everything possible when inmates enter the system to begin the reentry process, nothing to -- since 1980, our population has exploded. in 1980, there was approximately 26,000 inmates in our care. 10 thowrs staff to manage that population, and only 41 institutions at that time. as of to-date, as indicated, our population is at 219 thowrs. we have approximately 38,000 staff. that is an increase of 830% just with the inmate populations alone. safety and security is very, very important to manage a correctional facility. we are utilizing staff hired to

provide programs in some cases to provide security because security is par mount to ensure you have an environment where you provide the appropriate programs. we are on a path of unstainability, and it is a significant issue that i think everyone needs to be concerned about because the men and women who work for the bureau prisons who are dedicated law enforcement officers are putting their lives op the line every single day. we believe that reentry is very, very important because it is a significant part of the mission. our mission is not just to warehouse individuals, but ensure we provide everything necessary when ultimately they are released. 95% of the inmates in our care will at some point in time be relosed back to communities. reentry is important because for us to manage the the individuals, we have to ensure

we are actively ensuring that they are engage in programs within the institution. this is accomplishedded by reentry efforts. i can report that despite all the challenges we -- challenges we have faced over the last 30 years, we are at a point where 80% of the inmates who are released from the bureau prisons do not reside vat within three years. i give credit to the staff who work under these difficult situations, and at the same time, assure we're maintaining safe, secure facilities for the american public. if any consideration could be begin, i think it's looking at the growth. as we are aware, bureau prisons do not control the number of inmates who enter the system, we have no control over the sentencing, but what we have a duty and obligation to do is ensure that for those

individuals who are ultimately released do not return to prison because on average about 45,000 inmates are released back into the community, and with the recidivism issues and concerns, i tell our staff day in and day out that it's up to us to do way we can control in making sure we have programs that don't return. >> is one the residential drug abuse program? the residential drug abuse program, do you -- tell me about that and how effective you believe that is and how it fits into improvement of nonrecidivism. >> yes. the residential drug abuse program is modeled after the cognitive therapy model that research has shown with experts looking at this that it does reduce recidivism as well as relapse, and so within the

bureau, we have been very, very successful with our staff. we've taken it a step further. we use the cognitive therapy model to place programs throughout the bureau for other segments of the population. i'll give you an example. we have a challenge program that also uses cbt, and we have a program used for young inmates, a resolve program that it is very beneficial for female offenders who have experienced dramatic incidence within their life. we have the treatment program which is also a very successful, and for chronically mentily ill inmates, we have a step down program. we have a stages program that we have for individuals suffering

from paranoid issues, and overall, we believe that this is very important. we have to continue to do it, but the challenge is with the resources, and focusing on high risk needs and offenders, and we have to put the focus for the efforts that we put in place. >> thank you. >> senator grassley. >> thank you, mr. samuels for being here, and thank you, mr. chairman. we have 25% of the federal prisons are foreign citizens. anyone concerned about reducing prison costs should make lowering that number a priority. what can your agency do, the bureau do more effectively to use the international prisoner program to make more of the foreign citizens serve their sentences than their home countries rather than at u.s. taxpayer experience? >> all right. thank you, senator, for this

question. 25% of the population comprises nine u.s. citizens. that number equates to 55,000 criminal aliens in our population. we have a treaty transfer program that we are actively using, and there is room to ensure that we are increasing the numbers as far as the participant for the program. we are reaching out throughout the bureau to ensure the staff are explaning this program in its entirety to the inmates who would benefit from being removed from within the bureau prison and given an opportunity to serve their time through the agreements that we have with the international community where the agreements are in place, and that would, in effect, as you stated, give us some cost

reductions in the population. >> one way to reduce prison crowding is to build more prisons. congress authorized building four more prisons. tame, the federal government bought a state prison in thompson, illinois, and they are spending additional money to renovate it. i want to know the current status of thompson prison, and what amount of money spending on it, and then lastly, really a three-part question, is the spending on thompson slowing down the opening of the four additional prisons that have been authorized and their status? >> okay. the current facilities are in the agent vaition process, and the purchase of the thompson facility has not in any way impeded progress in moving forward to activate the facilities that you make reference to. we have the new hampshire facility as well as the facility

in alexville, alabama. we hired staff, which we are continuing to hire, and gradually moving forward to build a pop population for the institution. the facilities that are pending for full agent vaition, the facility in haze lton -- hazelton, west virginia and at this point, we are trying to hire, and hopefully depending on finding, we'll potentially, hopefully be provided in fy14, we would be put in the situation to determine how soon we can move to move inmates into the facility for agent vaition. for the thompson facility, i assure you there's been great need within the bureau prisons for the type of facility. we have not in the bureau prisons, brought on any type of high security bids similar to what we have in colorado since

1994. if you look at our population, in 1994, where you are today, need bets are premium. we had to do our best with limited resources with the inmates placed at the adx. i'm looking forward to being able to fully activate the facility because as i mentioned, at the high security level, crowding within the prisons, we are facing significant challenges that are ultimately putting our staff at risk, putting the inmates at risk, and the community at risk. we need those bids. >> can you submit a figure that's being spent on the thompson prison in writing? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. my last question, 25% of the federal prisoners are gang members. prisoners can more easily maintain ties to crime if they

are gang members making prisoners dangerous and make it harder for inmates to commit new crimes when released. what specifically does your agency do to reduce gang membership in prisons, and is membership so high because prisons who do not previously blng to gangs join them after their in prison? >> thank you. within the bureau of prison, that you acknowledged, we have significant number of gang members. many long before entering the prison system have gang affiliation, and this is one of the reasons why the unstainability for safe and security within our facilities with the large numbers we're dealing with, we had to put innovative strategies in place to target the individuals. we are able to manage and maintain control by using the

prisons we have to spread out influence. the prisons for well over 30 years use a risk assessment tool, and with this tool, we look at criminal factors that being a gang member fall within this factor where you can't change it. we have factors we also weigh in because gang motorbike, misconduct, criminal history, these are good predictors of institution, conduct, as well as recidivism. by targeting and looking at the individuals' history, particularly those who have gang affiliation, we do everything we can to get the individuals involved in evidence-based programs to ensure that we are trying to at least explore thinking to move away from any belief they need to belong to a gang, especially in the correctional environment. it's our speedometer to protect

these individuals, and they should not believe for a moment that they should join a gang for any type of safety. that is why congressman and control in the prison system is important to diffuse those issues. >> senator durbin. >> i have to go to finance and i'll come back for the second half. >> very well. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, before he leaves, i want to thank senator grassley for the shared interest in the thompson federal prison. we both realize that this is going to create good paying jobs in the home state of iowa and illinois and lessen the overcrowding and provide critical beds that are necessary for the protection of the men and women of the bureau who worked hard for it. thank you, senator grassley, for the questions. you took my thunder on the thompson prison. it's been a little over a year, a year and few months since we had a hearing that you attended

in the room. relative to solitary confinement, segregation, and the impact it has on people serving time in prison. we had many witnesses before us, including a man who spent ten years on death row in isolation in texas, came to testify before us. i'll never forget that testimony as long as i live. that was heart breaking. it reflexed the fact that many of the people in segregation in an isolation situation with 23 hours a day in a cell, one hour by themselves outside, would ultimately, many of them come out of that prison, and the question is what is left of them after they've gone through that life experience? we have testimony at that hearing from the director of corrections from the state of mississippi. he talked about an assessment mississippi had done after suicides in these circumstances in which they concluded they were wasting money with more and more isolation.

