in the adoption of katie's law. she founded dna saves, a nonprofit organization devoted to the testing laws across the country. she has been honored by gov. bill richardson as outstanding woman of 2007. .

>> in august of 2003, my beloved daughter kate was a by basis, joyful, loving graduate student at new mexico state university. she was attacked just outside her home and supposedly a very safe neighborhood. she was brutally raped, sodomized, strangled, set on fire, and her body left in an abandoned dump site. it is never easy for any parent

to bury their child. the car and the paying of losing katie in this by what manner is beyond description. there were no strong suspects in katie's murder. kate thought so hard for her life that she had the skin and blood of her attacker underneath her fingernails. this contained his dna. i know now how lucky we were that katie's murder was such a high-profile case because the district attorney of our county did not want to send that dna sample to our crime lab because our ballclub there was about one year. she used her own precious budget to outsource it to a private dna lab. that profile was sent to the national dna database and i cannot describe to you what brought hope this gives our family. we knew who had killed her daughter. we had his unique dna profile.

all we have to fund was a match on the open database -- on the offender data base. there are many families who have this same hope. but there are so many more who are waiting, waiting. it pains me to think of the thousands of great kids that are sitting on shelves around this country because when i think of those rape kits i don't pick up evidence, i see faces. i see cases like that of my daughter katie and i feel the pain of the mothers who have buried their daughters and a waiting for justice. they deserve justice. they deserve to have evidence in their cases tested, analyzed, and a bloated. without testing, there may be no hope for justice and without justice, these monsters or remain free on our streets to victimized again and again, to

rape again, to murder again, to cause this pain again. this is unconscionable. when i learned of the dna evidence in katie's case, i said that this man was such a monster that surely he will commit another crime and the arrested for something else and they will take is dna and we will know who he is and we will stop him from killing that is when i learned that while every state takes fingerprints from individuals arrested for crimes, most states did not allow for dna to be taken upon police arrests. i was stunned we did not allow our law enforcement to check the dna database for a possible match before allowing people accused of the most heinous crimes in our society murder and rape to be released on bail. we don't even bother to check the database. we just release them. that is when i started to research dna.

based on my research, i became a national advocate for taking dna upon felony arrests and my husband and i found eight d and i -- founddnasaves and they advocate for deny testing nationwide. we might be able to prevent this horrible pain from being visited upon other parents in 2006, we thought for katie's lot in the state of new mexico is a law that requires that dna be taken up on felony arrests pretty well into effect january 1, at midnight, 2007. since that date, the new mexico dna database program has registered 104 matches of unsolved crimes. that is in less than three years in a population of over 2 million people. one hour and 40 minutes after

the slogan into effect in new mexico, the first arrest in was swapped in the county detention center. it matched a double homicide. that man has been convicted of murdering these two women. three months after katie was murdered, a man was arrested on aggravated burglary charges for breaking into the home of two young women. we did not have the law in mexico so his dna was not taken. it was over three years later that he was finally convicted of burglary, incarcerated, and his dna was taken. that dna match, the dna that kennedy fought so hard to provide as she was being murdered, he subsequently confessed guilty and will spend the rest of his life in prison. if mexico had required a dna sample for felony arrest in november, 2003, 80s murder would

have been solved three years sooner. three years that her family prayed for justice and waited to know this killer was off the streets. i have to tell you that during that time, i have been told by the county district attorney that over $200,000 was spent investigating her murder. $200,000 that would have been saved. but more importantly, this man would have been in custody three years sooner unable to victimize other young women. we cannot consider one side of the database. the database has two sides. it has the offender data base and the evidence in the database. without a strong dna database of all vendors, we will necessarily limit the possibility of matches that can be made. without testing of the evidence, without up loading the evidence

in a timely manner, we limit the matches that can be made. in the past six years, i have come to meet so many families who lost their daughters as i have. so many families who have had their children abducted and sexually assaulted and a great number of rape victims. we owe it to these people to have their evidence tested in a timely manner. more importantly, we owe it to our country, to our citizens to stop these monsters in their tracks before they break the murder again and again. we have been given a wonderful scientific tool in dna. it is ultimately the truth. this truth can not only solve crimes, it can prevent crimes. in doing so, it can say precious lives anda%bujápáe the innocent. we must do everything we can to make full use of this bible

scientific tool. -- of this valuable scientific tool. >> thank you. thank you for your courage in coming here to speak. this gives more power to the statistics and bring it to the reality. those of us who had the privilege to serve as prosecutors before we were here in the senate know what these cases are like. we see the personal side of it and not just statistics. their argument faces on crimes, the victim's, the families, the community'ies, and what both of you do in speaking out to tell

all us what that is. i want to ask a question of questionsoiloff, and a niece present national institute of justice they said that one key obstacle to reducing the backlog of break from the country is to get the evidence of the police department to the lab. the study recommended additional training of law enforcement personnel, the creation of uniform procedures by submitting evidence as well as improved training for police officers on the use of forensic analysis per . what role has training played in educating law enforcement personnel about the dna testing and how about prioritizing those cases where dna analysis is most useful?

