Federal crim es are usually punishable by a statutory maximum term of imprisonment, for example, "imprisoned for not more than 5 years." A surprising number also have statutory minimum terms of imprisonment, for example, "imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years or for life." Under some circumstances, mandatory minimums have proven controversial. Opponents contend that in some instances they can be arbitrary and unduly severe. Proponents contend that they ensure the offenders of the most serious offenses will receive at least some minimum punishment. Legislative proposals in the 113 th Congress reflected both perspectives. Congress adjourned, however, without enacting any of them. Some would have established or enhanced mandatory minimums for a variety of offenses including violent attacks on law enforcement officers, firearms offenses, reentry into the United States by dangerous aliens, and computer attacks on the nation's critical infrastructure. Others would have repealed or mitigated the impact of existing mandatory minimums, particularly with regard to controlled substance offenses. Federal courts are required to weigh the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) before sentencing a defendant. The factors include things like "the need for the sentence imposed ... to provide just punishment for the offense" and "the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities ..." In doing so, however, the courts may not disregard any applicable statutory mandatory minimums. H.R. 1695 (Representative Scott (VA)) and S. 619 (Senator Paul) would have permitted federal courts to impose a sentence below an otherwise applicable mandatory minimum when necessary to avoid violating the requirements of Section 3553(a). When exercising the authority, the court would have had to provide the government and the defendant a chance to be heard and to provide a written statement of the Section 3553(a) factors that justify the decision to sentence below the mandatory minimum. The Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act establish a series of mandatory minimum sentences for violation of their prohibitions. Trafficking—that is, importing, exporting, or possessing with the intent to distribute—a very substantial amount of various highly addictive substances such as more than a kilogram of heroin is punishable by imprisonment for not less than 10 years or more than life. A subsequent conviction carries a sentence of imprisonment for not less than 20 years or more than life. When substantial but lesser amounts are involved, such as 100 grams of heroin, sentences of imprisonment for not less than five years or more than life are called for, and imprisonment for not less than 10 years or more than life in the case of a subsequent conviction. S. 1410 (Senator Durbin)/ H.R. 3382 (Representative Labrador) would have reduced those mandatory minimum sentences by half. The 20-year mandatory minimums would have become 10-year mandatory minimums; the 10-year mandatory minimums would have become five-year mandatory minimums; and the five-year mandatory minimum would have become a two-year mandatory minimum. H.R. 3088 (Representative Waters) would have eliminated the mandatory minimum sentences so that each of those offenses would have been punishable by imprisonment for any term of years or for life. Unlike the Durbin bill ( S. 1410 ), the Waters proposal ( H.R. 3088 ) would have eliminated virtually every other controlled substance mandatory minimum as well. Under present law, when a death or serious bodily injury results from the trafficking in a very substantial amount of a controlled substance like heroin, the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is 20 years rather than 10 years. When death or serious bodily injury results from trafficking in a substantial but somewhat lower amount of a controlled substance like heroin, the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is 20 years rather than five years. When an offender has two or more prior controlled substance convictions, trafficking a very substantial amount of a controlled substance like heroin carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. Without regard for the type or amount of the controlled substance, simple possession by an offender with a prior controlled substance conviction is punishable by imprisonment for not less than 15 days and not more than two years. The penalty is imprisonment for not less than 90 days and not more than three years when the offender has two or more prior convictions. H.R. 3088 would have repealed each of these mandatory minimums, but would have left the existing maximum penalties unchanged. Finally, penalties double when the commission of a controlled substance offense involves distribution to or using a child, or when it involves distribution near a school or other protected location. These offenses often come with a one-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, when the underlying distribution crime would not have otherwise carried a mandatory minimum because of the type or amount of the drugs involved. The Waters bill ( H.R. 3088 ) would have disposed of these mandatory minimums as well. It would have left in place, however, a fairly unique provision found in the school distribution, repeat offender provision of 21 U.S.C. 860(b): Any person who violates section 841(a)(1) of this title ... by distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or manufacturing a controlled substance in or on, or within one thousand feet of ... a ... school ... or housing facility owned by a public housing authority, or within 100 feet of a public or private youth center, public swimming pool, or video arcade facility, after a prior conviction under subsection (a) of this section has become final is punishable (1) by the greater of (A) a term of imprisonment of not less than three years and not more than life imprisonment or (B) three times the maximum punishment authorized by section 841(b) of this title.... A summary of the changes in the existing controlled substance mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment, proposed in the Durbin ( S. 1410 )/Labrador ( H.R. 3382 ) (which the Judiciary Committee left unchanged) and Waters ( H.R. 3088 ) proposals, appears in Table 1 . The Waters bill ( H.R. 3088 ) also contained a proposal apparently designed to reserve federal prosecutions for the most serious cases. Less serious cases—prosecution for possession or trafficking in amounts less than those necessary to trigger the most severe mandatory minimums (e.g., less than a kilogram of heroin), or in the case of cocaine, less than 500 grams—would have required the Attorney General's written approval. The so-called safety valve provision of 18 U.S.C. 3553(f) allows a court to sentence qualified defendants below the statutory mandatory minimum in controlled substance trafficking and possession cases. To qualify, a defendant may not have used violence in the course of the offense. He must not have played a managerial role in the offense if it involved group participation. The offense must not have resulted in a death or serious bodily injury. The defendant must make full disclosure of his involvement in the offense, providing the government with all the information and evidence at his disposal. Finally, the defendant must have a virtually spotless criminal record, that is, not more than 1 criminal history point. Criminal history points are a feature of the U.S. Sentencing Commission's Sentencing Guidelines. The Guidelines assign points based on the sentences imposed for prior state and federal convictions. For example, the Guidelines assign 1 point for any past conviction that resulted in a sentence of less than incarceration for 60 days; 2 points for any conviction resulting in a sentence of incarceration for at least 60 days; and 3 points for any conviction resulting in a sentence of incarceration of more than a year and a month. The Sentencing Commission's report on mandatory minimum sentences suggested that Congress consider expanding safety valve eligibility to defendants with 2 or possible 3 criminal history points. The report indicated that under the Guidelines a defendant's criminal record "can have a disproportionate and excessively severe cumulative sentencing impact on certain drug offenders." It explained that the Guidelines are construed to ensure that the sentence they recommend in a given case calls for a term of imprisonment that is not less than an applicable mandatory minimum. In addition, the drug offenses have escalated mandatory minimums for repeat offenders. Moreover, similarly situated drug offenders may be treated differently, because states punish simple drug possession differently and prosecutors decide when to press recidivism qualifications differently. The Durbin/Labrador bill ( S. 1410 / H.R. 3382 ) would have expanded safety valve eligibility from defendants with no more than 1 criminal history point to those with no more than 3 points. S. 1410 (Judiciary), as voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would have expanded safety valve eligibility from defendants with no more than 1 criminal history point to those with no more than 2 points, if they avoided certain disqualifications. A defendant would have been ineligible for the expanded 2-point criminal history safety valve threshold if he had a prior conviction for a federal firearms offense, sex offense, crime of terrorism, RICO predicate offense, or conspiracy to use or invest drug profits. Originally, the Controlled Substances Act made no distinction between powder cocaine and crack cocaine (cocaine base). The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act introduced a 100-1 sentencing ratio between the two, so that trafficking in 50 grams of crack cocaine carried the same penalties trafficking in 5,000 grams of powder cocaine. The 2010 Fair Sentencing Act replaced it with the present 500-28 ratio, so that trafficking in 280 grams of crack cocaine carries the same penalties as 5,000 grams of powder cocaine. It also abolished the mandatory minimum for simple crack cocaine possession that the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act had established. The Sentencing Commission subsequently revised the Sentencing Guidelines to reflect the change and made the modification retroactively applicable at the discretion of the sentencing court. H.R. 2372 (Representative Scott (VA)) would have eliminated the sentencing distinction between powder and crack cocaine by eliminating the cocaine base specific references.