subsidizing homeownership. >> christopher hitchens, anne applebaum and gretchen morgenson are a few of the 41 and teaching stories in c-span's "sundays at eight" now available at your favorite bookseller. >> here's some of the highlights for this weekend.

>> and let us know what you think of the programs you're watching. calls you're watching. call set to zero to 663400 or e-mail us at comments at c-span.org. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> the house judiciary committee over-criminalization task force recently debated whether to reform the prosecution and sentencing of criminals and specifically focused on whether or not to eliminate or reduce mandatory minimum sentences in certain cases. witnesses included former assistant u.s. attorney eric evenson and bryan stevenson with the equal justice initiative. this is just under two hours. >> the over concession task hearing will come to order. without objection the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the task force at anytime. we will welcome our witnesses today. mr. william otis is an adjunct

professor at georgetown law. he has held a number of positions in the federal government, chief of the appellate division, u.s. attorney's office for the eastern district of virginia. counselor to the administrative drug enforcement administration, a special counsel to the president george h. w. bush. he's written several op-ed pieces on criminal law for "usa today," forbes, the "washington post" and u.s. news and world report. he's been interviewed and quoted by "the new york times" and "the wall street journal," has testified as an expert witness before congress, has appeared on ferries network programs and is a contributor to the blogs crime, consequences and powerline. mr. otis outgained his undergraduate degree at the university of north carolina at his juris doctorate at stanford law school. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from north carolina, to introduce our second witness.

>> mr. chairman, it's my pleasure today to introduce a leader in this battle fighting against drug crimes. former assistant united states attorney eric evenson is here today. mr. evenson retired december last year after more than two decades as a federal prosecutor, and after significant experience as a prosecutor in the state courts of north carolina. he served as an assistant district attorney for a number of years in both greensboro and the revered his perspective as a front-line federal prosecutor i think will be invaluable to the task force consideration of federal penalties. i came today -- the first assessing estates attorney in the eastern district of north carolina when i joined the office in 2002, eric was already leaving our organized crime drug enforcement task force, as you know the task force coordinate and lead federal investigations

and prosecutions of high level interstate and international drug trafficking. throughout his tenure he grew strong and demonstrate through the tough cooperative and sustained pressure on drug trafficking organizations could reduce the flow of drugs could remove the worst offenders and the drive down the crime rate and makes opportunity safer. under x. leadership our canine unit pursued large number of series of drug traffickers and gained the cooperation of defendants whose information was critical to our ability to infiltrate disrupt and dismantle these organizations. during his tenure, eric received two directors awards from the trendy department of justice for outstanding prosecution, and one from the attorney general janet reno and one from attorney general eric holder before retiring the department of justice in november 2013. mr. chairman, i think erickson expertise and deep knowledge of what works and what doesn't work well aid this committee as it

considers the issues currently facing our country in the area of drug control and sentencing policies. i'm pleased to welcome my friend and colleague here today, i'd hope all the members of the task force will benefit from this perspective. thank you. >> thank you very much. our next witness, mr. mark levin, director of the center for effective justice at the texas public policy foundation and policy director of it's right on crime initiative, which he led the effort to develop in 2010. mr. levin, helped develop the right on crime initiative which was launched by the texas public policy foundation at the end of 2010. it has become the national clearinghouse for conservative criminal justice reforms, receiving coverage at outlets such as "the wall street journal," "national review," "new york times," fox business news and the "washington post." mr. levin has testified on

senate sentencing reform and solitary confinement at secretaries before the senate judiciary committee, and has testified before state legislatures. mr. levin served as a law clerk to judge will garwood on the u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit and staff attorney at the texas supreme court. our next witness, mr. bryan stevenson, mr. stevenson represents the equal justice initiative. he is also clinical faculty at new york university school of law. mr. stevenson 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, georgia. 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. dji litigates on half of condemned prisoners, juvenile offenders, people wrongly convicted or charged, poor people tonight effective representation and others whose trials are marked by racial bias or prosecutorial misconduct. mr. stevenson has served as a visiting professor of law at the university of michigan school of law. he is also 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 of harvard with both a masters in public policy from the kennedy school of government, and a jd from the school of law. so the witnesses written statements will be entered into the record in their entirety.

i will ask the witnesses to summarize each testimony in five minutes or less. to help you stay within that time there is a timing light in front of you. the light will switch from green to yellow indicating you have one minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red, it indicates the witnesses five minutes has expired. at this time unless there is objection i want to offer a statement of our chairman, james sensenbrenner junior, for the over-criminalization task force, know that our thoughts and prayers are for chairman sensenbrenner and his wife with the health issues that she's had for a week or so. and so hearts and prayers go out for both of them. and i have a statement here that i would end into the record, if there's no objection.

hearing no objections that will be so ordered. with that we are -- do you want -- we will turn to the ranking member, mr. scott, for his statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. even though the united states represent only 5% of the worlds population we account for over 25% of the world's prisoners. since 1980 our federal prison population has increased 1000%. the average federal sentences doubled and drug sentences have actually tripled. drug convictions alone make up two-thirds of the increase in federal prison population, so-called war on drugs has been waged almost exclusively in poor committees of color even though data shows minorities are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs or commit crimes. the excess and discriminatory senses are driven out by

mandatory minimums, enhancement and consecutive counts. in fiscal year 2012, 50% of convicted of federal drug defendants were convicted of offenses carry a mandatory minimum penalty the these defendants are not the ones for whom the harsh penalties were intended to they are not the kingpins, not the leaders and they're not organizers of criminal syndicates. rather, data from his sentencing commission tells us the vast majority of careers, street-level dealers and addicts, more than half of them have the lowest criminal history category and as a result 93% of federal inmates are nonviolent offenders. mandatory minimums are the worst of the worst soundbites masquerading as crime policy. they send people before they even charged or convicted. based solely on the name of the code section of the crime. no consideration is given to the seriousness of the crime or how minor april 1 may have played in the crime or whether one is a first offender, a young person

or an abusive girlfriend of the control of the boyfriend. the same code section for example, that prohibits sex between a 40 year old and a 13 year-old also prohibits sex between a 19 year-old and a 15 year-old high school student. obviously, they should not be given the same sentence, but mandatory minimums often our judges to impose sentences that violate common sense. the united states already locks up a higher portion of its population in the country on earth. the pew research on states estimated that any ratio of over 350 per 100,000 in jail today, anything above that, the crime reduction valley of increased incarceration begins to diminish. they tell us at any ratio about 500 becomes actually counterproductive because you're so many people locked up that you're adding to crime rather than diminishing crime because you messed up so many families, wasted so much money, so many felons walking around they can't

find jobs that you're actually adding to cry. the data shows that in the united states are ratio is not only about 500 but above 700, leading the world. some minority communities have incarceration rates over 4000 per 100,000, trading with the children's defense fund called the cradle to prison pipeline. since 1992 the annual prison costs have gone from $9 billion to over 65 billion a year and the rate of increase for prison costs by six times greater than the increase spending and higher education. rates of incarceration win in this country, looking at crime and simple suggesting the main problem is when not blogging enough people doesn't comport with science, data or commonsense. all research shows when compared to traditional proportional sentencing, mandatory minimums waste money, disrupt sentencing

consideration, discriminated minorities, and often require judges to impose sentences that violate common sense. even when a prosecutor, a judge, defense counsel and probation officers, even the victim all the great after hearing all the evidence that the mandatory minimum is too severe for a particular case, there is no choice but the judge's hands are tied and the judge must apply a mandatory minimum as a matter of law. despite all problems of mandatory minimums congress is still trying to pass more even though charlie's 195 mandatory minimums on the books. i believe what they call the first law of holds, when you find yourself in a whole, the first thing you ought to do is stop digging. we have to stop passing the ones. unfortunately, we are violating that rule your we passed a new mandatory minimum just last week in the house. granting judges is -- they the

