Transcripts For CSPAN Washington This Week 20140531

More than two decades as a federal prosecutor and after significant experiences, he served as an assistant District Attorney in both greensboro and their own. His experience will be invaluable to the task force consideration of federal penalties. The First Assistant United States attorney in the eastern district. When i joined the office in 2002, he was already leading the task force to these taskand lead forces. Throughout his tenure, he has demonstrated clearly that cooperative and sustained pressure on Drug Trafficking organizations could reduce the flow of drugs, remove the worst offenders, and drive down the crime rate to make our communities safer. Large numbers of serious drug traffickers and gained the cooperation of defendants whose information was critical to our ability to disrupt and dismantle these organizations. Received two directors awards from the department of justice for outstanding prosecutions and one from janet reno and one from eric holder in novembering 2013. I think his expertise and his deep knowledge of what works and what does not work will aid the committee as it considers issues currently facing our country in the area of gun control and policies. Im pleased to welcome my friend and colleague here today and i hope all the members of the task force will benefit from his perspective. Thank you. Witness, mr. Levin, director of the center for effect of justice of the Texas Public Policy Foundation and of thedirector initiative which he led the effort to develop in 2010. Mr. Levin help the fellow the blocked andhich was it has become a National Clearinghouse for conservative criminal Justice Reform with outlets such as the new york times, fox is this news, and the washington post. He has testified on sentencing reform and solitary confinement at separate hearings before the Senate Judiciary committee and has testified before state legislatures. He served as a law clerk on the u. S. Court of appeals for the fifth circuit and staff attorney at the texas Supreme Court. The next witness, mr. Bryan stevenson represents the equal justice initiative. He is a faculty member at the New York University school of law. He has represented capital defendants and death row prisoners since 1985 when he was a staff attorney with the Southern Center for human rights in atlanta. Since 1989 he has been executive director of the equal justice initiative, a private nonprofit Law Organization he founded that focuses on social justice and human rights in the context of criminal Justice Reform in the United States. Eji litigates on behalf of condemned prisoners, juvenile defenders, people wrongly convicted or charged, poor people denied effective representation, and others whose trials are marked by racial bias or prosecutorial misconduct. Mr. Bryan stevenson has served as the visiting professor of law at the university of Michigan School of law. He has published several widely disseminated manuals on capital litigation and written extensively on criminal justice, capital punishment, and civil rights issues. Mr. Stevenson is a graduate from harvard, with a masters from the Kennedy School of government and a j. D. From the school of law. The witnesses written statements will be entered into the record in their entirety. I will ask them to summarize each testimony in five minutes or less. To help you stay within that time, there is a light in front of you. The light will switch from green to yellow indicating you have one minute to complete your testimony. When the light turns red, it indicates the witness five minutes have expired. At this time unless there is objection, i want to offer a statement of our chairman, james sensenbrenner, for the Overcriminalization Task force. Know that our thoughts and prayers are for jim and his wife with the Health Issues that she has had for a week or so. Our hearts and prayers go out for both of them. I have a statement here that i have entered into the record. Hearing no objection, that will be so ordered. With that did you want to we will turn to the Ranking Member, mr. Scott, for his statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Even though the United States represents only 5 of the worlds population, we account for over 25 of the prisoners. Since 1980 our prison population has increased 1000 . The average federal sentence has doubled and drug convictions have tripled. The socalled war on drugs has been waged on minority and poor communities of color even though data shows minorities are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs. The sentences are driven up by mandatory minimums. In fiscal year 2012 60 of convicted federal drug defendants were convicted of offenses carrying a mandatory minimum penalty. They are not the kingpins, leaders, and they are not organizers. The vast majority of couriers have the lowest criminal history category, and as a result many are nonviolent offenders. They are sentenced before they are charged or convicted, solely on the name or code section on the crimes. No consideration is given to the seriousness of the crime or how minor and role one may have played in the crime. The same code section that prohibits sex between a 40yearold and a 13yearold also prohibits sex between a 19yearold and a 15yearold high school student. They should not be given the same sentence, but mandatory minimums often require judges to impose sentences that violate common sense. The United States already locked up a higher portion of its population than any country. Pew research estimated that any ratio of over 350 per 100,000 in jail today, anything about that, the Crime Reduction value of increased incarceration begins to diminish. They tell us any ratio above 500 becomes counterproductive, that you have so many people locked up that youre adding to crime rather then diminishing crime. Youre actually adding to crime. The data shows in the United States our ratio is not only about 500, but above 700, leading the world. Some minority communities have incarceration rates of over 4000 per 100,000, creating what is called the cradletoprison pipeline. Since 1992 the average prison costs have gone to over 65 billion a year, and the rate of increase for prison costs was six times more than the increase in higher education. The rates of incarceration we have in this country, looking at crime and simply suggesting the main crime is we are not lucky enough people does not accord with science or common sense. All Research Shows that when compared to traditional proportional sentencing, mandatory minimums waste money, disrupt rational sentencing considerations, discriminate against minorities, and require judges to impose sentences that violate common sense. Even when a prosecutor or judge all agree that after hearing all the evidence the mandatory minimum is too severe for particular case, there is no choice. The judges hands are tied. Congress is still trying to pass more mandatory minimums, even though there are more than 195 on the books. I believe what they call the first law of hole, when you find yourself in a hole, you need to stop digging. We just passed a new mandatory minimum last week. The grant of federal sentencing is the right thing to do. Theyre closer to the facts in each case. We also have to confront the fact that over the past 40 Years Congress has been playing politics rather than working to reduce crime in a smart way. We have seen alternative strategies that could be used, like the youth act that takes a proactive approach. It puts costeffective approaches in Crime Reduction into play at the Community Level with full community involvement. This strategy will not only reduce crime, but also save money. It will essentially dismantle the cradle to prison pipeline and create a cradle to college and career pipeline. In terms of Justice Reform, we need to focus efforts on distinctly federal interests and ensure that the sentences are being legislated. We need to make sure that federal collateral consequences of convictions are not served as a continuing punishment and burden on individuals who have already served their time, but most of all we have to oppose mandatory minimums so we can eliminate the over incarceration that violate come in sense and increases rather than decreases crime. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Scott. I would ask mr. Conyers, do you wish to make an Opening Statement . Yes, mr. Chairman, i would, please, if it meets with your approval. Thank you. Thank you. This is so important, and i welcome the witnesses and look forward to their testimony. But the Overcriminalization Task force finally focuses today on what is the most critical failing of our nations criminal Justice System, the continuing prevalence of racism as evidenced by federal charging and sentencing regimes that clearly discriminate against people of color. The racism has permeated our nations history since the beginning. The constitution, of course, referred to slaves as 3 5 of a man. The civil war was fought to abolish slavery. And then the jim crow raised its ugly head and the segregation and tactics that follow are a matter of fact. We are now approaching the 60th anniversary of brown v. Board of education, which struck down separate but equal as the law for land, and just last year, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the march on washington and the passage of the civil rights act. As a nation, we have come so far. We would like now to think that our justice is colorblind, that our system is race neutral, but whether overt or subconscious, the vestiges of racism are still reflected in our federal criminal Justice System, and it is all the more insidious for it. That is because criminal justice is meted out by human beings with human failings, including bias. No longer does jim crow and overt racism rule the day. But rather, coded phrases, such as policing highcrime areas and stop and frisk policies are the norm, and combined with mandatory minimums, so expertly referred to by our colleague mr. Scott, and stacking enhancement penalties and the socalled three strikes statutes, it is these concepts that disproportionately affect communities of color, drawing more and more people into an antagonistic and unforgiving criminal Justice System. To provide some perspective regarding this problem, i just want to breeze through this. The last 40 years, in the last 40 years, the United States prison population has grown by 700 . And now it accounts for 25 of the worlds prisoners. The number of federal prisoners alone grew by nearly 50 from 2001 to 2010. Not only 4 of the federal crimes carry mandatory sentences, 34 of those in federal prison are serving mandatory sentences. Moreover, the ratio impact of the federal penalty system is wildly disproportionate. One in three black men and one in six latinos will spend some part of their lives in prison, compared to one in 23 white men. Blacks represent 12 of total drug users in the country, but account for a fraction of drugrelated arrests. Now, these numbers so before we identify solutions, we must recognize how we