Chairman Grassley Quotes FLEOA in Floor Speech in
Opposition to the Smarter Sentencing Act - March 10th, 2015
Prepared Statement by Senator
Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman, Senate Judiciary
Committee
Floor Remarks: Mandatory Minimum
Sentencing
March 10, 2015
Mr. President, on a number of occasions I have had to take to the Senate floor
to note my opposition to the so-called Smarter Sentencing Act. It has
been necessary because there are so many misconceptions about that legislation
and federal drug sentences and prisoners.
Before addressing them, I want to let my colleagues know that I do believe that
there are some inequities in the criminal justice system. The Judiciary
Committee will be looking at ways to address them. I will set out that
part of the Committee’s agenda after discussing sentencing.
The Smarter Sentencing Act would arbitrarily cut in half the mandatory minimum
sentences that are imposed on a host of serious drug offenses. They
include importation, manufacture, and distribution of serious drugs like
heroin, PCP, LSD, and meth.
The governor of Vermont devoted an entire State of the State address to the
heroin epidemic. The governor of Maryland just launched an anti-heroin
initiative following the near doubling of heroin overdose deaths in that state
between 2011 and 2013. But the Smarter Sentencing Act would cut in half
mandatory sentences for importing, distributing, and manufacturing heroin.
It would cut the sentences for the same activities with
respect to LSD, a drug that causes psychosis and suicide. It would reduce
sentences for the drug trade that two of President Obama’s appointees in the
DEA and in the Justice Department have warned that the world’s most dangerous
terrorist organizations are engaged in to fund their operations. It would
harm the ability of prosecutors to obtain cooperation from lower level
offenders to obtain intelligence regarding terrorists’ planned attacks.
As President Obama’s own United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York has warned, "[T]here is a growing nexus between
drug trafficking and terrorism, a threat that increasingly poses a clear and
present danger to our national security.” The threat should determine the
response. It would be foolhardy to meet the threat of narcoterrorism by
cutting drug sentences.
Under federal sentencing law, those who are low level offenders avoid mandatory
minimum offenses. Just under half of all drug courier offenders were
subject to mandatory minimum sentences, but fewer than 10% received mandatory
minimum sentences. One reason for the difference is that offenders who
cooperate in prosecuting high level drug conspirators avoid the mandatory
minimum sentences.
As the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association wrote, "[A]ny change in the
mandatory minimum sentencing standard does a disservice to the brave men and
women who are asked to put their lives on the line to protect us from
terrorists and criminals.
"Currently, the system in place allows federal law
enforcement agents to infiltrate and dismantle large-scale drug trafficking
organizations and to take violent armed career criminals off of the
street. In turn, this allows progression up the scale of criminal
organizations from low-level subject to higher ranking members through the
effect of the mandatory minimum sentencing act.”
A second reason why mandatory minimum sentences are not
imposed on many eligible drug couriers is the "safety valve.” Defendants
can qualify if they have no or a very light criminal history. That means
that those who are convicted but aren’t violent do not serve mandatory minimum
sentences. The average sentence for a federal drug courier offender
is only 39 months. The offenders who qualify for the safety valve are
drug couriers and drug dealers. They are not people who are in prison for
possession of drugs. That is because drug possession does not trigger
federal mandatory minimum sentences. And it is because, according to the
Sentencing Commission, almost no citizen is in federal prison for mere drug
possession.