ones closest to the facts in the players 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 promise act that i've introduced which takes a proactive approach. it puts evidence-based cost effective approaches in crime reduction into play at the community level with full community involvement. this strategy will not only reduce competition and reduce crime but also save money. it will essentially dismantle the cradle to prison pipeline and great a cradle to college and career pipeline. in terms of criminal justice reform we need to focus efforts on distinctly federal interest and ensure that the sentences of a correct lands are being legislated and oppose. we need to ensure that federal

collateral consequences of convictions are not serve as a continued punishment and burden on individuals have already served their time and paid their debt to society, but most of all we have to oppose mandatory minimums enhancements and consecutive counts we can't eliminate the overincarceration that violates common sense and increases rather than decreases crime. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. scott. the chair would ask mr. condit, do you wish to make an opening statement? >> yes, mr. chairman, i would, please if it meets with your approval. >> you are recognized for five minutes. thank you. this is so important. and i welcome the witnesses and look forward to the testimony. but the over-criminalization

task force finally focuses today on what is the most critical failing of our nation's criminal justice system, the continuing prevalence of racism as evidenced by a federal charging and sentencing regime that clearly discriminates against people of color. racism has permeated our nation's history since the beginning. the constitution referred to slaves as three-fifths of a man. the civil war was fought to abolish slavery, and then jim crow raised his ugly head. and the segregation and tactics that followed are a matter of fact. we are now approaching the

60th anniversary of brown versus the board of education, which struck down separate but equal as the law of the land. and just last year, we celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the march on washington, and the passage of the civil rights act. as a nation, we have come so far. we like to now think that justice is colorblind, that the 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 real human failings, including bias. no longer does jim crow and

overt racism rule the day, but rather coded phrases such as policing high crime 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 and enhancement penalties, and the so-called 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, let's

-- i just want to breeze through this. in the last 40 years, the u.s. prison population has grown by 700%, and now accounts for 25% of the world's prisoners. the number of federal prisoners alone grew by nearly 50% from 2001 to 2010. while only 4% of federal crimes carry mandatory minimum sentences, 34% of those in federal prison are serving mandatory sentences. moreover, the racial impact of the federal penalty system is wildly disproportionate. one in 9 black men between ages

20 and 34 are incarcerated. 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 nearly 40% of drug related arrests. these numbers are far worse in segregated and impoverished communities. in addition to the devastating societal cost of mass incarceration, it also results in a massive economic cost. the so-called war on drugs has cost $1 trillion since its beginning, and the cost to run

our federal prisons cost $6.9 billion in fy 2014. before we identify solutions, we must recognize how we institutionalize and normalize racism today. that's 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,

detain, and arrest someone. or many people. at the prosecutorial phase, this bias can be magnified through 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 so-called kingpins and violent criminals do no such thing. their use is now propagated against low-level, non-violent offenders who are disproportionately poor people of color.

the threat of these staggering mandatory de facto life sentences coerces defendants into pleading guilty. they impose a trial penalty on those who their constitutional right to a jury trial. i'm 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 american has, for the most part, ceased to be overt, but the prevalence of institutionalizing discrimination by writing it into law is just as present today as it was 100 years ago.

the question that stands is, what can we, as a congress, do about these pressing issues? finding solutions to unconsciously institutionalized racism in the criminal justice system, and writ large on society, is not an easy task. but there are steps we can take. we can begin by rolling back mandatory minimums and stacking and enhancement sentencing penalties that result in cruel and unusual punishment for what are too often low-level offenses. we can revest the federal judiciary with discretion in sentencing. weekend reinvests the judiciary with discretion in sentencing. not all judges are immune to bias, but in doing so we allow

for the possibility of proportional sentencing, and the ability to overturn unduly harsh sentences due to abuse of discretion. i conclude on this point, mr. chairman, judge poe. >> you have doubled your time and if we do that we will not get through because we are both coming. >> all right. i would just submit the rest of my statement. >> i have weighed getting my statement and offered mr. sensenbrenner's for the record. but with all the discussion about racism, let me make this one point. i was a judge for 10 years. i tried three capital murder cases in tyler, texas, two were of anglos, one was an african-american. the to anglos got the death penalty, the african-american

got life. so i don't always have the appreciation for races -- racism entering into every aspect. someone had raised an issue of gee, since the judge appoints the grand jury foreman who had the leadership role in the grand jury, so i was attacked before they checked my record. i never ever considered raised in appointing foreman for my grand jury's. once they got the facts and found out that i had a much higher percentage of african-americans, as it turned out through the grand jury foreman, not because of race, they were just the best leaders on the grand jury, and so anyway, i didn't find race an issue in my courtroom at all. i would ask the chairman of the full committee, do you wish to make a full statement?

>> yes. thank you, mr. chairman. i am very pleased to be here as the third inning of the oversight, over crimson asian task force following its reauthorization earlier this year. this hearing will focus on the penalties imposed for violations of federal law. as others have already 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 an adequate intent requirement in the federal criminal law. the problems with regulatory crime, the over federalization of criminal law and the need for criminal code reform. the issue of adequate mens rea is of particular interest to me and it is especially significant when considering the penalties associate with while haitians 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 i expected from our panel about these and many other issues associated with federal penalties. obviously mandatory minimum sentences are a significant part of this. advocates for reform to mandatory minimums have argued that these reforms are necessary to ensure low-level nonviolent offenders, particularly in drug cases, are not serving long prison sentences. while 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. however, one ever present her to reform in this and other areas is the repeated actions by this administration to circumvent congress' constitutional role in drafting, considering, and passing legislation important to the american people. as the doj oversight hearing

last month, i and other members of the committee questioned attorney general at length about the holder justice department's persistent attempts to change the law by executive fiat. i do not believe any of us received satisfactory answers but it wil would be difficult to find support for reform if congress cannot trust the administration will abide by these reforms. i can assure everyone that under my leadership, the house judiciary committee will continue to closely monitor and analyze this and other issues associate with the imposition of federal criminal penalties to i'm confident the task force will continue its outstanding work. i want to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses today and to look forward to the testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. with that we are ready to proceed under the five minute rule with questions. at this time, mr. otis, you may proceed. >> mr. chairman, ranking memberr

scott eminence of the committee i'm on the job invited me here today to talk with you speak is the green light on? >> can you hear me better? >> if you'd move closer so we make sure everybody here can hear. you spent too much time getting her for people not to hear. thank you. >> again, mr. chairman, mr. ricci member, members of the committee, i'm honored you invited me to talk with you today about this extremely important subject of federal criminal penalties. the task force is rightly concerned about over-criminalization, and in particular about the proliferation of statutes that impose criminal liability without the traditional requirements that the defendant harbor back into. such statute undermine the very legitimacy of criminal law, which is understood by ordinary people to forbid only behavior

the average person would recognize as wrong. happy to take questions on the subject and have written a few articles about it. however, i want to focus for the moment on a different topic, mandatory minimum penalties. serious mandatory minimums continue 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 view citizens united as one of them. others of you kilo as another. all of us view plessy v. 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 loaded and

directing that for some of polling crimes of strong rock-bottom sentence must be imposed. criticism of mandatory minimum sentencing is often at the heart of the heart of the federal system is broken record but it looks broken to a heroin trafficker facing long incarceration. but the health of this system is properly measured not 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 area has been in the ear mandatory and longer sentencing. would that some of our more vastly more expensive initiative have anything like that success. much of the debate now seems to be driven by two misconceptions. the first is that mandatory minimums required federal judges

