[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16404-16407]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM

  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, 11 days ago, all but four of the Republicans 
in this body filibustered a commonsense piece of legislation that would 
have created a national commission designed to bring together some of 
the best minds in America to examine our broken and frequently 
dysfunctional criminal justice system and to make recommendations as to 
how we can make it more effective, more fair, and more cost-efficient.
  This legislation was the product of more than 4 years of effort. It 
was paid for. It would have gone out of business after 18 months. It 
was balanced philosophically. It guaranteed equal representation among 
Democrats and Republicans in its membership. It was endorsed by 70 
organizations from across the country and from across the philosophical 
spectrum--from the National Sheriffs' Association, the Fraternal Order 
of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, to the 
ACLU, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Sentencing Project.
  I must say that at first I was stunned by this filibuster at the 
hands of 43 Republicans. But on the other hand, it is impossible not to 
notice over the past 2 years the lamentable decline in bipartisan 
behavior in this body, even in addressing serious issues of actual 
governance. I say this with a great deal of regret, both personally and 
politically.
  I think I can fairly say there is no one in this Chamber who has 
tried harder to work across party lines. In fact, one of my Republican 
friends joked not long ago that I was the only ``nonpolitical'' Member 
of the Senate. I spent 4 years in the Reagan administration as an 
Assistant Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy. I am proud of 
that. I consciously sought out Senators John Warner and Chuck Hagel as 
two of my three principal cosponsors when I introduced the post-
9/11 GI bill.
  I voted with the Republicans 17 times during the health care debate. 
I was the only Member of Congress in either party or in either House to 
send a letter to President Obama, when he claimed he would come back 
from the climate change summit in Copenhagen with a politically binding 
agreement, stating my belief the President did not have the 
constitutional authority to bind the American people to an 
international agreement without the approval of the Congress. I have 
taken issue with this administration with respect to closing down our 
facilities at Guantanamo. I have consistently opposed any tax increases 
on ordinary earned income.
  I took that same bipartisan approach when I introduced the criminal 
justice

[[Page 16405]]