institutionalize and normalize racism today. That is what makes this discussion this morning so important. I want to focus on how racism, unconscious or not, has a disproportionate impact on criminal penalties on minority communities. Bias can begin with the decision of where and what offenses are investigated. With enough time, and officers in a certain location, it is only a matter of time before they find reasonable suspicion to stop him it detain, and arrest someone or many people. At the prosecutorial phase, this can be magnified by decisions about what charges to bring, what plea deal to offer, and whether mandatory minimums and enhancements apply. People from poor communities of color are more likely to receive harsher charges and mandatory penalties. The mandatory minimums and statutory enhancements so ingrained in the code that were intended to target kingpins do no such thing. They are now focused on nonviolent offenders who are disproportionately people of color. The threat of these de facto life sentences coerces defendants into pleading guilty. They oppose a penalty on those who use their constitutional right to a jury trial. I am almost there, mr. Chairman, and i thank you for your indulgence. Finally, at sentencing, people of color receive harsher sentences than would whites for the same conduct through mandatory minimums and other sentencing enhancements. Racism in america has for the most part ceased to be overt. But the prevalence of institutionalizing discrimination by writing it into law is as present today as it was 100 years ago. The question is this what can we as a congress do about these pressing issues . Finding solutions to unconscionably institutionalized racism in the criminal Justice System is not an easy task, but there are steps we can take. We can begin by rolling back mandatory minimums and stacking enhancement sentencing that result in cruel and unusual punishments for what are too often lowlevel offenses. We can use the judiciary with discretion in sentencing. We can reinvest the judiciary with discretion in sentencing. Not all judges are immune to bias, but in doing so we allow the possibility of proportional sentencing and the ability to overturn unduly harsh sentences due to abuse of discretion. I conclude on this point you are double your time, and if we do that, we are not going to get through because of the folks that are coming. All right, i would just omit the rest of my statement. I have waived giving my statement and offered mr. Sensenbrenners for the record, but with this discussion about racism. I will make this point. I was a judge for 10 years. I tried three capital murder cases in tyler, texas. Two were of anglos. One was an africanamerican. The two anglos got the death penalty. The africanamerican got life. So i do not always have the appreciation for racism entering into every aspect. Someone had raised an issue of, gee, since the judge appoints the grand jury foreman, who have the leadership role in the grand juries, so i was attacked before they check my record. I never ever considered race in appointing foremen for my grand juries. They found i had a much higher percentage of africanamericans as it turned out we were grand jury foremen, not just because of race, but because they were foremen on the grand jury, i do not find an issue in the courtroom at all. I would ask the chairman of the full committee, you wish to make your full statement . Yes, thank you, mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here at the third hearing of the Overcriminalization Task force following its reauthorization earlier this year. This hearing will focus on the penalties imposed for violations of federal law. As others have noted, the subject of penalties is a very broad topic covering a wide array of complex legal and policy issues. Many of these issues have already been covered in detail by this task force, including the need for adequate intent in the federal criminal law, the problems regulatory crime, and the need for criminal code reform. The issue of adequate mens rea is of particular interest to me, and is significant when considering penalties of violations of federal law. As i and other members of this task force have stated repeatedly, no american citizen should be subjected to a federal criminal penalty without the intent to do something the law forbids. Today we hear from our panel about these and many other issues associated with federal entities. Federal minimum sentences are a significant part of this. Advocates for reform to minimums have argued that these reforms are necessary to ensure lowlevel nonviolent offenders, particularly in drug cases, are not serving long prison sentences. I have some concerns about many of the proposals to reform the federal sentencing scheme in this way. I am open to hearing arguments on both sides of this issue. One everpresent hurdle to reform in this and other areas is the repeated actions by this administration to circumvent Congress Constitutional role in drafting, considering them, and passing legislation important to the american people. At the Judiciary Committees Doj Oversight Committee hearing last month, i questioned the attorney general at length about the holder justice departments persistent attempts to change the law. I do not believe any of us received satisfactory answers. It will be difficult to find support for reform if congress cannot trust the administration will abide by these reforms for i can assure everyone that under my leadership the house Judiciary Committee will continue to closely monitor and analyze this and other issues associated with the imposition of federal criminal penalties, and im confident the task force will continue its outstanding work. I want to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses, and i look forward to their testimony. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. With that, we are ready to proceed under the fiveminute rule with questions. At this time, mr. Otis, you may proceed. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member scott and members of the committee, im honored you have invited me here today to talk with you is the green light on your microphone . If you would pull that closer so we could so everybody here could hear. We have spent too much time getting here for people not to hear what you have to say. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the committee, it is an honor for you to have invited me to talk today about this important subject. The task force is concerned about overcriminalization, and is particular about the proliferation of statutes that impose criminal liability without the traditional requirement that the defendant harbor bad intent. Such statutes undermine the legitimacy of criminal law, which is understood by ordinary people to forbid only behavior the average person would recognize as wrong. Im happy to take questions on this subject and have written articles about it. I want to focus for the moment on a different topic, mandatory minimum penalties. Serious mandatory minimums continued to be needed. Under current law, sentencing judges have wide discretion, as they should. But judges and the Judicial Branch can make breathtaking mistakes. Some of you viewed Citizens United as one of them. All of us view plessy vs. Ferguson as a drastic mistake in american history. Judges are not infallible. The framers recognized in adopting the separation of powers that no one person and no one branch should have 100 discretion 100 of the time. Congress is fully warranted for that in certain crimes, but strong rock bottom sentences must be imposed. Criticism of mandatory minimum sentencing is often at the heart of the charge that the federal criminal Justice System is broken or failing. It looks broken to a heroin trafficker. But the health of the system is not measured by the incarceration rate, but by the crime rate. By that standard it is anything but broken. Crime is down 50 over the last 20 years in the era of mandatory and longer sentencing. Would that some of our other vastly more expensive domestic initiatives have had anything like that success. Much of the debate now seems to be driven by two misconceptions. The first is that mandatory minimums require federal judges to imprison for years some High School Kid who is been caught smoking a joint. That is simply false. Mandatory minimums apply overwhelmingly to trafficking in deadly drugs. The second misconception that having a larger prison population is a bad thing. One might as well think that having more criminals in jail rather than in your neighborhood is a bad thing. When criminals are not imprisoned, they do not just disappear. Fiveyear recidivism shows that more than 3 4 of drug offenders return to crime after their release. If we go back to the naive failed policies of the 1960s and 1970s we will get the results of that time. Lighter sentencing at the federal level is already largely the new norm. The prudent thing for congress to do is to assess over the next few years whether those developments and their promise of cost savings and no increase in crime turns out to be true. Last summer the attorney general himself directed that, for drug defendants for whom some legislation wouldve applied, prosecutors are no longer to seek mandatory minimum sentences. This new policy has effectively mooted a large body of mandatory minimums and has shifted discretion back to judges. The Sentencing Commission has adopted a twolevel reduction in guidelines for almost all nonviolent drug offenders. This produces notably shorter sentences and that recently for the First Time Ever more sentences are being given lower guidelines. Perhaps most stunning is the administrations announcement of impending clemency for hundreds and more likely thousands of offenders serving what it views as excessive sentences. In an unprecedented move some of the defense bar has been given a broad role in proposing clemency candidates. With these proposals already in training, congress has the opportunity to see for itself whether more discretion and lighter sentences keep their promise of frugality and low crime. Maybe they will. Maybe they will not. It is only common sense for congress to find out before weakening a system we know has helped keep us safe. Thank you, very much. We will hear from our next witness, mr. Evenson. The 1980 plus i was a state prosecutor and when we would do drug cases in front of a court we would often hear the complaint that youre only getting the little guy. Youre not getting the big fish. Unfortunately as of weaker state laws and diminished resources there was a lot of truth to that complaint. Prosecutions are based on two things. You have to catch the drug dealer in possession of drugs or you have to catch them selling it. As a result what ends up happening is you oftentimes do not get the source of supply. Weak. Ate laws are too the resources are too minimal. What happens is the leader of the Drug Organization is largely untouchable for years. We all live in communities where people say why dont they get that big drug dealer . And all the