saw how it became a thriving democracy. a living defense force, a cutting edge scientific community. it was done with you. and nobody else could be more helpful than you. together we can put the region on a more promising cause through initiative in the health, education and science. i hope to educate myself to this world in the years ahead. as for america. it remains indispensable. america is the greatest power in the world today. and only great power in history

that never tried to become an empire you my dear friends are presenting your nation. you became great not by taking. you became great by giving. god bless you. [ applause ] >> america -- america is a force for good, a force for focus, a force for peace. the world is fortunate that america continues. 60 years ago. america looked to the moon to

discover a distant land. today the united states is dealing a major scientific echo to reveal the secrets of the mind. we are partnered in that effort. may i say in my judgment, there may be more to discover in the brain than in the moon. [ applause ] >> ladies and -- ladies and gentlemen, we should continue to work together to advance peace. wars can be waged along, peace calls for a collective effort. i went through seven wars and obtained two peace agreements with egypt, the largest arab country, with jordan, our

longest shared border. i hope that we will be able to renew peace talks with the palestinians soon. [ applause ] >> israel does not intend to go to war with other people. it's against our values. we sincerely want peace. israel is committed to bettering the world and making peace with all of our neighbors. president abbas is clearly a partner for peace.

there were people who thought otherwise, i fear the problem was in my judgment not their own. he spoke bravely in saudi arabia against the kidnapping, against peace. you cannot put fire and water in the same glass. as he is a friend. hamas is clearly not a partner for peace. hamas fires -- they oppose peace, they support terror. finding your way out is hard. but we must not lose hope. there is no better solution than

the two states people, a jewish state israel and arab state palestine. [ applause ] >> peace between israel and palestine can forge a broader peace. a bridge should be built to neighboring israeli peace initiative to meet their initiative. my friends i live long enough to see impossible becoming possible. to skeptics i can say believe me, peace is the most possible impossibility. in one month, i will be leaving my town as the ninth president of israel.

i never gave up on the struggle to achieve peace. i'm young enough to do so [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, i leave you today with one piece of advi advice. it's the advice of a boy who dreamed of boots. never imagined where his blessed life would take him. will you will it, it is not a dream. he was right. looking back on the life of israel our glimpse forward not to be to be. they were too small because israel achieved more than they

could have ever imagined what anybody dreamed for. so i ask only one thing from you. the great united states of america, this mighty nation of givers and dreamers. don't dream small. you are great. dream big and make the world bett better. [ applause ] and your wealth into a new reality, for you and humanity, god bless you all.

and god bless the united states of america. and god bless our friendship, historic, meaningful operation between your great country and our small nation. thank you. [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain standing as the chaplin

of the united states senate dr. barry black gives the benediction. >> let us pray. lord of all, we praise and honor you for using president shimon perez as an instrument of your peace. continue to bless this leader and patriot, who believes that security can be found through shimon. may his exemplary life of courage, optimism, patience, steadiness and perseverance inspire us to maximize our possibilities for doing good in your world. bless and keep us make your face

shine upon us and be gracious to us. lift the light of your countiance upon us, and give us your shalom. amen. >> please be seated. ladies and gentlemen, please remain seated for the departure of the official party and until your row is invited to depart by a visitor service representative. thank you. [ applause ] current and former national security officials will debate homeland security priorities.

this comes as the homeland security department is conducting a review of its strategy. watch our live coverage from the center for strategic and national studies at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. president obama will spends a second day in minnesota and give a speech on the economy in minneapolis. our live coverage on c-span, and that starts just before noon eastern now, a conversation with wisconsin senator ron johnson about iraq. the first star republican joined us on washington journal. >> and we're back with senator ron johnson. i want to get to the topics of iraq and homeland security threats. if i can begin, that is speaker boehn boehner's decision to sue the president over execute action. do you agree with it.

>> president obama is basically governing through executive orders, changing lives. there's nothing in the constitution that gives the president any power to change, amended or repeal laws. and that's really what he's doing. the president is supposed to faithfully, he shall take care to faithfully execute the laws, he's not doing that. by the way, it's not just conservative republicans that have this viewpoint. self-described liberal offices have been testifying before congress, and he said that we are at a constitutional tipping point, this president has crossed the line. our founders were geniuses. they set up this government, we were supposed to act as a check and balance on the other two branches. certainly during my lifetime. it threatens the delicate

balance. >> there is a check critics say, and that is the power of the purse by congress to not fund these initiatives. >> it's a pretty blunt check. the only thing we need to realize is, a third of the government is appropriated. two thirds is mandatory spending. and that's on automatic pilot. even when we had the last government shutdown. i know it could be uncertain, i don't recommend it, i don't support it. the small portion of government actually shut down. most americans didn't realize it, that is a blunt treatment, not one you want to use. and i actually support the judicial system getting involved in this constitutional crisis. the judiciary's been absent. in many respects you can say perfectly so. when you have a president who's taken his signature piece of legislation. he's changed it 38 times.

for example, my lawsuit about the office of personal management ruling, granting members of congress and their staff special treatment under the law. congress debated that treatment. if the president doesn't like the law, i would agree, most of obama care i do not like, he needs to come to congress to change it, he can't do it through executive order. >> what do you make of the president's strategy in iraq. do you support putting the 300 advisers there, and possibly taking the next step of drone strikes? >> does the president really have a strategy. his strategy was one of withdrawal. what was so tragic about what's happening right now. i don't think it had to happen. what is happening right now, was predicted, it's predictable. by withdrawing by not leaving a stabilizing force in iraq, we blew what i think is a historic opportunity to show the shiite and sunni and kurd could

actually get along, work together for shared prosperity, you have that opportunity. the opportunity was only going to be realized if america stayed there, like we did in europe. and japan and south korea. leave behind a stabilizing force, after we sacrificed so much. almost 4500 lives. 32,000 wounded. $850 billion spent. president obama came into office, and iraq was largely stable. his job was to maintain that stability and hopefully increase it. the only way we could do that was by leaving american troops behind. as soon as we bugged out, he started governing as he did, just purging the government of any ethnic members other than shiite, so it created great anonymity, and the kurds are taking themselves up in the kurdish region. that ought to be one of our growls, one of our strategies is make sure the kurds defend their

strategy, defend their territory. >> that answers the why. what to do now. >> well, again, we need to do everything we can to help the kurd kurds stabilize. i'd rather have the kurds gov n governing. what's happening right now, this is a term the wall street journal first spoke, we are seeing an incredibly dangerous situation for world peace. we need help. the kurds stabilized their region. do everything we can to make sure baghdad doesn't follow. we need to protect the american citizens that are still in baghdad, but again, this is a very grim situation. and what's sad, i don't think it had to happen. >> what do you make of the papers today saying that while the president has sent 300 advisers, they're going to be up to 1700 private contractors sent

there, security personnel to protect those 300 advisers. >> we need to protect the americans that are there, we should be reaching out to the moderate sunni tribal leaders, the people that helped us in the an bar province and during the surge and see if there's any hope of putting humpty dumpty back together again. but i don't know, we heard the assessment, it is pretty grim. so what we need to do, we have to recognize that reality, and again we provide stability, we need to do so, we need to really do everything we can to help the kurds in the north. >> how do you do that, attract the moderate sunnis with nuri al maliki in power. >> it's pretty tough as far as the administration has been pretty open in their call for -- certainly a better leader in iraq. i don't think there's anyway you're going to get sunnis

rejoining the coalition government with maliki in charge. >> he has to go? >> if you have any chance of reassembling that coalition government, i'm not sure that's possible. if there's any chance, maliki can't be the head of it. >> to protect bad dad, occurred stan, the kurd region, do you think there needs to be action in syria? against isis? >> we have to recognize that we are in a war against islamic terrorism. and we're going to have to confront it wherever it exists. right now it is certainly in syria as well as iraq. we have to understand that. we had a debate, president obama declared the war on terror over. i don't think anything could be further from the truth. we are debating whether or not we should do with the authorization of the military force. president obama initiallien watted that repealed. the administration came from the committee. what is the administration asking for? does he want modification,

repeal. right now it authorizes use of force against al qaeda and associated groups, i say right now what you see in iraq is al qaeda in associated groups. president obama still has that authority. and he better maintain that authority because you cannot have the effective response to terrorism managed by 535 members of congress. we're going to have to react quickly, this president doesn't seem to have it in him to take the forcible resolute action that may be required. >> we'll get your calls here. republican caller, go ahead. >> thank you for taking my call. >> good morning. >> good morning. i would like to ask two questions about the executive orders. my first question is, isn't this really a partisan issue. and my second question is, how

did previous presidents issue controversial orders. therefore this is nothing new. i'll take my call -- >> i appreciate the question, it's a totally nonpartisan issue. hopefully in the open ed i wrote with jonathan turley will run here pretty quick. people on both sides of the aisle need to be very concerned about this, there's no doit doubt about it. presidential power has been growing for decades, that is true. i think the point we're making right now, and i think what jonathan turley certainly recognizes, is that this president in particular has crossed the line. take a look at obama care. 38 times now he's changed the law. the employer mandate was -- very explicit, says it shall be mandated after december 31, 2013. president obama delayed. that doesn't give you a lot of wiggle room or discretion.

