[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11852-11853]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         SMARTER SENTENCING ACT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to speak to my colleagues on 
another issue as well, and that is something that came out of our 
Judiciary Committee a long time ago and is still on the calendar but 
probably will be brought to the Senate floor. A few weeks ago some were 
calling for the majority leader to bring up the so-called Smarter 
Sentencing Act to the Senate floor for a vote. So I come to the floor 
today to express my strong opposition to this bill and argue against 
taking the Senate's time to consider it.
  In the past I pointed out that this bill would put at risk our hard-
won national drop in crime. It would also reduce penalties for 
importing and distributing heroin, a drug that is currently devastating 
our communities with an epidemic of addiction and a rising number of 
deaths from overdoses. In part, for these reasons many law enforcement 
professionals have come out against this legislation. The National 
Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Federal law enforcement 
officers associations, and a long list of former high-level officials--
in Republican and Democratic administrations alike--are all opposed to 
it. Indeed page A12 of this morning's New York Times contains an 
article entitled: ``Second Thoughts on Lighter Sentences for Drug 
Smugglers.'' According to the New York Times, the sentencing changes 
that the administration has already pushed for are ``raising questions 
of whether the pendulum has swung too far.'' ``Some prosecutors say 
that couriers have little to no incentive to cooperate anymore.''
  Border patrol officials grumble that they are working to catch 
smugglers, only to have them face little punishment. And judges who 
once denounced the harsh sentencing guidelines are now having second 
thoughts.
  Today I point out another perhaps less understood effect of the bill 
which puts our national security at increased risk.
  According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, terrorists are 
increasingly funneling illegal drugs into America, raising large sums 
of money to fund their activities while simultaneously harming our 
communities. Undoubtedly, the Obama administration's unwillingness to 
control our border--which we have seen recently--contributes to the 
problem.
  Derek Maltz, Director of the Special Operations Division at the Drug 
Enforcement Administration, called this a two-for-one deal for 
terrorists: ``Poison gets distributed in the West, and they make 
millions in the process.''
  According to a DEA spokesperson, ``Most people talk about the drug 
issue as a health issue, a parenting issue, an addiction issue. But the 
truth is, it's really a national security issue.''
  In 2006, Congress took specific action to address this issue. When it 
reauthorized the PATRIOT Act, Congress also

[[Page 11853]]

made it a separate crime to manufacture or distribute illegal drugs to 
benefit terrorists or terrorist organizations. The law is codified at 
title 21, section 960(a) of the U.S. Code. It is often called the 
narcoterrorism law.
  Just as important, Congress created mandatory minimum sentences 
applicable to narcoterrorism. Those sentences are set at ``not less 
than twice the minimum punishment'' applicable to the underlying drug 
trafficking offenses which are codified in title 21, section 841. 
However, the Smarter Sentencing Act would drastically cut the mandatory 
minimum sentences that apply to these underlying drug trafficking 
offenses. What this means is that by slashing in half the mandatory 
minimum sentences for the local drug dealer down the block, the Smarter 
Sentencing Act also slashes in half the mandatory minimum sentences for 
members of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or Hezbollah who deal drugs to fund 
their acts of terrorism.
  For example, terrorists who currently face a mandatory minimum 
sentence of 20 years in prison for narcoterrorism would instead face 
only 10 years if the Smarter Sentencing Act were to become law. By 
cutting the mandatory minimum sentences for trafficking drugs to fund 
terrorism, the Smarter Sentencing Act weakens a very important tool 
that can be used to gain the cooperation of narcoterrorists facing 
prosecution. This cooperation leads to more arrests, more drug 
seizures, more terrorists off the streets, and more intelligence that 
could help prevent further attacks.
  Indeed, law enforcement authorities have been supportive of the 
mandatory minimum sentences that apply to the narcoterrorism statute 
for this very reason. For example, the Assistant Administrator for 
Intelligence at the Drug Enforcement Administration testified before 
Congress that ``the robust sentencing provisions in these statutes 
provide incentives for defendants to cooperate with investigators, 
promoting success in investigations.''
  The last thing we should do is weaken the leverage law enforcement 
currently has to win a terrorist defendant's cooperation, but that is 
what the Smarter Sentencing Act would in fact do.
  Indeed, in opposing the bill, Federal prosecutors wrote that 
``mandatory minimums . . . help gain the cooperation of defendants in 
lower level roles in criminal organizations to pursue higher-level 
targets.''
  The same principle is true--and even more important--when our 
national security is at stake. These threats to our safety and security 
are not theoretical, they are very real, and the narcoterrorism law is 
not just a statute on the books, it is a tool that is actively used by 
prosecutors to protect our Nation.
  For example, in 2008, Khan Mohammed, a member of the Taliban, was 
convicted under the narcoterrorism law of distributing heroin and opium 
to finance attacks against American troops in Afghanistan.
  Chillingly, Mohammed was just as concerned with killing American 
civilians with drugs as he was with financing rocket attacks against 
our troops. The opium he agreed to sell was to be processed into heroin 
and imported into the United States. As a result, Mohammed was caught 
on tape exclaiming ``Good, may God turn all the infidels into dead 
corpses.''
  He later expounded on his deadly intentions:

