Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016--Conference Report--

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise because I continue to believe that the Senate should take up the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. There is still time this year for both the Senate and the other body to pass legislation reforming sentencing. In light of recent and justified public concern over treatment of suspects by some police and treatment of police by people who would do them harm, the need for the bill is even greater.

The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act contains three parts, each of which was formed as the basis of a bipartisan compromise among Judiciary Committee members, as well as members off the Committee.

The first is a reduction in the mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. The bill takes great pains to limit sentencing reductions to people with minimal criminal histories and no history of serious violence. Second, the bill enhances prison programming that has been proven to reduce the likelihood of reoffending, and reduces the sentences of inmates who successfully completed those programs. Reducing the likelihood of future crimes reduces the crime rate. And third, the bill makes various reforms to the federal criminal justice system. For instance, it allows people convicted of certain crimes as juveniles to expunge their criminal records if they turn their lives around. And it remedies a constitutional defect in Federal criminal law by permitting individuals sentenced to life sentences as juveniles to seek parole after many years, but doesn't guarantee that parole will be granted. It even adds two new mandatory minimum sentences to the Federal criminal code for serious crimes.

The confidence of people in the criminal justice system is not as strong as we would like. There are various reasons for this lack of trust, and some of them are valid.

The Judiciary Committee reported a compromise bill that is designed to address some of those concerns. The sponsors' willingness to compromise was further demonstrated by a managers' amendment that narrowed the bill's sentencing reductions.

Those changes responded to concerns of some of my Republican colleagues and brought on board a number of new Republican cosponsors.

I have been willing for a long time to enter into an agreement where members can offer amendments of various kinds and we can vote. For instance, the House has determined that a provision of substantive criminal law addressing intent should be part of any bill. I have been open to any compromise on that issue that could gain 60 votes. And I would agree to have a vote on the subject if a compromise cannot be reached. The differences can be aired and resolved.

I am certain that this bill would receive many more than 60 votes and that most of the Republican conference would vote for it if given the chance.

No one thinks the sentencing bill is perfect, as it represents a compromise among people with strong differences of opinion. But the people of this country want action to address deficiencies in the criminal justice system.

This bill would make important but limited changes in the way the Federal Government sentences those who commit crimes.

We should take the bill up, debate it, and show the American people that we are willing to take on one of the most important domestic challenges facing the country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source