>> let me address the second part of your question first. the prioritization is something that has to occur in order to remove the factors that are the greatest threat to society. if you have a homicide and sexual assault but come in with an offender, most citizens understand burglars because that is what is common to society. however, the greatest threat would be the rapist or the murderer. the prioritization is pretty clear in laboratories nationwide >> could there be a uniform standard nationwide? >> i think there should be a uniform standard as far as all of the offenders that are threatening, yes. for the violent offenders, absolutely.

all crime laboratory directors, in my experience, and anybody i have spoken to understands that is the highest priority. there is no laboratory that prioritizes as cases submitted a request was made -- what about a national trend program? would that be helpful? could you go as large as a dade county down to smaller jurisdictions? >> say that again? >> what a national training program on briquettes and board dna evidence, would that help? -- on rape jets and dna evidence, would that help? >> in small agencies, they are not aware unnecessarily of what dna can do. the education and training is on

the side of what can we know to collect and know what to submit. one thing that is very important is that you have one chance at the crime scene to collect everything. it does not mean everything is a mother -- submitted to a laboratory but it means it is preserved in the event it needs to be analyzed later. i think there should be some kind of training nationwide as far as what the capabilities are. i think there is a lack of understanding whether you have the old school police who believe that the investigation should solve every crime and the realization that what physical evidence can actually do to solve a case i think is one side of it and you have the new recruits, as they come in, it should be mandated if they go through training. >> before my time runs out, you see it from the prosecutor's point of view. what do you think of this,

having a uniform standard for when dna gets turned over to the lab, national training? are these things helpful? canada beat one size fits all? >> i don't think so but i do think that some kind of national standard for best practices would beéc something that woule very valuable to law enforcement. even in henrico county, there is significant differences between what the police departments to to send to the laboratories. also comes down to the people who collect the actual evidence. we have done more to bring those standards together so we haven't even policy across our law enforcement agencies in hennepin county. i think that trading would be helpful.

i get calls from police of us who are not aware of all the capabilities of dna-typing. it has changed drastically in the 20 years i have been working on it. law enforcement needs to understand that we're as 20 years ago, we needed a significantly large sample to get dna from, recently, we obtained dna from a verbatim by swapping the area we believed the perpetrator had grabbed his victim. we were able to swap that area where he had put his kids on her and come up with a dna profile that confirmed who we thought it was. >> my time is up. i will turn the gavel over. there are several things going on in the senate at the moment.

in case i do not get back, i want to thank everyone of you for your testimony. it is very helpful even as difficult it must be to give it. >> i thank all of you for your testimony. because of the description you have given of real-life situations, these are very painful let me ask with regard to ms smith, the seven years who waited before there was a hit, it strikes me that you have to have a database to check the person against. was that a factor in the delay in getting the identification of the person who assaulted you? >> yes, it was because with my case, all of this was just beginning. it was kind of playing catch-up.

trying to get the database set up and all of that -- there was really nobody at fault at the time that my case sat. there is nobody at fault now other than the fact that we have a tremendous amount of kids that we need to figure out the best way to get it done. i think that everybody is on the same page in wanting to get it done. it is just that we need to figure out a way to get it done very >> i think that is good advice. we need to figure out how to do this correctly. ms spaich, you described that you lead an effort to pass a law for mexico. that lot turned out to be the reason, it seems to me, that to identify it the person who had killed your daughter. in other words, when the person

was arrested three years later for a burglary, that got the hit, is that correct? >> centre sessions, they could have had the hit three months after she was murdered. that was when he was arrested for burglary but we did not have the law at that time. it was 3.5 years after she was murdered that he was ultimately convicted and incarcerated. the law did not go into affect until about one month after the it was made. we have had tremendous success since we have had blog going into affect in new mexico. >> one of the points we should all remember is that this individual was not arrested for another rate. he was arrested for a burglary. >> that is correct. >> that is what told the tale. mr. reading, you solve a case in

which you got a head on a person who was arrested for dwi which was unrelated. based on your experience and you have been at this for a number of years, do you think that the 20 states who currently test on arrest, that is good public policy? >> i think that is good public policy i think the larger you can get the convicted offender data base, the more hits you're going to get i think that is good public policy. i see no constitutional barrier to that being enacted into law in other states. i know the trend is in that direction that will cause significant uptick in the number of samples which are submitted to go into the database. i the beckham be handled and i think it should be handled.