the corrections there really was a leader in saving it. save this, and we can avoid terrible outcomes. the mental degradation of people faced with isolation segregation. i asked you at the time whether you believe putting people in segregation or separate facilities had ultimate impact on their mental health, and you demurred from answering. i would have said yes, clearly yes, but you demurred. to your credit, you say you would look into it. i'd like to ask two things, what have you done in over a year, and, number two, what can we look forward to? is there a way for us to save money, not degrade the mental condition of those who were put in isolation, and still protect the men and women who serve in the bureau of prisons. >> all right. thank you.

senator durbin, i do want to commend you on taking the lead on this very, very important issue. when i attended the hearing in june of 2012, it was a very significant issue for the bureau and nation because i had many conversations with the -- with my peers in the field of corrective directerrings and secretaries relative to the issue. since the hearing at the time, there were well over 13,000 individuals in some form of restrictive housing within the bureau prison, and i can report today the number is now approximately 9,000-plus. we had significant reduction in that area, and what we have done throughout the agency is put a focus on issues relevant to

restrictive housing. i had many conversations with the senior leaders within the agency, specifically the war dons responsible for day-to-day operations of our prisons and stretch the fact that we have to be just as aggressive getting individuals out when they put them in restrictive housing and realizing that we only use it when absolutely necessary which for the men and women to include the inmates in our institution, we always must keep the focus on safety and security. we have some very dangerous inmates in the system as i know you are aware, and we have to ensure that we have a duty and obligation as you mentioned to ensure when we place them in restrictive housing, that we maintain the highest level of

quality care relative to their physical as well as mental health. >> i'm sorry to interrupt you, but i only have a few seconds left. i have a pointed question on another topic. we spend between a million and a half dollars a year to $2 million for each and every inmate being held at guantanamo, a million and a half-plus a year. what's the maximum allowed per inmate cost allowed in se florence, colorado, our highest security federal prison? >> per? >> inmate, annual cost. >> >> for the complex, it would equal to approximately 75 dollars a day and varies from facility, but if we look at it -- >> that's the highest level maximum security prison in the bureau prison system?

>> yes, sir. >> has anyone ever escaped from there? >> no, sir. >> thank you very much, director. >> senator sessions. >> what is the average cost per inmate in the federal pent risk offenders? >> the average annual cost 29 ,000 a year. >> less than have of that, a low cost state, but other states are much less, and i think we invest a lot of money because the federal government wants to have the highest and best prison system and benefit the prisoners the most as we can. i think we have to look at that cost figure. other states are just not costing that much. with regard to the number, the 25%, the foreign born in prison, those do not include those detained in immigration

institutions for deportation. these are individuals who then are tried by a federal judge for a crime like drugs or assaulting of that kind; is that correct? >> yes, sir. we have more than 1 # 00,000 individuals in our custody who have been sentenced for drugs, which 77,000 u.s. citizens and 23 thowrs -- 23,000. >> you know, i noticed in your numbers i have here that the prison population went up about 2,000 between 2012 and 2013, at least that was projected increase. that would be about a 1% increase below the population increase so at this point, we're not seeing a surge of prisoners above the normal population increase in the country, are we?

>> senator sessions, i'm glad that you raised this point. for fy13, we have a net gain of 611 inmates, and although the number appears to be small compared to recent years where we average 6,000-plus inmates, you have to realize that at the same time we processed within the bureau prison well over 70,000 inmates, which these are individuals who have to go screenings for physical, mental health, and everything else it takes to manage that large scale number of inmates going into our system. when you look at the overall trend, even for a 10-year period, we had a 40% increase. so 611 continues to demonstrate that we're having more and more inmates and not planning at this point to build any new prison. >> when you say "more and more," it's a net 600, though,

increase; right? >> the net is 611, and even with that number, you're looking at a third of a prison. we have to take those 611 and we're putting a situation in the country where we are triple bunking. >> i say to the colleagues that i think there is a decline in federal and state incarceration rates from the time in 1981 when i was made the united states attorney, in the early 1980s, this congress, senator kennedy and senator thurman, leahy, biden, grassley, hat, did the mandatory sentencing, eliminated parole, had the mandatory sentencing provisions, and it was a revolution in prison, and in prosecution. i would thought before and after states began to follow a mandatory sentence. we've seen a decline in murder

rates by one-half. people in the 70s were constantly fearful of their homes being burglarized, being assaulted, their cars broken into, all kind, and you just have seen this rather substantial improvement, so all i would say to our colleagues is there's no doubt in my mind that moving from a revolving door where people come in, get probation, released on bail for the second, third, and fourth aches and tried another year later, given probation again. too often, this drives the crime rate. we achieved a lot. that's why i was willing to support and work with senator durbin to maybe reduce some of the mandatory sentences because i think we can be smarter about it. it's naive in a big ere deny error to just walk away in

incarcerated dangerous people. you're worried for your guards. you talk about gangs. a lot of the people are darnings. we got to be real careful about that. i think we need to watch the costs. the federal prison system can't be the greatest system, the most expensive in the whole world, which it is, but we have to watch, look for ways to reduce costs, and we got to be cautious about adopting the belief that there's been some new recidivism program that's going to solve the recidivism rate if we can reduce it even a little bit. i'm willing to support a good program, but a lot of the program just never was put to use, the results, we want them to have. recidivism rate today is in a lot different than it was in 198 o, i don't think, and so we spend more on it trying to make it better, and we have a very

successful achievement there. finally, you and i talked about prison industries. there's no doubt in my mind that people who work in prison prefer it, prisoners who have work programs are safer, aren't they, mr. samuels? >> yes. >> i think the data shows that clearly, and they probably have a little better recidivism rate. i don't know. >> they do. >> we have got to have a breakthrough. more people in prison need to be working. the american people understand this. there's been 5 lot of attempts, some of them, not very smart, to help prisoners work, but i really believe all of us need to look for a way to have more productive work in prisons. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator sessions. >> senator klobechar. >> thank you, mr. chairman, appreciate the hearing, the smart sentencing, and i know how

we have to keep dangerous offenders behind bars. my state has the lowest incarceration rates in the country, and we have the lowest crime rates. part is triaging the cases ensuring there's response to low level offenses, escalating responses, but the length of it can be a matter of dispute, and that's part of what we talk about here. i came through this looking at our state which sometimes people joke we're not just the land of 10,000 lakes, but the lain of 10,000 treatment centers, but our focus ongoing after addiction and some thingses, i think, has made a difference in the handling of the cases, and in particular, drug courts. drug cases made up about a third of our cation load, and there's population in the county of over a million people, minneapolis, 45 suburbs, 400 employees, and we really focused a lot on drug courts. i made changes when i got in

there. i think senator sessions would have liked some of them, took cases out that had guns with them, the more violence cases baa i don't think they belonged there. that strengthenedded the drug court and the use of the drug court. you know the staff's director, three out of every four people who garage rate from the programs are arrested again. 75% success rate compared to 30% in the traditional system, saving taxpayer's dollars $6,000 a person, and i asked the attorney general holder at the last doj oversight hearing in expanding the use of drug courts at the federal level. that's what i wanted to start with with you, how you see this could work and how we could more effectively lower costs, better rehabilitate offenders, and reduce crime rates like we've seen in our states. >> thank you, senator. i do agree with the drug treatment programs. they work. we see a lot of benefit just