to imprison for years some high school kid who has been caught smoking a joint. that is simply false. mandatory minimums apply overwhelmingly to trafficking. trafficking and deadly drugs like heroin, methamphetamine and pcp. the second misconception is that having a larger prison population is per se a bad thing. one might as well say that having more criminals in jail rather than in your neighborhood is a bad thing. when criminals are not imprisoned, they don't just disappear. five year recidivism figures show that more than three quarters of drug offenders return to crime after they are released. if we go back to the naïve failed policies of the '60s and '70s, we'll get the failed crime-ridden results of the '60s and '70s. finally, a number of recent developments tell us that lighter sentencing at the federal level is for good or ill 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 the cost savings and no increase in crime turn out to be true. last summer, for example, the attorney general himself directed that, or roughly the set of drug dependence or from some pending legislation would applaud, federal prosecutors are no longer to seek mandatory minimum sentences. this new policy is effectively mooted a large body of mandatory minimums, and i shifted discretion back to judges. and sensing commission has adopted a to love a reduction in guidelines for almost all nonviolent drug offenders. producing notably shorter sentences and has announced recently that for the first time ever more sentences are being given below the guidelines range than within it.

perhaps most stunning is the administration's announcement of an impending calamity for hundreds and more likely thousands of offenders serving what it used as excessive sentences. in an unprecedented move, the defense bar has been given a broad and proactive role in proposing clemency candidates. with these proposals already in training, congress has the opportunity see for itself whether more discretion and lighter sentences keep their promise of frugality and low crime. maybe they will. maybe they won't. it's 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. >> chairman kohl murder, ranking member scott and members of the task force, i'm honored to appear before you on behalf of

the national association of assistant united states attorneys. i'd like to thank congressman holding for his kind introduction. naausa shares strong concern over legislative proposals to reduce minimum mandatory sentences. in the 1980s i was a state prosecutor, and when we were too drug cases in front of the court, we would often hear the complaint that you're only getting the little guy. you're not getting the big fish. and, unfortunately, because of weak state laws and image resources, ma there was a lot of truth to that complaint. state prosecutions are based on two things. you'd either have to catch the drug and possession of drugs, or you have to catch them selling it. and as a result what ends up happening is you oftentimes don't get the source of supply. that state laws are just too

weak. the resources are too minimal. what happens is that the leader of the drug organization is largely untouchable for years. we all live in communities where people say, why don't they get that big drug dealer? and all the neighbors know that, this is why. because the state laws don't have the leverage that is needed to in 1990, i became an assistant united states attorney. i quickly realized that we focus on a different set of defendants. ones that were selling significant quantities of drugs, enough to trigger what are called minimum mandatory sentences. congress mandated that we pursue these organizations and provided us with the tools, including minimum mandatory sentences, that we needed. now here's the key difference between state prosecution in federal prosecution. sometimes the average man on the street just doesn't understand what we are doing.

it's this. it's called conspiracy, conspiracy law. if you don't remember anything else i hope remember that. i'm going to explain how it works on a day-to-day basis and i will show you where the rubber meets the road. in order for us to charge of the leader of an organization, we generally do with conspiracy law. because they don't sell to undercover officers. are too clever. they sell it to the conspirators who sell it on the street at the retail level. now what do we need to charge conspiracy in federal court? simple. we need co-conspirator testimony. that's how we do it. to go after the big fish we have to have the cooperation of the smaller fish. in every assistant attorney general worth his salt knows this. i will tell you that securing their cooperation is no easy task. they don't want to cooperate. this is hard, mean business.

if the sentences they face is too low, they will tell you they can do their time standing on their head. i have decreased personally hundreds of arrests of drug dealers, and explained to them -- debriefed, in the presence of the attorney the need for them to assist and testify truthfully. congress provided their sentence could be reduced by the judge if they substantially assisted. you see, their attorney has already explained to them that they're facing a strong minimum mandatory sentence, and the only way that they will get a sense reduction is to substantially assist. they have to be willing to testify. now, this straightforward choice of options, designed by congress, and enforced by the department of justice has led to the dismantling of numerous drug organizations in every district, city and town in america.

but without the cooperation of these co-conspirators, 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 pretrial detention has given assistant u.s. attorneys that leverage they need to garner these witnesses and to stop drug organizations. if this leverage is removed or weakened, then vital witnesses will become unavailable. it's really very simple. in essence, reducing the minimum mandatory will substantially cut down on our witnesses. few drug dealers -- fewer of the big drug dealers would be arrested, and we will revert back to convicting only the lower level dealers. weakened by directly from where

we find and possession of drug. we won't be able to convict the sources of supply. >> thank you very much. >> may i just a few more minutes? i still have some time spent actually, your time is up, five minutes is up. >> i'm sorry. i didn't see the yellow light. >> it did come on with a minute to go. >> i'm very sorry. thank you. >> at this time we will proceed with mr. levin. >> we out right on crime are pleased congress examining options for reining in unnecessary federal criminal laws that are probably the province of state governments ensuring as chairman goodlatte said, there's a couple mental state for proper conviction, re-examining mandatory minutes for nonviolent offenses, implementing evidence-based practices in community supervision, preprogramming federal prisoner strengthening reentry so we can reduce high recidivism rates that mr. otis talked about the we are

committed to the tenth amendment and making sure criminal justice matters, the garden-variety street crimes are the province of state and local government. we recognize there has been a six fold increase in incarceration rates from the early '70s to today, some of that was necessary, particularly to incarcerate violent and dangerous offenders for laundries of time. we believe the pendulum swung too far and now we have too many nonviolent and low-risk offenders behind bars. and through developments and new technologies and techniques whether the drug forced on electronic monitoring, risk assessment come with a better ability to supervise more nonviolent offenders in a committee. we have worked with conservative governors, conservative lawmakers across the country to enact successful reforms including many did with mandatory minimum that we are discussing today. as in example 29 states in the last decade have reduced mandatory minimums were leading to nonviolent offenses and crime has continued to decline.

one example in south carolina reduce mandatory minimums as part of a conference reform in 2010 and crime has declined dramatically in south carolina. 14% since reducing those drug mandatory minimums. we would argue that we need to re-examine mandatory minutes for several reasons, simply those of course relating to nonviolent offenses. number one of course they can result in excessive prison terms and around is the best hundred of those affected by it are not supervisors, leaders, kingpins. that's only 7% of those cases. instead what we need to do is look at the fact that most individuals affected by federal drug mandatory minimums are exact nonviolent. more than half had no prior criminal record, 84% no weapon involved. now certainly we can also see even outside of the drug issue another example is when somebody has ever had an offensive and

decades ago they can't have a gut on this subject to federal mandatory minimums. there was a gentleman in tennessee who was hunting turkey with a rifle and had minor offense decades ago, ended up with a 15 year mandatory minimum to the federal judge in that case said this in something forced to hand done by this mandatory minimum is excessive. now, of course, mandatory minimums are supposed to produce uniformity but they have not done that and part of that is because of the enhancement the 851, 924 enhancements that prosecutors can file. what we've seen is a cross there is districts the rate in which those enhancements are filed there is dramatically. in one district, there was 3994% more likely to file enhancement than another. another question is really, we have to look at the essentially, the main reason mandatory minutes for nonviolent offenses came into being was the concern that judges were exercising excessive discretion.

