Smarter Sentencing Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I wish to pick up where my friend left
off. I thank, from the bottom of my heart, the leadership of Senator
Lee and Senator Durbin on what is an extraordinary piece of legislation
in terms of its impact.
My colleagues have made it clear time and again--in the last Congress
and in this Congress--that the application of mandatory minimum
sentences, especially in drug cases, feeds the perception of pervasive
unfairness in our criminal justice system just for the points that
Senator Lee was making. This perception is based in that reality.
When I was mayor, I used to always say, ``In God we trust,'' but
everyone else, ``Bring me data.'' The data is clear from the U.S.
Sentencing Commission, which shows that mandatory minimums have a
disparate impact on minority communities.
Let's be clear. The majority of illegal drug users and dealers in our
country are white, but three-quarters of all the people incarcerated
for drug offenses are Black and Latino, and the large majority of
individuals subject to Federal mandatory minimum penalties are African
American and Hispanic. That perception is fed by this reality: African
Americans are granted relief from mandatory minimum penalties as are
other citizens under the so-called safety valve, but Blacks get the
safety valve far less than other groups.
For example, the data shows that in 2010, 63.7 percent of White
offenders received the safety valve relief while only 39.4 percent of
Black offenders received that benefit.
In 2012, Blacks were 26.3 percent of all drug offenders, but they
were 35.2 percent of the drug offenders who received no safety valves
whatsoever--no relief from the mandatory minimum penalties.
I will now yield back for Senator Lee, again, the lead sponsor of
this bipartisan legislation, and I ask the Senator: What does this
legislation do, specifically, to address mandatory minimums?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BOOKER. I appreciate that, and I hope we all in the Senate can
deal with the same set of facts. We are entitled to different opinions
and different conclusions regarding the facts, but we should not be
debating facts when we have them here before us.
So let's take a look at those facts. In 2011, the sentencing
commission issued a comprehensive study about mandatory minimum
sentences. The study found that almost 55,000 people were in Federal
prisons serving mandatory minimum sentences for a drug crime. That was
more than 50 percent of all Federal drug offenders and more than a
quarter--25 percent--of all Federal prisoners, period.
Second, the great majority of Federal drug offenders do not use
violence. Let me say that one more time because it is very important.
We are talking about in this bill nonviolent offenders, and the great
majority do not use violence. The sentencing commission's most recent
data shows that less than 1 percent of offenders used or threatened
violence in committing their crime, and no weapons--no weapons--were
involved in more than 80 percent of drug cases.
Third, many of those serving mandatory minimum drug sentences are
low-level offenders. It is true that certain low-level offenders such
as the couriers don't often receive mandatory minimums. But other low-
level offenders frequently are sentenced to mandatory minimums.
For example, among those who are most likely to receive a mandatory
minimum sentence are street-level dealers--those who sell less than 1
ounce of a drug. Almost 45 percent of street-level dealers are serving
mandatory minimums in Federal prison.
Finally, these mandatory minimum sentences are lengthy. They are
costly. They drain taxpayer resources. A recent sentencing commission
study shows that the average sentence for mandatory minimums was 132
months--11 years in Federal prison without parole.
Some claim also that mandatory minimum prison sentences are not a
major factor in the massive increase in the Federal prison population
and overcrowding in Federal prisons. Remember, in the last 30 years, we
have had an explosion in our Federal prison population--800 percent.
Some people say that mandatory minimums have had nothing to do with
that. I look to my colleague from Utah to respond. Is that true?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BOOKER. I appreciate that question. This is one of the reasons I
am so passionate about the legislation originally introduced by Senator
Lee and the Senator from Illinois, because the mandatory minimums are
patently unfair to people all across America. Whether one is White or
Black, to have a disproportionate sentence unnecessary to punish a
person and prevent a person from doing a future nonviolent crime is bad
enough, but when we are talking about, as the Senator from Illinois was
before, so negatively concentrated in certain urban areas, it creates
an invasive belief that begins to undermine faith in our criminal
justice system alone. As we said earlier, the overwhelming majority of
drug users and sellers are White, but the overwhelming number of people
incarcerated and arrested for it are Black, as well as those receiving
mandatory minimums.
But what people have to understand is that this has a punishing
effect on us all. No. 1, it is hurting families. A friend of mine
brought to my attention a ``Sesame Street'' clip where even the
educators in public broadcasting are seeing that certain communities
have so many of their men--nonviolent offenders--being sucked into the
prison system for these long sentences that we have created a
generation of children growing up without their parents. That has a
difficult impact when it comes to the poverty of that family, when it
comes to the challenges of having a provider pull away. So the Smarter
Sentencing Act is a tool to help to relieve that problem, as well as
the costs to us all.
What is wonderful--at a time when we have debt, when we need to
invest in infrastructure and many other needs, the current system is
costing us hundreds of billions of dollars annually. This legislation I
have signed on to as a cosponsor offers a savings that can be
redirected to community efforts that prevent crime in the first place--
evidence-based programs that undermine crimes in the first place--as
well as to helping people coming out of prison stay out of prison. We
can save money and still protect public safety with lower rates of
incarceration and a greater reliance on community revision and
treatment.
The wonderful thing about this is that what I am saying is not
speculation. It is the facts we are experiencing in States that have
already embraced reducing mandatory minimums. In fact, many of these
States--and it is wonderful that this is bipartisan legislation--many
States are red States. We are seeing this path of reducing crime,
reducing prison populations, creating savings, being shown to us in
State after State model that the Federal Government should follow--
models seen in Texas and in Georgia.
Senator Flake encouraged us to pay attention to overcriminalization
in the Federal system. He too is a champion of reforming the system and
making it better. I wish to ask the Senator from Arizona: How does the
Smarter Sentencing Act address the problem of overcriminalization?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BOOKER. This incredible convergence of people from all different
stripes in our country, all different backgrounds, races, religions,
and political philosophy--let's just start with the bipartisan U.S.
Sentencing Commission and the Judicial Conference have both urged
Congress to reduce mandatory minimum penalties and both have stated
their support for this legislation, the Smarter Sentencing Act.
It is supported by faith leaders such as the Justice Fellowship and
the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is supported by
advocacy groups across the political spectrum and has been endorsed by
conservative leaders such as Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform, Eli Lehrer and the R Street Institute, Pat Nolan, former president of the Justice Fellowship, Marc Levin of the Texas Public Policy Institute, and Freedom Works.
It is supported by law enforcement leaders, including the Major
Cities Chiefs Association and the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys,
which represents many of the largest district attorney's offices in the
country--big cities. They represent county, Federal, State, and local
prosecutors--prosecutors at every level.
The bill is supported by the Council of Prison Locals, which
represents more than 28,000 correctional workers in the Federal Bureau
of Prisons. The bill is also supported by crime victims themselves,
including the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence,
a coalition of more than 1,000 different organizations that advocate on
behalf of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, and stalking. As they explain, mandatory minimum drug
sentences are draining the resources needed for victims. Women who are
victims of domestic violence sometimes end up serving long sentences
that the Congress intended for kingpins and other drug organization
leaders. All of that unity in this country supports this act.
I wonder, is there anything else Senator Lee would like to say about
this bipartisan, widely supported by both the data and the advocates
across the quantum spectrum--is there anything else the Senator would
like to add?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source