Coming together for common good
|
|
November 6, 2013 |
By U.S. Congressman Raul Labrador
There’s so much partisanship in Washington, D.C.
these days, it’s always good news when both
parties can come together for the common good.
Last week, I joined with Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA)
to introduce a bill to reform our criminal
sentencing laws. The laws we currently have on
the books – known as “mandatory minimum
sentencing laws” - require judges to impose at
least a minimum sentence for certain types of
federal crimes. Congress passed these laws to
appear “tough on crime.” But, the reality is,
these laws represent a “one-size-fits-all”
approach that is actually leaving us less safe.
During the past 30 years, spending on federal
incarceration has surged by more than 1000
percent. And yet, if you look at the makeup of
federal inmates, nearly half of them are there
because of drug offenses. The vast majority of
them are nonviolent and don’t require overly
harsh sentences. Still, judges are forced to
impose these sentences, even if they don’t want
to. The end result is that by focusing so much
on the nonviolent, we have fewer resources to
protect ourselves from the truly violent.
That’s why I introduced the Smarter Sentencing
Act. This bill would bring much-needed common
sense and flexibility to our criminal sentencing
laws.
Specifically, it would lower certain drug
mandatory sentences, allowing judges to
determine, based on the circumstances of each
individual, when the harshest penalties should
apply. In addition, it would allow certain
inmates who were sentenced before the Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010 to petition for sentence
reductions. Finally, it would expand the federal
“safety valve,” which has been effective in
allowing federal judges to appropriately
sentence certain nonviolent drug offenders below
existing mandatory minimums.
Our bill is endorsed by groups across the
political spectrum, from the ACLU to Heritage
Action; from the NAACP to the Constitution
Project, from the American Bar Association to
the American Correctional Association. To learn
more about it, click here.
In the past few days, you may have also heard
about the latest failures with Obamacare.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen
Sebelius testified before the House Energy and
Commerce Committee, and while she acknowledged
the rollout was a disaster, she opposed delaying
the individual mandate. Ten Senate Democrats,
however, went on the record to oppose her. They
signed a letter to President Obama, urging him
to extend the open enrollment period.
On September 30, House Republicans passed
legislation to delay the mandate for one year
while funding the rest of the government. The
President was so outraged by our idea he shut
down the government for 16 days. During the
shutdown, I made the point that delaying the
mandate would actually help the President.
That’s because his signature achievement wasn’t
ready for primetime, and its failure would
reflect badly on him. Given everything that’s
happened, I bet he would take that deal, if he
could do it over again.
It certainly doesn’t help that NBC News
uncovered evidence that as early as 2010, the
President knew his promise that “if you like
your insurance, you will keep it” was a lie. And
yet he repeated that lie over a three-year
period. Last Wednesday, the Washington Post’s
Fact Checkergave the President “four Pinocchios”
– its worst rating – for his deception.
Due of the failure of the President to lead, our
country is in a period of partisanship.
Obamacare was passed in 2010 without the vote of
a single Republican in Congress. It was the most
partisan piece of legislation we have ever seen.
To go forward, we need a new spirit of
bipartisan cooperation. It is my hope that
common-sense bills, like my sentencing reform
law, can help pave the way to that era. |
|
Questions or comments about this
article?
Click here to e-mail! |
|
|
|
|
