We begin this week with Dick Durbin, Senator from Illinois who's up for re-election this year. Dick, for a thanks for coming in. Thanks, Bill. Lately I see you've been expressing some doubts about mandatory minimum prison terms. What's this all about? It's been 30 years since we started getting tough and saying judges really, we politicians can make these decisions better than you can. That's right. Better about these mandatory minimums. And I think now we're reflecting on the fact that we've gone too far. We've seen in the last 30 years the federal prison population increased by 500%. We've seen the cost of incarceration to the federal government go up by 1,100%. And frankly we've gone too far. There are some crimes, particularly nonviolent drug offenses that don't involve a gang, a firearm or violence that really should be treated differently. Many of these people are suffering an addiction. It may be their first crime. Some of them are put away for years and years and years. Costs to $30,000 a year for each federal prisoner. So now it's interesting, Bill. What a coalition that's come together. Democrats and Republicans. The most conservative Republican senators are joining me in a reform bill. I think both sides agree. It's time to take another look at this. It doesn't work? Well it works in this respect. Those who are accused are off the street. But in terms of reducing the crime, reducing drug usage doesn't work very well. We see street drugs now cheaper than ever. And we find ourselves still fighting away. Think about this for a second. All the violence in Chicago that was addressed by the Chicago Police Department. It involved $100 million with an overtime. Superintendent McCarthy, Mayor Emanuel, they picked the areas that were the most problematic and flooded them with law enforcement officers and brought the crime rate down to their credit. We need to make sure those resources for law enforcement to keep neighborhoods and communities safe or there. Instead, we're plowing them into sentences for drug offenses which go way too long. I think there are much better ways to keep our streets safe and better ways to deal with drug addiction. Now you mentioned the mayor McCarthy. They argue that mandatory alarmons for illegal possession of a firearm is a good idea because it would not only keep the bad guy off the street, but it would, you know, in some cases, protect people who are victims by whether you agree or disagree with that position. Yeah. What we're talking about doesn't touch it. If you're dealing with a crime with a firearm, you're not going to get this reformed treatment. We're talking about it. Strictly, non-violent, no firearm, no gang drug offenses. Those are the only categories that we're dealing with. So do you support mandatory amendments for your legal possession of a firearm? I have supported mandatory amendments in some cases. And I will tell you that I think we need to increase the penalties for such things as strong purchasing. When it comes to coming down hard on firearms, you bet on for that. Whether it's a mandatory minimum sentence, you know, I want to sit down and go through and really look at where we are today. But for example, I joined with Senator Kirk, bipartisan effort, to say that if you're the girlfriend who doesn't have a criminal record buying a firearm for the boyfriend who does, we're going to throw the book at you. A really tough treatment. We almost passed it. We just needed a couple more votes to get them passed in the Senate. But I think going after that misuse of firearms, those who try to buy them in those circumstances really is the right thing to do. The minimum wage, Senator Durbin, I, looks like you Democrats are going to make a big issue out of this here in the spring in Washington. Here's what it comes down to, Bill. We haven't really touched this for seven years. And as a result, a lot of people who go to work and work hard every single day can't make it. They've been paycheck to paycheck. And it doesn't take many family tragedies or challenges to put them in a terrible position. So our belief is, if you're willing to get up and go to work, you should be able to live a decent life and not be in poverty. The $7.50, 25 cents nationally is not enough. We're at $8.50 here, if I'm right in the quarter here. I'm trying to recall it. It's a quarter of 50 cents. But it's difference of a dollar in our states. It's a little better. If we could move up phasing it in over several years to a higher minimum wage, I think it's going to mean that we're going to have people able to get by a little better. And secondly, they're going to spend the money. They're going to need goods and services. It's going to help businesses by having these working families who are living close to the edge with more money to spend. Both the other side says the opposite is the case. It hurts the economy and causes especially small business to hire fewer people. Well, I will tell you that there are plenty of studies on both sides. Most of them come down with the argument that it's better to raise the minimum wage over a longer period of time. That the job loss is incidental or small compared to the benefits that come out of it. When families have enough to get by, they don't need more government benefits. Why families who are working full-time still need food stamps ought to be the issue here. And what we're dealing with are folks that just don't have enough money. So where do they turn to make sure their kids have enough food on the table? The government. Who pays for the government program? All the taxpayers. Taxpayers are subsidizing low wage income jobs. And that to me ought to come to an end. We ought to be wanting to pay a nickel more for a hamburger or whatever it might be so that people make a decent living. It's not too much to ask.