this president continues to do that, and at some point in time i think congress, in order to uphold our solemn oath to support and defend the constitution, we have to defend congressional power, i think that's what john boehner's doing, i support my own lawsuit against this administration. >> okay. >> sherry in oklahoma city, democratic caller. hi, sherry. >> you know, i listened to you and other republicans who talk about the illegal moves that president obama has made, but they can't give any specifics. when you go into a court of law, you can't make up any abstract ideas about how you feel. you have to have some facts. and if you're saying for him to tweet the aca, it's a violation,

the very law that you all hated from the inception, then you all don't have a leg to stand on. i think if anybody needs to be sued, it's mr. johnson and john boehner for wasting so much tax dollars. you all have done absolutely nothing since you've been in office. i mean, absolutely nothing. >> okay, let's get a response from the senator. >> first of all, i gave you a specific example in terms of the employer mandate that shall be implemented after december 31st, 2013. in my own case, my lawsuit is really addressing the fact that president obama has granted special members of congress when the affordable care act specifically said that members of congress certainly can't purchase their insurance through the federal employee health benefit any more. they had to purchase their insurance through these chains and it was debated, actually voted on, that no employer contribution could be made toward bills purchased plans.

democrats in the senate didn't like that, they went running to president obama. president obama said, no, that's a good lot of heat from my democrat senators here, i change the law, and he did so. i've sued this administration. i believe -- because of the unequal treatment under the law, i didn't want it. i did not want that, as a result, it's creating empathy between myself and the constituents, that's a precious commodity in politics, and it's a real harm when that advantage is broken. >> you do have to show personal harm in these lawsuits, when it comes to the lawsuit that speaker boehner is going to file, what's the harm? >> speaker boehner is trying to establish something called legislative standing. there's a couple legal experts that have poz ilted this searry, that at some point in time

congress does have, should have the power to challenge the executive when their powers are being eroded. that's a collective harm that's being done, and i think that should establish standing. and the judiciary has got to be involved in this. otherwise our -- again tripar tide system is going to be destroyed and freedoms will be threatened. >> let's go back to iraq. is isis and similar groups relabelled terrorists, nothing but armed political parties? >> i think terrorists are people that -- certainly they're not affiliated with the nation state. they are not following the rules of the geneva convention as it relates to how to conduct the war, they are committing acts of terrorism. car bombs and suicide bombers. we've seen beheadings, certainly executions without any trials, so these people are terrorists, they're not lawful combatants,

they're unlawful combatants. they're absolute terrorists, and they want to kill americans. they don't like the west, the modern world, and they are really -- you know, absolutely bent on its destruction, and we have to fight them. we have to -- we can't keep our head in the sand, we denied the fact when al qaeda declared war on us, we didn't want to believe it, as a result, powers came down, and thousands of americans were slaughtered in that, i wish it weren't so, i wish this threat didn't exist, but it does. and we have to face it. >> if we have to fight it, as you say, do you support air strikes to fight them. do you support boots on the ground to fight them? >> let's see what this administration's plan is? >> i do not want to aid iran getting greater influence inside iraq. possibly a better scenario would be if we're going to operate any operations, i would rather do it from kurdistan.

we don't want baghdad to fall either. this is an incredibly complex situation. the real tragedy is, it didn't have to happen. >> on twitter, we support dictators then we don't support dictato dictators. do we fight every religious civil war 1234. >> no. but america's role in the world is conveyed hopefully through excellent example. what our values are, personal liberty, freedom, free market system and democracy. and when we are able and where it's necessary, national interest, we need to provide stabl. we should have left the stabilizing force to keep iraq stable. now our opportunity is, let's make sure that kurdistan remains stable. let's do everything we can to support eastern ukraine. you have to look at every

instance on its own merits, what is in america's national interests. one of the problems we have, we live in a global world. and what happens halfway around the world absolutely does affect us, can represent a real threat to our national security. but it's really up to the president who's got the bully pulpit, he needs to make the case to the american public and he hasn't. when it came down to crunch time and he drew a red line. assad used chemical weapons. president obama couldn't rally the american public behind his suggestion for action. it really does. so much of this depends on strong presidential leadership. i'm a pretty small voice. it's the president that we elect to lead in the situation. >> on syria, does the president deserve credit for syria getting rid of most of their chemical weapons that they have winded that program down? >> that was a -- where we had a shared interest with russia, quite honestly, it came at a

real cost. so, yeah, i'm glad that the reported, the admitted chemical weapons have now been largely moved from syria, they're still using chlorine gas, and we really don't know what other chemical weapons may be in syria. i'll give the administration credit for working with russia in our shared interest of removing the chemical weapons, came at a huge cost, now russia has far more influence in the middle east and syria. assad is not gone. 9 million misplaced syrians. obviously destabilizing iraq, and what is happening is iraq is a direct result of how syria spun out of control. again president obama has not caused these conflicts, but there's opportunities for america to help stabilize regions. this president has always accounted -- rarely acted and any action taken has been way

too little and way too late. >> i want to put an issue on the table the children that are crossing over from central america, across the mexican border into the united states on the southern border, here's the headline in the washington times. illegal children to remain in the united states for years. house yew dish yarry had a briefing about this yesterday they talked to border patrol officials. the deputy chief at the border patrol had this to say about these minors crossing the border. >> in 2002 passed under the bush administration of the law, it's the homeland security act of 2002. then there's the human trafficking law passed in 2008 under bush also. that talks about how we treat people that commit a cause, especially the kids. there's a big difference in this. this is not a mexican problem,

it's a central american problem. 75% or more of the people are from central america. how we treat those people under the law is this. you're from mexico or canada, homeland has 48 hours to determine what kids are going to send back to mexico or canada. the way we're doing the central americans, they get them, they process them, they get a piece of paper, the notice to appear, not appeal, but to appear. and then they -- you know, they can travel in any part of the u.s., except for kids are put in locations or placed in foster, so i think in my opinion, we need to change the protocol with those central american countries just like we have with mexico and canada, where within 48 hours, we have to determine whether they stay or they get removed back to their countries. >> senator johnson, that was not the hearing, but that was our

guest here on the washington journal yesterday. that's the idea he's proposing to address this situation. you change the protocol with the season electrical american countries right now so you don't have these children as the washington times says, remaining in the country for years. >> well, this again was predictable and predicted outcome of not securing our border, that's what we're seeing here, is we have provided in a sense for people to come here illegally. and president obama's unlawful executive order, basically he's creating the impression in central america, if you can just get across the border, you're going to be able to stay. so we've incentivized, induced people to come across the border, we do, we provide welfare benefits to nonu.s. citizens. we entice them over. from my standpoint, the first step -- i want to solve our

immigration problem. i want to solve it, but it has to start with securing the border. and you do that across the board, in a number of different actions. you actually have to increase border security, you need to reduce or elimination those incentives. you have to have a functioning guest worker program. 40% of illegal immigrants are here on visas. there's a host of things we need to do. first action, secure the border, then we talk about the other things. i think one of the problems with the comprehensive approach. it lays everything on the table. the borders have never become secure. all those inducements are in place in the comprehensive, and we're seeing the predictable and predictive results of that. i'm not fully aware of exactly what the congressman was proposing there but we need to take action, and we need to really understand what our actions have caused in the past, what incentives are for illegal

crossing and we need to end those incentives and secure the border. >> let's listen to the committee hearing yesterday. >> the rio grande area of texas has experienced an increased rise of families and children from guatemala and honduras. it is difficult and challenging on many levels. to date, the number of accompanied children is more than 51,000. it's doubled over the entire previous year. the border patrol's rio grande valley sector has expanded its enforcement actions against south texas campaign targets and illicit networks, using resources. the border patrol has augmented rio grande valley's cross at the

southwest border. situational awareness and increase its operational footprint within targeted zones. these children are an especially vul nurable population. unaccompanied children are generally separated from adults. provided drinking water, food and medical assistance. while these basic necessities may be adequate for a short term stay. cvp facilities were not designed to accommodate large volumes for an extended period of time. we are working closely with ice, dhs to search resources, personnel, facilities and equipment and supplies to quickly, safely and humanely screen then process children in accordance with the trafficking victims reauthorization act and support the transfer of custody to the department of health and human services office of refugee reset elment. >> what did you hear? >> well, obviously it's tragedy,

