Charles E. Schumer: “I urge that this motion to instruct be rejected for a very simple and practical reason. Now I certainly agree that we…”

“I urge that this motion to instruct be rejected for a very simple and practical reason. Now I certainly agree that we should have mandatory minimum sentences and have fought in the bill to keep them in, and I also believe that truth in sentencing makes sense, but it has to be thought out. What this bill would mean, this instruction if it were adopted, would be that just about every major State would be unable to get the money because it requires States, particularly those like mine with indeterminate sentences, 5 to 20, or whatever else, to put people, incarcerate people, for a longer time than they have the space for. Now, if that is done after 10 years with the money that we provide that would be a goal to get to, fine, but they do not. It is sort of like the cart before the horse. It says, 'If you can't meet your goal, you don't get the money.' So major States, New York, Texas, and California, and my guess is, the State of the sponsor, would under this instruction not be able to get any of the money to build any prisons. So for that reason, it is counterproductive.”