[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15563-15564]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           SENTENCING REFORM

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there are many stories written in the 
last months about the dysfunction of Congress, why can't they get 
along, why can't they produce something, why can't they address the 
issues and challenges of our time. It is easy to get into that mindset 
and believe that something has happened on Capitol Hill that cannot be 
repaired. For those who are about to give up hope, I hope they are 
reflecting on what I left just a few moments ago. It was a press 
conference held up in the radio and TV Senate gallery.
  Attending this press conference were Senator Chuck Grassley, who is 
the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Senator John Cornyn, 
the Republican whip; Senator Mike Lee of Utah; and Senator Tim Scott. 
On the Democratic side: Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on 
the Senate Judiciary Committee; Senator Corey Booker of New Jersey, a 
relatively new Member of the Senate; Senator Sheldon Whitehouse; and 
Senator Chuck Schumer.
  We were there to announce what we think is a historic achievement, a 
historic agreement. We have been working now for years, literally for 
years, on both sides of the aisle to make significant and meaningful 
criminal sentencing reform and reform to the corrections system of the 
United States of America. On that stage, from Mike Lee to Pat Leahy and 
Dick Durbin, was the entire political spectrum of the Senate. Within 
that spectrum, there are a lot of differences of opinion. There were 
times a year ago that I did not think that meeting and that 
announcement would take place.
  But today we came together, on a bipartisan basis, to announce that 
we had reached an agreement, a historic agreement, on the Sentencing 
Reform and Corrections Act of 2015. We knew we had a problem in 
America, a problem of incarceration. A nation with 5 percent of the 
world's population has 25 percent of the world's prison population. 
What is going on in America? Why are so many people in prison, and has 
it made us any safer? We asked those hard questions and came up with 
what we think is a good response.
  We took a category of crime, drug use, that does not involve violence 
or a gun or gang activity and said: We are going to give to the judge 
in that case, that category of cases, more flexibility when it comes to 
sentencing. The minimum mandatory requirements can be changed by the 
judge based on the defendant before him, the crime they committed, and 
what that judge believes to be the best for our society.
  It is such a change. For the longest time, years and decades, our 
goal was to incarcerate as many as possible, and we did, some of them 
for extraordinarily unfair and unjust periods of time. The worst vote--
the worst vote I ever cast as a Member of Congress was in the House. It 
goes back more than 20 years ago. A basketball player at the University 
of Maryland named Len Bias died from a drug overdose. We were called on 
to stiffen the penalties for crack cocaine in America and we did, 
dramatically: 100 to 1 for crack cocaine versus sentencing for powdered 
cocaine--100 to 1. The net result of that in several decades of 
sentencing was to send away primarily African Americans for incredibly 
long sentences. Eugenia Jennings of Alton, IL, a teenage mother and a 
crack addict was selling crack cocaine, a handful of it, to buy clothes 
and food for her children. It was her third offense.
  When she was convicted, the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines 
gave Judge Patrick Murphy no choice but to hand down a sentence of 23 
years in prison. Judge Murphy said at the time: This country, this 
government, has done nothing for you, Ms. Jennings, through your 
tortured life, and now at this moment in life we are going to kick you 
hard.
  The judge knew it was the wrong sentence. Fortunately, Eugenia 
Jennings' sentence was commuted after a dozen years. She was released 
from prison to be with her children, only for a short time. She passed 
away from cancer. But that is just one statistic, one story, and it can 
be repeated thousands of times.
  This bill tries to avoid that type of injustice. We were not going to 
be a safer State, a safer nation if she served 23 years instead of 12. 
It made no sense. So we address it with this bill. With this bill, we 
go after a new approach in sentencing on this narrow category of 
crimes, which we believe can result in many serving shorter sentences.
  Secondly, for those who are still in prison subject to that 100-to-1 
ratio on sentencing, we give 6,500 inmates in the Federal prison system 
a chance to petition for reconsideration of their sentence on an 
individual basis, so they can be judged by judges, prosecutors, and 
people in the community as to whether their sentence should be changed.
  So this, in a way, is a sweeping bill when it comes to the population 
of our prisons. I believe--many agree--it would be far better to take 
the $25,000, $30,000, $35,000 a year it costs to house an inmate and 
put it instead into community policing, making our neighborhoods safer, 
giving our prosecutors the resources they need to not only come down 
with the right sentences but variations in sentencing like drug courts, 
veterans courts, and things that are working around America which will 
make us safer at a lower cost. We will have more money available to the 
Department of Justice and across the board to go after the seriously 
threatening criminals we still have in America whom we can never ever 
ignore.
  Senator Cornyn and Senator Whitehouse took a look at those in prison 
to determine ways they could earn an earlier release or better terms of 
release. They did extraordinary work. Senator Corey Booker of New 
Jersey stepped in on an issue that all of us who serve with him know he 
feels so passionately about, the African-American incarceration rate 
and particularly the impact it has on young people in that part of our 
population. He made some valuable contributions to this bill.
  It is our hope we can bring this bill to the Senate Judiciary 
Committee soon. Senator Grassley gave his word that would happen, and 
then bring it to the floor and send it to the House.
  For those who say, ``What is going to happen over there, with all of 
the changes taking place?'' I would make one observation: Our spectrum 
of political support for the bill we had at the press conference 
represents the spectrum in the House as well. All of us came together. 
All of them can come together too. They may not agree with every word 
in this bill. Having served in the House, I am sure they won't. But if 
they will make the same good-faith effort at finding reasonable 
compromise, then we can reach a historic achievement, a historic 
outcome in this process.
  I wish to commend one member of my staff in particular who has 
devoted more hours than I could ever count to make this a reality. His 
name is Joe Zogby. He is my lead counsel on the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. Time and time again, Joe Zogby has performed so 
professionally and with such determination, from my point of view and I 
am sure from other Senators' points of view. We wouldn't be here today 
if we didn't have staffers like Joe who have given so much of their 
time and their heartfelt dedication to finding a solution to an 
American problem.
  So before we walk away from the Congress and say there is no hope, 
take a look at this bill and this effort. This is how the Senate is 
supposed to work. This is how the House is supposed to work. It is how 
Congress is supposed to work. It is how America expects us to work.
  The President is anxious for us to come up with this work product. 
Let's not disappoint him and the millions of Americans who count on us 
to solve the problems facing America.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 15564]]



                          ____________________