from the behavior that we're quick to witness with the inmates who participate in the program. internally within the bureau, we have the drug abuse program as well as nonresidential and drug education and all of our institutions. as far as the policy issue relative to a drug court, i am not the expert, i mean, for those types of discussions, and i definitely know that within the department there's many individuals who are more appropriate to have the discussion on policy issues for the department that could eventually benefit any reductions to know with our population on the front end as well as the back end. >> but you see it as the way with federal drug courts reducing the numbers in the prison? >> i believe that the evidence shows that that's very possible. >> you mentioned the program and

proven effective in reducing recidivism and reducing conduct. how many inmates are enrolled in the program, what kind of return on investment do we get? >> for inmates who participate in the residential drug abuse program, for every dollar we invest, there's a $2.69 savings, and the total number of individuals we have participating in residential drug abuse program treatment right now is 16,000 inmates, and we'd like to see that number increase which we, again, as i stated, know that it is very, you know, productive. our overall plan is to increase the number of programs we have so we can have the maximum number of inmates participate. >> what's your view on awarding inmates' good time credits for participating in the intensive recidivism reduction programs or increasing the number of opportunities for inmates to earn credits through education

or vocational programs? >> the department as well as the administration have continued to support the legislative proposal. i definitely cop cur and believe that their important. when you look at the additional seven days of good conduct time added to an inmate's credit for time off their sentence because right now they get 47 days. it is very beneficial to the state and security of the facility, and it's not where an inmate would be rewarded something for not having good behavior, and it helps us. for the inmates, we believe we can ultimately get a large number of inmates to participate in evidence-based programs to receive up to 60 days. also, their term by participating in more than 180 days within a calendar year, the programs that you mentioned. we believe it's beneficial, and it definitely, ultimately helps

with public safety because the majority of the inmates will be released and being exposed to the cognitive behavior programs only enhances. >> uh-huh, just one last question. in your testimony, you acknowledge the tragic deaths of two federal bureau prison employees, and i know we extend sympathy to their families. what do you think can be done to improve safety for prison staff while on or off duty? >> what we need to do to improve safety of our staff is it comes down to a resource issue. we are doing more with less and the staff are proud to take op the mission because this is why they have elected to serve this country by working in corrections. when you're dealing with large numbers on any given day throughout this country, we have

one office working in our housing units providing oversight for 150-plus inmates. ..

thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for joining us today. as i've expressed many times on previous occasions, in my view the federal government has been for decade enacting and subsequently enforcing far too much substantiative criminal law. as a result of that, our federal prison system is overcrowded, and it's extremely costly as we've heard today, bureau of prison consumes a significant chair of the overall budget of the u.s. department of justice. using resources that might otherwise be used effectively in other areas to enhance public safety in the united states. although long mandatory minimum sentences of four drug offenses don't tell the whole story of the increasing overcrowded federal prison population, i think they do share a very

significant part of the problem of overcrowding. i think we have to look closely at the scheme of mandatory minimum sentences as a result. i think we have to do it to see where incremental changes can safely and effectively be made to these sentences to reduce the federal prison population and to reduce costs while at the same time preserve -- the legislation i've cosponsored with senator durbin, s1410 would decrease mandatory minimum sentences for certain category of drug offenders. my first question for you, mr. samuels, whether this type of legislation should succeed as

widely expected to do if it were passed in helping decrease the federal prison population over the next few years, over the decade or so following the enactment. what would it do for you? what would it go for the bureau of prisons as far as making it easier to do your job if we succeeded in reducing the overcrowded problem. >> thank you, senator lee. i would start by saying i agree that reform needs to take place. the specific of the various build being considered is something needs to be considered bit appropriate individual within the department relative to policy issues. to your question what would it do to help the bureau roy of prison. any reduction within our population that ensures that there is no threat to public

safety obviously helps us effectively run our institutions. and we're not dealing with the competitive issues within the population when you're trying to do as much as you can to stretch resources within the environment. because the increase within the population which search shows that when you continue to add more and more enemy the propensity of violence increases and put our staff and inmate to include the surrounding community where our institutions are located at risk. >> two of your biggest concerns i would have to imagine would be one prison safety. safety within the prison. safety of the prisoners themselves and of your personnel. and also the effectiveness of your programs to minimize resit vifm. i would imagine reducing the overcrowding problem would -- then have a positive effect on your ability to manage both of those concerns.

>> yes, sir. >> good. what programs do you have in place currently to ensure that those released from prison including those released earlier than otherwise might be. what program do you have in place to make sure they don't present a throat public safety when they released. >> as i mentioned earlier, we have numerous cognitive behavior program we model because of the research showing type of program are very effective. and we are constantly encouraging inmates to participate in these programs, and we are very successful on many occasions in doing so. but i would share with the subcommittee hear today that we really need to have some type of ib centive to get more of the

inmates involved in the program. this is why i continue to support and i believe that the sentencing credit that could be provided similar to what we have with our debt. and many of the individuals know when they participate they can get up to a year off their sentence. at the same time they're being exposed to the program and they received a benefit, which ultimately helps them with the transition from prison back to the community. and if we can have an incentive to entice the other inmate within a population who don't have a substance use disorder it can increases the number of inmates exposed. over a period of time, when the majority of the individuals will be released it will help public safety. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you mentioned that the average cost to incarcerate a person in our system is about 29,000 or almost $30,000.

there a difference in average cost in a women's facility? >> for the female facility it depend on the number, the mission. but typically the average is going to be the same. >> typically. >> yes. >> do the women in these facilities the same access to the kinds of programses that are available to men and they the male facilities? >> yes. >> there is a growing number of women in our prison population. so you cited some data in your testimony. cousin your data reflect differences in recriticism. do you have some that work better for men versus women in term of success and integrated to society? i think you talked about one program that specifically for resolve. can you share with me if you do that kind of data clek that

distinguishes men and women how they are treated and what is successful. >> for the programs we operate. we are following typically one model, i mean, throughout the bureau. now we have not collected any specific data to distinguish between female inmates versus male inmates to identify whether one particular program does it work better based on male or female. >> why is that? why do you not have that kind of data. do you think there are no differences or you just haven't done it? >> i would say for this discussion that there are no differences, but we don't have specific programs specifically targeted for the female inmate population, which this would be consistent with all the

constructions not just within the federal system. i would definitely take your question back to have discussions with the bureau to include my colleague if there's something being done or you're aware of something specifically for the female inmate population real toif the cbt programs that we provide. >> my understanding is that a general prop suggestion, women are in prison for drug crimes and not violent crimes. so that's a very different profile than the dangerous fellow in our prison system. i would ask that you take in to consideration those kind of factors as well as -- thing may be some programs that will better enable women reintergrate when they are

released than would work for men. thribl are some states who recognize those kind of factors and plan their program in a way that reflects that kind of understanding. i think it's very important because z more and more women who tend to still be the care giver for their family are incarcerated. has a lot of ramifications to their family, children, reentry. all of that. >> and, senator, i've recently put together warden advisory group specifically for the female inmate population to look at what we've done historically and focus on the type of concern. to make sure if there are any best practices or things we should consider that we are moving in a direction to ensure there is a balance on both sides. so the female inmates within our care are receiving appropriate attention and care relative to

the issues you have raised. >> because my impression is generally there have been fewer programs for women in our prison system both in the state level and federal level and as i understand your responsibility is on the federal side. thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you, we appreciate you being here today. we appreciate the support for our joint legislative executive efforts going forward that the bureau of prisoningings is going to continue to show. we obviously don't call on you for information and your staff for expertise. we look forward to the relationship as we proceed. you are excused from the committee. we thank you for the testimony and i'll call up the second panel. [inaudible conversations] i welcome our panel.