commission bill in 2009, obtaining the cosponsorship of a number of 
Republicans, including Senators Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch, both of 
whom serve on the Judiciary Committee. The filibuster of a commonsense 
measure that might assist this Nation in resolving the national 
disgrace that now comprises our criminal justice system is a sad 
metaphor for the obstructionism that is too frequently replacing 
commonsense leadership in our national debate.
  We spent more than 4 years reaching out to all sides of the 
philosophical spectrum. We worked with liberals, we worked with 
conservatives, we worked with law enforcement, we sought the views of 
many Republicans, and we also worked in close coordination with the 
other body. Toward that end, it is interesting to note that in the last 
Congress, the House of Representatives approved the same legislation by 
a voice vote. It was not even considered controversial. In fact, 
Congressman Lamar Smith, a Republican, now the chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee, was a cosponsor of the legislation.
  But let us speak frankly. In the aftermath of the 2010 elections and 
in anticipation of the 2012 Presidential election, the mood in this 
historic body has frequently become nothing short of toxic. In that 
environment, even this carefully developed and much needed legislation 
is suddenly considered controversial and not only controversial, it was 
also alleged to be unconstitutional.
  Just before the vote, Senator Coburn of Oklahoma said: ``We're 
absolutely ignoring the U.S. Constitution if you do this.''
  Senator Hutchison from Texas said: ``This is the most massive 
encroachment on States rights I have seen in this body.''
  With all due respect, I am pretty comfortable with the legal 
education I received at Georgetown University Law Center. I care about 
the Constitution. I keep a copy of the Constitution on my desk, and I 
refer to it frequently. I think I have a pretty good idea of what is in 
it and what is not and there is nothing in the Constitution that 
precludes the Congress from asking some of the best minds in America to 
come together and to give us advice and recommendations on the entire 
gamut of challenges that face our criminal justice system. Certain 
Senators may not like that idea. That is their prerogative. They may 
not even want to hear the advice. They may not even want to believe 
there is a problem in our criminal justice system. But to claim the 
Constitution precludes this process is nothing short of absurd.
  In fact, our national leadership has received such advice before, 
most notably in 1965, during the Johnson administration, which is the 
last time we have had a comprehensive examination of our criminal 
justice system.
  I am not alone in this judgment. Over the past 11 days, there have 
been a number of editorials and articles pointing out the unfortunate 
nature of this filibuster: Sunday, masthead editorial, New York Times; 
Sunday, masthead editorial, Washington Post; a very observant article 
in the Politico the day of the vote; editorial, Newsday. The lead 
editorial in the Virginian-Pilot in my home State reads: ``Senate 
Negligence on Crime Reform.'' Very interestingly, an article in the 
National Review--one of the most conservative magazines in the United 
States--is titled: ``An Absolute Scandal.'' The first sentence of that 
article reads: ``The insane refusal of 43 Senate Republicans to back 
the National Criminal Justice Act.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
at the end of my remarks all these articles I have referred to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, for nearly 2 years, our legislative process 
has too often become sidetracked by what can only be termed an 
``indiscriminate obstructionism.'' A lot of good ideas have fallen by 
the wayside, having become hostages in the larger debate about who 
should comprise our national leadership and how we should solve long-
term problems, such as our fiscal crisis. This larger debate has 
affected the willingness of many in the other party to come together 
and address a number of serious issues of governance that should be 
resolved no matter who is President and no matter how we end up 
addressing the economy. I would ask my friends on the other side of the 
aisle to think hard about the overwhelming frustration across our 
country with the persistent failure of the Congress to address these 
kinds of issues.
  Nowhere is the need to think creatively for the good of the country 
more clear than where it affects our dysfunctional criminal justice 
system, the challenges of which threaten the safety and the well-being 
of every single community and every single American. This system will 
not be fixed by sticking our heads in the sand and pretending not to 
see its failings. It will only be fixed by bringing together the good 
minds of those who have dedicated years of thought and action to 
finding answers. That is what we have been trying to do. Unfortunately, 
that is what we were stopped from doing by this filibuster.
  People in this country are looking for leadership, and obstructionism 
is not leadership. We will continue to pursue this effort, and I would 
ask my Republican colleagues to join the unanimous position of the 
Democratic Party as we do.


                               Exhibit 1

                [From The New York Times, Oct. 30, 2011]

               Editorial: Falling Crime, Teeming Prisons

       Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, has a smart 
     proposal to create a bipartisan commission to review the 
     nation's troubled criminal justice system and offer 
     recommendations for reform. The National Criminal Justice 
     Commission Act would be a valuable first step toward reducing 
     crime as well as punishment. Unfortunately, Senate 
     Republicans derailed the bill recently, with some falsely 
     claiming that it would encroach on state's rights.
       As a means of controlling crime, America's prisons are 
     notoriously inefficient and only minimally effective, often 
     creating hardened criminals out of first-time offenders. The 
     United States has 5 percent of the world's population, yet 25 
     percent of the world's prisoners. In the past generation, the 
     imprisonment rate per capita in this country has multiplied 
     by five. There are 2.3 million Americans in prisons and 
     jails. Spending on prisons has reached $77 billion a year.
       While crime has gone down notably, just 10 to 25 percent of 
     the decline can be credited to the increase in imprisonment. 
     The rest is from the waning of the crack epidemic, the aging 
     of the baby boomers and other factors.
       Even as the prison population has grown, less than half of 
     the inmates are serving time for violent crimes. Far too 
     often, prison has become a warehouse for people with drug or 
     alcohol addiction. More than half of the population has some 
     form of mental illness. Without proper addiction and 
     psychiatric treatment, many end up back in prison soon after 
     their release.
       The incarceration rate has had a devastating effect on 
     minority communities. African-Americans, who make up one-
     eighth of the population, now make up about 40 percent of 
     those in prison. African-American men have a one-in-three 
     chance of spending a year or more in prison. The trend 
     affects whole communities, depressing earnings and increasing 
     recidivism.
       There are, however, ways to end this cycle of 
     incarceration. This could be done by reducing sentences for 
     nonviolent offenses, ending mandatory minimum sentences and 
     cleaning up drug markets nationally. Reasonable senators 
     should support the bipartisan commission that Senator Webb is 
     calling for, which would cost only $5 million and could help 
     bring about compelling reforms.
                                  ____