and my definition of a real problem, solutions aren't going to be particularly easy, one of the things we're hearing is that it will cost us over $2 billion to take care of these children. and let's face it, we're a compassion society, we're going to do everything we can to take care of them. that gets me back to the main point. one of the things we're hearing is that there are radio ads in guatemala, in el salvador and honduras telling people, send your kids up here, america's a great place. they're going to give you a permission slip and you can stay. we need to counter that with real information about how they're being trafficked as humans, and there are rapes and murders and broken bones and there is this train called the beast, where these children are -- it's the most inhumane conditions. we need to get that information down to central america to combat the other propaganda

luring children in here. for profit, the drug cartel and smugglers. we need to get that information and secure the border, i'd much rather we spend $2 billion on surging resources in the border to actually secure it. to me, that's what we ought to be doing. but we obviously are going to have to take care of this humanitarian crisis as well. >> independent caller, we've been waiting, go ahead, christopher. >> hi, thank you for taking my call. >> i'm a little concerned. there's an issue that democrats and republicans can get around together. i keep hearing about all this infighting and it's very discouraging. but i'm concerned about munitions that are being used in iraq and afghanistan, i hear about soldiers coming back, and they're sick and there's stories you don't hear about them being sick, and the veterans administration scandal recently resulted in resignation. i'm concerned about the use of

deplated munitions over there. i read an article that actually the green zone is radioactive, there are munitions used that are causing cancer over there. so i was wondering if there would be a senate investigation committee into that. >> okay, senator johnson? >> i have to be honest, i'm not aware of the situation, obviously it's something to be concerned about, if there's validity to it, i'll check into that. i am concerned about the weaponry we left behind for the iraqi army that is being overrun, that is being basically utilized now. it's part of the tragedy, part of the grim reality of what's happening in iraq right now. >> responding to what you said earlier about president obama's decision to leave in 2011 saying, senator johnson didn't the status of forces agreement prohibit us from leaving troops behind in iraq? >> president obama had an opportunity and the way i hear the story told by people who were pretty close to

negotiations, maliki wanted to negotiate a much greater indepth strategic partnership long term. and the status forces agreement, was a part of that. the administration wanted no part of that, maliki understood that our generals were recommending a minimum troop level, somewhere between 20,000 and 23,000 troops. the administration came in to negotiate status forces agreement, they laid 10,000 on the table and continued to ratchet down the number of troops they were willing to leave in iraq, down to the point where maliki just to save face, this is what i've been told secondhand, basically threw out the threw out the we can't grant immunity just to save face. as the story's been told to me, this president had every opportunity. if he wanted a status of forces agreement, he could have had, probably had a more robust long-term agreement. president obama ran on the platform that he was going to end the wars. i think that was his primary

strategy. he just wanted to bug out and at the american people, you know, we've achieved the piece. we're coming home. you have to consolidate this peace. you have to stabilize the peace. he didn't learn from history where we had done it in the past and it worked. let's face it, his campaign slogan was hope and change. hope is not a strategy. we've seen his strategy of withdrawal was a total and dismal failure. >> we'll go to melissa next in new york. a republican caller. >> hello. thank you for taking my call this morning. a real quick point earlier for sharon. if you're looking for something that obama did to violate the law, he did not give congress notification when he was negotiating to trade bowe bergdahl for five taliban prisoners in guantanamo bay. that's one thing. secondly, being that senator johnson is part of the homeland security committee, i just wanted to know since there has been a loosening of restrictions on travel in the united states

and maybe restrictions, you know, loosened on visas, would this latest issue with isis, is there going to be a tightening of those kind of restrictions in the future? >> well, there should be. i mean, we need to be concerned. again, part of my problem is this president's putting us back on a footing pre-9/11 where they're treating terrorism as a crime. it's not. it really is far worse than that. the threat is growing. and we need to recognize that fact. that's one of the reasons when we actually are -- when we actually captured one of the perpetrators of benghazi -- rather than say we're going to put him on a ship and eventually bring him in sooner rather than later into the court of law, my suggestion is we should ship those individuals to guantanamo. i've been down there, it's a beautiful facility. people are treated with incredible humanity. probably the best living conditions these people have lived in. talking to the interrogate areas, the way you get

intelligence is over a long period of time. you keep subjecting them to questions after questions over a period of years. that's how you really gain intelligence. if we're going to secure our nation, our best line of defense is a robust intelligence gathering capability. when we have an opportunity to capture somebody and than individual might have intelligence, we need to extract every bit of that to help us fight this war. >> that's the debate over this benghazi suspect that has been aboard a navy ship leaded to washington, d.c. this suspect will be tried in a d.c. court. "the new york times" reports this. that he has been cooperative so far according to officials though it's not clear whether he had been warned of his rights to the remain silent or be represented by a lawyer. >> when i talk to the folks down in guantanamo, the people the expert at this, there's no way you can extract all the intelligence in a few hours or a few days or few weeks.

valuable intelligence comes out over years. and i'm sorry, these people are terrorists. they unlawful combatants. they don't have the right to the trial. they don't have the rights of a u.s. citizen. they're unlawful combatants and we have the right under the geneva convention to hold these people indefinitely while this conflict continues. unfortunately, this conflict continues. >> "the new york times" also reports this detail, that the ship that the suspect is on is made from steel from the world trade center towers. it's mot toept is "never forget." and it typically carries off osprey aircraft and two helicopters an board. >> it seems like this administration is forgetting the lessons of history and we shouldn't. >> we are all out of time senator johnson. thank you so many of for coming on the show and talking to viewers. appreciate it. >> thanks for having me on. >> what i have right here is a partially processed plant that i've cut down into sections that are the right length for hanging.

and then i take off all the big fan leaves. those are sent to the kitchens to make edibles. they have a small amount of hhc. and then these little leaves here are the tight trim and that can be dried and made into joints or it can be sent to the places that make extractions and made into hash and that sort of thing. and then right here we have the finished bud. and this is sent over to cure and hang to dry and then cured in buckets for a couple of weeks before they sell it in the dispensary. >> "washington journal" looks at the recreational use and sale of marijuana in colorado with guests from denver and your phone calls, live friday morning on c-span. >> the house overcriminalization tack force is looking at the nation's criminal code and the consequences convicted people face. we'll hear from a county prosecutor and rick jones of the neighborhood defenders service of harlem.

the bipartisan panel is part of the house judiciary committee and chaired by congressman jim sensenbrenner. task force on overcriminalization will come to order. without objection, the chair will be authorized to declare recesses is during votes on the floor. let me say we're supposed to have an you're and a half worth of votes beginning at 10:30ing to 10:45, and i don't think the that it would be advisable to have the witnesses sit for an hour and a half and i don't know how many members will be coming back after an hour and a half. so i'd like to wrap this up. by 10:30, 10:45. i have an opening statement. i yield myself five minutes. good morning and welcome to the eighth hearing of the judiciary

committee's overcriminalization task force. today's hearing will focus on the collateral consequences associated with a criminal conviction. over its first seven hearings, the task force examined issues related to criminal attempt over federalization, penalties and other issues which affect criminal defendants during oat investigative and prosecutorial phases of the criminal justice process. however, today's hearing will examine the consequences that follow a criminal conviction which may not be immediately apparent during the pendency of a criminal case. the american bar association knows that some collateral consequences serve an important and legitimate public safety or regulatory function such as keeping firearms out of the hands of violent offenders, protecting children or the elderly from persons with a history of it physical, mental or sexual abuse or barring people convicted of fraud from positions of public trust. others are directly related to

the particular crime such as registration requirements for sex offenders, drivers license restrictions for those convicted of serious traffic offenses, or disbarment of those convicted of procurement fraud. however, advocates for reform in this area including our panel today have argued that in many cases, the collateral consequences applicable to a given criminal conviction recognize scattered throughout the code books and frequently unflown to those responsible for their administration and enforcement. this claim should sound familiar to members of this task force since the witnesses before us have repeatedly demonstrated that statutes carrying criminal penalties are also scattered throughout the u.s. code. additionally the supreme court recognized in padilla versus kentucky in 2010 that when a person considering a guilty plea is unaware of serious consequences that inex-bly

follow, this raises questions of fairness and implicates the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. i agree that this area is one that the fantastic force should consider during its evaluation of the over criminalization of federal law. there are several here's where i is concerns most notably with regard to the argument that advanced by many including at least one of our witnesses today that congress should force private employers to ignore employees' criminal history when making a hiring decision villa a band the box and other length latetive initiatives. generally i do not believe that adult offenders who engage in violent and other form of conduct should be able to complain about the consequences of their actions. additionally, over the years congress has repeatedly seen fit to make criminal history records available to be employers including schools, banks, power plants, and other vital parts of