interestingly in fiscal year 2013, only 17.8% of the blow guide since his result of judicial torture. more than 30%, drug offenders, came from urging the prosecutor versus substantial compliance and other reasons. judges are actually adhering very closely to the sentencing guidelines in more than 80% of the cases. it's been argument determines are necessary to require defendants to plead guilty. 97% of federal cases are resolved by guilty pleas. a greater percentage of those federal criminal charges don't apply to mandatory minimum resulted in a guilty plea compared to those that were mandatory minutes to apply. we sorely don't want to have unlimited discretion. in texas we have sentencing ranges are very scribes, 18 states have sentencing guidelines. it does need to be some pressure on judges so i think it's a false dichotomy that we just have to go back to her judges

can decide on any sentence willy-nilly. let me address a couple other issues. we still talk with people going to prison for a long time when they crack the study was near in 2010 those are subsequent convicted of crack case received and averaged federal presence at the 97 months, real-time. let me conclude by saying we would urge congress to rein in over-criminalization by consolidating all the federal criminal laws in one code, adopting a role of construction that applies a strong raise -- winners to object an original interpretations of a statute, the one saving the defendant should prevail. and, finally, making sure that agencies cannot unilaterally enact criminal penalties on regulations where without the express approval of congress. >> the gentleman's time has expired. thank you very much. mr. stephenson, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to express my gratitude to appear before you today. i want to contextualize just how

serious a problem of over-criminalization, overincarceration is. there are new reports, one punished by the national law project on by the brennan center that now estimate that 68 million americans, 68 million have criminal records. that is, ma they have been arrested, fingerprinted and are subject to all of the restrictions that come with having a criminal record. most of this dramatic increase as a consequence of a policy choice we made 30 years ago to treat drug addiction and drug possession as a crime problem rather than a health care problem. many of our allies across the globe have actually made a different choice and have seen dramatic reduction in to addiction and drug abuser we've seen the opposite. the consequence of that choice is what has put states in great crisis. i like to urge the task force to look to the states or leadership on these issues. as my colleague is mentioned,

the states that had to do with the consequences of over-criminalization, the cost. $6 billion in jail from prisons in 1980, $80 billion today. many state governments found themselves sitting there state budget bankrupt by this thing has been directed to jail from prisons. they couldn't spend on public safety, couldn't spend on health and human services. so they had made the difficult decision to retreat from mandatory minimum sentencing from overincarceration. what i think is important about what they can do just is that as was indicated, 29 states have eliminated these laws are restricted these laws and have seen their crime rates fall. have seen their budgets improve. and i think that lesson is an important lesson for this task force. there are a bunch of concerns that need to be addressed. number one, when we have mandatory minimum sentences, we do not eliminate discretion. there is this theory that we were going to solve inequality and sentencing by taking

discretion away from judges. what we do with mandatory minimum sentencing is shifted from the judge and give it to the prosecutor. i have a great deal of respect for my friends, men and women were to just attorneys across this country. but all of us bring biases into this process. to empower any agent, any agent to exercise the kind of power that now exists with no transparency, no accountability, i think creates the kind of destruction that we have seen. i want to emphasize that the oval majority of people in the federal system serving long sentences for mandatory minimum sentences are not the king pins i agree with the colleagues. if you want to go after these kingpins, i don't have any concerns with that. but the u.s. sentencing commission estimates that two-thirds of the people serving the sentences are low-level or mid-level offenders. it is a bad consequence that i think we can address by reform. paper -- their particular problems i think reflected by what we're doing be on the cost,

guy the challenges that are being treated. one is the effect were having on communities. i'm disturbed by the fact i going to commute is why talk to 13 and 14 the kids who expect to go to jail or prison to get in of the kind of data that we have for example, one in three black kids expected to go to jail. you can't have it did without it having very serious collateral consequences. many other to suggest we are pushing people into crime lifestyles and drug lifestyles and to other lifestyles because there is this hopelessness. that comes from the successive come extreme misguided senses. there are vulnerable groups i want to emphasize. the rate of women going to prison has increased 700%. children come with actual that federal statutes that allow the prosecution of children as young as 13 to be subject to life sentences. some for behaviors that do not reflect a series crime category. and veterans come with a growing population of men and women who served abroad to come back with

trauma, come back with drug addiction, with a lot of disabilities and because our mandatory minimum schemes we are not authorized to account for their service. we don't have the discretion to account for the. that creates very, very disparate outcomes, unfair outcomes, unjust outcomes. i want to emphasize two things. one, there are 17 states that have reduced these mandatory minimum statutes and have seen their crime rates fall. i think we should look to the states for the reductions and adjustments that need to be me. the last thing i want to emphasize is that we are at the moment in american history where we have an unparalleled, widespread consensus that this is the thing that we need to do. eliminate these mandatory minimums. when the american legislative exchange counsel was making this recommendation as his the aclu come when people on the right and on the left recognize that we are spending too much money, wasting too much money on an cartridge people who are not a threat to public safety, i think it creates an opportunity for this task force to lead this

congress. the last what i will me, voters of california in a referendum, in every county voted to eliminate three strikes laws and mandatory minimum sentencing. i think that signal is the signal this task force needs to move forward on this important issue. >> at this time will begin the five minute questioning. i will reserve, since i'm going to be here until the end, go ahead and recognize the chairman of the full committee for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and first let me commend all four of these witnesses. i think you make great presentations and you have focused this discussion and debate. the debate. first, mr. otis, let me start with you. in many communities, including many in my congressional district in the shenandoah valley, western virginia, there's been a spike in deaths associate with heroin including among young people. do you believe it could send a bad message to young people to the federal government reduced the across all drug categories

including for heroin? >> i can hardly imagine a worse message. i was appalled the other day when i saw the attorney general give a talk, recommending some legislation currently pending in the senate that would substantially cut back on mandatory minimums without ever mentioning a specific drugs, including heroin, to which mandatory minimums apply. the very next day i saw him announce that there was a heroin crisis going on in many communities in this country. the idea -- >> let me cut you short just because i want to get some of the people the opportunity that a few questions i want to ask. but we have mr. stevens respond to the same question. >> i think we're not going to affect the use of heroin, the use of some of his very series of drugs by creating harsher penalties but we have a disability, the last thing you're thinking about is what kind of seconds am i going to serve. i think we will disrupt the

heroin epidemic identified in these committees with interventions that recognize what works to get people off heroin. that's health care. we have a lot of very successful models that will help achieve that but will not do it through sentencing. >> mr. otis, back to you. you're not in now with the proposal. you have any suggestions or are you simply standing pat? >> i do, mr. chairman. i would actually support stronger reform that is currently being proposed, but it would be reform in a different direction. for example, i would retain the requirement currently pending in the senate legislation that the attorney general this all non--- non-mens rea sta i would require in addition the attorney general to explain as to each of criminal penalties can be squared with the traditional notion of blame and culpability. such explanations would have to include a discussion of why

regulatory violations could not more effectively and fairly be processed as a civil matters. i would eliminate incarceration as potential punishm for non-mens rea crimes. i would require that enforcement be undertaken only by the three agencies that have professionally experienced it. >> let me cut you short because i am mainly interested in reforms. i'm interested in those reforms very much and i would like you to submit those to us. ..

how do you take some of those savings and reinvest them in the supervision reentry programs where people when they come out of prison have to be drug tested and report to a parole officer and see certain people including gang members and electronic monitoring. i hope it is now being used in reentry in washington state so i think what we need to do is make sure and we have people coming out of prison on the nonviolent offenses who are determining to be low risk that we banned in the community make sure they have the supervision so they don't go back to their own ways. >> in your 23 years as a prosecutor how often were the drug trafficking cases brought

within your district where the drug quantity was below the statutory level? >> i can't think of one. >> anybody else want to respond to that? >> the majority of the defendants that were brought in had prior drug convictions in the state court. are they not occasional users clicks >> the individuals that we are looking at were heavily involved with distributing narcotics over extended periods of time and they usually had prior state convictions that resulted in no time or probation extended sentences and when we were able to obtain necessary evidence against that we were able to convince them that they were looking at strong imam mandatory sentences and it was at that point they realized that they

wanted to cooperate. they assisted us and were willing to testify. that's how we build our case and went up the chain and got the source of supply. if i could just say this the drug organizations set up strongholds in the neighborhoods and they affect everybody in that community. we represent the law-abiding citizens. the poor communities of color represent many of those poor communities of color who are sick and tired of that drug trafficker abiding by that kind of behavior in the district. i will tell you one example. we arrested a significant drug involved in violence if you want something for the record to expand on that we welcomed a thank you if the president.

