A new era of bipartisanship: The way forward

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.

During the last week of October, 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.

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 Sept. 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. On Wednesday, Oct. 30, the Washington Post’s Fact Checker gave 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.