our nation's infrastructure in order to protect public health and safety. proposals such as band the box run directly contrary to that important effort. additionally, as the author of the adam walsh child protection and safety act of 2006, i have serious concerns with any efforts to characterize dangerous sex offenders who prey on our children as suffering from an unjust collateral consequence. having said that, during my tenure in congress, i have been a consistent proponent of efforts to happy reality ex-offenders and lessen their risk of reoffending following release. last year, i reintroduced the hr-347658, the second chance reauthorization act of 2013. this bipartisan legislation which has been cosponsored by the task force's ranking member, mr. scott, would reauthorize and streamline the grant programs in

the second chance act to help ex-offenders become productive members of our society. i want to thank the witnesses for appearing today and look forward to hearing about these and other issues associated with the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction. it is now my pleasure to recognize for his opening statement the ranking member of the task force, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, last hearing focused on the problem of overincarceration and the feed for proportional evidence based in individualized sentencing. the pew center estimates that any ratio of over 350 per 100,000 in jail today begins to get a diminishing return for additional incarceration. they also tell thaws anything over 500 per 100,000 actually becomes counterproductive because you're wasting so much money, you're messing up so many families, if so many people with felony records that it actually increases crime, not decreases

crime. data shows that beyond data shows since 1992, the annual prison costs from gone from about $9 billion to over $65 billion adjusted for inflation and that increase of prison costs was over six times greater than higher education. this hearing focuses on the significant punitive and often counterproductive collateral consequences that obstruct impede and undermine successful re-entry. our witnesses today will share the data that demonstrates that our existing sam of state and federal collateral consequences waste money, violate common sense and ultimately counterproductive to the goal of public safety. just like each of the 195 man doer to minimum in our federal code one at a time, each and every one of the over 45,000 collateral consequences that were written in the state and federal law got there slowly over time. when considered in isolation, a

collateral consequence may not initially appear to be a high hurdle to re-entry and success but taken together, these collateral consequences form a tightly woven web that restricts individuals from over coming the hurds in their path. many of these collateral consequences are born from the worst of the worst of these tough on crime sound bites masquerading as sound public policy. just as mandatory minimum sentences sentence people before they're even charged or convicted, based solely on the code section violated without any consideration to the seriousness of the crime or the role of the defendant, collateral consequences apply across the board into "all convicted felons." for example in the drug context in the fiscal year 2012, 60% of convicted federal drug defendants were convicted of offenses carrying a mandatory minimum penalty of some sort. right now restrictions on your ability to work, live, learn and

survive are the same irrespective of your offense or how long ago it was or what role you played. the consequences you face are not their rowley tailored or even tailored all at all. it's a one-size-fits-all there is no reliable scientific data that demonstrates of these collateral consequences improve public safety, reduce re-sidism or save money. to the contrary, all the evidence is the opposite. consequences of conviction affect agindividual's ability to obtain necessary social services is, employment, professional licenses, housing, student loans to further their education, the ability to the interact with their children and critically power through the voting in the democratic process. all of these restrictions among tens it of thousands of other ones have resulted in lifelong civil penalties that prevent individuals from transitioning

back too society successfully and serve to marginalize and stigmatize those with prior convictions. just as the children's defense fund has recognized secure housing, education and other social services are the best crime prevention resources to redirect individuals from what they call the cradle to prison pipeline towards a cradle to college and career pipeline, so too must we apply the same data to the redirect those reentering our communities after serving their sentences. when there is no hope for a decent job because employers refuse to hire those with a prior conviction, we can't be surprised that some chose to return choose to return to the very paths that led them to prison in the first place. often, there is no bearing, no correlation or no relevance between someone's prior conviction and the job they're pry applying. some circumstances there may be value at looking at the criminal conviction. it makes sense for someone with an embezzlement conviction to be

denied a job at a bank. but what does a 30-year-old marijuana possession conviction have to do with someone getting a good paying construction job? the eeoc has issued guidance that provides that an employer's use of an individual's criminal record of may may discriminate against them if there is a disproportionate impact on certain minorities without any job related relationship. that could constitute discrimination. so although the criminal record may be relevant, could i have about 30 more seconds? >> out objection. >> although the criminal record may be relevant, the untargeted overly broad denial of all jobs because of any federal record may actually constitute discrimination. mr. chairman, i thank you for holding the hearing and look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. without objection, other

members' opening statements will be made a part of the record. it is now my pleasure to introduce the two the witnesses this morning. mr. rick jones is the executive director and a founding member of the neighborhood defender service of harlem. mr. jones is a lecturer at columbia law school where he teaches criminal defense externship and a trial practice cures. he is on the faculty of the national criminal defense college in macon, georgia and is frequently invited to lecture on criminal justice issues throughout the country. he currently serves as secretary of the national association of criminal defense lawyers and previously served that organization as a two-term member of the board of directors parliamentarian, co-chair of both the indigent defense committee and the special task force on problem solving courts and is currently coshare of the task force on the restoration of rights and status after

conviction. platform mathias heck is a prosecuting attorney from montgomery county, ohio. he previously served montgomery county as a law clerk and then as assistant prosecuting attorney. he received his undergraduate degree from marquette university which is a very wise choice and his jd degree from the georgetown university law center. i would ask all of you to limit your opening remarks to five minutes. i think you're all aware of what read, yellow and green means and the timer before you. and even though i introduced you second, the prosecution always puts their case in first. so mr. heck, the floor is yours. >> good morning, mr. chairman. members of the task force. thank you very much. i appreciate your comment about marquette. okay? thank you. again, good morning. i appreciate your comments about marquette university. and i know it's very dear to

your heart. in addition to being the prosecuting attorney for montgomery county, dayton ohio i am honored to be the chair of the criminal justice section of the american bar association which is a section of about 20,000 members which include the whole array of the partners of the criminal justice section and the criminal justice process in the american system. and that is judges, be defendants' lawyers, prosecutors, law professors and other law enforcement personnel. i appear today to talk about the aba's view you have collateral sanctions and how it relates to convictions and also highlight some of the things that the american bar association has done. as many of you know, the american legal system has long recognized that certain legal disabilities or collateral sanctions result from a criminal conviction in addition to a sentence. so there may be a prescribed sentence relating to a crime but attached there to may be

collateral sanctions. or disabilities that are also imposed in addition to the sentence. that sentence could be probation, could be to the penitentiary or a combination of both. these collateral consequences can of conviction include such familiar penalties disenfranchisement, deportation, loss of professional licenses, felon registration, eneligibility for certain public welfare benefits even loss of a driver's license and many more. over the last number of years, collateral consequences have been increasing steadily in variety and severity throughout the country. and they have been accumulated with little coordination in state and federal laws making it almost impossible to determine all of the penalties and disabilities applicable to a particular offense. now, some collateral sanctions or consequences do serve an important and legitimate public purpose. as the chairman has already mentioned, keeping firearms out of the hands of persons

committed of crimes of violence or barring persons convicted of embezzlement from holding certain public interest jobs or deny diagnose driving privileges to those convicted of vehicular homicide. other sanctions are more difficult to justify particularly when applied automatically across the board to a complete category of convicted persons. and the reason is, it results in serious implications not only in terms of fairness and as a prosecutor i can say this, not only in regards to fairness to the individual charged but also to the resulting burdens on the community on the citizens. collateral consequences can also present challenges to the issue of re-entry and re-entry is very important. it may become a surprise to many of you but local prosecutors throughout the country have already spearheaded re-entry programs because we see this as a public safety issue. nonetheless, not all collateral

consequences of conviction are effective. many have no relationship to public safety. and prevent a former offender from doing productive work in order to support a family and contribute to the community. this effect to employment results and represents one of the more difficult issues facing i think our justice system and our nation. the reality is that ex-offenders who cannot find jobs that provide sufficient income to support themselves and their families are more likely to commit more criminal acts and find themselves again back in prison. now, the american bar association has adopted a comprehensive set of principles regarding collateral sanctions. and they have two primary goals. one to encourage awareness of all involved in the justice system process of the full legal consequences of a conviction. so when someone is convicted, they know what's going to happen. and secondly, to focus attention on the impact of collateral

consequences on the process by which a convicted person puerto rican can get into re-entry and become back come back into the community and be a productive member of the community. they also call for a significant number of reforms to the law. number one, the law should identify with particularity the type, severity and duration of the collateral sanses. so everyone knows what it is. now the collateral consequences of conviction project which is funded by the national institute of justice and completed just recently by the american bar associationing is something that was authorized by congress. we started it in 2009. we just completed it and we have adopted and found 45,000 collateral consequences. and again, the hope is that we can categorize these and that everyone knows it's open to the public to defend defense lawyers, to prosecutes and that way everyone can understand what the collateral consequences are,