>>ms halley, with regard to assault beckham, -- assault victims, even if they know the person who attacked them, it seems to me that either upon that person's arrest from the dna itself, that should be run because maybe the victim may not know that this person has a tendency, is likely to assault someone else. how would you discuss the value of even testing and entering this information based on a case where you know the victim? >> when the offender is known to the victim, we know that so many sex offenders are repeat offenders.

your ability to opt load that sample will depend on them being convicted or arrested. if you were to run a rape kit on a known defendant, that information would not be uploaded into cosddus because yu have a known defendant. >> that would be policy error, would it not? >> when we are talking about greatly expending our demand on codus, we have to be careful going forward. that sample would go into the system if he was arrested and later convicted. you are correct, we would start to see patterns. >> one quick question -- ms

examined properly, do you have to do multiple dna checks to make sure that you are getting good information? in other words, how many actual readings and how much dna do you have together per victim? >> when the victim is at the rate system, there's a standard protocol for collecting dna. when we analyze the evidence in house, we analyze it once unless it is required to be re-tested for other purposes. the analysis is usually done once. >> it can be multiples what? and you analyze each a swab dec?

if you knew the person was arrested and you did it, you don't have to have one swab or specimen of that dna to put it into the database? is that right? >> if i understand you correctly, the intermission that is obtained it -- if we were to update email profile, we would not need to test multiple profiles for it when we test, we test multiple items but the profile is only entered once. does that satisfy your question? >> i think so. if you identify the perpetrator, you know the perpetrator, it could be put in and not cause quite as much as if you were having to obtain the samples of the rape victim. >> we need the sample from the victim to compare in the

interpretation to know what information is there. sometimes the details of the case necessitate comparison to the victims. we always take the victims as a standard part of the rape kit. in our experience, we worked every case even at the subject -- in florida, we put the standard in. i would take the subject standard and that would go into the database. we don't know when he is arrested in a laboratory setting. we don't have any knowledge of the disposition unless we testify. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. thank you all for your moving testimony and thank you for coming forward. you mentioned in your testimony, ms. smith, about the deport

well-trained nurses and how critical that this for collecting evidence and making sure the victims do not feel re-victimized when the evidence is collected. do you have any thoughts about how we can better train the students -- these nurses in this area? can get more nursing students to go into this area? >> yes, there's a wonderful program, sexual assault nurse examiners, who are trained specifically to take this exam. my doctor was actually reading the instructions as we went along, in my case. that is not reassuring when you are going through an exam like this. the sexual assault nurse examiners are not only trained how to deal how to get information that the average doctor may not even think about but she is also trained to know how to do -- to address the

emotional needs of our patients. in a good sexual assault nurse program, you have rooms that are set aside so that the victim can go into a room. these examiners, that is all they are therefore. there is -- is a one-on-one examination. with me, i have three different nurses asking me questions and then a separate doctor. >> that builds trust to have one. >> exactly. plus you have all the confusion. she is trained or he is trained to know how exactly what questions he needs tarascan have to ask them where it i cannot tell you the difference that can make. >> speaking of that coordination and efficiency, mr. reading, you talked about how their knees to be better cooperation and coordination with prosecutors

and law enforcement with the labs, that the labs did not serve only the police. do you want to talk about why that is important? >> that is very important it is not just in cold dna cases but any time they prosecutor and police cooperate during the investigation in the pre- charging aspect of the case, the occasion upon which turns out to be better and we have better results from that case. one of the things that happens and that i realize needed to be corrected was the the only person who was being advised of a hit was the police officers. i received a call some years ago from our lab asking what happened to the 25 cases of homicides and rapes. i did not know anything about most of them. i contacted the police and we began to investigate together

those crimes and we were able to charge and convict a number of those people. i have now set up a marriage jurisdiction contemporaneously notice from the laboratory to me as well as the police department and that enables me to get involved immediately. it is important because prosecutors can and are teaching across the country interrogation techniques for police officers which are different in cold cases than they are in the regular investigation. if they are investigated differently and of the interrogation goes differently, we have a greater chance of success. >> again, along these lines of efficiency, getting better results, we want to get these break kits tested. -- rape kits tested. we want to give you more funding to do that but there is nothing worse than a mandate without the funding, as a local prosecutor.

explain to me how we can best use these resources, if we give you more resources. should all the rape kits be tested? >> in sexual assault cases, there is some value to testing acquaintance rape kits. laboratories must prioritize and all -- almost all laboratories do. >>it is not just the ana? >> there are many types of other evidence. laboratories and prosecutors have to deal with statutes of limitations. as we move forward, we are going to discover and be able to

ascertain what the value is of whether we should test every sexual assaults kit. in the grant i am working on now, we are evolving that opinion as we go along. our grant expires in june. we are looking to see whether or not in acquaintance rape cases the man who is identified by the victim is in fact in the open database -- in the offender data base. it is there, there is no significant reason to test that kit because of the is there, his profile would have already come through. we don't need to do that for a battle of and it's a significant number of the acquaintance rape cases that there is value in testing. >> ms sperlach, do you want to add to that? >> prioritization needs to be

done in rate cases. when you have a written policy like that, that is clear that happens with what comes into laboratories. if a stranger rape comes in and does not address, that should be handled by each laboratory correctly. the point about getting a profile in the database -- in our laboratory, if the case is negative, if there is no profile of 10, we will still work the standard that is submitted of the subject and put that in the database. we will do everything we can to get the profile in there. it means sometimes there is no evidence to test. >> to summarize -- you want the kit done but once they get there and you want them preserved, there might be an argument for prioritizing some of them while testing clearly and all the stranger rape cases.