professor is from iowa. the ranking member represents iowa, and the ranking member has asked that the professor testify first so he has a chance to hear his constituent's testimony before he has to return to his work within the finance committee. so without objection, we'll go out of the usual order and begin with the professor. let me ask all the witnesses to please stand -- the [inaudible] thank you. please be seated. professor is the professor and coordinator of criminal justice study with the center of study of violence at iowa state university. the editor of chief in "criminal justice ." he received the fellow award from the academy of criminal

justice sciences, and is a member of the american association of the advancement of science, and the association of -- science. >> you have said it all. welcome to you. >> thank you. >> professor, please proceed. we'll go director w et zel and down the line. >> thank you for the opportunity. a lot reducing the cost is important. the it neglect the antiassociate of criminal offenders and the likely recriticism. the majority of the testimony attest to the antibehavioral risk. are somewhat innocuous and limited to drug fails and drug use. in fact, criminal offenders and

all criminal offenders tend to be versatile in their behavior. the person sentenced for drug crimes is also likely to have property crimes, violent crimes, nuisance crimes, traffic violations, and assorted violation of the criminal justice system. as any discussion of drug offenders should also be understood next week likely to be property offender and potentially violent offenders. research using variety of sample indicating drug use is one of the prime driver of overall criminal activity. meta able lettic research indicates the drug offenders offend at rates three to four time of those who don't have drug problems. overall the behavior extend far beyond drug offenses. regarding the safety current law permit judges to waive mandatory minimum sincing with little to no criminal history is.

childhood to adolescence to adulthood. as the director indicate in the panel one, 25% of the inmates are gang members. gang moip is -- membership is confinement and resit vifm. in this way prison is an important interruption of the criminal career. unfortunately the preponderance of offenders continue to commitment offenses. releasing them could likely produce more crime. research has shown a one prisoner reduction in the prison population is associated with a 15 part one index crime increase per year. to put this in perspective releasing 1% of the current population would result in approximately 32850 additional

crimes. an independent study by other researchers arrive at the estimate that one prisoner reduction increases crime by 17 offenses per year. releasing 1% of the population result in 32 23* ,000 additional ovens. the safety of one recommendation in the based on these prior estimate produce a range of 30,000 to 34,000 new index crimes per year. in term of safety recommendation two, the appropriate recommendation a creation to apply to -- quoting the report. beyond drug offenders with minimal to more extensive. some weapon offenders, sexual abuse oaivet offenders, and identity theft offenders.

regarding the expanded program estimate using the same data the proposal to potentially release 36,000 inmates over the next ten years produce an estimated 540,000 to 620,000 new index crimes. the recommendation two to release 12,000 offenders in one year produce 180,000 to 204,000 index crimes. and the proposal number three to transfer 34,000 inmate to home confinement could potentially over the next ten years increase crime by 510,000. to wrap it up. the report contains no mention of the various antisocial conditions relating to criminal propensity of criminal of federal offenders. for instance, prevalence of correctional population is about 25 fold higher than the general population.

another important construct is sexual satism. even after decades of confinement. offenders who sexually is a sadistic. who was sentenced to death in 2003 after serving prkly a quarter century for prior criminal '06s. >> trying to keep our testimony to five minutes per witness. if you can sum up. >> a final point. i have some question in the testimony later. >> the testimony will be in the record. >> chairman leahy indicated it's

one that congress created. i would add that the corollary benefit of that legislation was the reduction of crime by the increase use of confinement. >> thank you very much, professor. let me introduce -- but the no men nomenclature is different. he began his corrections career in 1989 as an officer at pennsylvania's correctional facility. he served as a correctal officer, treatment counselor, training academy director and warden of the franklin county jail. he's a member of the american correctional association and the american jail association and past president of the pennsylvania connecticut correction association. had nice things to say.

and said hello in the beginning. thank you for talk about pennsylvania and the experience we've had in addressing some of the same problem you face in the federal system. specifically when governor tom corp. bet was elected. hef the attorney general. and before that he was federal prosecutor. so he has a very unique perspective. he's had really a firsthand view of the correction system. what he saw over the 24 years before we took over was an average growth of 1500 inmates a month. when we took over nearly three years ago. republican and democratic administration. and the one charge he gave me when we took over is department of corrections was not to willie nilly reduce population. not to reduce spending.

both of those things were a priority. the main priority to improve outcome. and really improve our corrections system. and take the perspective that we need get a better return on our investment for what we're spending in corrections. and how do we do that? the first thing question, we aare applied for and received a grant to go through the justice reinventive process. and partner with the counsel of state government and went through a process that specifically was data-driven. and the governor was a hard sell. and takes a perspective of many on the panel in that very concerned. the bottom line for us is going to be crime rate and public safety. and the process had to be data driven. we gathered data through the process. the most important part of the process is it was a process that was participate story and had all members and stakeholders as part of the grab that looked at the policy options. we gathered the data and looked at what the population drivers

were and identified policy options looking nationally and internationally at policy options that seem to work for other jurisdictions. then we build consensus. it's a key part of this process. where we had, you know, the aclu and the conservative think tank sitting there having a discussion and coming to agreement on how we can get better outcomes. some of the focus needs to be on what the root cause of the crime is. it's very easy in the field to paint with broad brushes and say we don't want to open the back door and let a bunch of people run out. it's going have a negative effect on public safety. we agree on that. what we also agree with is what we want out of the criminal justice system when someone becomes criminally involved. when they come out the back end of our system what we want them to be is less likely to be criminally involved again. we can all agree with that. and the reality there's enough research that tells us when we made good decisions from the front end of the system as far as who needs to be incarcerated,

who we can deal with in other than manner. what the root cause of the crime is. violent offenders, murders and rapist are different. we can't paint -- so it doesn't matter how long we lock an addict up. if we don't address the addiction. we took the approach, we got consensus on policy options that were legislative and in six month from the first meeting meeting in until the legislation was passed. it passed unanimously in the house and senate and pretty miraculous itself in pennsylvania. we came up with policy options. what the policy options resulted in. urn our two and a half years, we've averaged a he decline of 70 inmates a year out of 51,000. not a huge decline.

we look at funding risk base sentencing. the sentencing commission in pennsylvania is building a sentencing tool so a judge has risk information. not just a presentence investigation but risk. what is the risk of future offenders. it factor to the sentencing. we look within the department of crebs at areas we weren't doing good. so waiting list for programs. how can we better deliver program. part is making sure we put people in programs who need it. making sure we are assessing. and the back end we put a lot of focus on. the community correction system we spent $110 million. we saw 95 percent were not effective. we restructured the program and look who we put in and more importantly decided to put a performance measure on the contracts.

so the contractors paid based on the ability -- it was a good process and at the same time our crime rate went down. the crime rate in pennsylvania continues to go down. thank you. >> what a terrific story. thank you very much. our next representative is representative john tilly. he's the chair of the house judiciary committee where he's been the chair of 2009. he worked with state leaders to form a bipartisan, multibranch task force with the goal of enhancing public safety, controlling construction cost, and decreasing resit vifm. he's currently the vice chair of the national conference of state legislature committee on justice and the judiciary. he was a prosecutor prior to

joining the legislature, serving for nearly six years as assistant countytorian. -- attorney. we are delighted he's here today . >> thank you. we have a similar story to pennsylvania. i can say with confidence as well as a former prosecute memberrers we can have it all in one sense. we can have better public safety at less cost with less crime and less resit criticism we have done that if kentucky. it's an honor to tell you. it was no honor when the charitable trust when the public safety -- made us the poster child for prison growth in 2008.