they're readily available and they know what's involved. thank you very much. he appreciate it. i'll be glad to answer any questions. >> mrs. jones? >> thank you for the invitation to appear before you this morning. we have a lot of ground to cover in a little time. i'm going to get right into it. 68 million people in this country are living with a criminal record. that's one in every four adults. 20 million people with felony convictions, 14 million new an arrests every year, 2.2 million people residing in jail or prison. that's more than anywhere else in the world. as a member of the nac dp l task force that produced this lateral damage report, i had the opportunity to travel to every region of the country and listen to the testimony of people living with convictions as well as to the testimony of many other stake hold ersin the criminal justice system. in northern california we heard from a chief of police who was deing with a significant crime problem arising murder rate and widespread community distrust. as he searched for solutions he

realized that he was policing from a place of fear. that was his term, policing from a place of fear. he was not serving or protecting the community. he was at war with the community. his officers did not really know the citizens they were policing, distrust and fear was the order of the day. it wasn't until he took the time to get to know the people he was charged with protecting that he recognized and appreciating their humanity. trust and understanding improved. and his crime problem began to decline. 68 million people living with convictions more than the entire population of france, we are in danger of becoming afation of criminals because we are policing from a place of fear. 14 million new arrests every year. we are prosecuting from a place of fear. 45,000 collateral consequences on the books in this country. 45,000 roadblocks to the restoration of rights and status after quiksz we are length

lating from a place of fear. the time has come for change in our national mind-set. we must move from the penalty, prosecution, are and endless punishment to forgiveness, redemption and restoration. a great way for this task force to begin the healing process is to implement the first recommendation in our report. a call for a national restoration of rights day, a day every year where we can celebrate redemption and restoration with educational programs for employers, skills training workshops for the effective community, jobs fairs, certificate of relief programs at not cost and no cost opportunities, no cost opportunities to clean up your rap sheet. more concretely, there are four steps this task force can take that will have an immediate impact on the collateral damage of collateral consequences. first, you must repeal federal mandatory collateral

consequences. 14 million new arrests each year wroo, 68 million people living with convictions, man doer to automatic across the board collateral consequences make no sense. you cannot paint with that broad a brush. there is no public safety benefit in stripping people of their right to vote. eliminate mandatory collateral consequences and stop creating new ones. second, you must provide meaningful federal relief mechanisms for those people living with federal convictions. first and foremost, 14 million new arrests each year is indicative of the problem. we must create afternoon news for diversion in the federal criminal justice system. defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges must be cognizant of diversion opportunities and promote them. judges have to be empowered with relief at sentencing. individualized relief tailored to the individual and unique circumstances. the federal pardon process must

be reig vig rated and carried out. pardons should be routinely granted in the ordinary course of business. the process must be transparent and accessible to all. the media must be informed and aware of the process and there should be dedicated staff committed to the regularized review of pardon applications. third, for those discretionary consequences that remain, they must be clearly established guidelines for decisionmakers to follow guidelines with respect to relevancy, passing and of time and evidence of rehabilitation. there should be a presumption of irrelevance for any conviction beyond a certain number of years and from anyone who has shown evidence of rehabilitation. finally, consumer reporting agencies and background check companies must be regulated. rap sheets are not a commodity. we should not be creating a market in the buying and selling of people's conviction records. there are some law enforcement agencies in this country that

sell rap sheets. that must stop. any records disclose the must be accurate. the fbi website which is the main source of criminal record acquisition is wrong 50% of the time. it must be cleaned up and maintained. and there must be an easily accessible no cost method for individuals to check their rap sheets and make corrections or updates. the time has come to end the economic drain of collateral consequences. the endless government intrusion into the lives of our citizens and the social and moral havoc they wreak on individuals, on families and entire communities. we need a coherent national approach to forgiveness, to redemption, to restoration of rights and status after conviction. thank you. i look forward to your questions. thank you, mr. jones. the chair is going to put himself at the end of the question queue. just so in case we run out of time, all of the other members will be able to ask questions

and at this time, well, before recognizing the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, let me say that the chair is going to be especially vigilanten at enforcing the five-minute rule so that everybody has a chance. >> why do you say that? >> i do have a reputation of looking at the red light. gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. >> thank you. plaintiff heck, ban the box has been mentioned. is that where you have to check off if you've had a felony, does that prohibit an employer from considering on an individualized basis your criminal record? >> what we -- first of all, on behalf of the american bar association, the american bar association has not taken a position on that. i think there are discussions that have to be had on that. i this i we're seeing a lot of problems that are associated with that particular issue. >> the point is, if you don't

check off box, it does not subsequently eliminate the employer's consideration of your record but only on an individualized basis and whether or not the record is relevant to the job. mr. jones, do you know, are you familiar with the eeoc guidance on the -- can you say a word about that? >> ban the box, you're absolutely correct, congressman scott. ban the box does not prevent an employer from having an opportunity to review and determine relevancy of a person's criminal record or criminal conviction. all ban the box does is get the person's foot in the door initially. it allows them to have an opportunity to prove their credentials, to prove their ability to do a job. and before and once an employer is in a position to think that this individual is able to do

the job and someone who we would like to employ, they then have the opportunity to review the person's criminal record and decide whether it's relevant, whether they've realitied, whether there's been enough passage of time so that it's not a factor but they do at the end of the process have the opportunity to know and evaluate the person's record so ban the box is not a wholesale preclukz. >> you never would have gotten to the point where you would have been considered if you checked the box, your application would have been thrown in the trash. when you talk about collateral consequences a couple things that haven't been mentioned is the total waste of money. california many years ago spent a lot more money on higher education than prisons. now prisons have exceeded by a large margin what they're spending on higher education. so the waste of money crowds out things and that is a collateral consequence of overincarceration and children with parents in

prison are also at high risk. just very briefly, prosecution heck, can you tell me whether the automatic across account board collateral consequences help keep people from coming to jail or add to coming back to jail? for example, collateral consequence on employment making it more difficult to get a job, does that help or hurt in terms of re-sidism? >> i think it's counterproductive to what we're trying to do. i think that across the board, any type of across the board sanction without looking at the particular offense and the particular offender is counterproductive. >> what about education? >> well, education is the same way. it's interesting in ohio, we have dealt with that and the legislature has over the last year. there are a number of alternatives that we now offer to prison. and i mean, a number of different alternatives that they have to try because again, it

makes no sense when we're talking about re-entry, most of the individual who's go to the penlt are going to be released. so i think we have to look at that on the front end rather than say what are we going to do after they're released. >> if you cut back on your right to get an education, education has been studied over and over again. more education you get, the less likely you are to come back denying somebody an education seems to be clearly counterproductive. >> absolutely. >>. >> what about have you studied the implications of the right to vote in terms of re-sidrism? the project that the american bar association just completed looked into as a ca collateral consequence. again, i see no reason why someone is not restored to the right to vote. that is a to me a fundamental right, personally as well as the american bar association that should be respected and i think they should be restored. >> mr. jones, have you done any studies to show the impact on recidivism for any of these things i've mentioned?

>> certainly when you disenfranchise and youent wa to enfranchise people. you don't want to take away their right to vote or their sense of participation in the democratic process. with respect to the money that the government spends on educating people to hold any kind of license to be a barber, for example, it makes no sense to educate someone and to give them a license to be a barber to pay for that and then when they get out, tell them they can't do that job. it's counterproductive and it absolutely leads to frustration and recidivism. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from the alabama, mr. bacchus. >> thank you, mr. chairman. one statement here in mr. jones' testimony is even with conviction records the well documented failure states record when charges are dismissed or records sealed and the failure

of private of the data company to keep accurate records hurts millions of individuals. you know, that's a little separate situation, but is that a big problem too? >> that is a big problem, particularly when people are being denied opportunities without even having a conviction, merely the arrest is enough in many cases to deny a person the opportunity. certainly when records are not updated someone has received a certificate of relief from disability, someone has been pardoned, those things are not added to the record and are not known. it hurts the person right off the bat because all we're seeing is an arrest and many times not even an arrest that leads to conviction that is denying people opportunities. >> what if you know the fact act has certain strict regulations on what can be reported in a background check. is that violated and what's the

process for combating that? do you know? or under the ec? >> it is frequently violated particularly in an age where you can get almost anything with a mouse click or a keystroke. so frequently, employers and other decisionmakers landlords are making decisions on less than accurate information and often inaccurate information. and really there needs to be much greater limited access to these records, much greater regulation over the records. opportunities for people to update and correct inaccurate information in their rap sheets, all of these things need to much stricter guidelines limited access and an opportunity at no cost for people to correct mistakesing in their conviction records or their rap sheets. >> well, do employers actually

get the criminal record, criminal history? or do they -- or are they told whether or not the person meets a certain criteria? do you know? >> employers are actually given a person's rap sheet. they can buy them from consumer reporting agencies. in some cases they can get them directly for fee or not from law enforcement agencies. so the access an employer or the decisionmaker has to a person's complete criminal rap sheet is far too loose and easily available. >> all right. >> and they have them. >> i'm a cosponsor for legislation with plaintiff sensenbrenner and others, mr. scott of the second chance act which helps state and local government agencies and community organizations improve prisoner re-entry nationwide. do any of you have any comments on the second chance act and how it might help? >> well, again, i think with