is that strange to say -- is that fair to say? >> yes. >> senator grassley. >> 9 q, madam chairman and things to all of you for your testimony. i want to ask a few questions of mess halley. i have had the opportunity to work with her before on the restitution of the terms of crime. i thank you for working with us on that. i was glad to have senator frank and asked me if i would join him as the lead co-sponsor of this just as for survival sexual assault act because i think this would cut down on the backlog of untested rate cases. you seem to raise the question of the need to know more about the backlog of untested kits before you have a concrete recommendation to address the problem. i understand your concern that we test dna samples in

effectively and efficiently. a few questions along that line -- do you believe a requirement of state and local governments provide statistics to the federal government on ki government ratets -- uncontested rape kits would be useful? >> having that information would definitely be useful. i am concerned nohow difficult it is to provide a separatenij and others have been trying to quantify the existence of the dna database. i want to be sure that we understand what the barriers have been to getting precise figures before we demand that of state. i certainly agree -- we need that information and we need to figure out how we can best get it. part of the problem has been,

sometimes you have kids that are in the -- kits that are local and other kits that are in the laboratory. i believe one of the problems has been identifying all of those locations. some of those might be kept at the hospital so on identifying what we want to count as part of the backlog and where exactly can get those numbers. we have had problems before where many lawmakers have tried to get precise figures from their state. they might be told by the state laboratory that they have no backlog party that might be true at all laboratory level but if you were to go around local law enforcement offices, there might be quite a few samples that have not been forwarded. that is my concern. we definitely need the information but we should figure out how realistic we can be that

we will have a precise number. >> will the annual reporting requirements assist in reducing and eliminating the backlog by shaming jurisdictions into testing more rape kits? >> any time that we can use real numbers to draw attention to a problem and then have real numbers to measure the effectiveness of agencies in addressing the backlog, that is clearly an important step. >> what do you recommend for this sort of information required of the state's ? what sort of information should be required from the states that we are trying to get the statistics on? >> states should be given clear guidance as to what should be considered part of the dna backlog and had urged to measure

the backlog. states should be given guidance that we want to not only clear the backlog. we want the number of samples that are in the major cities but also the smaller jurisdiction law enforcement offices. >> i will move onto another question. in some states, rape victims are required to pay for their own rape kits and seek reimbursement after that has been processed. my judgment is that rape victims should never pay for the cost of the kit. evidence collection is an integral part of law enforcement. this survivors of sexual assault adsñ provides a provision that requires states to be responsible for up from costs of the kit examination.

this is an important provision. do you think the current law allowing for reimbursement of rate costs as opposed to full payment up front has caused any rape victims to avoid having a ray kit collected? >> while i am not aware of the cases where this happened, that would likely be resolved. most states do not require victims to pay for the rape kit and seek reimbursement for it mostly to pay for it up front. the usually pay for it through ij÷the crime victims compensatin program. the fact of requesting a parentes examination counts as reported for purposes of having the cost of that exam reimbursed. in)rñ most states, the victim wl never see a bill for the forensic examination. hn@ú÷u$e hospital will send it program or the art -- other government payments are spread >> maybe i have it wrong but i

thought there was more requirement to pay and it was holding people back. if it is not a problem, i think we have a problem getting word out that that is not the case. >> we definitely do have a problem getting word out and part of this is because the system has been the evolving for many years. it could be that previous victims or previous advocates have not or are not aware of the change in procedures. states have made a real effort, especially through mandates under the violence against women act, to change the way they are reimbursing -- to change the way they are paying for forensic exams. a lot of that change is recent. >> thank you. >> senator franken. >> thank you and i want to thank you and chairman leahy in your leadership on this issue. i want to thank each of our

gñwitnesses for your courage and strength and mr. reading and ms stoiloff for your expertise and professionalism. last month, i introduced a bill joined by my colleague, senator grassley, senator hatch, that would create financial incentives for jurisdiction to process the rate kit backlog to make sure that processing them continues to remain prompt. the truth[sm is,.t thisç, is e issues in congress where we all can agree on the big picture. rape as a heinous crime and we need to provide our law enforcement agencies with everything they need to prevent

justice. i want to estimate few questions mr. redding,l;3dnsph,d there as the need for improved infrastructure so dna evidence can be processed as quickly as possible. the national institute of justice study revealed that six out of 10 police departments lacked computerized evidence tracking systems. they rely on paper tracking systems. it is no surprise that when some police department's review their inventories, they discover stores of untested kits. angeles. m r reading and ms stoiloff,#yew your department's track dna várq&ped police departments set up tracking that they would require?