               [From The Washington Post, Oct. 30, 2011]

      Editorial: Shaky Arguments Block Federal Commission on Crime

       The United States remains the world's leading jailer, with 
     more than 2 million individuals locked up. The annual price 
     tag is $50 billion.
       Who are the individuals behind bars? What crimes were they 
     convicted of and what penalties did they receive? What 
     relationship is there between the rate of incarceration and 
     the drop in violent crime? Are there more effective and 
     inexpensive ways to deal with lawbreakers?
       These and other questions would be tackled by a bipartisan 
     commission proposed by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.). Republican 
     and Democratic leaders would pick the 14 members of the 
     National Criminal Justice Commission, including experts on 
     law enforcement, prison administration, mental health and 
     drug abuse. The commission, supported by the Fraternal Order 
     of Police and the International Association of Police Chiefs, 
     would have a budget of $5 million and would

[[Page 16406]]

     issue a report after 18 months,,This approach is long 
     overdue: The last comprehensive review of criminal justice 
     was conducted roughly 45 years ago during the Johnson 
     administration.
       Yet Mr. Webb's efforts were dealt a blow last week when 
     Republicans in the Senate blocked consideration of the 
     measure.
       Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) criticized the proposal 
     for stomping on states' rights. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) 
     deemed it unconstitutional. The National District Attorneys 
     Association, which opposes the measure, wrote that the 
     ``federal government should never be in the business of 
     auditing state and local criminal justice systems.''
       These criticisms fall flat. The panel would only study the 
     policies of local, state and national law enforcement 
     entities and make recommendations about best practices. It 
     would have no power to issue mandates. The federal 
     government, which distributes federal dollars as incentives 
     for states and localities to adopt best practices, has a 
     legitimate need to know which policies work.
       Some critics question whether a commission appointed by 
     politicians will issue fair recommendations; a nonpartisan 
     academic group may be better-suited for the task. Critics 
     also worry that 18 months--the length of time the Johnson 
     commission was up and running--is not enough time. These are 
     points that should be addressed, but they are not valid 
     arguments against conducting a review.
                                  ____


                     [From Politico, Oct. 20, 2011]

          Republicans Block Justice Review Proposal in Senate

                           (By David Rogers)