i think it should be to all of us. in kentucky for the decade ending in 2010 our prison growth rate was almost quadruple the national average. we were at 45%. we comprise to 4.5%. but we house about 25% of the world's prisoner. kentucky was truly the epicenter for prison growth. it begs the question. all of that translated all the record spending and ib -- incarceration to translates to better safety. all the pending in the previous 20 years amounted to very little. our crime rate had been relatively flat. most, as you've heard. it's been dropping for some time.

we only enjoyed about a third of the national crime rate crop. we were 6% over the previous decade. the rest of the country was about 19%. we remind flat. our sister state to the south of us, tennessee, we share the most border. their crime rate we are one of the safer states in the country. they now remain one of the more high crime states maybe number one and the prison growth is exploding. we formed a multibranch bipartisan task force. a small task force with seven members. our prison growth rate was being driven not by crime but the number of arrests and court cases by drug offenses by rising incarceration rates for technical parole violaters, and low level offenders were driving the population. they were far more likely to go

to prison than any other state. we found to be 57% to 41% number. they are far more likely to go to prison. i mind you again a bipartisan way, mr. chairman, it passed 96-1 in the house. and 38-0 in the senate. the goal better public safety, less cost. getting smarter on crime. i don't have a lot of time to tell you. generally let me tell you -- i know i want to stick to my time. focus our most extensive beds on the prison offenders. find alternative for the low-risk, non-violate drug offenders. we've done that. we have strengthen probation and parole with pretail trial. we have seen asounding --

we are seeing less offenses committed on release. that's increased the public safety rate. we see them show up to court. we have modernized our drug code which has been a a focus from a number. we deserved prosecution which is a possibility which must be prosecutor approved for low-level drug offenses. these are prosecutor-driven things. i will sell you that not one felony has been reclassified to a misdemeanor in our negotiation in trying to come up with a common sense way to approach it. we reinvest the savings and increase drug treatment. i'll get to how much more in a minute. i'll tell you in my last few second let me tell you we achieved remarkable results. we have --

one benchmark a few months ago we were at 3500 less out of a total of roughly now around 20,000 hoovering. just adds the secretary sate we are well below the average. 3500 fewer. we have less resit vifm in a decade. we are cropped 5 percentage points. we have a 500% increase in drug abuse capacity drug treatment capacity available. i look forward to your questions. >> it's a remarkable success story. our next within is the director of justice policy center at the urban institute.

doctor, welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's a pleasure to be here. i represent the urban institute. we have a non-profit, nonpartisan research organization. we do not engage in advocacy. rather our admission is to bring facts and data and a value research to bear on pressing topics like the one we're here to discuss today. it's in the spirit about a year ago we set out to chronicle the driver of the federal prison population and the growth overtime. and to project the impact of various policy that were on the table to reverse that growth. much in the way we heard in the models of the states in pennsylvania and kentucky. similar justice reinventive

model of identifying drivers of growth. we also look at the degree of overcrowding. member of the committee have already documented that. the overcrowding is tremendous. it's at great risk to the safety of both staff and inmates. but importantly from where we sit and the research we have done looking at the impact of programs designed to prevent resit vifm the crowding in the federal system creates tremendous challenge for delivering programs and treatment that is so necessary too support successful reintegration for federal offenders when they exit prison. what we know from our own research and research that we've conducted through the development, which is a systemic review of only the most rigorous research out there on various type of prisoner reentry

programs. there are many programs that work across a whole host of type of reentry intervention from sexual abuse treatment to employment, education programs, vocational programs. mental health treatment, -- we have identified one if not several programs that rigorous research said works. indeed even within the federal bureau of prison, the program has been research found to be effective as had prison industries. there's a lot of opportunities to provide programming and help support public safety those are limited as well as limited resources with which to dedicate to offer program. there are many solutions on the table.

they were not developed by the urban institute. they were developed by various congressional staffers and partnership with the members and include legislative proposal that are sponsored by member of the committee. what we have set out to do was analyze how these different proposals would yield impact on both the prison population own on costs. when we look at property jexes, we were very scoaft in our estimate. we are conservative in two ways. fiscally conservative. we choose to use the marginal cost of prison rather than the average cost. i can explain more about the porn of that later. we thought it was best to be conservative. some of the our estimates are lower than others who are trying to project the impact of these various policies. similarly an importantly our estimates for conservative regard to how with proceed them being enacted on the ground. and we firmly believe that

judges and the bop will exercise extreme caution in who benefits from the program. most of them look at risk level. something critical in the work states have done risk assessment are important in determining who needs to be in prison and who could be subject to early release policies. for that, also our e mates may be lower in term of the potential cost savings than might be hearing from other people. at any rate, you know from our report we have -- a host of different type of policy changes. we know that reducing mandatory minimum and giving judges discretion to deviate could save millions of dollars. in the entrance of public safety. we heard example from the state

not just the represented here. we know of others, texas, north carolina, new york that have engaged in sweeping reforms and have averted growth or reduced the population without any detrimental impact to the crime rate. i think dc a moment of tremendous opportunity. i thank you for your leadership on it. >> we certainly hope it's a moment of tremendous opportunity. i want to thank the urban institute for the effort and professionalism they brought to the report. we'll conclude with the doctor mearng partner and cofounder in richmond, virginia. he previously served as assistant attorney general for the office of justice programs in the u.s. department of justice where he oversaw activities relating to initiative -- prior to the justice department service he taught 30 years at the university of massachusetts and welcomed here today.

please proceed. >> thank you. in the draft report stemming the tried strategy to reduce the growth that cut the cost of federal prison system. and it observes this growth come at -- i agree more with the report. we need consider in order make good decision and as a result may offer cost shifting and that true cost savings. the more comprehensive view of the problem we face would cast the issue differently. we need to reduce not the cost of incarceration or indeed the criminal justice system. but rather the total associate cost of crime including not only expenditure on public safety but the cost of victimization,

tangible and intangible to the public. as we seek to do this, the allocation of funds among component of the criminal just i system could be guided by the demonstrated effectivenesses in reducing crime. not the absolute or relative size compared to other component of the criminal justice system. just how large and costly is the prison population? according to the bureau of u.s. bureau --

the rate in 2011 was comparable to 2005. which was 492 persons. given that population, and a recent institute calculated average inmate average per inmate cost of incarceration at 31286 we could e mate the total cost nationwide in 2011 is 50.2 billion. surely a large sum. in order to understand we have to bring in to the calculation what did we get in return for that $50.12 billion? as some have testified

previously and noted, and some of the member of the committee have noted, according to the fbi's uniform crime report between 1960 and 1992, the number of violent crimes in the united states increased nearly seven fold. from prkly 288,000 to more than 1.9 million. and the violent crime increase nearly five fold. rather abruptly the crime rate began to decrease. and it decreased for nearly a decade. then plateaued until two years ago when it started to tick up. scholars who look at the decline and try to give a reason for it or determine a reason for it, and has noted incarceration and the increase in incarceration in the united states played a large

role in the particular decline. in other words what we got from the 50.2 billion was a decrease in crime that is value underestimate because it doesn't include psychic cost of about $180 billion per year. i leave it to you to judge whether a 50 billion investment that gets you $18 billion return is a good idea or not. it's not meant to suggest that nothing can be done to deal with the current justice problems. rather to counsel caution in dealing with sweeping claim of cheap, readily available, and highly effective in incarceration. rather we need to do four things. first we need to understand the unique characteristic of the federal prison system. they are quite different from the state prison system.