>> in my county, there are 46 different jurisdictions. that ability to attract information and to track inventories varies significantly. minneapolis has a good system. i can access it from my office and my paralegals can access it great we are able to look at thosey÷ issues and look at whats there when we want to try to ascertain if this is a case we can do something with or is the evidence never been submitted or inventoried. ,gi have goodqnç access their bi do not have the same kind of access in some other smaller suburbs. i think there needs to be a uniform best practices. it should be recommended how long the different jurisdictions hold onto evidence and police reports. in some places, police reports are being destroyed within seven years. that is very troubling to me as a prosecutor. 2hwwe have expanded the statutef

limitations yet we still have a situation where we can go back to 1991 to prosecute these cases but the police reports of been destroyed. we need a better practice and the best practice suggestion for jurisdictions about how long they keep evidence, how they 3fm):> we also have over 35 minutes of penalties in miami-dade county. i can only address what happens that our agency. we have an in-house system which is a laboratory information management system. that tracks what we have in house. as far as what is in the property room, even i don't know that.

what is there from years ago we have been doing cold cases since 2001. , reviewing a homicide and sexual assaults. on fortunately, i agree that there are issues that need to be addressed so there is uniform best practice with other agencies. >> i want to highlight the experience of some of the jurisdictions that have chosen to test all orderly all of the great kits. they have seen arrest rates for rate increase by as much as 30% and have had thousands of cold hit parade our national -- our average national arrest rate is 22%. jurisdictions that have implemented a test-all kits policy have seen a climb up to

70%. ms halley, what is keeping all jurisdictions from moving toward this model? >> i believe there are three barriersthe nij indicated that local law enforcement agencies do not always understand the evidentiary value of dna evidence. it can be used to solve crimes. so many law enforcement agencies in the nij survey indicated they were not according kits for testing where there was not already a suspect. that indicates one problem. another problem is funding. if they local law enforcement agency has heard that the laboratory is overloaded already knows that it will take more than one year to get something back from a laboratory, they may îi5q%=9ì(lc@&c+ because they know they cannot get it in a timely fashion that would be directly related to

funding to increase the capacity and reduce the lag time. a third issue could be lack of will. in to many places, law enforcement agencies make a judgment as to the importance or value or credibility of the victims' based on what they think a great becton off to act like one talking to our members about the problems they see, many of them highlighted the need to train law enforcement about sensitiv response to sexual but the assaults of and better understand why a rape victim may be presenting a flat affect - no emotion -- she is no longer hysterical. law enforcement needs to be trained but shthat she could stl

be a victim. >> on the reimbursement issue, i want to highlight that we have heard from advocates like human rights watch that people are slipping through the cracks and that some women pay for their kits up front and that some of them are never repaid the full cost. my bill would close those loopholes. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank you for your powerful testimony. thank you for your service and law enforcement. clearly, the science of dna has sped far ahead. my first realization was a murder case where we could get

dna of a beer bottle. the perpetrator of the crime had taken a drink from the bottle during the course of his time in the home of the murder victim. i suspect that has rocketed forward in the years since then. i think it is a very valuable tool. i assume that all of you would support mandatory dna testing of a violent criminals. >> yes, i certainly would, senator, that -- any way we can get the dna from a person who has committed crimes and who has been arrested, get that into the database of convicted offenders along with a larger data base of crimes which have been tested -- when those databases are search against each other, we get more

hits, the bigger they are. >> let the record reflect that all five -- five heads were nodding in agreement at that point, you are no longer confirming evidence but using it as a tool approved. it becomes an investigative tool against a larger audience. that adds enormously to the value of the dna sample. in terms of prioritizing rape kits, does the prioritization need to take place more at the lab or more at the investigative side. ? do we need prioritization at both points? >> the problem is not partisan at the lab for the labs idyllic are properly prioritizing. the problem is prioritization within the police department, to some degree with and the

prosecutor's office. i do not want to fault the police department to much. when we change that prioritization and we get more kits, we had better results. i want to briefly comment on the police making that determination about whether a victim is credible or not. many victims are homeless and have a chemical dependency problem or have some other problem, possibly mentally ill. they are preyed on. we need to get those victims' dna results into their database as well for it they can be linked to other cases and we have done that on a number of occasions and been able to prosecute cases where we have got multiple hits. >> i have a minute or so left and two more questions brayl.