       Invoking ``states rights'' and the Constitution, Senate 
     Republicans Thursday torpedoed an ambitious plan to create a 
     national blue ribbon bipartisan commission to do a top-to-
     bottom review of the U.S. criminal justice system and report 
     back potential reforms in 18 months.
       The 57-43 roll call--three short of the 60 supermajority 
     needed--dramatized again how politically divided the chamber 
     has become.
       Almost identical legislation cleared the House in the last 
     Congress on a simple voice vote with Republican backing and 
     had been approved with bipartisan support in the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee last year as well.
       Given endorsements from the American Bar Association and 
     many police and sheriffs organizations, proponents had hoped 
     to clear the 60 vote supermajority required in the Senate. 
     But under a barrage of last-minute attacks, Republican 
     support wilted. And the chief sponsor, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), 
     found himself deserted by even his long time associate and 
     fellow Vietnam veteran, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
       ``We're not done,'' Webb told Politico. ``There were very 
     specific answers to everything that was raised there. There 
     is no states rights issue in convening the best minds in 
     America to give you advice and observations about the overall 
     criminal justice system.''
       ``I thought he was voting with us,'' Webb said of McCain. 
     The Arizona Republican argued in a separate hallway interview 
     that the state-rights complaint was valid and also took issue 
     with how the 14-member commission, seven Republicans and 
     seven Democrats, would be chosen.
       Indeed, Republicans argued that the White House would have 
     too much influence, effectively creating a 9-7 majority for 
     the administration. But Webb said the specific language that 
     one set of commission seats be chosen ``in agreement'' with 
     the White House had been the exact phrasing chosen by the 
     GOP. And Republicans are specifically promised control over 
     one of the two co-chairs.
       Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) took the lead in the 
     GOP's attacks, describing the commission as ``an overreach of 
     gigantic proportions'' and ``not a priority in these tight 
     budget times.''
       ``We're absolutely ignoring the U.S. Constitution if you do 
     this,'' said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) in closing. ``We have 
     no role unless we're violating human rights or the U.S. 
     Constitution to involve ourselves in the criminal court 
     system or penal system in my state or any other state . . . I 
     would urge a no vote against this and honor our 
     Constitution.''
       The scene was in sharp contrast with events before the 2010 
     mid-term elections.
       In July that same year, nearly identical legislation sailed 
     through the House with the backing of Hutchison's fellow 
     Texan, Rep. Lamar Smith--now chairman of the House Judiciary 
     Committee. Support was so strong that the bill was called up 
     under expedited proceedings and passed without any member 
     even demanding a recorded vote.
       By contrast, just four Senate Republicans backed Webb 
     Thursday: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Orrin Hatch 
     of Utah, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Scott Brown of 
     Massachusetts.
       Hatch is a former Senate Judiciary Committee chairman. And 
     Graham, a close friend of McCain, is prominent as well on the 
     committee which reported a similar version of the bill in 
     January last year--also before the 2010 elections.
       Individual Republican senators said they had come under 
     pressure from local district attorneys and judges in drug 
     courts to oppose Webb. But the Democrat countered that he had 
     strong support from the drug court judiciary and the model 
     for his proposal was the influential presidential commission 
     on crime and the judicial system in the mid 1960's led by 
     then-Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach.
       Webb said that 40 years later it is reasonable to have a 
     second review, especially given the high incarceration rate 
     in the U.S. at a time of relatively low crime rates.
       ``Our criminal justice system is broken in many areas,'' he 
     told the Senate in his own floor comments. ``We need a 
     national commission to look at the criminal justice system 
     from point of apprehension through reentry into society of 
     people who have been incarcerated.''
                                  ____


                     [From Newsday, Oct. 24, 2011]

               Keeler: Justice System Needs To Be Studied

                            (By Bob Keeler)

       If we're ever going to get a handle on why we lock up so 
     many Americans and find out if we're paying too much for too 
     little benefit, this is the time. The cut-the-deficit chorus 
     in Washington seems to have made even the law-and-order hawks 
     have second thoughts about prison costs.
       But last week, a perfectly sensible proposal for a broad 
     examination of the nation's criminal justice system died in 
     the Senate. Sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), it would have 
     done nothing more radical than create a blue-ribbon 
     commission to spend 18 months looking into the system, then 
     recommend reforms. The United States has a far higher per 
     capita rate of prisoners than the world average. If we're 
     locking up people for too long, or for the wrong reasons, and 
     if we can save billions of dollars without increasing crime, 
     it's an idea whose time has come.
       In fact, Webb's bill enjoys broad support among law 
     enforcement groups, such as the International Association of 
     Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs' Association. In 
     2010, the House of Representatives passed it. And last week, 
     Webb tried to get it adopted in the Senate as an amendment to 
     an appropriations measure.
       It got 57 votes, including four Republicans--not enough to 
     get past the 60-vote filibuster barrier. The 43 nay votes all 
     came from Republicans. And Webb was mightily miffed.
       ``Their inflammatory arguments defy reasonable explanation 
     and were contradicted by the plain language of our 
     legislation,'' Webb said in a statement after the vote. ``To 
     suggest, for example, that the nonbinding recommendations of 
     a bipartisan commission threaten the Constitution is 
     absurd.''
       Webb's strong words should come as no surprise. He's a 
     fighter, like the Scots-Irish forebears he celebrated in a 
     book called ``Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped 
     America.''
       He's a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a Marine 
     Corps veteran of Vietnam, where he earned the Navy Cross, the 
     Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts. Later, 
     he served as Navy secretary under President Ronald Reagan. 
     He's a prolific author, including a novel of Vietnam,``Fields 
     of Fire.''
       So Webb is tough--not the soft liberal often associated 
     with prison reform. His passion for it goes back decades. In 
     the military, he served on courts-martial. Later, as an 
     attorney, he defended pro bono a young ex-Marine convicted of 
     murder in Vietnam. In 1984, for Parade Magazine, he went to 
     Japan to write about its justice system. ``Since then,'' he 
     wrote in 2009 in Parade, ``Japan's prison population has not 
     quite doubled to 71,000, while ours has quadrupled to 2.3 
     million. The United States has by far the world's highest 
     incarceration rate. With 5% of the world's population, our 
     country now houses nearly 25% of the world's reported 
     prisoners.''
       He argues that we're locking up people who don't have to be 
     in prison--like nonviolent drug offenders--but not doing 
     enough to protect the public from violent gangs and drug 
     cartels.
       Over the years, I've spent a lot of time in prison, as a 
     reporter--starting with the Attica uprising in 1971 and 
     including a prison guard strike in 1979--and as a visitor. 
     I've interviewed inmates who make me glad there are stout 
     bars and high walls between them and society. And I've known 
     sad-sacks, whose incarceration protects no one and helps no 
     one.
       Crime is a long-term problem, but short-term legislators 
     try to solve it with fixes that don't work, but do add 
     unnecessarily to the prison population. Now it's time to undo 
     some of the damage they've done.
       Webb isn't running for re-election in 2012. That gives him 
     14-plus months to get this bill through the Senate. I'm 
     betting he keeps fighting, as he should.
                                  ____