>> they would like to first yield to the ranking member of the committee mr. conyers for five minutes. you are recognized. >> let me begin with the policy director and i want to express my appreciation for this discussion going on here. it's quite balanced and quite revealing. mr. levin, can you speak about states that have eliminated or reduced mandatory penalties and their affect on the crime rate and the guilty plea reflects the cooperation rate? >> thank you very much mr. conyers. in 2000 it eliminated the drug mandatory minimums including retroactively including the subsequent decade the crimes

fell 14% and i mentioned earlier south carolina is another example in 2010 and will back the drug mandatory minimums and seen the crime drop 14% since then. georgia under the governor who is a former prosecutor and his judge one of the best solutions we have babel back the drug sentencing laws about a year ago that penalties on the low-level drug possession and they have seen the crying continued to decline in georgia. so texas where i'm from we are still definitely tough on crime and we say that we are tough and smart and so that does involve making this and for the crying for the drug possession cases as an example if you have 4 grams of drugs you are sentenced to be two to ten years that could be probation or prison. i think what we need to do as the epidemic was mentioned earlier, logical interventions to literally block the receptors to the heroine addict doesn't feel anything anymore.

certainly they are doing large amounts of drugs and they will get heavy federal sentences and we are talking about the mandatory minimums that there could still be sentences by that just before. and no one is talking about getting rid of any mandatory minimums, just recalibrating them to some degree and a safety valve for example and so i really think we have to keep them focused but when you go back on the pattern disparity after that was mayor of the sentence is 97 months but is seven or eight years and a lot of incentive to cooperate and have them be able to tell the judge they are fully cooperating so i give the 90% of the case of the fleet and i don't buy that we need the penalties that are unjust simply to convict a third party. we ought to focus on what is the crimcrying and the individual ce before the court. >> thank you very much. >> so, there's been in effect no increasing crime rate that would then reduce these penalties and

the plea rates and corporations have gone on. >> the federal system is a very small percentage. there's over 2 million people locked up in the u.s. only 10% of them are in the federal system. so i would argue that frankly some of the best things we can do to reduce crime are like policing the data-driven like new york city we can actually be toward the crying by having the police in the right places. with that kind of justice we are getting to the point where a third week of using th we coulde funds for prosecutors and for other strategies. >> is this from the state that you are getting this experience? stated for the federal? >> i am pointing out to you the crime rates are tied to the state policy because the vast majority of the defendants were sentenced and incarcerated in the state system rather than the federal government so i think

the federal government has a very limited effect on the crime rate. >> after the reductions there was no increase in recidivism for those offenders either? >> in texas we have seen the crime rate since 196 1968 and we closed the adult prisons on probation and parole and the recidivism rates have fallen dramatically and it is because instead of building more prisons we took some of that money and put it into strengthening the probation and drug courts and treatment programs. so, i think that the federal government can learn from that. >> let me ask the final question the media chooses how to push away the base of the crying and it can choose the face of a cr m allows one or someon some of coo the law enforcement decides who

to focus on. you show me the man and i will find you the crime. the office is decide which cases are presented for prosecutors and prosecutors frequently decide who is charged with integrating a piece and who's not. are you saying that it is impossible for the unconscious or not to seat into the system? >> of course it is not impossible to get into the system and anyone would say that and would be out of his mind, nor is it impossible for the ideology or the naïveté to creep

in to the judges decisions on what the sentencing is and i would cite a specific example of the rheingold case in new york for the federal district judge imposed a sentence of 30 bonds on a defendant who did not only possess but had distributed child pornography coming and i'm not talking here just about nude pictures of teenagers i'm talking about a landry school-age children in the poses i'm not going to describe. the district judge was so influenced by his own personal opinions and convinced that congress mandatory minimum of five years was unfair and the defendant to six months the unanimous panel of the second circuit with the majority of the democratic appointed judges

reversed him and the only reason that panel was unable to require the district judge and the congress have the wisdom to say for a crime like this you cannot go below that. >> professor, you sound more reasonable this morning than i could have any right to expect and i think you. [laughter] >> i apologize. >> please, don't. at this time, we recognize the gentleman from alabama recognized for five bits. >> thank you. i noticed that there was a general agreement that we ought to focus first on the kingpin, the organizer and i think that we would all agree with mr. evans and that to do that you have to get cooperation somewhere down the line. with that in mind, i want to ask

about the attorney general in august of last year directing the u.s. attorneys in the criminal division talking about title 21 the safety valve you could not charge of certain elements were there and he said if these elements aren't there, then you don't have to charge. one element that had existed before that is cooperation. but he dropped that one so you can deviate even though there is a willingness to cooperate. but, so that's not even taking into consideration. were you aware that there was a change made and he elevated a number of points?

>> congressman, i am aware of the 2013 memo essentially prior to that time but prosecutors were authorized to file what is called in 851 enhancement and every direct case and that is a century if a drug dealer is arrested and he has a prior drug felony conviction they noticed the fire with th file with the t basically doubles the minimum mandatory. this particular tool has been very effective. that is one of the tools we have used and now that school has been greatly modified. and we are not to put the quantities in the indictment which trigger the minimum mandatory. >> you don't put them in unless

they are present. >> the minimum mandatory us are done in a large extent by that memo. >> and cooperation was one of those things that you could consider. but i guess you still can but what i'm saying is the safety valve import into this memo even if they are not cooperating and they could, that's not -- that's the one thing that was dropped. >> you are correct. if you have a dealer without any real record and he tries to cooperate but doesn't come up to the level of the substantial assistance there is no violence then the court can come underneath the minimum and three and now that isn't even necessarily cooperating. >> it goes against that philosophy.

>> typically the charging decision is made before there is any opportunity to assess the cooperation. and even in those cases, cooperation can still be considered. >> if you make the decision before you charge the cooperation became the pen doesn'the campaign doesn'tknow . >> the range of the sentencing is still extremely broad and i think the data would report that most cases -- >> i find that strange that the cooperation is the one that was totally dropped out. to me -- let me add one that is in here that i think ought to be considered and that is the age of the offender. nowhere in these guidelines doesn't talk about the age of the offender. and i think that is one of our biggest problems. you know, an 18 or 19-year-old is quite different from a

24-year-old. a 30-year-old is tremendously different. his judgment, particularly i have five children, two girls and three boys and the boys mature a little later. in most cases. i hope i don't hear about that. but, you know, i can say my 18-year-old 30 after four years had much better judgment. does anybody want to comment on whether we ought to take that into consideration? i think most states are moving in a direction where they are actually reintroducing the age as an important factor particularly when you start talking about the drug conspiracies because what a lot of the campaigns do is they look for young little kids. some as young as 13 and 14 years of age where they have enormous influence over them and the culture it's been into these

behaviors. and right now the judges and prosecutors don't have the discretion to consider the fact that this is brought in a 13 and 14 state for four in five years. i agree and the supreme court issued a couple of decisions that i think would support this congress and task force in taking steps to now advise the importance of the age when it comes to the culpability and sentencing. >> i would say that most of the offenders that recharge or in their 20s. the juvenile for the court is under 18. we have to have department approval. i will tell you we had one drug dealer who was involved in an organization in our district and we hav had to charge him with to murders and after we did the debriefing he told us that he had committed for others. he was 19-years-old. >> i'm talking about a 21-year-old is just a different person when he's 30 in most cases. they are just almost two different people in many cases in particular if he hasn't had some of the supervision that

other children do. >> at this time mr. scott indicates that he will yield. mr. jeffries from new york you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair and i thank the distinguished panel before us. that is consistent of course with the constitutional landscape and the fact that prevention of crime wasn't necessary and enumerating the power given to congress that was left to the state into the amendment. the majority of individuals who are incarcerated in this country right now are in the state system is that correct?