       May God eliminate them right now, and we will eliminate 
     them too. Whether it is by opium or by shooting, this is our 
     common goal.

  Similarly, the narcoterrorism law was used to prosecute Afghan heroin 
kingpin Haji Bagcho in 2012. He was also trafficking heroin to America 
and funneled the proceeds to the Taliban. The evidence at trial showed 
that in 2006 his drug trafficking organization produced almost 20 
percent of the world's opium and, similar to Mohammed, he targeted 
Americans. He reportedly encouraged Afghan farmers to ``grow opium so 
we can make heroin to kill the infidels.''
  Perhaps it is little wonder, according to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, heroin overdoses resulting in death in the United 
States increased 45 percent between 2006 and 2010.
  It should go without saying that these are not individuals whose 
mandatory minimum sentences should be cut in half. But the authors of 
the Smarter Sentencing Act apparently think otherwise because that is 
what the bill says or maybe they don't understand what they are doing. 
Either way, the American people should be extremely concerned about 
this bill that unbelievably was reported out of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Some may assume that the Department of Justice has other tools to go 
after defendants such as these, but the only other charges that 
Mohammed and Bagcho faced were for unlawfully importing these illegal 
drugs into the United States. Unbelievably, the Smarter Sentencing Act 
cuts the mandatory minimum sentences for that crime in half as well.
  In addition to these two cases, the Department of Justice has brought 
prosecutions against other narcoterrorists. Many of these individuals 
were linked to Hezbollah, one of the most notorious terrorist 
organizations in the world. In at least one instance associates of Al 
Qaeda were also brought to justice for their role in drug trafficking 
schemes.
  In many of these cases, the narcoterrorism law and the ban on 
importing illegal drugs played a vital role in their prosecution. We 
should not be weakening these laws at this critical time by cutting the 
penalties associated with those acts of crime. Of course, if possible, 
I would rather these terrorists be treated as enemy combatants and not 
be subject to the civilian criminal justice system at all, but on those 
occasions when they are prosecuted in our criminal justice system, I 
want authorities to have the strongest tools available to address the 
threat these criminals pose.
  According to the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, 
who has brought many of these cases, ``there is a growing nexus between 
drug trafficking and terrorism, a nexus that increasingly poses a clear 
and present danger to our national security. Combating this lethal 
threat requires a bold and proactive approach.'' Cutting the mandatory 
minimum sentences for narcoterrorists is moving in precisely the 
opposite direction of what the U.S. attorney for the Southern District 
of New York said and I just quoted.
  Trafficking in illegal drugs has long been understood to be a way 
that these terrorist organizations raise funds, but it is now equally 
clear that this activity is also a way for them to target our fellow 
citizens directly. In effect, drug trafficking is a method of waging 
war against the United States. It is a way to terrorize our communities 
with poison without firing a shot. It is a way to threaten the lives of 
Americans just as surely as using a bomb, a gun or a hijacked plane.
  Terrorists are wielding another tool in their efforts to destroy and 
defeat our country. This is not the moment to weaken one of the tools 
we have to actually stop them. This is no time to let down our 
defenses. It is no time for the Senate to take up the misnamed Smarter 
Sentencing Act.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________