SPECIAL ORDER ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I appreciate the gentleman from New York and certainly the gentlewoman from Ohio for organizing this Special Order to discuss the need for criminal justice reform.
Mr. Speaker, we have serious, fundamental problems with our criminal justice system today. For too long, policymakers have chosen to play politics with crime policy by enacting so-called tough on crime slogans and sound bites, such as three strikes and you are out, mandatory minimum sentences, and--if you get it to rhyme, apparently, it is better--if you do the adult crime, you do the adult time. As appealing as these policies sound, their impacts range from a negligible reduction in crime to actually increasing the crime rate.
As a result of these policies, the United States, despite representing only 5 percent of the world's population, has 25 percent of the world's prisoners and now has the highest incarceration rate of any nation's, by far, in the world. There are 2.2 million people behind bars in this country. That is triple the number of prisoners we had just three decades ago. At over 700 persons incarcerated for every 100,000 in the population, the United States far exceeds the world's average incarceration rate of about 100 per 100,000.
Recent studies have questioned the sanity of this mass incarceration. For example, the Pew Research Center on States estimates that after about 350 per 100,000, any crime reduction value begins to diminish, and at over 500 per 100,000, incarceration becomes, actually, counterproductive. As I said, our rate is now at 700 per 100,000.
These counterproductive effects are created because today there are too many children who are being raised by a parent who is in prison and by too many people with felony records who are unable to find jobs. The impact of our tax dollars is also distressing. The Bureau of Prisons is consuming too much of the Department of Justice's budget, meaning that the Department has fewer and fewer resources for other programs that can actually reduce crime and enhance public safety. The tough on crime approach falls the hardest on minorities. While the incarceration rate overall in the United States is approximately 700 per 100,000, for Blacks, the incarceration rate is over 2,200 per 100,000; and in some jurisdictions, they lock up Blacks at the rate of 4,000 per 100,000--a rate 40 times the international average.
The war on drugs has exacerbated this problem. Over 2,000 Federal prisoners are now serving life without parole for nonviolent drug crimes, and many more are serving unduly harsh sentences for nonviolent offenses. The racial disparities are staggering. Despite the fact that Whites engage in drug offenses at a rate equal to or often higher than that of African Americans, African Americans are incarcerated on drug charges at a rate 10 times greater than that of Whites.
We all agree that there is a problem with mass incarceration. So what is the best way to solve it?
When reviewing any legislative package called criminal justice reform, I think there are some key principles that we have to address.
First, reform must meaningfully address the problem of mass incarceration by significantly reducing admissions to prison and shortening a prisoner's length of stay.
Second, any reform must address the primary driver of the ballooning Federal prison populations, and that is mandatory minimum penalties, especially those for drug and firearm offenses.
Third, we must address the disparate impact on race in the Federal criminal justice system that has resulted from the application of many neutrally worded policies and laws.
Fourth, reform must address mental health and addiction issues as a public health issue and require intervention and treatment plans to resolve underlying issues that led those to be involved in the criminal justice system rather than implement so-called tough on crime, lock 'em up approaches. Everybody knows that the war on drugs has failed. We need to address drug abuse more as a public health issue and less as a criminal justice issue.
Fifth, we must provide comprehensive reentry and rehabilitation services and incentives for completing those programs that are found to actually work, with a particular focus on those with the greatest need.
Finally, any legislation must be based on research and evidence, not on poll-tested slogans and sound bites or political negotiations, which are unrelated to research and evidence.
How do the current proposals stack up?
First, we look at the current bills that have been reported out of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and notice that they fail to embody any of the principles. In fact, they often take the opposite approach.
While these bills reduce the number of admissions and/or length of stay in some limited cases, they also create new mandatory minimums, even new mandatory minimums or mandatory consecutive enhancements. They enhance existing mandatory minimums to apply to people who would not get them under the present law, and they irrationally limit who can benefit from prospective and retroactive relief provisions. It is unknown whether there will be an overall increase or decrease in prison impact at the 10-year point after implementation, if these bills pass, compared to doing nothing. The United States Sentencing Commission has been unable to quantify the impact of the expansions or the limitations on relief. So the fact that we do not have the numbers means that we cannot determine whether these bills will have any meaningful effect on mass incarceration.
Though the bills do shorten two supersized mandatory minimums, they do not eliminate any mandatory minimum. The Senate bill actually creates two new ones, and both bills create new mandatory consecutive sentencing enhancements, which must be served after any other sentence. Both bills expand mandatory minimums for drug and gun offenses by applying them to people who would not be eligible to receive them today.
If the problem we are trying to address is mass incarceration, why are those in the bill to begin with?
Neither of the bills will do anything to address the disparate racial impact that pervades our criminal justice system. Federal mandatory minimums, in particular those for drug and firearm offenses, have been studied and have been found to have a racially disparate impact. These bills do nothing to eliminate mandatory minimums. Even though they reduce some, they create new ones, expand others, and create new sentencing enhancements. So the bills may actually make racial disparities in sentencing even worse than they are under present law.
Finally, both bills put limits on who can receive prospective and retroactive relief. If you look at the limitations, you will find that they have a racially disparate impact on minorities.
On the issue of the war on drugs, both bills also fail to treat drug abuse and addiction as a public health problem. In fact, the strategy used in the bills to address heroin addiction is not a public health approach, for the bills impose mandatory additional prison time. This is not a public health, research-based approach.
On the comprehensive reentry and rehabilitation services to reduce recidivism, these bills have turned science and empirical evidence upside down. They give the greatest incentives for completing the programs to those with the lowest need while categorically barring offenders with the highest risk from benefiting from the rehabilitation programs. This approach not only violates research, but it will exacerbate the current racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
Mr. Speaker, there is ample research available to show what credible criminal justice reform ought to look like. For example, Texas--one of the Nation's most conservative States--recently passed criminal justice reform legislation that was based on research and evidence, and the result was a significant reduction in crime, a significant reduction in incarceration, and a savings of billions of dollars.
The SAFE Justice Act--the Safe, Accountable, Fair, and Effective Justice Act--which I cosponsored with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), which the gentlewoman from Ohio pointed out that she is supporting, was based on the Texas model and includes evidence-based prevention and early intervention programs; reducing incarceration even at the State level as well as at the Federal level; comprehensive police training and funding for body cameras, drug and veterans' courts; a significant reduction in the use of mandatory minimum sentences; and rehabilitation for all of those in prison and second-chance programs for those who have been released. It has broad, bipartisan support. All of the provisions in the bill are fully paid for by reallocating the reduction in mandatory minimums, and it shows that we do not have to accept a bill that fails to conform to evidence and research.
Mr. Speaker, criminal justice reform legislation ought to be consistent with the research and evidence that is readily available. From what I can tell, the bills reported out of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have nothing based in research and evidence and, sadly, seem more concerned about the politics of criminal justice reform, with little regard to actually wanting to end our Nation's addiction to mass incarceration.
The SAFE Justice Act is a better evidence-based approach, which will, if enacted, reduce crime, save money, and reduce racial disparities that pervade our criminal justice system.
I appreciate the gentlewoman from Ohio and the gentleman from New York for hosting tonight's Special Order.