>> above 217,000 on the federal law of prisons. >> the state experience is a relative indicator of what could potentially happen if the criminal justice reform occurs the correct? >> that is correct in the qualification. it is one that i would build on the experience as well as my own as an assistant attorney. the federal prison population is not like the state prison population. the state's turned over to the fed to talk about the broad range facilities and the kind of people that you find in the federal prisons are the ones that the state didn't have the toughness or the resources or the sentencing system to deal with. >> that's 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 the violent collectivity prior to them being incarcerated

in federal prison; is that correct? spin it is correct. about 10% of the prison population in the federal system actually are violent offenders and i think that is less than 10%. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> the premise that the federal system is different in nature and is still with kingpins and mafia and terrorists is inconsistent with the facts. is that fair? >> they've made that point repeatedly and at assessment of who is doing time in the federal system. >> so, i think that it's clear there is no difference between the individuals in the state system and individuals in the federal system. and 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 that seems like a reasonable premise. but does that seem fair? >> there are some differences in the composition but frankly those have lessened over the years as more and more street corner drug offenders have ended up in the federal system and i would also say that one of the provisions in the act would say you could have to criminal history points instead of one and still be able to get the benefit in the safety valve but in order to get the cds off you have to cooperate so that would increase the incentive to cooperate. >> time is limited by appreciate that. 29 states as have been pointed out have limited or restricted the mandatory minimums. i would think based on some of the testimony that we have heard today that perhaps have resulted in a crime wave being unleashed on the good people of america in those 29 states.

>> as we've indicated some states have seen dramatic increases in the crime reduction after the passage of the reforms. >> are you familiar with the rockefeller drug laws that were first put into place in the 1970s? >> generallgenerally but not ine specifics. >> we understood that these were some of the most restrictive, punitive drug laws anywhere in the country, correct? >> i would have to be sure to you. >> is that correct? >> that is correct. >> you said some of the toughest most draconian systems related to nonviolent drug offenders in 2009 and was in the state legislature. what is part of the effort to dramatically reform the rockefeller drug laws? that happened in 2000, are you familiar with that? >> i'm not.

again, based on this premise i would assume in new york stated that a dramatic crime wave as some argued that have occurred as a result of the forms that took place would follow is that what took place in new york state or did the crime actually continue to decline subsequent to the repeal of the rockefeller drug law in new york as has been the experience in every other state that has changed or reformed its mandatory minimums? >> my answer to that is going to be a little bit long but you have to forgive me i'm a law professor after all. the answer is yes in the states that have experimented in this way, crime has continued to decline, but that is because imprisonment and the use of imprisonment probably the most significant factor in the overall decrease in crime in the 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 or police training that our private security measures and better emt care to reduce the murder rate for example, so why ... true that it has continued to increase, the decrease has been a lower rate in this state in which the best example -- >> my time is expired but what we make the observation one of the reasons the states have been able to invest resources in the other areas that you enumerate it is because when you reduce the prison population, you reduce the state budgetary burden and you can actually invest in things that hav the te been empirically proven to the lower crime. i yield back. >> at this time we would move to the gentleman from north carolina. you are recognized for five nights. >> thank you mr. chairman.

mr. evanson, i would like for you to give us some real life frontline context. first to establish in your 20 plus years as a prosecutor ghost of that as a drug prosecutor. how many drug descendents do you think you have prosecuted and who have been prosecuted under your supervision? just a general number? >> i had my own caseload while i was supervising a drug unit. i would say i've done hundreds myself over that period of time, but we have done over those years thousand, and we specifically went after the biggest organizations by using the techniques that i described

earlier. so in the thousands of drug defendants that you've personally dealt with, how many of those were low-level nonviolent drug offenders? >> i hear the term nonviolent thrown around. the trafficking of drugs and violent crime is by its very nature you show me a city with a violence problem and i will show you an underlining drug trafficking problem with drugs comes guns and violence. it's the nature of the game. they don't take their problems to court. they then force it at the end of a gun and any sheriff in my district, they would tell me because i knew them all. i had 44 counties. the biggest problem was drugs and drug-related crime. if they could get the problem solved i don't accept the term nonviolence when it comes to drugs. these organizations are by their nature and basic

>> that drug trafficking is a traffic of the violence. >> i'm just going to see this right now i have an opportunity law enforcement doesn't have a war on drugs. we have a war on drugs traffickers. we seized drugs and arrest traffickers. that's our mission and we represent many of these people in the sport communities of color who are victimized by that. >> i want you to focus on another a member of the task force that pointed out that law-enforcement prosecutors can choose the communities in which they go into and look for and prosecute crime. talk about some of those communities that you have been a part of going into and trying to eradicate drug trafficking. >> just a moment ago the congressman asked me a question i didn't get to finish. we had a community where a drug dealer had been selling for

years. he had a fence around his yard and a high dollar vehicle. he had four of them. he built an addition on his house. he said you know what happened when i drove it down the street? they said they come down on the street and they were clapping. this was a bad violent drug dealer and that is the kind of people that we represent. they wind up laughing. the elderly, the young, the addicted and they have no voice. they have no way to sell their home and move awa away many drug dealeraway when a drugdealer sea neighborhood in the property values drop. so quite frankly the law is race

neutral. we go where the ballot is the hottest and represent people that are victimized by this activity. it doesn't make any difference what neighborhood it is. i've never prosecuted anybody on the basis of race and neither has anyone else. the department of justice does not prosecute anybody on the basis of race. we have to go where the evidence leads us into that is it. >> thank you mr. chairman. i will yield back. >> now recognize the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity and i apologize for being late. a couple of post midnight sessions. i walked into here you say something that was incredulous that there wasn't a war on drugs but on drug dealers is that what you said?