neighbors know that. This is why. The state laws do not have the leverage that is needed. In 1990i became a United States assistant attorney. I realize that we focused on a different set of defendants. Ones that were selling significant quantities of drugs enough to trigger minimum mandatory sentences. Congress mandated that we pursue these organizations and provided includinge tools sentences we needed. Heres the key difference between state and federal prosecution. Sometimes average man on the street does not understand what we are doing. It is this. Is called conspiracy law. If you do not remember anything else i hope you remember that. I will explain how it works on daytoday basis and it will show you where the rubber meets the road. Charge ther us to leader of an organization we do it with a conspiracy law because they do not sell undercover officers. They sell it to their conspirators who sell it on the street at the retail level. What do we need to charge conspiracy in federal court . Simple. We need coconspirator testimony. That is how we do it. Fish we havehe big cap the corporation of the smaller fish. Assistant United States us it attorney worth his salt knows this. Nouring their cooperation is easy task. They do not want to cooperate. This is hard, mean business. Is the sentence they face is too low they will tell you they can do their time standing on the head. I have debriefed personally hundreds of arrested drug dealers and explain to them in the presence of their attorney the need for them to assessed and assistant test of my truthfully. Congress provided their sentence could be reduced by the judge if they assisted. They are facing a strong minute them mandatory sentence and the only way they will get a sentence reduction is to substantially assist. They have to be willing to testify. This straightforward choice of andons designed by congress enforced by the department of justice has led to the dismantling of numerous Drug Organizations in every district my city, and town in america. Without the cooperation of these coconspirators, federal Law Enforcement will be unable to charge and arrest these leaders and sources of supply. Without minimum mandatory sentences many if not most would simply refuse to testify. Minimum mandatory sentences and the presumption of prechild u. S. Tion has given attorneys the leverage they need to garner these witnesses and stop Drug Organizations. If this leverage is removed or weekend, then vital witnesses will become unavailable. It is very simple. In essence reducing the minimum mandatory will substantially cut down on our witnesses. Fewerdealers will drug dealers will be arrested and we will revert back to convicting only the lowerlevel dealers. We can buy directly from where we find in possession of drugs. We will not able to convict the sources of supply. I have just a few more minutes . Your time is up. Thank you. We will proceed with mr. Levin. Where pleased that congress is looking at various options. Reexamining policies and improving programs and prisons and strengthening reentry so we can reduce that i highof is him recently was a rate. We recognize although there has been a sixfold increase in incarceration incarceration. Ates we believe the pendulum swung too far. We have too many lowrisk offenders behind bars. We have a better ability to supervise more nonviolent offenders. Over the past several years we have worked with conservative governors and make lawmakers to enact successful reforms including many dealing with mandatory minimums. 29 states have reduced minimums relating to nonviolent offenses. Crime has declined in South Carolina. We would argue that we need to. Eexamine mandatory minimums inber one they can result prison terms. The vast majority affected are not kingpins. That is seven percent of those cases. Instead we need to do is look at the fact that most individuals are nonviolent. More than half had no prior record. 84 , no weapon involved. One example is if they had an offense even if it was decades they cannot have a gun. The federal judge in that case including conservative ones have said this is excessive. Of course mandatory minimums are supposed to produce conformity but they have not done that. What we have seen is across that variesricts, to medically. Another question is we have to reason theymain came into being. Judges were exercising excessive discretion. 17. 8 or as a result of judicial departures. More than 30 came from urging of prosecutors. Are adhering closer to the sentencing guidelines. It has been argued mandatory minimums are necessary to require and it encourage defendants to plate guilty. Fact the Commission Found a greater percentage of those criminal charges do not apply to mandatory minimum results. To haveinly do not want [inaudible] ranges. Therecing does need to be some constraint on judges. Let me address a couple of other issues. Are still talking about people going to prison for a long time. Been convicted of , that is realtime. Let me conclude by saying we would urge congress to rein in and consolidate the common allies in one code. Codify the rule that says making sure that they prevail. Thank you very much. Recognized for five minutes. I want to express my opportunity tohe appear before you today. I want to contextualize how serious the problem of over criminalization and over incarceration is. That now new reports that 60 million americans have criminal records. If they had been arrested and are subject to all the restrictions that come with a criminal record. A consequence of a policy choice we made to treat addiction and position as a crime problem rather than a health care problem. Many of our allies have made a different choice and have seen drugtic reduction in abuse. We have seen the opposite. The consequence of that choice is what has put states in great crisis. I would like to look to the states for some leadership on these issues. Deal with have had to the consequences of over incarceration. Prisonson in jails and and 80 billion today. Many state governments found themselves and their state budgets bankrupt. They have made the decision to. Etreat states have seen their crime rates fall. Seeing their budgets improve and that lesson is an important lesson or this task force. There are concerns that need to be addressed. When we had mandatory minimum sentences we did not eliminate discretion. There is the theory that we are going to solve inequality by taking discretion away from judges. What we do is we take the discretion and shifted from the judge and give it to the prosecutor. All of us bring biases into this process and to a power empower any agent to exercise the kind of power that now exists with no transparency, no accountability i think creates the kind of disruption that we have seen. I want to emphasize that the overwhelming majority of people serving long sentences for mandatory and minimum sentences are not the kingpins. I agree. If we want to go after these kingpins i do not have any concerns with that. The commission estimates two thirds of the people are serving the sentences are low level or midlevel offenders. It is that consequence we can address by reform. Particular problems that i think that i think are being reflected and one of the effects we are having on communities, i go into committees were right talk to 13 and 14yearold kids who expect to go to jail or prison. You cannot have the kind of data we have. Without it having serious many ofal consequences. The data suggests we are pushing into people people into crumb and crime lifestyles. Going into theen system has increased. Children, we have federal statute that allow prosecution of children as young as 13 to be subject to life sentences. Some for behaviors that do not reflect serious crime categories. That creates disparate and toust outcomes. I want emphasize two things. There are 17 states that have reduced the statutes and seen the crime rates fall. We should look to the states with the kinds of adjustments that need to be made. Blessing i want to emphasize is we are at a moment where we have unparalleled widespread consensus. People on the right and left recognize that we are spending and wasting too much money on incarcerating people who are not a threat to Public Safety. It creates a opportunity to lead this congress. The voters of california in a referendum in every county voted mandatory minimum sentencing. That is the signal of this task force to move forward on this important issue. We will begin the fiveminute questioning. Since i have got to be here till the end emma i will recognize the chairman of the full committee for five minutes. Let me commend all four of these witnesses. You have had great presentations and you have focused this discussion in the debate. Includingmmunities many in my Congressional District in western virginia that has been a spike in deaths associated with carolyn including among young people. Do you believe it could send a bad message to young people to have the federal government reduced penalties across all drug penalties including for heroin . I can hardly imagine a worse message. I was appalled the other day when i think it was on a monday give the attorney general a talk recommending some legislation pending that would substantially cut back on mandatory minimums without ever drugsning the specific including heroin to which mandatory minimums apply and the very next day i saw him announce that there was a crisis going on. Peoplent to give other the opportunity. Let mr. Stevenson respond. I think that we are not going heroin, use off these serious drugs by creating are sure penalties. When you have a disability or disorder the last thing or are thinking about is what kind of sentence im going to serve. We will disrupt the epidemics we have identified identified with interventions that ignites what gets works to what works to get people off of heroin. We have models that will help us achieve that but we will not do it through sentencing. If you are not enamored with the best present proposals do have any suggestions or are you sickly standing pat . I do. Support stronger reform that is currently being proposed that it would be reform in a different direction. I would retain the requirement that the attorney general list statutes. Ns rea such explanations would have to include a discussion of why regulations could not more effectively and fairly be processed is civil matters. I would eliminate incarceration as a punishment for nonmens rea is crimes. And undertaken by the three agencies that have experience with this. Let me cut you short. I am interested in reforms i would like you to submit those to us. I am interested at this hearing about mandatory minimums and alternatives to those. Because my time will run short let me turn next to mr. Levin. You state that a primary focus of the right on Crime Initiative is maximizing the Public Safety return on the dollars spent on criminal justice. Do you assert there are no costs involved with the Early Release of drug offenders into communities where the mechanism is reduced penalties, broadened provisions, or executive clemency . I will tell you what we have worked with many states on is how do you take some of the savings if you are going to have people serve slightly less time, how do you take some of those savings and reinvest them in stronger parole supervision, reentry programs where people have to be drug tested, have to report to a parole officer, cannot see certain people including gang members, all. Hole host of models we need to make sure when we have people coming out of prison earlier who are determined to be low risk that we then make sure they have the supervision so they do not go back to their old ways. Your 23 years as a federal prosecutor how often were Drug Trafficking cases brought in your district where the quantity was below the statutory mandatory minimum level. I cannot think of anyone. Anybody else want to respond . The majority of the defendants that were brought in had prior drug convictions in is it your opinion that these are serious drug offenders and not occasional users . Absolutely. The individuals were heavily disturbingth narcotics and they usually had prior state convictions that resulted in no time of probation, suspended sentences and when we were able to obtain necessary evidence against them we were to bring the men and convince them they were looking at strong minimum mandatory sentences and it was at that point they realize they wanted to cooperate. That is how we built our case and win of the two it chain. If i could say this. Drug organizations set up strongholds neighborhoods and they affect anybody in that community. The lawabiding citizens in that community and buthe congress congressman here said, we represent many of those ports wetities of color arrested a significant drug trafficker. If you want to submit something for the record, we would welcome that. The Ranking Member would be asking questions for he has would like toe he yield to the overall raking member of the community. Thank you. ,et me begin with mark levine policy director. I want to express my appreciation for this discussion by going on here. It is quite balanced and quite revealing. Mr. Levin, can you speak of are jose serrano is or reduced mandatory palaces and their and then the crime rate cooperation rate . Thank you. One of these examples is michigan. In 2000 they eliminated their drug mandatory minimums. The second decade property crime there was another. Xample that rollback drug courts are one of the best solutions we have. They rolled back drug sentencing laws. The penalties and they have seen crime continue to decline. Texas, were are definitely still tough on crime and we say we are tough and smart. That does involve making the sentence for the crime. For our drug position cases, your sentence can be two to 10 years. I think that we need to do is the heroin epidemic was mentioned earlier. There is new pharmacological interventions to block the receptors. So the heroin addict does not feel anything anymore. A certain amount of kingpins will continue to get heavy federal sentences and we are talking about mandatory minimums. It could be sentences above that. That is just before. No one is eating talking rid ofing ready reforms. That is a lot of incentive to cooperate with the prosecutor to tell the judge this guy is fully cooperating. I just played out. I do not either we need penalties that are unjust to convict a third party. We had to focus on what sentence fits the crime in that individual case before the court. Thank you. So there has been in effect no. Ncrease in crime rates when we have reduced these penalties and the plea rates and cooperation have gone on. I think that is correct. The federal system is a very small percentage. There is over 2 Million People locked up. 10 are in the federal system. I would argue that some of the best things we could do to reduce crime and have been doing are like policing. We can deter crime by having police in the right places. Again with the department of justice were getting to a point where close to one third is the reason system and we could be using those funds for prosecutors and other strategies. Is this from the state that you are giving us this experience . State instead of federal . I was pointing out that the crime rates are more tied to state policy because the vast of defendants are sentenced so the government has limited effect on the crime rate. Crack reductions, there was no increase in recidivism for those offenders either . Ourn texas we have seen crime rates lowest since 1960. Our probation and parole recent of his rates have fallen dramatically. It is because instead of building more prisons we took that money and put it into strengthening probation, lower caseloads, more treatment programs. I think the federal government can learn from that. Question ask my final to mr. Otis. The media chooses how to portray the face of crime. It can choose to paint the face or someoneal as one of color. Lawenforcement decides which neighborhoods and crimes to focus on. They can decide which cases are president for prosecutors and frequently decide who is charged with mandatory penalties and who is not. Are you saying that it is or ible for bias unconscious or not to seep into our system . Of course it is not impossible for bias to get into the system. Anyone who would say that is out of their mind. Nor is it impossible for ideology or naivete to creep into judges on decisions when they are not constrained by a mandatory minimum. That being the pornography case. They imposed a sentence of 30 months who did not really possess but the strip he did chop and under free and i am not talking here just about nude pictures of teenagers. Im talking about elementary schoolage children and contorted poses and i will not describe them in a setting like was area the district edge so influenced by his personal opinions and so convinced that Congress Must men minimum applied that he sentenced the defendant to 30 months. With a majority of democratic appointed judges reversed him and the only reason that panel was enabled to require the judge congress had had the wisdom to say for a crime like this you cannot go below that. Professor otis, you sound more reasonable this morning than i could have had any right to expect, and i thank you for your i apologize. [laughter] please do not. We recognize the gentleman from alabama for five minutes. Thank you. I noticed there was agreement that we ought to focus on the kingpin, the organizer, and i think we agree that to do that you have to get cooperation from someone down the line. With that in mind, i want to ask you about the attorney general in august of last year directed the u. S. Attorneys in the Criminal Division and he was talking about title 21, the safety valve, how you could not charge if certain elements were there and he said if these elements are not there, you do not have to charge. One element that had existed before that was cooperation. But he dropped that one. You can deviate even their unwillingness to cooperate. So that is not even taken into consideration. Were you aware that there was a change made . He also elevated a number of points. Congressman, i am aware of the august 2013 memo. Prior to that time, prosecutors were authorized to file what is called an 851 enhancement in every drug case. If a drug dealer is arrested and he has a prior drug felony conviction, the notice is filed with the court that doubles the mandatory. That tool has been a very effective in gaining cooperation. That is one of the tools we have used. Now that has been greatly modified for assistant United States attorneys, and only in certain cases are we authorized to file that. Also, there was in the memo that we are not to put the drug quantities in the indictment which triggered the minimum mandatory. It gives criteria when you do not put them in there. You do not put them in unless these things are present. In effect the minimum awaytory is have been done to a large extent by that memo. And cooperation used to be what you could consider, and i guess you still can, but what im saying the safety valve, according to this memo, even if they are not cooperating and they could, they could finger somebody, that is not that was the one thing that was dropped. You are correct. If you have a dealer without a record and he tries to cooperate, but does not come to the level of substantial assistance, and there is no violence, the court can come under minimum mandatory. Now it is not necessary that he cooperate. Things like that, it goes against that philosophy on that point, typically the charging decision is made before there is any opportunity to assess cooperation. In those cases even, more cooperation can still be considered. If you make a decision before you charge, the more effective the cooperation. The kingpin does not know sometimes what is going on. The point i would make is the range of sentencing is extremely broad. I think the data would support most cases are going to plead. I find it strange that the cooperation was the one that was totally dropped. Let me ask one that is not in here that i think ought to be considered. That is age of the offender. Nowhere in these guidelines does it talk about age of the offender. I think that is one of our biggest problems. An 18yearold or a 19yearold is quite different from a 23yearold or a 30yearold is tremendously different, his judgment. Particularly, i have five children, and the boys mature a little later, in most cases. I hope i do not hear about that. But i can say my 18yearold at 30, after four years in the marines, had much better judgment. Anybody want to comment on whether we ought to take that into consideration . Yes, i will. I absolutely agree. And i think most states are moving in that direction, where they are reintroducing age as an important factor in a particularly in you talk about when you talk about drug conspiracies. These kingpins look for young little kids, as young as 13 or 14, where they have enormous influence over them. They acculturate them into these behaviors. Judges and prosecutors right now do not have the discretion to consider the fact that this kid was brought in at 13 and 14 and stayed in for five years. The Supreme Court has issued a couple of decisions that would support this congress and task force in taking steps to recognize the importance of age when it comes to culpability and sentencing. Most of the offenders we chart our in their 20s. Juvenile is under 18. One example, we had one drug dealer who was involved with an organization in our district, and we had to charge him with two murders. After the debriefing he told us he committed committed four others. He was 19 years old. Im not talking about murder. A 21yearold is different when he is 30 in most cases. Almost two different people, in many cases, particularly if he has not had some of the supervision that other children do. Thank you very much. At this time, mr. Scott indicates he will still yield, and, mr. Jeffries from new york, you are recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chair, and i thank the panel that has to has appeared before us. Professor stevenson, it is