comments that have already been made, prosecutors around the country are certainly supporting and vin started re-entry programs. i think it's so important. i think without looking up front of what's going to happen to an individual who it is sentenced to the penitentiary, knowing that that individual is going to come back into the community is just develop -- it misses the entire point of what we're trying to do, trying to make productive citizens out of these individuals and help them. to just warehouse individuals as a prosecutor i can tell you, just warehousing individuals in penitentiary makes no sense at all. i think we have to be smarter on crime, smarter on who is sentenced to the penitentiary and to help whether it's education, whether it's having someone to help get a job, have employment, have housing when they're released. so i commend all of you for supporting that. >> nacdl certainly supports the

second chance act. >> gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mrs. connyers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want you to know that i thist this overcriminalization panel is one of the most important in the house judiciary committee. and what we're doing is working on ways to get this as much into the legislative mainstream as possible, and so we would welcome any thoughts that you have now or in the future about this. it's that critical. and after the votes this morning, in 2226 rayburn down the hall, we're going to have

personal narratives of witnesses that have experienced some negative collateral consequences. so we wanted to invite not only you two distinguished lawyers but everyone here to join us, if you can. my first question to both of you is, how can we ramp this subject up as effectively and as thoughtfully as possible without overdoing it or creating a backlash or anything like that? if you have any thoughts on that, gentlemen? >> i do, thank you for the question. first of all, the collateral

consequences of conviction project that was funded by the niha and just completed by the american bar association. this is a grant we got and many reasons because of senator hayley from vermont. $750,000 grant. the american bar association because of the immense and the depth of this project invested another $750,000 of its money money and just completed again recognizing about 40 to 45,000 collateral consequences. what we would hope what the american bar association hopes is that congress and the states use this database that we have to identify all the different collateral sanctions or consequences throughout the country in the federal system. all right? and to look at them and say, how effective are they? how relevant are they? retool some. limit some. some have just been over broad or they've applied forever. and so they need to limit some

of those. so we're hoping again that congress also take advantage of this monumental project that we've just completed. and maybe use it and we'll be glad to assist in any way possible. >> well, we intend to. now, what about going beyond the american bar? you know that there are dozens of law organizations and associations across the country. i'm thinking about widening our approach so that we can begin this discussion with them working off of the good initial work that you started. >> well, he appreciate the question. and again, i think your point is well taken. as a former president of the national district attorney's association, i know that district attorneys across the country are very concerned about this project and are very interested in what the results are that we just finished. i know we're going to be having conversations about this. i know state prosecutors

associations are going to having and are always concerned about collateral sanctions. and the effect it has on not only the offender but on the community. >> you're giving prosecutors a great nut description here. i always think of prosecutors as the bad guys that are trying to rack up convictions as many convictions with as many severe penalties as possible. i mean, i think that's -- i think this is an incredible of -- has there been some kind of turn around on the -- have we been making progress that we didn't know about or what? >> well, is congressman, let me assure you that i can really believe i can speak not on behalf of the ndaa because i'm not the president. henry gars from texas is now.

i think most of the prosecutors realize that. this idea of just putting people away, that may have been the thought of some prosecutors many years ago but that is really not the thought today. the thought today is be narter on crime. and to identify those viflds who must be prosecuted and are a threat to the community. >> could i get just a. >> gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas,ing mr. gohmert. >> thank you. and i appreciate your being here. i'm sorry i was late. this is a project that's near and dear to my heart and when ed meese caused and asked if i would participate in something that dealt with the problem that i saw as a massive problem, overcriminalization, something that as a former prosecutor, judge, chief justice has driven me crazy, because i had seen, when people want to beat their

chest and show how tough they are, well, let's slap a criminal penalty on something. and so as you know, we talked about there may be 5,000 or so crimes. they're not in 18 u.s. code where they ought to be as a criminal code. and i had wondered why in the world have we not been able to clean this mess up before. and what i'd heard is that it seems like every time a project gets fired up to try to clean up the criminal code, that it ends up being a big santa claus christmas bag and people start trying to throw more and more in it and then overall, you lose too many votes and people go, i can't agree to that. wait a minute. i love the idea. i was on board but now you've thrown that in the bag. i can't agree to that. and then it loses the impetus and nothing gets done over and over. and so that's one of my concerns

as we go here. i hear from people going yeah, you're right. we've got to stop this overcriminalization and also we've got to the stop the militarization of many of these federal departments and you know, the epa doesn't need a s.w.a.t. team and neither does the department of education for heaven's sake. and we never have as we heard in this room testimony about a poor little nerd that was trying to develop a new battery and he gets pulled over by three suburbans, run off the road, yanked out of his car, thrown down, boot in his back, handcuffed and drug off because he didn't put a sticker on a thing he mailed to alaska with an airplane with a line through it. he put ground only, checked that, but he didn't put the sticker. i mean we need to stop that. and so people are getting that and they're getting all on board and then when we start saying, well, we're also looking into

whether or not maybe employers shouldn't be able to find out if you committed a crime before they hire you. oh, wait a minute. now, wait a minute. this is a very sensitive industry. and you're telling me i don't get to know if he's been stealing from his last job or in this daycare job, i don't get to know that this person has actually molested people in the past? and i can tell you as a judge, i had a case where because of the law trying to protect people, protected a child molester and it wasn't till he molested and destroyed other lives that he got stopped. and because of the way the law was, the juvenile probation department didn't even get to know that he had had these other incidents just because of the way he was protected. so i'm really concerned that we may be getting into an area where we're going too far if we're not careful. weigh lose the steam. let me just ask you guys.

why would it be be appropriate for congress to force private businesses to ignore somebody's criminal history? >> i just want to be -- thank you for the question. i just want to be crystal clearly about ban the box, right? because ban the box does not prevent an employer or other decisionmaker from knowing about a person's criminal record. there need to be clear relevancy guidelines that adhere across the board so that decisionmakers understand what's relevant and what's not when looking at a person's criminal record, and there also needs to be an opportunity for individual to get his foot in the door to be able to present his credentials and his employability but once those things are done, once there are clear relevancy guidelines and decisionmakers know and once the person has had his foot in the door. >> my time's about to expire. i want to get this question in. isn't it true that those who access individual criminal histories are already subject to strict regulation regarding the

use of that information under fair credit reporting act and equal employment opportunity commission. isn't that true? >> that's correct. >> so it's not just wide open already. >> i think there are safeguards. i think there are some abuses to it, no question about it. i understand what he's saying. i do think there are collateral consequences that are appropriate. >> okay, thank you very much. i yield back. >> the gentle woman from california, miss bass. >> thank you very much, mr. chair, and the ranking member for holding this hearing. i think this is such a critical issue for our nation. and earlier this year in my district, i had a town hall and we had several hundred people come talking about this very subject. and it seems like in our society, we used to have a belief that if you paid your debt to society, that you could can be reintegrated. and it seems like part of what has happened over the last couple decades is we know longer have that belief and in fact, you can spend sometime in prison, but then you can spend

the rest of your life with the stigma and not being able to appropriately reintegrate. in california, when i was in the state length late tour, we had a law that said if you were a felon, could you not get a license to be a barber. at the same time -- in our state prison system, we had a barbering program where we taught felons how to be barbers and then didn't allow them to have the license when they left. so we had to change that law and we had over 54 occupations that you couldn't do if you had been a felon. mr. jones, you mentioned that there should be a presumption of irrelevance and you know, the experience about ban the box i completely understand what you mean in terms of getting your foot in the door to even say that it was a conviction from 30 years ago. and it was when i was a college student or something like that because if you don't check that box and then you find out, then you're subject to immediate termination because you've lied. so when you were talking about a

presumption of irrelevance, i wasn't sure if you were talking about that rhetorically or if you actually meant that's what we should do. then i wanted to know how we would go about that. >> well, well, thank you for the question. you know, there are -- there are studies that suggest that after a certain number of years, a person's conviction is a person is less likely -- is no more likely and in some cases less likely to reoffend than anybody in the general society. right? so when we're talking about evaluating a person's criminal record for whether or not they should be accessible to an opportunity or benefit, then what we really need to do is we really need to look at whether or not there is any relevance to the opportunity, what the passage of type has been, and whether or not there's any evidence of rehabilitation and when the passage of time has been such and there's evidence of rehabilitation, there really

ought to be a resumption of irrelevance that the conviction is no longer relevant to whether or not this person ought have that opportunity. >> and i agree with you, but how do you do that? is it a law? do we pass a law that says that? and then i'm assuming that you would exempt certain type of crimes. >> exactly. i think there have to be guidelines that are set out clearlied for decision makers for employers and landlords and others. there have to be guidelines that clearly instruct individuals as to what's relevant and what's not and what the passage of time is and what the evidence of rehabilitation might be. so that people understand and know we're all playing by the say rules. once we have the same guidelines and playing by the same rules, then there ought be a presumption of irrelevance. >> one of you made reference to the fact that the fbi website is the wrong a significant amount of time. and i wanted to know how it's wrong. is it the wrong people are

listed, wrong charges are listed? >> well, i'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, ma'am, except to say that so many times when we have the silver streaks or we have the histories of convictions that many times people who put input that data that it is incorrect. and i think that not only. >> so it could be both the wrong charges and the wrong people. >> exactly. i find that when we're looking at defendants who we've charged in my office and an my assistant prosecutors will try to get a record check, we have to make sure we confirm that to make sure it is accurate. many times the inputting of that data and the way it goes through our bureau of investigation identification is wrong. >> i have a piece of legislation i've introduced called the success act looking at a piece of collateral damage which says that young people who have a certain crime cannot get financial aid.