                [From The Virginia-Pilot, Oct. 22, 2011]

              Editorial: Senate Negligence on Crime Reform

       To get an idea of how disconnected from reality, and how 
     utterly dysfunctional, Congress has become, look no further 
     than the fate this week of Sen. Jim Webb's proposal

[[Page 16407]]

     for a blue-ribbon commission to examine the nation's criminal 
     justice system.
       The proposal had bipartisan support among legislators and 
     special-interest groups ranging from the American Civil 
     Liberties Union to the Fraternal Order of Police.
       It promised to have two co-chairs--one Republican, one 
     Democrat--and a 14-member panel evenly represented by both 
     parties.
       It restricted itself to completing its task--a top-to-
     bottom review of strengths and weaknesses in the federal, 
     state and local criminal justice systems, with an aim to 
     identify ways to become fairer, more efficient and more cost-
     effective--within just 18 months.
       And it was designed to carry out all of its work--convening 
     hearings, calling experts, analyzing data, issuing reports--
     on a budget of $5 million.
       Last year, the legislation rolled through the House with 
     virtually no opposition. But this week, Webb's proposal was 
     shelved after a few Republicans dropped their support.
       Excuses varied, but Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison managed 
     to articulate her opposition in a way that underscored the 
     kind of myopia that has rendered Congress, and particularly 
     the Senate, a counterproductive force in American government.
       She described the legislation, according to Politico, as 
     ``not a priority in these tight budget times,'' a tenuous 
     claim if there ever were one. Even in tough times, spending 
     what amounts to less than a drop in the bucket (the 
     Department of Justice alone spends more than $28 billion) as 
     a means to save far more should be viewed as a financially 
     and morally prudent move.
       Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn offered his own reason: Such a 
     commission would violate states' rights and the Constitution. 
     The claim is nonsense, given that the commission's intent is 
     to offer recommendations, not binding directives.
       But those spurious arguments were sufficient to sway enough 
     Republican senators to disown the notion of improving a 
     system that, as Webb has repeatedly noted, puts four times as 
     many mentally ill Americans into prisons as into mental 
     health institutions.
       The system accounts for 25 percent of the world's prison 
     population, even though the United States is home to just 5 
     percent of the people. It has funneled more than $1 trillion 
     into a war on drugs that has ruined countless lives, resulted 
     in thousands of deaths and sent inmate populations soaring.
       Perhaps the most revealing commentary on Webb's proposal--
     and on the nation's criminal justice system and America's 
     readiness to change it--was delivered this week.
       It originated far from the halls of Congress. It came in 
     the form of a poll, conducted by Gallup, that showed that for 
     the first time in modern U.S. history, half of Americans 
     favored the legalization of marijuana, a drug that has 
     created millions of criminals in America and cost untold 
     billions of dollars.
                                  ____