great to see you. I want to start with professor otis. Criminal justice is largely the province of the 50 states. Is that correct . Yes, it is. That is consistent with constitutional landscapes and the fact that prevention of crime was not necessarily an enumerated power given to congress. It was left to the state, the 10th amendment. That factors into that. The majority of individuals who are incarcerated in this country right now are in the state penal system. Is that correct . That is correct. Only 217,000 are in federal prisons. The state experience is a relevant indicator of what would happen if criminal Justice Reform occurs . That is correct with a qualification. The qualification is one i would build on. The federal prisons population is unlike the state prison population. The state turned over to the fed the really tough, broadranging conspiracies. The kind of people that you find in federal prisons are the ones the state did not have the toughness or the resources or the sentencing system to deal with. That is interesting, because about 50 of the federal prison population actually constitute nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom did not have a prior criminal record or engaged in violent criminal activity prior to them being incarcerated in federal prison. Is that correct . That is correct, yes. About 10 of the prison population in the federal system actually are violent offenders. In fact, i think it is less than 10 . Is that correct . That is correct. So so the premise that the federal system is different in nature somehow and filled with kingpins and mafia lords and terrorists is just inconsistent with the facts. Is that correct . Yes, the Sentencing Commission has made that point repeatedly. In the assessment of who is doing time in the federal system. I think it is clear there is no real difference between the individuals in the state penal system and individuals in the federal penal system. So i would argue since the majority of individuals are actually in the state penal system that the state penal system experience in terms of criminal Justice Reform is instructive. To me it seems like a reasonable premise. But mr. Levin, does that seem fair . I think it is. There are obviously some differences in the composition, but frankly those have lessened over the years as more and more likely lowlevel streetcorner drug offenders ended up in the federal system. I would also say one of the provisions of the smarter sentencing act would say you have two criminal history points instead of one and still be able to get the benefit of the safety valve. In order to get that, you have to cooperate. That would increase the incentive to cooperate. Now if you have at least two points, you cannot use the safety valve anyway. My time is limited, but i appreciate the observation. 29 states have limited or restricted mandatory minimums. I would think based on some of the testimony that we have heard today that that perhaps would have resulted in a crime wave being unleashed on the good people of america in those 29 states. Has that been the experience . No, it has not, and some states have seen dramatic increases in their crime rates in Crime Reduction after the passage of these reforms. Are you familiar with the rockefeller drug laws that were put in place in new york . Generally, not in specifics. It is widely understood these were some of the most lawsictive, punitive drug anywhere in this country, correct . I would have to defer to you. Mr. Stevenson, is that correct . That is correct. These were some of the toughest, most are conan draconian mandatory minimums related to nonviolent drug offenders. In 2009 i was in the state legislature, and i was pleased to be part of the effort to reform those drug laws. Are you familiar with that . No, i am not. It occurred. Are you familiar with that, mr. Levin . What i am. Based on the premise, i would assume that in new york state that a dramatic crime wave as some argued would have occurred as a result of reforms, would follow. Is that what took place in new york, mr. Otis, or did crime continue to decline and subsequent to the repeal of the rockefeller drug laws in new york, as has been the experience in every other state that has changed or reformed its mandatory minimums . My answer is going to be long, but you have to forgive me. I am a law professor. The answer is, yes, in the states that have experimented this way, crime has continued to decline, but that is because the imprisonment and use of imprisonment, while very significant, probably the most significant factor in the overall decrease in crime in this country in the last 20 years is only one factor. , other factors are at work as well, and those factors have continued to be in play. Other factors like hiring more police, federal police training, better private security measures, better emt care, to reduce the murder rate, for example. While it is true that crime has continued to decrease, the decrease has been at a lower rate in the states in which they have tried this. The best example is california my time is expired, but let me make the observation. One of the reasons that states have been able to invest resources in those other areas that you enumerated is because when you reduce the prison population you reduce the state budgetary burden and you can actually invest in things that have been empirically proven to lower crime. I yield back. Time we would move to the gentleman from north carolina. Recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Evenson, i would like you to give us some reallife frontline context, first, to establish in your 20plus years as a prosecutor, most of that as a drug prosecutor, and how many drug defendants do you think you have prosecuted and have been prosecuted under your supervision . A general number. I had my own case load while i was supervising a drug unit. I would say i have done hundreds myself over that period of time, but over those years we have done thousands. And we specifically went after the biggest organizations by using the techniques i described earlier. In the thousands of drug defendants that you have personally dealt with, how many of those were lowlevel nonviolent drug offenders . That me just say this. I heard the term nonviolent thrown around is trafficking of drugs a Violent Crime . It is by its very nature. You show me a city with a violence problem, and i will show you an underlying Drug Trafficking problem. With drugs comes violence. It is the nature of the game. They do not take their problems to court. They enforce it at the end of a gun. Any sheriff in my district would tell me, because i knew them all, i had 44 counties, their biggest problem was drugs and drugrelated crime. That is what they would focus on, if they could get that problem solved. So i do not accept the term nonviolent when it comes to drugs. These organizations are by their nature and the higher they get. Drug trafficking is a crime of violence . It is. I will say this right now. Law enforcement does not have a war on drugs. We have a war on drug traffickers. We seize drugs and we arrest traffickers. That is our mission. And we represent many in these poor communities of color who are victimized by that i want you to focus on another member of the task force pointed out that Law Enforcement prosecutors can choose the communities in which they go into and look for crime and prosecute crime. Talk about some of those communities that you have been a part of going into and trying to eradicate Drug Trafficking. Congressman bachus asked a question i did not get to finish. One example, we have a community where drug dealer had been selling for years. He had a fence around his yard. He had a highdollar vehicle. He had four of them. He had built an addition on to his house. There was a photo of one of my agents driving one of these highdollar vehicles out of his driveway, and he said, you see this picture, i said, yes, he said when i drove it down the street the neighborhood had come out on the street and they were clapping. This is a bad, violent drug dealer. That is the kind of people we represent. That is when the agent drove down the street. He took the corvette out of the driveway and he said right as i turned and went down the street they were lined up clapping. We represent some of the most vulnerable people, the poor, the elderly, the young, the addicted, and they have no voice, they have no way to sell their home and move away when a drug dealer sets up shop in the neighborhood and the Property Values drop. Quite frankly, i am personally offended when i hear charges of racism. The laws are race neutral. We go where the battle is hottest. We represent people who are victimized by this activity. It doesnt make any difference what neighborhood it is. Ive never prosecuted anybody on the basis of race. U. S. S. R has any a. A. U. S. A. We have to go where the evidence leads us, and that is where we go. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. At this time the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. I appreciate the opportunity. I apologize for being late. A couple postmidnight sessions. I walked in to hear you Say Something that was incredulous. That there is not a war on drugs, that you say there is a war on drug dealers. Is that what you said . Yes, i did. You said the laws are race neutral. Yes, sir, they are. Nobody denies that. But the fact is that the implementation of the laws is neutral, and is racial profiling. All laws are race neutral, since 1865, except in the south, which went to 1963. But the implementation by people under color of law who arrest eight times more africanamericans for possession of marijuana than whites is not race neutral. Is that not a reality . Congressman, i understand theres a lot of statistics being thrown around. Like 99 of the people who believe in Climate Change and some people go with 1 . We will go back to the statistics. I cannot argue the statistics. All i can tell you on a daily basis i deal with drug dealers were black, white, indian. We have prosecuted wherever the evidence led us. I dont deny you prosecute them. I am saying arrests, and a lot of it is streetlevel arrests. You are a federal prosecutor. Yes, sir, and uniform patrol is unable to stop this problem. It has to be investigators. They cannot do anything in uniform patrol. Persons with up possession and it ends there. You believe marijuana is less dangerous to our society than meth and cocaine . The laws indicate that. Meth is highly addictive. The laws do not indicate that. Marijuana is a schedule one drug, the same as heroin and lsd. That law does not indicate that. In our courtroom in our courtroom it is treated differently. Methamphetamine is instantly addictive. I agree with you. You might do your best in your courtroom. I hope you are. But you are right, you need to go after meth and heroin and crack and cocaine. We do that, sir. How about marijuana . Some of the most violent dealers that i have experience were marijuana growers. Because it is illegal, and they are violent when the police come in, the dea to bust them. They