we need to make use of the -- and also identifying marketers of the onset systems. >> thank you. i appreciate it. let me start with the secretary. you are an observer from the outside of the federal bureau. it's your corrections and lifelong profession. it you have been successful in pennsylvania and you're showing not only bipartisanship but unit unanimity and successed in the reform effort.

what would you take out of pennsylvania's experience and apply lessons that would be helpful for the federal bureau of prisons? are there critical? are there similarities? where are they? what do you think are you successes that apply most readily to your federal colleague? >> i think from a process standpoint, we were able to have people check their r or d at the door and become part of the process and we set a goal and acknowledged the goal and put the partisan stuff aside. understand we want the same thing. we want good outcome. then i think really understanding the dynamic of the population. certainly the federal population is arguably different than the state population. i think it's important to

accurately identify and build consensus what group -- dealing with in another marijuana. and then specifically as we start splitting the different group out. look how we're like like to get the best outcome. you're to the not going bet 1,000. where are we like that get the best outcome? the one thing across the board we had consensus on we weren't pleased with the outcome we were getting from the current approach. so business as usual wasn't going to work. it wasn't acceptable. we came to the consensus early on nobody could make the argument we were happy with the return on the investment we were getting for correction.

i think if you take that approach and not say our goal is to reduce spending by x amount. but our goal to get better outcome and identify folks that can dream with in another manner and more effective and lost costly. if you keep that as the focus. i think it's the best way to move forward. >> when you talk about identifying folks what are the sorts of categories you're looking at? >> age, gender, drug history? level of incarceration, length of term, what are some of the groups you picked out of the general population to try to improve the focus? yeah. we didn't talk about violent versus nonviolate. many people pointed out. by the time some one came they had an average of eight arrests. and nobody gets locked up for j

walking in harrisburg, pennsylvania. that's not why they're there. and give judges the tools to make the individual decisions. you were dialing back to the presentence report for judges? >> yeah. they passed this risk-base sentencing tool that was supposed to be develop by the sentencing commission. it wasn't funded. through our initiative we were able to fund that. so we can give judges information at sentencing and allow them to make better decisions on real information. where did you get the information? >> well, we had the information

and the sentencing commission is a group charged to take the information and develop a tool specifically information out of the tracking information on your own inmates? yeah. the court pool them together and get the information and roll it out across the state. >> thank you. >> thank you. chairman, same question to you. can you pick out of what kentucky has done any particularly successful element that you would commend to us as areas of focus? thing a number of measures on the front end that work and translatable to the federal system. to me we're talking about folks. >> what you did in kentucky. >> i appreciate that. i would tell you that it seems

to me i saw a number of federal cases proceeding and moving along to conviction. it seem we're doing more of the same kind of work than one might imagine. as study indicate we with are focus on the important six month. as experts tell us and validated through science if you catch that offender and the first six months of reentry you can hopefully achieve a more successful reentry and lower resit vifm which is the goal. the public demands as said today it's roughly the same in kentucky. about 95 percent of the offenders come back to a community.

and that's important and translatable. there's a number of things question doingon just that. another example, chairman would be intermediate and technical parole violaters. rather than sending them back. we send them back for longer than the original seasons sentence. >> we were u.s. attorneys together back in the day. >> i going told, sir. [laughter] >> your experience is the same in making parole violation responses swifter, more certain, more immediate. even less impactive in term of how long they take out of the probationer's life. you get a better result from a quicker -- you have a smaller reaction if it's quicker and more certain to probation violation. >> absolutely.

at the state level we were backing up on ult multiple violation. woe see results that proven effective and mimic the success they had in hawaii. to figure out who present the most risk and who needs to stay in potentially. and in doing so, -- >> develop the assessment tool. a tool called the lscmi. it's developed and used and not use bid the legislature. it would be a mistake to have us choose the science. the court system has chosen it.

committing offenses on release and showing up to court at the greater rate. we're actually saving our counties who pay for this prior to adjudication pay for incarceration saving them millions. i think it's a translatable as so many offenders await trial. also preserve the presumption of ininnocence until proven guilty. that's important as well. >> within of the -- obviously as a state representative and chairman of your state's house judiciary committee, you have responsibilities to wide array of stakeholders and constituents and part of your community. i remember going around rhode island with the director with a map that showed where people

went when they left the aci or correctional institution and went back to the community. i think we did it by zip code. there were some zip code where had had virtually no impact. virtually nobody returned to the community. there were communities receiving an average land of people coming out of the prison system. and so when you talk about reentry. did you consider not just reentry from the individual oarched point of view and trying to make them more successful to reentry to reduce it. but also what it means to the community. particularly the ones that are heavily impacted on high return from the prison population? >> absolutely. in fact we talked a lot what been referred to as community super vision and community correction doesn't play quite as well. community super vision in the sense you want to direct the

offender closer to their community. and help them reintergrate. as we found when you modify behavior in one setting. for instance, the prison, they return to their home. they immediately may return to the behavior would certain control and certain behavior modification strategy in place. yes, we focused on that. we have that kind of community super vision in place in the bill. it runs through the bill. we're trying to redirect some of the savings, again, to the community so we're not having to find new dollar to pay for the increase in community super vision. it's clearly less expensive. question monitor in some maniuation -- so many ways. we have several minimum conditions. we have over ten of the minimum conditions. can technology with monitor it in so many ways. we are not that far off from the

numbers thrown here today. when you have the substantial savings and the successful reentry. i think the community begin to buy in as well. i know mine has. >> what is the experience of effect of overcrowding in pennsylvania's prison the one you supervisor and manage? >> we're about 109 percent of capacity. i think that the challenge really becomes the decisions on the ground. the decisions with who you put in a cell together. i'm guess if you look at the numbers as we became more and more crowded. i'm not sure that the overall number of misconduct would skyrocket. i would guess that the severe city and in-cell violence because at the same time crowding curred. we got better at the practice and got more technology and camera. but those in-cell decisions and

i think the second area that gets impacted by crowding would be segregation. and historically, without crowding you rarely double segregation cell when, you know, like model 6 the light is always on. you have to find someplace to put somebody. sometimes you make decisions in putting people together that you rather not have to make. as a specific result of crowding. it it's your experience as a practitioner that other thing being equal higher jefer crowding have a tendency to increase violence and risk within the population. >> absolutely. especially if the staffing doesn't increase at the same scope as the inmates. >> at the minimum that require additional costs. >> correct. >> yeah. >> doctor, any suggestions you highlight in the report you think that have particular effect for the bureau of prisons?

>> well, as i already stated, the proposals in our report aren't the urban institute's proposal. what we have set out do is to project the area -- on population and costs. >> which one would you light for us? >> i'll highlight any number of them that you are interested in. the ones represented in the smarter sentencing act, for example, reduces mandatory min numb in three ways. it cuts for certain type of drug offenders. virtually in half. and that alone we predict could reduce overcrowding by 20% in ten years' time and save over $2 billion. it also reduces mandatory minimum by extending the safety valve to criminal history two category. that gives more judicial discretion to deviate for mandatory minimum.

as i referenced in my formal statement, there is a lot of restrictions to our projections. we don't assume that it means that everybody with a criminal history category ii is going to be subject to reduced sentence. there's a lot of jew -- judicial discretion involved. assumed a lot will not be subject to that because of their risk level and criminal history. it would save $544 million. ..

if i could restate it in a single sentence, it would be that you are warning us against either sweeping or overbroad measures that might create a public the cost outside the prison system that more than offsets any savings within the prison system but you accept that if this is done in a smart way and the right way. there is in fact opportunity here to both improve public safety and lower corrections costs.