and i'm wondering if in the tens of thousands of collateral damage examples that you two talked about, are there a number of them that relate to education? >> well, i think a lot of them do relate to education. either directly or indirectly. i think the idea of preventing young people who may have made a mistake from making amends from doing what they were supposed to do and then later in life restricting them from having the educationing that benefits not only them but society makes no sense at all. >> it's very difficult to make the argument that there's a public safety benefit from allowing young people to get an education. >> gentle woman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffreys. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and let me thank both of the witnesses for your system and for your work on this very important issue. let me start with mr. heck. you testified earlier today, i

believe appropriately that automatic blanket across the board imposition of collateral consequences is counterproductive. in that regard, how would you suggest the committee look at or the task force look at how the collateral consequences that you believe may be appropriate in certain circumstances are narrowly tailored to fit the severity of the crime so that we don't broadly sweep into individuals into this blanket fashion? >> and i appreciate the question. i do think that some collateral consequences if they're applied so broadly across the board and not relevant to that individual case or that are individual offender, that's what i don't think the law has been looking at, at the offender, not just the offense, for example,ing in ohio, if someone owes child support and they're not paying their child support, their driver's license is suspended.

it's so ridiculous. i've told my prosecutors who handle those kinds of cases we are not going to ask for that. in fact, we're going to say it shouldn't be done because we're asking the person to pay child support and saying you can't have a job to pay it. i think we have to look at what the collateral consequence is because some are appropriate. >> when we craft a law, who should be given the discretion to make the determination as to the appropriate application of collateral consequence if one is appropriate under limited circumstances? should it be the court, should there be built into the law in some way? should the prosecutor have in the first instance have that opportunity? i don't know that everyone is as enlightened as you are or the prosecutors in your office? who should have that opportunity to make the determination. >> there have been a lot of suggestions made on that. i believe, not the aba, that it should be the court. i think the judges are in a

unique be situation to see what's going on and that they should make the judgment. >> your thoughts on that? >> yeah, i think that everybody in the system needs to be aware, educated, updated. prosecutors, defense counsel, everybody needs to understand at every step of the process, the implication of collateral consequences as we go through the process i do think relief at sentencing by the judge who are able to tailor to the individual and remove and repeal consequences that are of no moment and are irrelevant is a good thing. so i believe relief at sentencing is important. i think all the players in the sentence ought to be aware at every step along the way of their consequences andism packet. >> both of you mentioned in your testimony there were 45,000 collateral consequences which is a staggering number. so that's a difficult undertaking but one that obviously is necessary and i think we as a task force have to

think through how to create greater transparency as it relates to those consequences and obviously take steps in my opinion to reduce many of them. but you mentioneded that 6 million people in america i guess are living with convictions. is that right? >> that's right. that number is growing >> and that 20 million of those individuals have felony convictions which mathematically i gather would leave 48 million with misdemeanor con skrikzs or criminal violations in some way, shape, or form. now, if we are to look at this issue in terms of collateral consequences, has any work been done to look at the consequences associated to those convicted of felonies versus the consequences associated with those convicted of misdemeanors? and is it relevant for us to think through this issue in that fashion? >> well, i think that even just looking at some of the legislation that's proposed,

certainly there always is this notion that you know, first time offenders, nonviolent misdemeanents are more often the subject of legislation, but the fact of the matter is that at some point, of's coming home, right? the vast majority of these folks are coming home, and we need to be thinking about and incorporating and be prepared to embrace all of these folks because nobody is merely the product of the worst thing that they've ever done and we all deserve a second that as you think about how to set these guidelines and evaluate relevance, that you include everybody. including those 20 million folks who are living with a felony conviction. >> thank you. >> gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we need to reject wholesale

demonization of every person who has a brush with the criminal l law. persons who are released from prison should be given a second chance. and we need to enter into a new age of restoration and redemption. these are things that are listed in your conclusion, mr. jonas. and i think that those are very important ideals that we should seek to live up to. oftentimes, it's we ourselves that are the perpetrators of overcriminalization. certainly the legislators are responsible and certainly judges and prosecutors who both are

elected are responsible for, you know, getting tough on crime and throwing the book at people and implementing the policies that we enshrine into law. but i will ask you both, you're both members of the bar. you're both attorneys. you're licensed to practice law. and you know that when a person suffers a felony conviction, and even misdemeanor convictions in many states, they are barred from being able to be licensed to practice law. do you believe that those types of barriers, which are collateral consequences, do you believe those should be removed from persa person's ability to practice law, to get a law

license? >> well, i think, like in any other collateral sanction, i think they have to be looked at. the offense and the offender. i think there are cases, we've seen it in ohio, where those impediments have been removed. and someone who was convicted, say, for example, of voluntary manslaughter or murder, have become lawyers. we've seen it with a lot lesser offenses. and yet at the same time we've seen some cases where someone who was convicted of a theft or a fraud was not given the license to practice law in ohio. so there has to be some type of parity also. there has to be some type of fairness and equity if we're going to have any collateral sanctions at all. >> so you would be against blanket bans on all who have been convicted being ineligible to receive a license to practice law? >> i would think blanket bans do not serve any public purpose,

blanket bans, correct. >> all right. i guess that means what i asked. >> i agree with you. >> okay, all right. thank you. mr. jones? >> i would agree. unless you can show me that there's some public safety benefit that outweighs the individual right for at person to get a law license after they've gone to law school and passed the bar and practiced law, unless you can show me some public safety benefit that outweighs that individual being able to practice law, i would certainly say that you should not have that restriction and you should not have any automatic mandatory bans. do you know of any initiatives by the aba or by any state bar association to address that particular issue? either one of you? >> no. i know the project of the collateral consequences of conviction project did not entail that. it had to do with cataloging and just assembling and identifying all the collateral consequences, which was again a monumental

task. but as far as the particular issue that you're talking about, i do not know of any state or the american bar tackling that yet. >> all right, thank you. how do collateral consequences disproportionately impact communities of color and the poor? >> i think that just like we see, disproportionate as far as imprisonment is concerned, i think that goes along with that. because so many times collateral sanctions are attached to a conviction. so i think that once you see the effect it has on the incarceration and imprisonment, you're going to see the thing on collateral sanctions. i think collateral sanctions especially as it relates to employment, as it relates to having an income and housing, really has an effect in that regard. thank you. >> the answer is, profoundly. there are studies that show that

african-american men who have never been in -- have never had any trouble with the law at all are less likely to get a job than similarly situated white men with a felony conviction. there are studies that show that african-american men are seven times more likely to be arrested for crimes, particularly drug possession crimes, when the usage of drugs in those communities is the same. so the impact of these collateral consequences on african-american individuals, their families, and society, is profou profound. >> thank you. >> gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. >> thank you, mr. chair. these issues affect my constituents in a major way. second chance opportunities for employment is one of the things i hear most from constituents. somebody's had a conviction at some time in the past, they can't get a job. a continuing cycle. but more fundamental is the loss of the right to vote.

