role, he was at the forefront of 
information that is important to national security, ranging from the 
Iran nuclear accord to the PATRIOT Act. He understands these issues. He 
is a person of significant capacity. Again, maybe most important of all 
the qualifications, he was picked by the President of the United States 
who, after this time of working together with Director Pompeo as the 
Director of the CIA, the President should know exactly what he is 
getting, and, frankly, we should too.
  President Trump decided to not only nominate Director Pompeo to be 
the Director of National Security, but when he was sworn in--when he 
was confirmed, before he was sworn in, 66

[[Page S2408]]

to 32 was the vote. Fourteen Senate Democrats, most of them still 
here--if not, they may all still be here--voted for Mike Pompeo to be 
the Director of the CIA. I would say he is more qualified today to be 
Secretary of State than he was then to be the Director of the CIA 
because not only has he done everything he has done up until then, but 
he has understood, from the unique perspective of the CIA, the foreign 
policy and the intelligence challenges we face every day.
  He has taken the responsibilities seriously. He has briefed the 
President over and over again. The President knows exactly what he is 
getting and Director Pompeo should know exactly whom he is working for.