              [From National Review Online, Oct. 21, 2011]

                          An Absolute Scandal

                           (By Reihan Salam)

       The insane refusal of 43 Senate Republicans to back the 
     National Criminal justice Commission Act. Even Sen. Tom 
     Coburn of Oklahoma, easily one of my favorite legislators, 
     covered himself in non-glory on this one by suggesting that 
     the commission might be unconstitutional, despite the fact 
     that all it established was a bipartisan panel empowered to 
     make nonbinding recommendations.
       There were, however, four Senate Republicans who backed the 
     proposal: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Orrin G. 
     Hatch of Utah, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Scott Brown of 
     Massachusetts.
       Why do we need a commission? Senator Webb, the sponsor of 
     the proposal, offered a fact sheet recounting the scale of 
     the problem:
       The United States has by far the world's highest 
     incarceration rate. With five per cent of the world's 
     population, our country now houses twenty-five percent of the 
     world's reported prisoners. More than 2.3 million Americans 
     are now in prison, and another 5million remain on probation 
     or parole.
       Our prison population has skyrocketed over the past two 
     decades as we have incarcerated more people for non-violent 
     crimes and acts driven by mental illness or drug dependence.
       The costs to our federal, state, and local governments of 
     keeping repeat offenders in the criminal justice system 
     continue to grow during a time of increasingly tight budgets.
       Existing practices too often incarcerate people who do not 
     belong in prison, taking resources away from locking up high-
     risk, violent offenders who are a threat to our communities.
       2.3 million + 5 million = 7.3 million. Roughly 24 percent 
     of the 310 million U.S. residents are under the age of 18, 
     leaving us with roughly 235.6 million adults. So that means 
     that 3.1 percent of adults are behind bars, on probation, or 
     on parole right now. There are, of course, millions of ex-
     offenders.
       This population is disproportionately male and 
     disproportionately black, which means that the impact of mass 
     incarceration is particularly significant for African 
     American children. Basically, doing a bid limits your ability 
     to acquire the kind of skills you need to climb the jobs 
     ladder, in part because employers are (understandably) 
     reluctant to hire ex-offenders.
       If we're even incarcerating five percent of these 
     individuals needlessly, we're causing a massive amount of 
     damage. Why? Apart from the collateral damage on families and 
     children, we might actually make the crime problem worse. The 
     more we incarcerate people, the less severe the stigma 
     associated with being incarcerated. And reducing the stigma 
     actually reduces the effectiveness of incarceration as a 
     deterrent.
       Having grown up in central Brooklyn during the crack 
     epidemic, I have some familiarity with fear of crime. 
     Reducing crime should be an urgent priority, in my view. Even 
     the so-called ``great American crime decline'' has left us 
     with rates of violent crime radically higher than what we saw 
     in the early 20th century, as William Stuntz observed in his 
     last book:
       New York is America's safest large city, the city that saw 
     crime fall the most and the fastest during the 1990s and the 
     early part of this decade. Yet New York's murder rate is 80 
     percent higher now than it was at the beginning of the 
     twentieth century--notwithstanding an imprisonment rate four 
     times higher now than then. That crime gap is misleadingly 
     small; thanks to advances in emergency medicine, a large 
     fraction of those early twentieth-century homicide victims 
     would survive their wounds today. Taking account of medical 
     advances, New York is probably not twice as violent as a 
     century ago, but several times more violent At best, the 
     crime drop must be counted a pyrrhic victory.
       If locking people up in increasingly large numbers were 
     really the most cost-effective way to keep our cities safe, 
     I'd be all for it. Overwhelming evidence suggests that this 
     is not in fact the case. The people who profit most from 
     today's approach to mass incarceration are not potential 
     crime victims. Rather, they are the workers--most of them 
     unionized public sector workers--who staff our prisons.
       So yes: why would we want to study more cost-effective 
     alternatives to reducing crime when we can pour billions of 
     dollars in taxpayer money into the hands of an industry that 
     channels that money back into lobbying and political 
     advertising on behalf of longer prison sentences, all to keep 
     the gravy train going?

  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________