and i don't know if this has been addressed extensively by you all. do either of you all know the history of that particular -- those laws? i was reading about civil death, however it's called. civil death. and that seemed to take away your right to vote and everything else. and they described as bar bus and -- barbarism condemned by justice, by reason, by morality, et cetera. we have these laws. does maryland have a law like that, mr. heck? >> maryland? >> yeah. >> i have to be honest with you, i'm not familiar with maryland law. >> which state are you from? >> i'm from ohio. >> i'm sorry, i was thinking it was maryland. they joined the big ten, i'm all confused. >> i appreciate that. >> ohio doesn't have a such a law, does it? >> no. >> it's mostly southern states, right? >> that's my understanding. i've not done a study of that but that is my understanding. there is a history of what you

say, disenfranchisement of the right to vote, again to me is so important, it trumps everything. so i think when you take someone's right to vote away and with the idea of never giving it back, i just -- i just think that's -- should never be. >> mr. jones, are you familiar with any history on these laws? >> you know, i have my own thoughts. but they'd be conjecture. i don't know, but i tell you this. by the history of disenfranchisement, by the time i get back to new york this afternoon i will know and i'll get that to you. >> i think the history goes back to jim crow. i think it was kind of a southern thing. really if you look at the states that have those laws and or had those laws they're generally the same states that justice roberts said no longer have to have preclearance because it's a wonderful world, according to justice roberts. it's just -- it's hard to fathom

when you look at the history of discrimination in this country, and look at it in voting areas where you have preclearance, and those are the same states that put a starlet letter on individuals that says, thou shalt not vote. voting, in my district, we had an election in may. a primary election for county offices. very important. and about 10% of the people who were registered voted. and so my theory is, if people who had convictions in the past were allowed to vote, if they voted, by their simple action of voting he would show they're in the upper 10% of the citizenry. you know? so to say they could -- we do in tennessee have a law which i was happy to have sponsored and passed that allows you to get your right to vote restored without going to court, without having the d.a. come and bless you, et cetera. but a guy in the house, kind of a neanderthal type character,

put an amendment on the bill, which passed, and it said that if you were behind in your child support, you couldn't get your right to vote back. and if it's not something, you know, that's pretty clearly intended to have a disparate impact. >> there are two states, i believe, that this task force ought to look at that allow individuals to vote while they are in prison. and i think that's maine and vermont. and you can conjecture and speculate as to why those two states allow that. but i do believe that maine and vermont, somebody can correct me if it's wrong, those two states allow you to vote while you're in prison. and i think that everybody -- that's right, that's right. >> vermont, which is the other state? >> maine. >> maine. you have to be eating lobster or cheese or something at the same time. i yield the balance of my time, thank you. >> thank you.

we still have some time left, so i'll now recognize myself for five minutes. both mr. jones and mr. heck have said that we should repeal all mandatory collateral consequences that apply across the board. now, one part of federal law prohibits anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing a firearm. do you believe that congress should repeal this law? >> as far as my position is concerned, again, the aba has not taken on position on that. i think we have to look again at the individual involved and the individual crime. so for example, we've had cases, and domestic violence is something that's certainly on my radar screen personally and my office. something just like child abuse that we take very seriously. when we have a domestic violence case i think we have to look, is

that person an owner of guns? or does that person use a gun? i think those are the distinctions that have to be made. i think a broad -- simply designation of someone who owns a gun should never be able to own a gun again i think has to be looked at very seriously. as opposed to using a gun in domestic violence. and i have no problem with that person not being allowed to own a gun. >> so do you think the current law which applies to misdemeanors as well as felonies is a good law? >> depending on the circumstance. >> okay. >> depending on the circumstance. >> so it shouldn't be -- >> i'd have to look -- >> it shouldn't be across the board? >> i don't think it should be across the board. >> mr. jones? >> mandatory, automatic, across the board consequences ought be repealed and we ought to be looking at individual tailoring the denial of opportunities to individual circumstances and individual -- and individuals,

individual people. it should not be across the board, automatic, mandatory. >> i'm kind of surprised. i think the nra would agree with both of you on this. let me ask you another question in the time that i have left. when i first was elected to congress, my wife and i owned a two-family house that was across the street from an elementary school. and we lived in one half of it and i rented out the other half. say somebody came and applied -- was a person who was a recognized minority, applied to live in the other half and i found out before leasing it to them that they were registered sex offenders. could my denial of housing because they were registered sex offenders, not because they were persons or color or protected minority, be a defense in a fair housing complaint?

>> not in ohio. because they would not be allowed to live there in ohio. you lived right across the street from a school? >> i did. >> no, in ohio -- and that's been going on, an increase in the number of feet as well as the number of instances where a convicted sex offender may live. it started out within so many feet of a school. so many feet of a bus stop. so many feet of a day care. so many feet from where children will be. so many -- so that has become more broad. however, in the specific instance that you mentioned, no, because under ohio law they would not be permitted to live there anyway. we've had cases like that. my office has, on the civil side, which we also represent, have actually ordered people to move and have got eviction notices for people, and orders to have them move out because of close proximity to schools. >> so if i was accused of

denying housing under the state or federal fair housing law because i denied them the lease because i lived across the street from the school, in ohio i could go to the district attorney and have him represent me against the fair housing complaint? >> well, under ohio law, we cannot represent an individual interest. but i can assure you we would stand right next to you from the standpoint that that convicted sexual offender should not live there. >> mr. jones. >> let me say two things about the sex offender issue. and if you look in our report you will see that not only prosecuting attorneys who work in this area but also individuals who are responsible for administering state sex offender registries say the same thing, two points. the first is that anyone is more likely to be abused in that

manner by someone within the four corners of their -- four walls of their home than they are by someone who is either delivering their mail or cutting their grass. you're much more likely to be molested or abused in some way by someone who's under your roof. and secondly, the overwhelming majority of arrests in these types of cases are by first offenders. the number of people who are sexual predators who are serial offenders is very small. it's not -- so that these prosecutors and these people who run these sexual registries, what they say is that the residency restrictions that we placed on these folks are wrongheaded and don't make sense and are actually counterproductive because you're more likely to have a problem with -- with uncle sam than you are with -- with the guy who's delivering your mail. >> okay. well, my time is expired. i want to thank all of the witnesses for your testimony and

good answers to questions. thank the members for participating. does anybody wish to put printed material into the record? gentleman from alabama. mike, please. >> i'm sorry. i asked permission to submit testimony in the record from mr. jesse will on behalf of justice fellowship, which is an indianapolis son fellowship ministry, which offers his perspective on the challenges of re-entering society after he served a sentence for a criminal offense. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask that the testimony from the robert f. kennedy center for justice and human rights bernard kerik, piper kerman, lamont carrie, anthony pleasant, and reports from the sentencing project, state-level estimates of dellny disenfranchisement in

the united states 2010, and from a report from the sentencing project, lifetime of punishment, the impact of felony drug ban on welfare benefits, all be placed in the record. >> without objection. and if there's no further business to come before the task force, without objection, the task force stands adjourned. >> thank you. the supreme court has ruled in a case deal with president obama's freedom to make recess appointments. what did the court decide? tell us about the details of the ruling. >> yeah, essentially they said that president obama overstepped

when he appointed three members to the national labor relations board in 2012 while congress or the senate said it was in a recess. basically, the court and all nine justices believe that that was a violation of the constitution recess appointment clause. >> now lead others capitol hill have responded to the decision. we have reaction from senate majority leader harry reed and minority leader mitch mcconnell. we'll look at both, then i'd like to get your take on their comments. we'll start with majority leader reed. he says since the november reform the senate has been confirming qualified nominees at a steady pace and today's ruling will have no effect on our ability to continue ensuring qualified nominees receive an up or down vote. majority leader reed. this from senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. a unanimous supreme court has rejected this brazen power grab. all americans should be grateful for the court's rebuke of the administration. what's your take on both of those remarks? >> well, i think they both have a point. mr. mcconnell is right that this

was a rebuke to presidential authority. this essentially boils down to a dispute between the legislative branch and the executive branch and the legislative branch won, in that the court found limits to the president's recess appointment powers. but lead eer reid is right, at least in the time being, this may not have practically a big effect on nominees. as he notes the senate changed their rules in what was known as the nuclear option. and that allows most nominees to move forward with basically a simple majority rather than a larger number of senators backing that nomination. so as long as the president's party controls the senate, the president is likely to have his way with nominees. >> has there been reaction from the white house? >> not yet. but the national labor relations board, the agency at the center of all this, did issue a

response just a few minutes ago saying that it would now be reviewing the decision and any decisions that it would have to revisit. some suggest that there are hundreds or even thousands, but more likely hundreds, of decisions that were made by the court when it was unconstitutionally structured, so those would have to be revisited. >> so will this ruling then have any impact on past nominations, including the national labor relations board members who were the subject of the supreme court case? or is this only going to affect future nominations? >> well, that remains to be seen. but likely the latter. because at least in the case with the national -- nlrb, those members have been reconfirmed in the traditional fashion by the senate. so there's no issue there. it's -- interestingly, the conservatives on the court would have gone farther to limit

presidential recess powers to only between sessions rather than during recesses within sessions of congress. and the majority led by justice breyer suggested that if the conservatives led by mr. scalia had their way, there would be countless numbers of nominations and appointments in the past that would be now thrown into question. >> you can read ben work at thehill.com. tweet him at ben underscore goad. thanks for your time today. >> you bet. constitutional law attorneys will talk about the impact of some of this term's u.s. supreme court cases. they'll also weigh in on the court's two remaining cases which will be announced on the last day of the term which is on monday. we'll have live coverage from the american constitution society at 9:30 eastern here on c-span3.