are not violent in se, they are violent because of the laws. I have been threatened by marijuana growers. If it was legal, do you think they would threaten you . They threaten you because it is illegal. That is a different question. Im just telling you my experience. And when alcohol was illegal, al capone and all the guys on the untouchables those quote they were bad guys. But now they are wholesalers, nice guys. It just matters how you flip it. Do you think you support mandatory minimums. We need those. Do you think mistakes were made when a judge tells of a situation where they did not want to sentence the person to life, but the third offense triggered it. Some minor thing or a nice woman involved with a man who let her a stray like miss smith, who got pardoned, commuted by president clinton. A wonderful woman, her son is at washington lee, 6 1 2 years . As long as we have human beings, there will be mistakes. But i can tell you our system , now is so regulated from the time they appear before a magistrate to a federal judge to the appeal process that every case is scrutinized. I would say those kinds of cases are rare here in every defendant is given a chance that in my experience, to provide assistance, so i can go to that. She was provided assistance and the guy that led her into it was in Washington State and he was murdered, so she could not provide assistance anymore, so they put her in jail and in prison for a long time. If it were not for president clinton she might still be there. Because you cannot provide assistance is not make your incarceration more just. Theres a saying in law school that hard cases make bad law. Right now the law works. It has worked to remove a lot of Drug Organizations in america. How do you think the experiment in colorado and washington is going . I do not know, sir. Mr. Stevenson, anything you want to add . I want to emphasize that these exceptions, these extreme bad cases i think should not inform the Committee Task force, because we have a lot of data to tell us how to look at the system, and the truth of it is communities of color are not celebrating mandatory minimums. I think we really need to be sober about the impact of these laws on vulnerable populations. I do not suggest that individual officers go out with racist intent. But there are real differences ingenuitys where you have to do drug dealing on the street, as opposed to communities where you have resources to do it covertly. If we do not ignores that, we will contribute to this problem of racial disparity. You are right to emphasize the way in which our system identifies who is bad, who is violent, is shaped by the way we characterize these laws. Even in aiding mandatory minimum eliminating mandatory minimums will not my judgment eliminate or even restrict our ability to go after bad kingpins. We can still do that. Nobody talks about shielding drug dealers or drug traffickers from arrest. What we are talking about is protecting people who are sometimes caught in the web and end up with these very unjust sentences. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Cohen, most bank robbers are nonviolent. Unless you try to stop them. The chair will recognize himself for five minutes. Thank you. Really appreciate the level of commitment here. Obviously we have people who are quite familiar with the system. I am also pleased that we have such an experienced group on this task force, people that have dealt with the law in so many respects. Having been a state judge in the and a chief justice in a state court of appeals, we use different terminology. When i hear an immediate adverse reaction to mandatory minimums. In the state we call it a range , of punishment, and it seemed probably appropriate for the legislature to say for these crimes in felony court this was the minimum, 0 to 2 years, but you had that bottom level. If you are in the first degree, five to nine, and if you enhanced it up with prior convictions, then you could a guy arrestedas for stealing a snickers at one point, and that runs into strange facts when you got a guy looking at maybe a mandatory 25 years because of the enhancements. But it seems like we could deal with the areas in which there are great injustices without totally eliminating floors, although most judges i know would be fair and try to act fairly within a proper range. I am old enough to remember before the sentencing guidelines, back when federal judges actually got mad that they were having discretion taken away. I was shocked when i started having more federal judges say, no, we kind of like it. We do not have to make such tough decisions. The guidelines tell us what to do. Mr. Evenson, i cut you off twice when you seemed to be ready to proceed further. I have got time. Anything you are wishing to illustrate that you did not have time to do earlier . Thank you, your honor. I just want to emphasize on behalf of the over 5000 assistant states attorneys, are i read the comment they had on this legislation, i read it again this morning. If you could hear and see the statements, i think you would be amazed at how profound reducing the minimum mandatories would be on our ability to do our job. We will not be able to go after the biggest drug dealers unless we have witnesses. As i said, this is hard business we are in. We need the inducement to allow conspirators to specify, and testified, and they do that. They have to make a decision. It is a go or nogo situation. And theyre with their lawyer, they decide my drug days are over, we build a rapport with them, and they tell us everybody that they have been getting their drugs from and theyre willing to testify. Oftentimes they do not have to testify, but they are held we do not care what you tell us as long as you tell us the truth. Most of them do. Those that dont go to prison. I had a lawyer who told me one , you know who is in federal prison, those who cooperated and those who wished they cooperated. We need the ability to negotiate. The sentences are fair. We are not prosecuting users. We are not prosecuting marijuana users. It is a myth. We are prosecuting people with prior convictions for the most part, dealing in significant quantities over a long time. That is why we have conspiracies that run one, two, three, and five years. That is what amazed me. You could charge somebody with an agreement that lasted that long time. But the jury gets to see the whole story then. It is not just a search on a drug house. That would be our statement, congressman. I appreciate the time. Anybody else want to comment on mr. Evensons reflection . Thank you. I have two comments. One is i apologize for interrupting. One of the things we need to do is go by our experience. Mr. Levine pointed out that there has been a group of 16 or 17 states over the last several years that have reduced or eliminated mandatory sentences and have not seen an upsurge in crime. I would point out two things. He omitted talking about california, which has had as many premature prison releases as the rest of the states combined. The reason is california is acting under the Supreme Courts decision that required Early Releases to reduce prison population and make prison conditions constitutional. What has happened in california, which has had many premature releases, is crime has gone up. That is not accounted for. If we look beyond the experience of 17 states and look to the experience of the 50 states over 50 years, we know what works and we know what fails. Fails. What fails is what we had in the 1960s when we had a belief in rehabilitation. Not really a belief in incarceration. That failed. What works is what we have my time has expired. Let me recognize the gentleman from virginia. Let me respond. With regard to california, the reason they got in that situation is policymakers failed to act proactively. That is why we work with legislators to address chris and prison crowding in a prospective way so you do not invite of record supervision. I think california illustrates why we need to tackle this federal prison overcrowding issue upfront rather than leaping into to unelected Supreme Court or other judges. One of the reasons we have seen the experience with the rockefeller drug laws, with drug reform in South Carolina and other states not leading to an increase in crime, research has shown staying longer in prison does not reduce recidivism. Prison does one thing well, incapacitates. With murderers and serial rapists, that is needed. But people who have a drug problem or who are dealing small amounts on street corners, they have a habit themselves. If we can correct the habit and get them into a productive lawabiding role as a citizen, through appropriate supervision after release, then we can continue to drive down the crime rates in this country. Thank you. I recognize mr. Scott. Thank you, and i thank all of our witnesses. Mr. Stevenson, you indicated that penalties do not affect drug use. Is there any evidence that the fiveyear mandatory minimum for small amounts of crack when we disparity01 encouraged people to instead use have 100hen they could times more powder is this an indication that people would not use crack theyre going to say , the powder . No. Very sadly they are driven by an addiction, by a disorder that is actually shaping their choice. Theyre not worried about tomorrow or the next week. Most could not even tell you what the penalties are. We will recognize that, be misdirecting a lot of resources. If your goal is to reduce drug use, you mentioned a Public Health approach no question, a lot of countries have invested in interventions and many states have also used drug courts where they authorize treatment and supervision. I want to emphasize the point about supervision, it has proved to be very effective. If you spend 50,000 a year to keep somebody in prison, that money does not accomplish much. If you take 10,000 and make take someone just released from prison and make sure they are complying with very strict guidelines, around services, allowing them to move forward to get a job, etc. , not only are you spending less money on a person, youre dramatically increasing the chance that they are actually not going to recidivate or continue to be a drug user. We have got lots of data from lots of countries that talk about these Public Health approaches that have radically reduced drug addiction and improve the health of these communities. I am very sensitive to communities that have been hijacked by drug addiction and drug abuse. Interventions that run health around Health Care Models are the interventions that have the biggest impact on the health of those places. I understand your organization right on crime takes the position that the more Cost Effective ways of reducing crimes than waiting for people to get arrested and get into a bidding war as to how much time they are going to serve. Have you seen research that incarceration rates over 500 per 100,000 are counterproductive . The case is you reach a point of diminishing returns when it comes to incarceration rates. Number one, you are sweeping into many nonviolent and lowrisk