you said they are race natural. nobody denies the fact that they are race natural. the implementation is not race natural and it is racial profiling. since 1865 except in the south that is 1963 than they were not race neutral. but the implementation by people under the color of the law who have arrested eight times more african-americans for the possession of marijuana than whites is not race neutral. is that not a reality? >> congressmen i understand there's a lot of statistics dean thrown around. >> like 99% of the people that believe in climate change and go to the 1%. we don't go back to the statistics. >> i cannot argue the statistics. all i can tell you is on a daily basis we deal with drug agents that are black, white, indian. i have drug dealers that are

black, white, indian in our district and we have prosecuted wherever the evidence led us. a lot of it is the street-level arrest. uniform patrol was unable to stop the problem. it has to be the investigators. they can't do anything in the uniform patrol the picket personal possession and it ends there. >> do you believe marijuana is less dangerous to our society dan meth, heroin, crack and cocaine? in the walls indicate that. yes. >> erewhon is a schedule one drug for saying that heroine and lsd. that does not indicate in our courtroom it is treated differently i can tell you that. methamphetamine is an deadly addictive. >> i agree with you. that's right. >> you may be the best in your courtroom, and i hope you are but you are right you need to go after meth and heroin and crack and cocaine. how about marijuana though? >> some of the most violent

dealers that i have ever experienced were marijuana growers to cause it is illegal and they are violent when the police come and what you try to bust them. so it's not that they are just not violent, they are violent because of the law. >> i've been threatened by a marijuana growers. do they threaten you because it is illegal quite >> that is a different question. i'm just telling you my experience. now they are wholesalers and nice guys. it's how you flip it. you support the mandatory minimums i understand. >> we need those. >> are there mistakes sometimes

when the judge tells us so many times that there are situations where they didn't want to sentence this present life and they may be the third offense but triggered something with a nice woman involved with a man that led her astray like ms. smith who served six and a half years and was commuted by president clinton there will be mistakes but i can tell you our system now is so regulated from the time they appear before the magistrate to the federal judge to the appeals process that every case is scrutinized i would say those kind of cases are rare to every defendant is given the chance but in my experience to provide assistance so that i can tell the judge -- >> she was provided assistance and the guy that led her to it

was in northwest washington state and he was murdered her she couldn't provide assistance anymore so they put her in jail and they put her in prison for a long time and if it weren't for president clinton she might still be there but because she can't provide assistance doesn't make the incarceration more just. >> there might be in a kitchen like that but the hard cases make a bad law and right now it works. it worked to remove a lot of drug organizations in america. >> how do you think the experiment in colorado and washington is going? >> i don't know. >> do you have anything that you want to add? >> i want to emphasize that these exceptions, these extreme bad cases show that in form with the committee does. we have a lot of data that tells us how to look at the system. i think that we need to be sober about the impact of the law in the population.

i'm not suggesting tha that thee debatdebate caucuses go out witn intense but there's a difference in how easy it is to prosecute people in the communities you have to do with drug dealing on the street as opposed to the communities that you have the resources to do it covertly and i think if we do not acknowledge that, we are going to contribute to this problem of extreme racial disparity than the other point i think you are right to emphasize that the way in which our system identifies who is bad and who is violent it's going to be shaped by the way that we characterize and direct the wa wall. it will not eliminate or restrict our ability to go after. nobody's talking about shielding the drug dealers. or the drug traffickers from arrest and prosecution. prosecution. what we are talking about doing is protecting people caught in the web to end up with these unjust sentences. >> most bank robbers are not violent unless you try to stop them.

>> the chair will recognize himself for five minutes. we really appreciate the level of commitment here. obviously we have people that are in the system and i'm also pleased that we have such an experienced group on the task force that have dealt with the law. having been a judge and justice that the state court of appeals we use different terminology so here's asecures an immediate ade reaction to the mandatory minimums in the state we call a range of punishment and it seems perfectly appropriate for the legislature to say for these crimes, the state felony and i was in the felony court, this is the minimum zero to two years

for the state felonies and two years to ten years for the third degree but you add that the bottom level. first degree and then of course if you enhance it with prior convictions, then i think that he was arrested for stealing a snickers at one point and that runs into strange facts when you have someone looking at a mandatory five years because of enhancements. but it seems like we could deal with the areas in which there are great injustices without totally eliminating the floors. most judges i know would be fair and try to act fairly within a proper range. i'm old enough to remember

before the sentencing guidelines back when federal judges actually got mad that they were having the discussion taken away. i was shocked when we started having more federal judges say we kind of like it. we don't have to make such tough decisions on the sentencing guidelines to tell us more of what we wanted to do. but, i cut you off twice when you seem to be ready to proceed further and i've got time anything that you are wishing to illustrate that you didn't have time to do before. >> i just want to emphasize on behalf of the over 5,000 united states attorneys that i read the comments that they provided on this legislation. we had a survey and i read it again this morning, and if you

could hear and see those statements, i think you would be amazed at how profound reducing the minimum mandatory is with the on our ability to do our job we will not be able to go after the biggest drug dealers unless we have witnesses. and as i said this is hard business we are in. we neemeaning of the inducemento allow the conspirators to testify. and they do that. they have to make a decision. it is a go or no go situation. they decide okay my drug days are over. we build a report with them and they tell us everything that they have been getting their drugs from and they are willing to testify. often times they don't have to testify that they are told we don't care what you tell us as long as you tell us the truth. and most of them do and those that don't go off to prison and

i had a lawyer tell me one time he said you know who's in federal prison? those who cooperated and those that wished that they had cooperated. those are the two people in the federal prison. we need to be afraid to negotiate debat the ability to prosecute. we are prosecuting people for the most part we have prior convictions that are dealing witwith the epic and quantities over a period of time that's why we have conspiracies that run one, two, three, four, five years. that is the thing that amazed me when i went to federal court you could charge somebody an agreement that lasted in that long. though of time but the jury gets to see the whole story. it's not just a search on a drug house so that would be our statement. i appreciate the time. >> does anybody else wish to comment on the reflection?

>> i have two comments. one i apologize for interrupti interrupting. one of the things we need to do is go by our experience. he pointed out there hasn't been the experience in 16 or 17 states that over the last few years they have reduced or eliminated the mandatory minimum sentencing haven't seen an upsurge in crime. i would point out two things. he omitted talking about california which does have as many premature prison releases as the rest of the states. the reason for that is california is acting under the supreme court's decision that required early releases in order to release the prison population to take them constitutional. what's happened in california again as many premature releases as the rest of the states a

crime has gone up but that is not accounted for. the other thing that i would say is we can look beyond the experience of the 17 states over a few years and look to the experience of the 50 states over 50 years. we know what works and we know what fails. but we had iwhat we had in the d 70s when we had a unrealistic belief in the rehabilitation and not really a belief in incarceration. that failed. what works is what we have done -- >> the time is expired but may recognize the gentleman. >> was briefly respond with regards to california the reason they found the situation is the policy makers failed to act proactively and that's why we've been working with legislators around the country to address the prison crowding and a prospective way for the democratic process so you don't invite the federal court supervision. so, i think california illustrates why we need to tackle this issue up front rather than leaving it to the

unelected supreme court or other judges and i would also say that one of the reasons i think that we have seen this experience of the rockefeller drug law as you mentioned and the drug in south carolina and other states not leading to the increasing crime is the research has shown a longer in prison doesn't show the race is on. it is in the murder and others is exactly what is needed but the people that have a drug problem and many of these people who are dealing with small amounts of drugs on the street corners have a habit themselves. if we can correct that habit and get them into a productive law abiding citizen including through appropriate supervision after the release we are not investing on the federal level i think then we can continue to drive down the crime rate in the country. >> we recognize mr. scott. >> thank you to the witnesses. mr. stevens, you indicated that the penalties do not affect the drug use. is there any evidence that the mandatory minimum for the small amounts of crack under the

disparity encourage people to instead use powder where they could have 100 times more powder is there any indication people would say i'm not used to crack i'm used to power. >> everybody knows that they are driven by an addiction, by disorder that is actually shaping the choices. they are not worried about tomorrow or the next week. most of them couldn't even tell you what they are and i think that until we recognize that we are going to be misdirecting it would've the resources. >> and if your goal is to reduce drug use you mentioned a public-health approach a lot of countries have actually invested in the interventions and we've also used drug courts they authorize the treatment and supervision. i just want to emphasize the point of supervision that has proven to be very effective. if you spend $50,000 a year to keep somebody in prison if money doesn't accomplish very much but

if you spend $10,000 a year to take somebody that's just been released from prison and make sure they are actually complying with the strict guidelines on the treatment and services and allowing them to move forward to getting a job, etc. not only are you spending less money on the person that you are dramatically increasing the chances that they are actually not going to continue to be a drug abuser and we have lots of data from lots of countries that talk about thesthese public health approacs that have radically reduced the drug addiction and an improved the health of the communities. and i'm very sensitive to the communities that have been hijacked by drug addiction and drug abuse but interventions that are around healthcare models are the interventions that have had the biggest impact on the health of those places. >> is the organization right on crime and take the position that there are more cost effective ways of reducing crime 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 the research that incarceration rates over 500 per