>> you summarized it beautifully. one of the bugaboos that i have is that we very often talk about these complex issues and treat offenders either as generic like they are all the same or we treat them as dichotomous. we will say they are the violet in the nonviolent ones. if you know the research on career criminals and from a history and specialization one of the things he realize his yes there is a subset of the offender population that are purely property offenders and never commit a violent offense among violent offenders they have a mix of property offenses and violent offenses and their history as was mentioned. so you can't just look at what what is the offense of this particular offender in four and make a judgment about that particular risk. you need to be much more granular and much more careful about this.

>> are you comfortable with the assessment tools that you use in pennsylvania meet that standard and are sensitive to dr. sedwick 's concerns? >> yes. >> so it's doable? >> i would concur. >> okay, very good. i ask unanimous consent which i will achieve since i'm the last one here. the two articles be added to the record. one is a "new york times" article or an opinion piece lesser crimes rethinking life behind bars by john tierney and the other is -- and the inmate population while increasing public safety by our corrections director eight t-wall. the record of the appearing will remain open for one additional week for any further questions or testimony that anybody wishes to offer.

let me once again thank each of the witnesses for coming and lending your expertise and in the case of chairman talley and the secretary you're very long and well-earned personal experience in this area. i think what you have done politically to make these changes happen in your home state are very impressive and i'm sorry getting unanimity the way pennsylvania did but unanimity by one vote is pretty darned impressive. so i offer a lot of careful work into the kind of product would both be unanimous and impactful. you can do unanimous all day long if you wind up with no results but doing something that really makes a change and getting the kind of political support at home and in the legislature is a very significant achievement. i'm delighted that you both have the opportunity and the ability

to come here today and i thank you very much for being here. i think all the witnesses here you are extremely helpful and the urban institute we continue to work with you and thank you for the report and with that, we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

an international agreement that requires signatory countries to provide legal protections for people with disabilities. the senate vote on ratification failed last year by five votes. this is two hours and 40 minutes.

[inaudible conversations] >> the hearing of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. let me welcome our panel is in all of our guests to have taken the time to come here today for this important hearing on the rights of roughly 1 million people around the world with disabilities. let you quickly will come three guests among them tony coello who has been a longtime champion of the rights of the disabled. after she'd him joining us and let me recognize and go podey a multiple paralympic medalist. she is mom been nominated to be vice president of the international paralympic committee and understands it's

not enough just to make the stadium accessible, we also need to make surrounding restaurants and businesses accessible and we thank you for being here or your advocacy as well. i also want to recognize a leader in the disability community. she is in the united states to learn about transportation and independent living systems and having public transportation standards allows her to work independently here in united states and with the help of american leadership she hopes to make that a reality at home as well. so we thank you for your work and we welcome you here. and i hope that what we do here will help you with your efforts. it makes clear what we are here to do. ratifying this treaty will help united states lead in the effort to give every disabled person the opportunity to live, work,

learn and travel without undue e-readers. there are 5.5 million american veterans with disabilities, young men and women who risked their lives to fight for us and now it's our turn to fight for them to have full access and equal opportunity wherever they go. 138 countries have already ratified the treaty but protections won't come automatically. it will take u.s. ratification and u.s. leadership to ensure the treaty's protections not only become a reality but reflect american values. from the u.s. constitution the treaty borrows principles of equality and the protection of minorities. from the declaration of independence at r. is the inalienable right to pursue happiness and from the americans with disabilities act another landmark -- landmark love the treaty borrows the concepts of reasonable accommodation. by ratifying this treaty, we will be advocating for the adoption of american values around the world.

at the end of the day if we fail to ratify the treaty the u.s. point of view and u.s. interest will be marginalized. we have heard from the state department that they have gotten pushback in their accessibility advocacy because we are not a party and we have heard from ngos and asked why american experts are consulting on matters pertaining to a treaty we have not ratified. american businesses the greatest accessibility innovators in the world have expressed the fear that our diminished standing of disability rights could mean markets for extensible goods might not expand as quickly as they otherwise would and in the future our businesses might very well have less success advocating the accessibility standards creating the possibility that the world will adopt standards incompatible with american standards that have proven so effective. in short we need to ratify this treaty if we are going to lead the way to raising worldwide accessibility to the american

standard. as we embark on the first of our hearings from the disabilities treaty i ask my colleagues to look past the fear-mongering some have engaged in this debate. ratifying the treaty will not will determine how many parking spots are in your church's parking lot. our job in this edit is to see through the smoke screens and see clearly that this treaty is about putting american is positioned to help lead the world so that everyone, everyone has the opportunity to fully achieve their dreams and fulfilled their god-given talents. let me introduce senator senator corker of them ranking member for his opening remarks and then we will move to the first panel. >> mischer chairman think you and i appreciate you having the hearing so members can more fully understand the elements of this treaty and i appreciate you having a diverse group of witnesses. i certainly appreciate my good

friend kelley ayotte here today and i have to tell you that meeting that we had last year i think one of the most moving moments in time was when the two senators john mccain and tom harkin talked about what they have done together so many years ago to move the ada law into existence and so many things have occurred since then. i know we had a unanimous vote in 2008 hundred ada amendments act and we continue to make progress. i do think that last year when this was considered it wasn't considered in its fullness. it was rushed and we didn't really have the kind of hearing that takes to ratify a treaty. the treaty had a different standards than most laws with 67 votes for obvious reasons and i'm glad this year we are taking a little bit more methodical approach to that. i do want to say to the advocates of this piece of legislation and this treaty, i

am really -- it's tremendous to see the effort that is underway to move people along in this regard. whenever a bill or a treaty is passed there are some unintended consequences and i think it's our obligation to look at the fx a treaty like this could have on domestic law. i'm not one of those folks who thinks there are somebody behind every would pile trying to do something. i just want to make sure we in fact have the treaty and it has relevancy. i want to mention this vet are here. when a treaty passes there is something on the front end. they are the thing that we actually act upon to give a treaty life here in the u.s.. just today there was a supreme court hearing and arguments are being argued over a --

you unbelievably was convicted of a law under the chemical weapons treaty that was put in place back in 1997. sometimes when people raise concerns they are actually legitimate and i would ask the committee members to try to work with those of us who understand that we want to advance the rights of people who are disabled. i think that's a good thing. at the same time within a treaty unless they are put in place in an appropriate way there can be consequences domestically that affect people in various groups. again i will proclaim right now i don't have a position on this treaty. i do appreciate the energy that has been put forth towards this treaty. at the same time i want to make sure that we as a committee and hopefully in the senate get it right. we have pork already with the

this staff to see if there are ways of making sure some of those unintended consequences don't come to bear again. we have a real-life scenario today in the supreme court were literally a treaty is taking precedent over the loss of pennsylvania and over the united states if someone has been convicted believe it or not under chemical weapons treaty. by the way didn't work for assad that it's working right now against -- so i thank you for these hearings and i look forward to a vigorous debate and especially my friend kelly ayotte's testimony and a good outcome here. thank you. >> thank you senator corker and we too look forward to an honest and open and intellectually honest debate and we stand ready to work with committee members

in terms of finding the opportunity of understanding san declarations and i look forward to that opportunity to achieve that goal. our first panel are going to be two of our colleagues and presently one of our colleagues who is here. senator kelly ayotte who has been a champion of the treaty and an advocate for it. as well as working with us to try to achieve the goal. i know she is here in her own right as well as speaking on behalf of senator bob dole who was a great champion of the treaty in the senate. as i recognize you let a also think congressman bartlett who i understand is here with us on the house. congressman thank you very much. appreciate your being here with us and with that senator and ayotte.