do any of you fear that a broader regime of mandatory testing would test the capacity of the private laboratories to run the dna or is there not a kind of capacity problem? >> there is definitely a capacity problem for it all laboratories nationwide have a capacity problem. if there is amended, we have to every single kit. even without mandating, the participation only allows you to handle -- %mm>> to defend their testing? >> it is separate. there is convicted of vendor laboratories for each state and there is local and state laboratories that process evidence. the money would be allocated by the state. >> the additional burden of processing of vendor data -- of

vendor data would not impede -- offender would not impede the processing of dna evidence in active cases? >> the forensic laboratory would have the capacity to do the evidence cases and the convicted offender database lab would have the capacity. anytime a mandate and a cat of testing, the funding has to go with it. we have had quite a few unfunded mandates even in florida where they have now learned to end in that if it is not funded, it cannot happen. >> to law-enforcement representatives, the effects of delay in processing evidence in an ongoing investigation are often more than just loss of time. could you each briefly comment on some of the collateral

damage that takes place in an investigation when the investigation cannot move rapidly forward and does not have timely access to key evidence? >> beckham be devastating to victims. it is devastating -- that can be devastating to victims. when you have a victim in the office oand you talk about -- ad you talk to them about reopening a woman, that is painful. -- reopening a wound, that is painful. i would like to see the system take care of that. contemporaneously, i would like them to process sexual assault kits without a time lag. >> you also lose witnesses who lose regulation and --

recollection and the effect on the case itself is often significant beyond the simple the leg, is it not? >> yes, it is pretty it can be severely compromised. evidence goes away. memories change and we have had a number of cases where important witnesses argosies by the time we get the dna results. that compromise is our case. we are looking at some of those cases now in an attempt to see if we can work around that problem brett it's certainly is a problem. >> thank you very much. i have a few follow-ups. i want to go at this issue again, mr readin g the national data base. you talked about how wisconsin discovered it had 12,000 convicted of vendors who were nevertheless not in the

convicted offenders database. this was not an issue of the testing as much of the data was not entered? >> that is correct. my understanding is that some of this is a reaction to an unfunded mandate. some of the localities are required to collect kits from all convicted offenders within a particular counted. i am aware that that costs money it is a burden to counties who are strapped. as a result of those counties are not as vigorous as they should be in collecting that data. i am sure that wisconsin is not alone in this. there is a problem of uncollected kits. ]ó> you are not picking on them because of the packers? you believe this happens in other states. >> i am not picking on them because of the packers. i would be shocked if it did not happen in other states. >> to do you know if that

happens in minnesota? >> there is a problem there that we are attempting to correct now. it is an issue. >> mscm stoiloff, i was thinkig about how the degree testimony -- that with the testimony, not every day is like miami vice. do you want to comment about that last comment, the lag in information getting into the database? >> for the most part, the pri george's eyes and helps with the la -- for the most part, the prioritization helps with the lag. there's an urgency to resolve these issues and identify what these to be analyzed up front. it is a short turnaround on current cases.

for cold cases, that is a different story. you have the technology to solve the crimes but then you have the problem in finding witnesses, etc. it is or two-ball toward as long as we adopted this practice in addressing these issues immediately as soon as the cases are submitted, that should help some of those we do not drop hummers. -- no, we do not drive hummers. >> the amount of money that is put into trained forensic scientists by the government and to get them up to speed and what i have heard, is that someone may leave and go someone else may be to the private sector and to another laboratory that pays more and it becomes a big war. -- a bidding war.

do you want to comment on that? >> we have the same issue. as nice as miami looks on tv, we have a problem forensic science is the hot thing employ a hot place to go. they want to commend the train wherever they can get a job. we have had the misfortune to lose quite a few. >> where do they go? >> usually wherever they came from, home. the go to other labs. >> government labs? >> does not a situation where they are seeking a job anywhere else they are going to where they came from and where their families are. that becomes a problem is a two- year training process for dna. from the date of hire to get them hired an in house and then it is two years training, is effectively two years -- i may have zero vacancies but we carry them for two years.

>> does anyone else want to comment on that? >> i want to echo that that is a tremendous we can hire a prosecutor and parliament to the courtroom bird you cannot do that with dna analysis. you have to wait for them to complete the training and it is a long tenure. when you lose an analyst, like we lose them in the minnesota system or miami, you cannot throw them in right away. as a significant problem. >> anything more t? i want to thank you for your testimony today and taking the time to be here. we are very devoted to working on this problem. when other have been improvements and improvements have been made because of the willingness of people like you to come forward and tell your story spread we know there is clearly a backlog issue and we want to be smart about how we tackle bad anyone who has worked in the front lines as a

prosecutor understands the unfunded mandate issue and we have to figure out how to be smart and get the right way kits tested. we also have to do better with training. everything from the nurses to the forensic scientists. i was interested in some of mr. reading's points about the coordination with police and prosecutors and improvements that can be made there. those are the things we're working on now. formate, in my former job, -- for me, in my former job, i have these numbers that are etched in my mind about how we were able to use this sciájtt to not just convict horrendous orders and rapists but i'll never forget the case when we had someone come up n.c..

she identified but who she thought was her rapist many years before and he had served like six years in prison and then the dna tests showed it was not him. he get out of prison and a two of them actually became friends. the real person had been until and been convicted and they went around the company -- country talking about this situation very i remember a remarkable case we had where we have a burglary and a burglar had broken some class and got his blood on the glass and that dna match some dna another burglary, it may have been in florida or another state. we were able to charge him. we did not hope -- who was. come of that case. it was a memory i have had of the improvements we have made in this technology and a tool that it is for any kind of case. .

