Aug 24, 2018
"to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life." --Abraham Lincoln
Chairman's Note: A Big Step Forward for Criminal Justice Reform
We’ve known for months that criminal justice reform has the votes to become President Trump’s first major bipartisan accomplishment. All it needs is time on the Senate floor for amendments and a final vote.
And this week we got word that that floor time will come. We just have to wait until this November’s midterm elections.
After a meeting at the White House to discuss the administration’s position on possible reforms, Senior Presidential Advisor Jared Kushner came to the Capitol to brief Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX), and me and to discuss a possible timeline for such a bill to reach the floor.
We emerged from these meetings with a consensus on what a reform package should look like and an agreement that the bill would see a vote sometime after the midterm elections.
The main body of bill we agreed to looks a lot like the First Step Act that the House passed with overwhelming support – 226 in favor to 134 against – and four important sentencing reforms added in.
There is a small minority who believe we can incarcerate our way of any social problem, but the damage that draconian mandatory minimum sentences have done to families and communities has become just too apparent. The time for reform has come.
Big conservative states like Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, and my own state of Utah have all passed similar criminal justice reform legislation. And it is already working. In all four states, crime rates and incarceration rates are down. This means fewer victims and fewer ruined lives.
Justice, by its very nature, requires balance. Justice cannot be served if the punishment does not fit the crime, especially when the punishment imposed by the state results in fractured ties to the outside world and reinforced connections to the criminal world.
Justice was not served in the case of Weldon Angelos, who was convicted for selling three dime bags of pot during a 24-hour period of time and having a gun on him when arrested.
No one argues that Weldon was innocent; he undeniably committed a crime when he sold marijuana. However, even the judge who was forced to impose the 55-year mandatory minimum prison term required for this non-violent drug offense felt that this sentence was unjust.
That is why the four sentencing reforms attached to this possible bill are so important. They would address many of the issues that mandate overly harsh sentences to be imposed.
This would be done by changing some legal definitions regarding what makes someone a repeat offender, loosening the requirements of the current “point” system, and lowering the low-end of mandatory minimums.
That does not mean that a person committing a crime would automatically get a shorter sentence than they would under current sentencing laws. It does, however, mean that a judge would have more discretion when deciding what sentence to impose, making cases like Weldon’s much less likely.
Our country is facing an almost epidemic uptick in illegal drug use. Criminal justice reform opponents would have us believe the best way to address this is to make mandatory minimums higher, stricter, and to pack our prisons with low-level, nonviolent drug offenders and throw away the key.
But that does not address this issue head on, provides no added closure to the victims, and would result in the loss of human capital, both of those convicted and the shattered families they would leave behind.
Yes, people found guilty should be punished for their crimes, but not in a way that reinforces and oftentimes encourages repeated deviant behavior.
These reforms have worked on a state level, and it is past time to pass them on the federal level. President Trump can now succeed where President Obama failed. This can be a huge bipartisan win for his administration, but most importantly, it will be a win for the American people we are charged to protect.
Issue in Focus: Land and Water Conservation Fund
Our nation boasts an abundance of beautiful topography. Sweeping plains, rolling hills and valleys, rugged deserts, glassy lakes, and cascading waterfalls are all found across our various states. And Americans should indeed enjoy the benefits of these natural features.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 was enacted to further this goal: to strengthen the “health and vitality” of our citizens by helping preserve, develop, and ensure access to outdoor recreation resources. While this is certainly a laudable goal, the fund has unfortunately drifted far from its original intent and is in desperate need of reform.
The fund was set up to be the principal source of money for federal land acquisition, and to assists states in developing recreational planning and facilities. Originally, the LWCF directed 60% of its funds to be appropriated for state purposes and 40% for federal purposes. However, in 1976 the law was amended to remove the 60% state provision, stating that “not less than 40%” must be used for federal purposes.
The result? About 61% of this money has historically been spent on federal land acquisition, while only 25% has been allocated to state grants. The LWCF has thus added an additional 5 million acres of land to the federal government’s vast estate.
Unfortunately, the federal government has proven to be a poor steward of the land that it has purchased. According to a 2017 CRS report, the maintenance backlog on federal land is estimated to be $18.62 billion. Wildfires have run rampant in the West and the government has failed abysmally in preventing them. Ill-kept roads and trails mean that citizens sometimes don’t have access to our nation’s greatest parks.
The LWCF’s ability to accrue additional revenues to the fund is set to expire on September 30th. Supporters argue that the program cannot function without reauthorization, and just this week there was already a proposal in Congress to permanently reauthorize it – without any major reforms.
But the fund currently has a balance of $21.6 billion that can continue to be appropriated for LWCF projects going forward. Under the FY2018 appropriation level, it would take around 50 years to exhaust the fund.
Congress has reauthorized the program, without reform, for years. And permanently reauthorizing the program would be even worse, because it would deny us of any leverage to enact changes to it in the future.
I believe that there are several key reforms that we can and should make before reauthorizing it.
First, we should restore the original balance of funds so that the majority of them go to the states, as the law originally intended. We ought to empower the states and local stakeholders – who are best equipped to manage LWCF funds and care for the lands in their jurisdiction.
Second, we should mandate that the funds cannot be used for further land acquisition by the federal government. Instead, a portion should be required to go towards National Park Service maintenance backlog projects.
The last thing Congress should do is authorize more money for the federal government to acquire more lands that it can’t take care of. If we truly want greater access to and preservation of our nation’s beautiful lands and waters, we need to rethink LCWF in the long term.