>> thank you very much chairman menendez ranking member corker honorable members of the committee. i am deeply humbled to be here today first of all my primary purpose in being here today is to read the statement of senator robert dole, someone who was an extraordinary leader in the united states senate. he is someone who is a role model in terms of what it means to be a public servant and we all appreciate that he is a chew american hero with a service that he gave to our country. i'm deeply honored to be here. i personally support with this committee is doing. the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities i think it's very very important for us to work together to get this passed, and so i look forward to working with the chairmen and other members of the committee to do that and to address any concerns members of the committee may have. my primary purpose in being here

today is to read the statement of senator robert dole and so i will do that right now. chairman menendez ranking member corker, and members of this committee i urge you to give your support and consent to the convention on the rights for persons with disabilities. while i cannot stand before you in person today i approach you in the strong hope that on your second examination of this important treaty you will again do the right thing and advanced the rights of disabled individuals from the united states and around the world. in so doing i am privileged to join with over 20 veterans organizations, 40 religious groups, more than 700 disability and allied groups, dozens of view on both sides of the senate i'll and many other prominent

americans who recognize the imperative of the united states leadership on this issue. a leadership that will be imperiled without the united states ratification of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. when this treaty came before the senate last year it fell just five votes short of passage. in debating the treaty's merits treaty opponents expressed concern of 50 rpd would diminish american sovereignty. that through u.s. ratification of the united nations would somehow be able to supersede u.s. law even by interfering with american parents right to homeschool their children. along with senator john mccain , secretary john kerry and others i could not disagree

more strongly with this view. this treaty contains reservations, understanding san declarations otherwise known as road that explicitly described how the treaty will and will not apply to the united states. at the same time i respect this institution, its provisions for debate and its tolerance of the opinions and conclusions of its 100 members. today, i urge all of you to keep an open mind and recognize another important characteristic of this body. the opportunity it presents for policies to if all of and be strengthened as members work together in a bipartisan fashion for a greater good. this treaty in a way that is both telling and unique enjoys

the support of diverse groups serving a friday of interest. republicans and democrats, veterans organizations and disability groups, businesses and religious organizations. given that broad support i hope those of you with reservations about any aspect of the treaty will work with your colleagues whom i know are ready to work with you to address your concerns. if improvements to the red are needed than i urge members from both parties to work together on that. this treaty is important for america because of who we are as a nation. it is particularly important though for a distinguished group which i am a member as i recalled in my statement to this committee last year, i joined an

exceptional group one which no one joins by personal choice. it is a group that neither respects nor discriminates by age, gender, wealth, education, skin color, religious belief, political party, power or prestige. so therefore has the importance of maintaining access for people people -- excuse me that group americans with disabilities has grown in size ever since. so therefore the importance of maintainimaintaini ng access for people with disabilities to be part of mainstream american life whether he you access a job, education or registering to vote to me, this is not about extending a privilege to a special category of people.

it is instead about civil rights. when congress passed the americans with disability act in 1990 it was not only one of the proudest moments of my career, it was a remarkable bipartisan issue that made it impact on millions of americans. the simple old was to foster independence and dignity and its reasonable accommodations enabled americans with disabilities to contribute more readily to this great country. if not before the ada then certainly after its passage our nation lead the world in developing disability public policy and equality. in recent years, many countries including our allies in australia, britain, canada, france, germany, israel, mexico

and south korea have followed our lead. in 2006, president george w. bush took u.s. leadership on this issue to a new level by negotiating and supporting approval of 50 rpd. on the anniversary of the ada in 2009 president barack obama signed the treaty, a landmark document that would make countries around the world the firm what were essentially core american values of equality, justice and dignity. the u.s. ratification of 50 rpd will increase the ability of the united states to improve physical technological and communication access in other countries thereby helping to ensure that americans particularly many thousands of

disabled american veterans have equal opportunities to live, work and travel abroad. in addition the treaty comes at no net cost to the united states. in fact it will create a new local market or accessibility. an active u.s. presence and implementation of global disability rights will promote the market for devices such as wheelchairs, smartphones and other new technologies engineered, made and sold by united states corporations. with the traditional reservations, understanding san declarations that the senate has adopted in the past current u.s. law satisfies the requirements of this he rpd. indeed as president h.w. bush informed this committee last year the treaty would not

require any changes to u.s. law. it would extend projections pioneered in the united states to more than 1 billion people with disabilities throughout the world. president obama has extended the treaty to you for your advice and consent. i urge you to seize this critical opportunity to continue the proud american tradition of supporting the rights and inclusion of people with disabilities. years ago dedicating the national world war ii memorial, i've tried to capture what makes america worth fighting for. indeed, dying for. this is the golden thread that runs throughout the tapestry of our nationhood i said. the dignity of every life, the

possibility of every line, the divinity of every soul. i know many of you share this sentiment and i hope you will consider this treaty through that lens. in ratifying this treaty we can affirm new goals for americans with disabilities. i urge you to support the united states ratification of this important treaty and i thank you for the courtesy of your consideration. god bless america. >> thank you senator ayotte and for your own advocacy as well as our thanks to senator dold for his long-standing advocacy in this regard. so we appreciate you coming before the committee to express his sentiments. >> thank you chairman moonves ranking member corker and i'm deeply honored to be here as well with my colleague senator mark kirk.

>> which we will turn to next. welcome to the committee a friend, a colleague senator curt i know that senator durbin wants to be recognized and welcome his colleague from illinois. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i will be very brief. the history of the united states senate and congress are written about the year 2013. there were high points and low points but one of the highest points was january 3 of this year because it was on january 3 when our colleague mark kirk returned to the united states senate determined to climb those 45 steps in the senate. he had endured a life-threatening stroke, three brain surgeries, hundreds of hours of rehabilitation but he was coming back to his job in washington. for all of the negative and partisan things that are said, if someone could have witnessed

that scene on the steps and watched your colleagues mark stand and applaud, colleagues of both political partners it was a reaffirmation not only of what the senate really should be about but also a tribute to you. your determination and your courage. i was honored to come up the stairs with you and honored still to serve as my fellow colleague from illinois. i will introduce the congresswoman when she is on the next panel but thank you very much. >> senator kirk the floor is yours. if you would just turn your microphone on. >> i would like to also say as they have recently disabled american to speak for how important this issue is and to adopt this convention. i would say i want to introduce you to a constituent of senator durbin's and mine. steve august. he is a veteran of iraq and lost

his sight in battle in that country. 27 years old. i want you to think about him as too often we have a problem in thinking of our veterans as -- they are victors. steve is a rock climber and he is one of those big year's that candy and i see all the time. we rehab a lot. we were in that room working all the time is about 20 legs or arms missing for those guys. you cannot hold those guys back in this convention allows people to go and become victors instead of victims. ..