>> the senate is still in recess, but republican leaders are gathering in the ohio classroom at the capitol. we expect them to come to was shortly to give us their update on the health care legislation. after morning procedural votes on the the bill, the senators this afternoon will continue general debate with the next procedural vote will occur tomorrow afternoon. the final vote on the legislation is set for christmas eve.

while we wait to hear from the republican senate leaders, here's more from a capitol hill reporter. >> we are joined by a reporter from "congressional quarterly." >> senator john ensign raised the constitutional point of order. the republicans have not had much success in competing the democrats' efforts to have the bill by christmas. senator ensign says that individual mandates in the bill violates the constitution. part of the reason he went that route is because constitutional points of order are not debatable, which means that automatically get a vote if they are raised. >> do they have to get 60 democrats to move forward? >> no. that is why it is a tactic that republicans have been looking

to, because it only requires a simple majority, 51 votes, to prevail. >> stories continue in your publication and "will call" that there has been talk of a final passage vote before christmas eve. what can you tell us about the latest? >> there areçç some signs thae republican resolve to drag war to continue the debate through two more 30-hour cycles of cloture -- that that result might be weakening a little bird minority leader mitch mcconnell said on the floor this morning that he and senator harry reid, majority leader, are working on agreements. he did not specify what the agreements would be. there is an ice storm predicted for christmas eve, i think there is some concern about senators being able to get home for the families. >> about the party caucuses --

did harry reid say something about that? >> the ball is more in the republicans' court to than the democrats' right now. it looks as though we might have some kind of news as to whether the more -- some of the members of the republican conference, tom coburn, jim demint, who have been adamant that they will stretch this out as long as possible -- whether they will continue to insist upon that, or if there is a way to smooth this out. >> there is news on the house side, with an alabama congressmean announcing that he is switching parties on the democratic party to the republican party. how was that is being greeted on capitol hill? >> i would not be surprised to see republicans to seize upon that as evidence that voters --

the opinion polls and arguments that the bill as unpopular is making some kind of an impact. this latest announcement is coming on the heels of a couple of republican house members, democratic house members, who said they will not seek reelection, who are also from the south. i think it will be interesting to see, particularly with blanche lincoln of arkansas, who is from a conservative state and has been voting with the democrats -- republicans might be making links between her and what the representative is expected to announce this afternoon. >> thank you for the update. >> thank you. >> back live to the capitol, where we expect senate republican leaders to speak to reporters shortly. we will be getting reaction to the ongoing health care debate. republicans have forced a number of procedural votes on legislation, setting up a possible vote on final passage for christmas eve.

?????????????????????

in other political news, in his home state of alabama, ñ griffith has announced his searching party. the democrat announced his joining the republican -- announced he is switching parties. the democrat has announced he is joining the republican party. ??????????????????

????????/???????????? again, any moment, we are waiting for senate republican leaders to come to the podium and speak about the health care

legislation process on capitol hill. live coverage here on c-span. ?/ó??/?/?/?/???/?/?/????? ???????????????? q >> good afternoon, everyone. with regard to the health care bill, we are learning something new about it every day.

as we know, itw3 swelled to 2700 pages in the late stages back here in the conference room. the american people expect us to continue to review the contents. we know how they feel about the package, overwhelmingly opposed to it. they are still interested in what the details are. we are going to continue to read and expose the details of the bill that have not actually got as much attention in the early stages. we will be here until christmas eve completing work on this bill. and i think it is important that we take the time to analyze it in every way that we can before the final votes are taken in the senate. let me just add that the final vote in the senate is not a final vote. there are substantial differences between house and senate bills. this debate is not over. the american people are still going to have another month or so to weigh in.

and to express their concerns about this package to each of the representatives. >> i just was going to mention one of the other things that was recently discovered. i think yesterday it was learned that there is another provision in this bill that is rather special -- it moves a date from february back to august. why would that be important? it lot of the specialty hospitals are physician-owned hospitals, under construction or have agreements to begin construction. the hospital association won a concession from the majority to help but competitors, these specialty hospitals come out of business. there are three such hospitals in the state of nebraska, and you had to move the date from february to august of next year to ensure that all three of them were actually under an agreement for construction so as not to be adversely affected by the bill. i think, but with, there are 3 or four in arizona that might

benefit from the same provision. as the leader said, we are learning more and more about the bill as the days go on, and the american people have a right not only to hear those things, but to have them debated. of course, there is no opportunity for an amendment to take those things out. that opportunity is now gone. it is important for us to be able to talk about the bill and to continue to make the point that if there are provisions in the bill, the uptick is not just to let one or two senators protect their constituents from the debt provisions, but to take the that provisions out so that they do not apply to anyone. that will not be done under the with the bill is being considered. >> one other thing i think you are familiar with the i find no word the bit about this time, the democratic congressman from north alabama -- ironically, where i was born and lived until grammar school -- announced