offenders. People are serving longer than necessary. Let me ask you a question on that point then. If anything over 500 is counterproductive, and 10 states are locking up africanamericans at the rate of 4000 per 100,000, if a Community Without lock up rate you reduce it to 500 at which you stop getting any kind of return, does that 3500 people fewer in prison, that is 70 million. Are you suggesting that that community could actually reduce crime more by spending that 70 million productively in a Public Health model, education, afterschool programs, keeping young people on the right track, an they could locking up 3500 extra people . It is difficult to look at a setting of arbitrary rates. States have different crime rates. But i would say that once professor steve levin, who has written for economics, he looked at it. One of the biggest backers of increasing incarceration a few decades ago, they said they reached a point of diminishing returns and potentially in fact in some places negative returns. You could be using the money to put another Police Officer on the street doing some of the things they have done in new york city and other places, where they are able to deter crime through a greater presence of officers in the right places, targeting hot spots. As you said, weve talked about problemsolving courts, a range of other approaches to electronic monitoring, so i think we, without getting into the arbitrary attacks, so much of the money of budgets is going to prisons, the resources are not there often for these alternatives. It is a matter of realigning our budgetary priorities and making sure the people do not go to prison simply because we have not provided the alternatives. We have heard you need these bizarre sentences to fight the war on drugs. How is imposing sentences that violate common sense helpful to the war on drugs . As you said half of all High School Students have tried illegal drugs. We have to have a broader approach that looks at prevention, Substance Abuse treatment where there are many advances being made. I think that certainly we know that undoubtedly drug dealers replace one another, so the problem is too broad to solve just by taking what are a small number of the total people dealing drugs and putting them in prison for long sentences. As weve said these people are still going to be going to kristen. Prison. 97 months for crack cases, even after the disparity was narrowed. Evenson sounds like he has no leverage over these people. These people are going to jail, just not on bizarre sentences. On fair sentences. That last year getting mileage relative to what we could be doing with those resources. Thank you. Let me just comment, and we had submitted chairman sensenbrenners statement for the record. He does point out things in which i would hope we would all agree, that this task force has taken up. Rather unusual to see aclu, heritage foundation, liberal, and conservative groups joining together, but we have a lot of agreement with regard to issue of mens rea for offenses. It was mentioned earlier, we really should have these codified into one code having instead of having 4500 or 5000 federal crimes where a prison sentence was added simply to Show Congress was tough on some issues, when maybe it was a clear error and it should not clerical error and it should not have gone that route. There are many things that we agree on that we really need to deal with. And we really appreciate all of your input on this issue of mandatory minimums, what i might call a range of punishment, and you may have other thoughts as you leave. I know i always do. Gee, i wish i had said this or that or the other. So if you wish to have we provide members five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record yes. Let me just say, if you have additional testimony that you think of as you walk out, i wish i had said that, we would welcome that submitted in writing for our review, and it will certainly be reviewed. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that letters and testimony from the u. S. Sentencing commission, justice strategies, families against mandatory minimums, the Leadership Conference on civil rights, civil and human rights, the Southern Center for justice, the judicial conference that reminds us that judges are often required to impose sentences and violate common sense, the aclu, the sentencing project, ill be entered into the record. Without objection, that will be done. If you have additional materials, any of you, that you feel would be helpful to this task force, we would welcome those, and that will be open until friday. If i could ask one other question. Would you mind . Without objection. Thank you. Im just guessing. Mr. Otis, it looks like you have the most experience here. Youre may be the only person here older than me. 1968 is when you graduated . You look like you are younger like a youngster to me. More and more people do these days. It is all relative. You been doing this for a long time. You were at the dea. If i am wrong in my opinion, but tell me. What i see the drug war over all , those years has not changed at all as far as the american appetite for drugs, american appetite for marijuana, for crack, cocaine, meth, ecstasy, oxycontin, whatever. And our process has been the same. Arrest people, mandatory minimums, flip them put them in , jail for a long time. It has not worked. Is the system basically the same place it is been . Do you feel like a rat going along in a cylinder there . Do you think we should come out of it and go this has not 40 years, dont we need a new theory or way to do this . What the statistics show with the drug crimes are intimately related with other kinds of crimes, property crimes, crimes of violence, and we know from the statistic that those crimes have gone down substantially. So i dont think it is correct to say it has not worked. In addition to that, in order to know whether specifically drug laws have worked, we would need to know what the state of play would be if they had not been enforced. The great likelihood, because it has been misapprehended in something that has gone on, the drug business, unlike other crimes, is consensual. There is not a crime scene and a victim in the same sense there is in other kinds of crime. Weve talked a lot today, and youve talked, and correctly so, about violence, and whether we have seen an increase or decrease in violence when some states have released drug defendants early. But violence is not the only thing we need to care about when we are talking about drugs. We need to care also about harmfulness. Because the drug business is consensual, for example, the actor Philip Seymour hoffman who recently died of an overdose he died as a result of a consensual drug transaction, as most all drug transactions are. He and the other 13,000 heroin addicts who die each year are equally dead, whether it is consensual or whether there has been violence. We need to stop about the harm that comes from the drug trade, a harm that is one of the most destructive, particularly in minority communities today. Would you mind if i added one thing . It is up to the chairman. Goahead. With regard to heroine since , 1990, the purity has gone up 60 . The price has dropped 81 . It indicates what were doing with regard to heroin is tragically not working. Kingpins and others dealing hard drugs should go to prison. But we need to take a broader approach. There are pharmaceutical advances that are treating heroin addiction and, recognizing Prescription Drugs , Prescription Drug abuse is far more common than heroin abuse. I hope we can also focus on that as well. Thank you. What we need to do is huey lewis had an answer. We need to find a drug that is not addictive and harmful, but still pleasurable. Get to work on it tomorrow. [laughter] i always thought that was what we call glazed doughnuts. [laughter] mr. Bachus, you ask unanimous consent . Thank you, unanimous consent, and i want to remind you of this, i had this, but this is a crime scene. And this is in alabama. These are two young people who overdosed on a synthetic drug earlier this year. So it is a different crime scene. But it looks pretty violent, i am sure, to their parents. And their friends. I would also like to introduce are you offering that . Yes. Without objection. I also would like to introduce a copy of the attorney generals memorandum to u. S. Attorneys and particularly highlight where the cooperation is no longer included. But, third, mr. Stevenson said something that we need to at least have one panel of people, and that is health care approach and things that we can do and drug divergent treatment, addiction, addressing both as a criminal and a health care problem. I would think the u. S. Attorneys would welcome that more than any one group, because i have had u. S. Attorneys and d. A. s that expressed to me that they wish more was done on addictions and rehabilitation, because they are the ones that see it every day. Mr. Chairman, i want to make it clear that i think we share the common goal of reducing drug use in america. The question is what the strategy will be. Mr. Levin and mr. Stevenson have pointed out that there is a better, more costeffective way of actually reducing drug use in america. Others have suggested the war on drugs is working. I think the war on drugs has been shown to be a complete failure, it has wasted money, it has not reduced drugs, and there are more costeffective ways of doing it. That is what the debate is all about. Thank you, we all agree on that, that we want to reduce the usage of drugs, and there have been data provided that indicate in some ways it is working. To explain to each of you, we had anticipated having to go to vote at around 10 00 a. M. , and we started out under that, that is what we were told by the mortal gods from the house floor. While were proceeding, the vote that we were anticipate around 10 00 was voicevoted, thankfully, some cooperation on the floor. And that allowed us to finish without interrupting you and taking more of your time than necessary. We do thank you, and with that, we are adjourned. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] president obama about to speak from the white house rose garden about the release of Army Sergeant bowe bergdahl, who had been held by the taliban in afghanistan for nearly five years. The release of Sergeant Bergdahl was brokered by the government of qatar, working between the United States and the taliban. Five detainees from Guantanamo Bay are being released under agreement they are to remain in watar qatar for one year. Officials say it was a tense but uneventful exchange of Sergeant Bergdahl for the five guantanamo detainees in afghanistan. All five taliban members released are considered among the most senior militants at guantanamo and would otherwise be among the last to leave. Waiting for the president to speak about the release of Army Sergeant bowe bergdahl. A look here at the white house. President obama about to speak about the release of Army Sergeant bowe bergdahl. Good afternoon, everybody. This morning, i called bob and , and told them after nearly five years in captivity their son bowe is coming home. Sergeant bergdahl has missed birthdays, holidays, and simple moments with family and friends that all of us take for granted. But while bowe was gone, he was never forgotten. His parents thought about him and prayed for him every single day, as did his sister skye, who prayerd for his safe return prayed for his safe return. He was not forgotten about by his community in idaho, or the military. And he was not forgotten by his country. The United States of america does n ever leave our men and women in uniform behind. As commanderinchief, i am proud of the Service Members who recovered Sergeant Bergdahl and brought him safely out of harms way. As usual, they performed with extraordinary courage and professionalism, and they have made the nation proud. Right now, our top priority is making sure that bowe gets the care and support he needs, and that he can be reunited with his family as soon as possible. I am also grateful for the tireless work of our diplomats and for the cooperation of the government of qatar in helping to secure bowes release. We have worked for several years to achieve this goal, and earlier this week i was able to personally thank the emir of qatar for his leadership in getting this done. As part of this effort, the United States is transferring five detainees from Guantanamo Bay to qatar. Government has given us assurances it will put in place measures to protect our national security. I want to express gratitude to the afghan government, which has always supported our efforts to secure bowes release. The United States will continue to support and afghanlet process of reconciliation that could help secure a hardearned peace in a sovereign and unified afghanistan. As i said earlier this week, we are committed to winding down the war in afghanistan, and we are committed to closing gitmo. But we also have an ironclad commitment to bring our prisoners of war home. That is who we are as americans. It is a profound obligation within our military, and today, at least in this instance, it is a promise we have been able to keep. I am mindful, though, that many missing inremained the past that is why we will never forget. We will never give up our search for Service Members who remain unaccounted for. We remain deeply committed to securing the release of american citizens who are unjustly detained abroad and deserve to be reunited with their families, just like the bergdahls soon will be. Jannie, today families across america share in the joy that i know you feel. As a parent, i cannot imagine the heart of you have gone through. As president , i know i speak for all americans when i say we cannot wait for the moment when you are reunited, and your son bowe is back in your arms. Toh that, i would like bob have the opportunity to Say Something. Jannie as well. I want to say thank you to everyone who has supported bowe. He has had a Wonderful Team everywhere. We will continue to stay strong for bowe while he recovers. Thank you. I would like to say to bowe right now, who is having trouble speaking english [speaking a foreign language] i am your father, bowe. The people of afghanistan, the same. Complicated nature of this recovery will never be copper handed. Compreghended. To each and every single one who effected this in this country, in the service branches, at the state department, throughout the whole of American Government and around the world, International Governments around the world, thank you so much. We just cannot communicate the words this morning when we heard from the president. So we look forward to continuing the recovery of our son, which is going to be a considerable task for our family. And we hope that the media will understand that that will keep us very preoccupied in the coming days and weeks. As he gets back home to the United States. Thank you all for being here very much. President obama and the parents of bowe bergdahl. Released today after nearly five years of captivity in afghanistan by the taliban. This week in the weekly address, president obama delivered his address from the Childrens National medical center. His message focused on clean energy and efforts to reduce Carbon Pollution, and we will also hear from senator mike nz from wyoming. Mike enzi from wyoming. He gave the republican address aim tohasize the gops add jobs. Hi, everybody. I am at the Childrens Medical Center in washington, d. C. , visiting kids treated here all the time for asthma and other breathing problems. Often these illnesses are aggravated by air pollution, pollution from the same sources that release carbon and contribute to Climate Change. For the sake of all our kids, we have to do more to reduce it. Earlier this month, hundreds of scientists declared that Climate Change is no longer a distant threat. It has moved firmly into the present. It cost can be measured in lost lives and livelihoods, lost homes and businesses, and higher prices for food, insurance, and rebuilding. That is why last year i put forward americas first Climate Action plan. This plan cuts Carbon Pollution by building a clean Energy Economy, using more clean energy, less dirty energy, and wasting less energy throughout our economy. What of the best things we can do for our economy, our health, and our environment is to lead the world in producing cleaner, safer energy. We already generate more clean energy than ever before, thanks in part to the investments we made in the recovery act. The electricity america generates from wind has tripled, and from the sun it has increased more than tenfold. In fact, every four minutes another American Home or business goes solar. Every panel is pounded into place by a worker whose job cannot be shipped overseas. We are wasting less energy, too. Have doubled down how fast how far our cars will go on a gallon of gas by the next decade, saving you money at the pump. We are helping families and businesses save billions with more efficient homes and appliances. Created jobs, growing our economy, and helped make america more Energy Independent than we had been in decades, all while holding Carbon Emissions to levels not seen in about 20 years. It is a good start, but for the sake of our children we have to do more. This week, we will. Today, about 30 of americas Carbon Pollution comes from power plants. But right now, there are no national limits to the amount of Carbon Pollution that existing plants can pump into the air we breathe. Not. None. We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury, sulfur, and arsenic that our plans put in our air and water, but they can dump unlimited amounts of Carbon Pollution into the air. It is not smart. It is not safe. And it doesnt make sense. That is why your geoeye directed the Environmental Protection agency that is why a year ago i directed the Environmental Protection agency to come up with common sense guidelines for reducing dangerous Carbon Pollution from our power plants. This week we are unveiling the proposed guidelines, which will cut down on Carbon Pollution, smog, and so it that threaten the health soot that threaten the health of our most vulnerable americans, including children and the elderly. In the first year the standards go into effect, up to 1000 asthma attacks and 2100 heart attacks will be avoided, and the numbers will go up from there. The standards were created with in an open and transparent way, with input from the business community. State and local governments weighed in, too. A dozen states are already incrementing marketbased programs to limit Carbon Pollution, and over 1000 mayors have sent programs to cut their citys Carbon Pollution. Standards to cut emissions are not new. It is just time for washington to catch up with the rest of the country. Special interests and their allies in congress will claim that these guidelines will kill jobs and crush the economy. Lets face it. That is what they always say. But every time america has set clear rules and better standards for our air, our water, and our childrens health, the warnings of the cynics and naysayers have been wrong. They warned that doing anything about the smog choking our cities and acid rain poisoning our lakes would kill business. It did not. Our air got cleaner. Acid rain was cut dramatically. And our economy kept growing. These excuses for inaction somehow suggest a lack of faith in american businesses and american ingenuity. The truth is, when we ask workers and businesses to innovate, they do. When we raise the bar, the neat they meet it. When we restricted cancercausing chemicals in plastics and leaded fuel in cars, american chemists came up with better substances. When we phase out gas that attacked the ozone there, they came up with better substances. The fuel standards did not cripple automakers. The Auto Industry retooled, and today they are selling the best cars in the world, with more hybrids, plugins, and fuelefficient models to choose from than ever before. In america, we do not have to choose between the health of our economy and the health of our children. Sayold rules may not may we cannot protect our environment and promote Economic Growth at the same time, but in america we have always used new technology to break the old rules. As president and as a parent, i refuse to condemn our children to a planet that is beyond fixing. The shift to a cleaner Energy Economy will not happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way. But a low carbon, clean Energy Economy can be an engine of growth for decades to come. America will build that engine. America will build the future, a future that is cleaner, more prosperous, and full of good jobs. A future where we can look our kids in the eye and tell them, we did our part to leave them a safer, more stable world. Thanks, and have a great weekend. This is senator mike enzi from wyoming. President obama and those who control the senate have been doing a lot of polling and focus groups, and have come up with a proposal to take money from those defined as rich and give it to a few College Graduates with loan debt. The left is masterful at buying votes with other peoples money, but knocking a few dollars off the average monthly college loan payment does not make up for the policies they have enacted that make it harder for businesses to create jobs and americans to make a living. There are better ways to help graduates and other americans who want a better life. We need to rapidly expand the job market. Republicans know that americans deserve better from washington. Republicans have proposals to help employers create more jobs that help students access a good education. We know when you give americans good opportunities, they achieve far more than anyone could imagine. From what i have seen in the early versions of the Democratic Student loan plan, it would not make college more affordable. It would not reduce the amount of money students will have to borrow or do anything about the lack of jobs grants grads face in the obama economy. The proposal would increase the federal debt already 17 trillion