Press Releases

Washington, DC- Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) today spoke on the Senate floor regarding the recent filibuster by Senate Republicans to block passage of his legislation to establish a bipartisan National Criminal Justice Commission, though it enjoyed support from more than 100 organizations, including: the National Sheriffs’ Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Sentencing Project, the ACLU and Prison Fellowship.  

YouTube video can be found here.

Senator Webb’s full remarks as delivered are below:


Senator Webb: Mr. President, eleven days ago all but four of the Republicans in this body filibustered a common-sense piece of legislation that would have created a national commission designed to bring together some of the best minds in America to examine our broken and frequently dysfunctional criminal justice system, and to make recommendations as to how we can make it more effective, more fair, and more cost-efficient.  This legislation was the product of more than four years of effort.  It was paid for.  It would have gone out of business after 18 months.  It was balanced philosophically.  It guaranteed equal representation among Democrats and Republicans in its membership.  It was endorsed by seventy organizations from across the country and from across the philosophical spectrum, from the National Sheriffs’ Association, the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, to the ACLU, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Sentencing Project. 

I must say that at first I was stunned at the filibuster at the hands of 43 Republicans.  But on the other hand, Mr. President, it is impossible not to notice, over the past two years, the lamentable decline in bipartisan behavior in this body, even in addressing serious issues of actual governance.  I say this with a great deal of regret, both personally and politically. 

I think I can fairly say that there is no one in this Chamber who has tried harder to work across party lines.  In fact, one of my Republican friends joked not long ago that I was the only “non-political” member of the Senate.  I spent four years in the Reagan Administration as an assistant secretary of defense and Secretary of the Navy. I’m proud of that.  I consciously sought out Senators John Warner and Chuck Hagel as two of my three principal co-sponsors when I introduced the Post-911 GI Bill.  I voted with the Republicans 17 times during the health care debate.  I was the only Member of Congress in either party or in either house to send a letter to President Obama when he claimed he would come back from the climate change summit in Copenhagen with a politically binding agreement, stating my belief that the President did not have the Constitutional authority to bind the American people to an international agreement without the approval of the Congress.  I have taken issue with this Administration with respect to closing down our facilities at Guantanamo.  I have consistently opposed any tax increases on ordinary earned income. 

And I took that same bipartisan approach when I introduced the Criminal Justice Commission bill in 2009, obtaining the co-sponsorship of a number of Republicans, including Senators Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch, both of whom serve on the Judiciary Committee. 

The filibuster of a common-sense measure that might assist this nation in resolving the national disgrace that now comprises our criminal justice system is a sad metaphor for the obstructionism that is too frequently replacing common sense leadership in our national debate.    We spent more than four years reaching out to all sides of the philosophical spectrum.  We worked with liberals.  We worked with conservatives.  We worked with law enforcement.  We sought the views of many Republicans.  And we also worked in close coordination with the other body. 

Toward that end, it’s interesting to note that in the last Congress the House of Representatives approved this same legislation by voice-vote – it was not even considered controversial.  In fact, Congressman Lamar Smith, Republican, now the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was a co-sponsor of the legislation.

But let’s speak frankly, Mr. President.  In the aftermath of the 2010 elections, and in anticipation of the 2012 Presidential election, the mood in this historic body has frequently become nothing short of toxic.  And in that environment, even this carefully developed and much-needed legislation is suddenly considered controversial.  And not only controversial, it was even alleged to be unconstitutional.

Just before the vote, Senator Coburn of Oklahoma said, “We’re absolutely ignoring the U.S. Constitution if you do this.”

Senator Hutchison from Texas said, “This is the most massive encroachment on states’ right I have seen in this body.”

Mr. President, in all due respect, I’m pretty comfortable with the legal education that I received at the Georgetown University Law Center.  I care a lot about the Constitution.  I keep a copy of the Constitution on my desk.  I refer to it frequently.  I think I have a pretty good idea of what is in it and what is not.  And there is nothing in the Constitution that precludes the Congress from asking some of the best minds of America to come together and give us advice and recommendations on the entire gamut of challenges that face our criminal justice system.  Certain Senators may not like that idea; that is their prerogative.  They may not even want to hear the advice – they may not even want to believe that there is a problem in our criminal justice system. But to claim that the Constitution precludes this process is nothing short of absurd.  In fact, our national leadership has received such advice before – most notably in 1965 during the Johnson Administration which is that last time we have had a comprehensive examination of our criminal justice system.

And I am not alone in this judgment, Mr. President. 

Over the past eleven days there have been a number of editorials and articles pointing out the unfortunate nature of this filibuster. Sunday masthead editorial, The New York Times. Sunday masthead editorial, The Washington Post. A very observant article in Politico the day of the vote. Editorial, Newsday. Lead editorial, The Virginian-Pilot in my home state, “Senate Negligence On Crime Reform.” And very interestingly, an article in The National Review, one of the most conservative magazines in the United States, titled “An Absolute Scandal.” First sentence saying: “The insane refusal of 43 Senate Republicans to back the National Criminal Justice Act.” Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all of these articles appear at the end of my remarks in the Congressional Record today.

Presiding Officer: Without objection.

Senator Webb: Mr. President, for nearly two years our legislative process has too often become sidetracked by what can only be termed an indiscriminate obstructionism.  A lot of good ideas have fallen by the wayside, having become hostages in the larger debate about who should comprise our national leadership and how we should solve long-term problems such as our fiscal crisis.   This larger debate has affected the willingness of many in the other Party to come together and address a number of serious issues of governance that should be resolved no matter who is President and no matter how we end up addressing the economy.  I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to think hard about the overwhelming frustration across our country with the persistent failure of the Congress to address these kinds of issues. 

Nowhere is the need to think creatively for the good of the country more clear than where it affects our dysfunctional criminal justice system, whose challenges threaten the safety and the well-being of every single community and every single American.  This system will not be fixed by sticking our heads in the sand and pretending not to see its failings.  It will only be fixed by bringing together good minds who have dedicated years of thought and action to finding the answers.  That’s what we have been trying to do, Mr. President, and unfortunately that is what we were stopped from doing by this filibuster. 

People in this country are looking for leadership.  And obstructionism is not leadership. We will continue to pursue this effort. And I would again ask my Republican colleagues to join the unanimous position of the Democratic Party as we do.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.