100,000 counterproductive? >> if the cases that you've reached the point of diminishing returns when it comes to incarceration rates and that is number one because you were youe sweeping and too many low violent offenders into prison and number two, people are serving longer than necessary. it's a common -- >> let me ask you a question on that point then. if anything over 500 per 100,000 is counterproductive and the state for locking up african-americans at the rate of 4,000 per 100,000 committed in the community of 100,000 you reduce it to 500 which you start getting any kind of return he would have 3500 fewer people in prison at say 20,000, $70 million? are you suggesting that community can actually reduce crime more by spending $70 million productively in the public-health model education afterschool programs getting young people in the right track

and keeping them on the right track you could just walking up 4500 extra people. >> it's difficult to look at setting up the arbitrary rate and they have different crime rates and so forth. so i would say that certainly once you do, professor steve levitt has written for economic scenes look at it and john signed a letter in the and the principles it was one of the biggest backers and what they've said as we have reached the point of diminishing returns and in fact potentially in some places negative returns you could be using that money to put another police officer on the street doing some of the things they've 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 those hotspots. so i think and as you'v you saie talked about problem-solving courts and a whole range of other approaches of electronic monitoring as so forth and so i

think that without necessarily getting into the arbitrator ask would have to at least because so much of the money is correction but it's going to prisons and the resources are not there often for these alternatives so it is a matter of realigning the budgetary priorities and making sure people don't go to prison simply because we haven't her identity alternatives. >> we have heard that you need bizarre sentences to fight a war on drugs. how is imposing the sentence is that violate common sense helpful to the war on drugs? >> i think that as you have said, half of all high school students have tried illegal drugs and we have to have a broad approach that looks at prevention and substance abuse treatment where there are many advances being made, and i really think that certainly we know that undoubtedly the drug dealers replace one another so simply the problem is too broad to solve just by taking what unfortunately a small number of the total people doing drugs and

putting them in prison for large sentences and as we've said these people are still going to be going to prison on the crack cases even after the disparity was narrowed. we are just talking about -- >> he says he can't deal with these people he is making it sound like he doesn't have any leverage over the people. these people are going to jail to start on bizarre sentences they would be going to jail unfair sentences. >> the last year or two or 15 that last year getting that much mileage would have to what we would be doing with those resources. >> thank you. >> let me comment we have submitted to the chairman sensenbrenner 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

the heritage foundation and liberal and conservative groups joining together but we have a lot of agreement with regards to the issue of the requirement for the issues and it was mentioned earlier we really should have these codified into one code instead of having 4500 or 5,000 federal crimes where a prison sentence was added simply to show congress was tough on some issue when maybe it was a clerical error and it shouldn't have gone that route. there are many things we agree on that we need to deal with and we really appreciate all of your input on this issue of mandatory minimums or what i might call a range. you may have other thoughts when you leave. i know i always do say i wish i

had said this, that or the other. so, if you wish to have -- we provide members five legislative days to submit additional questions for the sizzler additional materials for the record. >> if you have additional information that you think of as you walk out and think i wish i had said that, we welcome that being submitted for review and it will certainly be reviewed. >> i would ask unanimous consent that letters and testimony from the u.s. sentencing commission, justice strategies, families against mandatory minimums, the leadership conference in the civil rights commission avoided human rights on the brennan center for justice, the judicial conference but often reminds us that the judges often are required to impose sentences that violate common sense, the

human rights watch, the aclu and the sentencing project article on the hill will be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> and again if you have additional materials that you feel would be helpful to this task force, we welcome those and the record will be open. >> if i could ask one other question. do you mind? >> without objection. >> mr. otis i think you have the most experience you. you may be the only person here older than me. [laughter] >> i know it's all relative. you've been doing this for a long time and you were a dea. if i'm wrong in my opinion, tell me but from what i see the drug war over all those years hasn't changed at all as far as american appetite for drugs,

american appetite for marijuana, crack cocaine, meth, whatever, ecstasy dot c. coffin, whatever and the process has been missing. mandatory minimums, put them in jail. it hasn't worked. is the system basically in the same place? do you feel like a rat going along in the cylinder? don't you think we ought to come out of it and say after 40 years don't we need a new theory or a new way to do this? >> with the statistics show is drug crimes are intimately related with other kind of crimes like property crimes and crimes of violence and we know from the statistic those crimes have gone down substantially so i don't think it's correct to say that it hasn't worked. in addition to that to know whether specifically the drug law has worked with me to know what the state of play would be if they had not been enforced

and the great likelihood because the drug business has been misrepresented in what has gone on today unlike other kinds of crime the drug business is consensual so there isn't a crime scene and the victim in the same sense that there is another kinds of crime. we have talked about today correctly so about violence andd whether we are seeing an increase or decrease 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 also need to care about harmfulness because the drug business is consensual for example the actor philip seymour hoffman who died from an overdose he died as a result of a consensual drug transaction house almost all drug transactions are the key into the other 13,000 heroin addicts

who die each year are equally bad whether it is consensual or whether there has been violence. we need to stop the harm that comes from the drug trade and the harm that is one of the most destructive particularly in minority communities with what is going on in the united states today. >> would you mind if i added one more thing? with regards to heroin, the purity has gone up 60% and the price has dropped 81% so what we're doing with regard to hear when it's tragically not working. and obviously those who are dealing with hard drugs should go to prison but what we need to do as i said is take a broad approach. there are pharmaceutical advances and recognize the prescription drugs with increasing heroin is far more common.

i hope we can focus on that as well. we need to do it q. e. lewis had the answer only to find a drug that is not addictive or harmful but still pleasurable. we should work on it tomorrow. [laughter] for >> i always thought that's what we called blaze -- glazed doughnuts. the professor wanted to remind me of this, but this is a crime scene and this is in alabama these are two young people that overdose on the synthetic drugs.

i would also like to introduce -- >> without objection -- >> i would also like to introduce a copy of the attorney general's memorandum to the u.s. attorneys that are particularly highlighted where the cooperation is no longer included. the third mr. stevenson said something that i think that we need to at least have one panel of people and that's a healthcare approach and things we can do in the drug diversion treatment addiction and dressing it both as it criminal problem and healthcare problem. and i would think the u.s. attorneys would probably welcome that more than any group because i have had u.s. attorneys and

the da that are expressed to me that they wish more was done on addictions and the rehabilitation because they are really the one who see it every day. >> i just want to make it clear that i think we share the common goal of reducing drug use in america and that is what the strategy would be if they had pointed out that there is a better and more cost effective e way of actually reducing the drug use in america. others suggested the war on drugs is working. i think it is shown to be a complete failure. it has wasted money that hasn't reduced drugs and there are more cost-effective ways of doing it and that is what the debate is all about. >> were right. we all agree on that. we want to reduce the usage of

drugs and there have been those that have provided and that indicated in some ways it is working. to explain to each of you we had anticipated having to go vote around 8 a.m. and so we started out under that that's what we were told by the mortal gods on the house floor. when we were proceeding we got word that the vote we were told to anticipate around ten was twice voted thankful that some cooperation on the floor that allows us to finish without interrupting you to take more of your time so we do think you and with that, we are adjourned. ..

[inaudible conversations] >> here's what's coming up: