Thanks very much for the question, because I don't view my position when I was a member of the status of women committee in 2017 to be at odds with the position, posturing or language used since I've taken over this particular set of responsibilities. The point that I was making in those comments.... Now, that being nearly a decade ago, you'll forgive my memory, but I think the point holds.
If you try to make a rule that applies in every single circumstance, without regard for extraordinary cases that may arise and are beyond the contemplation of people who advance legislation with the best of intentions, you come up short when those unique cases actually do emerge. The balance that I think we've struck by restoring mandatory minimums that were previously struck down, or that I believe were constitutionally vulnerable, but allowing some residual discretion where applying the mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate allows you to deal with those oddities that would not necessarily result in what the public would view to be justice.