today that he is going to become a republican. it is not uncommon for -- it is not common for party switches to occur from the majority to the minority. that is growing evidence of the acceptability of this national democratic agenda in much of red state america. usc in the opinion polls on the health care bill, it is not just -- if you seek the opinion polls on health care bill, it is not just read state america where it is unpopular, but blue state america as well. >> about every other word coming out of the democrats the last two weeks was that they are making history. my prediction is that there will be a lot less talk about that, because the more the american people learn about the bill, they will hear that it has become an historic mistake. unfortunately, we have a few weeks left before the congress finally disposes of this bill. there is a reason why the majority leader wrote it in secret for several weeks,

brought it out in the middle of the biggest snowstorm in washington's history, scheduled a vote in the middle of the night, and said that it needed to be passed by christmas. that is that he did not want the american people to know what is in. they're finding out what is in it, they don't like it, and they see it as an historic mistake. ç>> i think that what we're seeing is an example of what happens when you decide to do it alone. this could have been so much çdifferent, the discussion that we're having right now could have been about a bill that has broad bipartisan support, that could get 80 votes in the united states senate. instead, we talking about the cornhuskers kickback and all of the things that had begun to find that elusive 60th vote. when you are relying on one side to get there, let's make a deal becomes the name of the game. obviously, that is what they had to get that necessary 60 of the

vote. i think what has already been mentioned is that the american people find that part of politics as usual in washington, d.c., to be reallyç offensive, and the more they find out about find out about this bill -- we just got the manager's amendment a couple of days ago -- the more the best of things we're finding, the more it will fall into disfavor with the american public. which is why, as my colleagues have mentioned, this is not over yet. they may have 60 votes today, but it is a long ways from the finish line. the american people are going to have an opportunity to weigh in when everyoneç of our senators goes all over the holidays and hears directly from them. -- goes home over the holidays and hears directly from them. >> it is this time in the legislative calendar worry you start hearing from constituents , -- stop hearing from constituents because they are focused on other things. that is not happening this year. the number of calls annex faxes

and -- calls and faxes and e- çmails asking what is going on has just gone through the roof. the opposition was overwhelming just a month ago. it seems that with everyq day, and my colleagues haveç mentiod it, asç they learn more, the people in the state of alaska are saying, "what are you doing? this is not working. it is going to be costing us more, you are not increasing our access, and you are calling this reform." and when we hear from these people up north, it is not just limited to the guts of this health care bill. they are also talking about just çwhat -- "we understand you are going to be increasing the debt limit. how is this going to work? why are you doing it? what is going on with the level of spending?" this christmas season, people are going out and spend and that will hopefully be helping the

economy. but come january, when it is time to pay these bills, they are looking at their own personal debt obligationç, and they are looking at what we are doing in congress. there is a time when the piper has to be paid. i think the american people are looking at this health care bill, they are looking at the actions here in congress, and they are really questioning what and how we areçó leading. we need to do better with health care, we need to start over, we have not had that opportunity. as my colleagues just said, we are not done yet. >> i guess we all know the answer to the question we have been asking for so long now -- how can you get 60 senators to vote for a bill that the american people don't want? that they are opposed to? xdwell, the way you do that is y playing "the price is right," by offering sweetheart deals to various senators because you

cannot convince them that this bill should be supported based incentive to get them to vote for the bill. the problem with that, of course, is that the best of us have to pay the price for these additional sweeteners in the bill. for example, in texas, there is $21 billion in unfunded medicaid spending that will be required in the next 10 years due to the expansion of the medicaid program in this bill. of course,çi] the folks in neba and other places, louisiana and others, will not feel the same burden. but my constituents in texas will. i think that as more and more senators hear from their constituents, "why would you vote for a bill that sully'ies the whole notion of transparency that the president talked about, and secondly, what would you

settle for selling that hurts her constituents -- settle for something that hurts your constituents?" it only takes one senator to walk away from the steel. -- from this deal. the fight is not over could we hope that that one or more senator walks away from the steel and allows us to start over on something that makes sense -- walks away from this deal and allows us to start over and something that makes sense and that the american people can be proud of. >> [unintelligible] >> we are going to have a couple of votes on the 24th. the exact time of those votes -- senator reid and i will be able to tell you a little bit later. as i said, we will be voting on the 24th, and exactly the time of that will be -- we will be able to tell you after senator reid and i locked in a consent

agreement we have been discussing with each other and our members. we expect to be voting on the 24th. we will let you know on what when we get the consent agreement, at the risk of being redundant. >> other oppositional concerns with this bill, and if so, what are they? >> there are going to be some points of order raised tomorrow afternoon, and we will be describing those to you prior to them. there are some constitutional concerns on the part of some of our members. ok, thanks, everybody. >> as you heard from a mitch mcconnell, republican leaders will be bringing up concerns about health care, and the debate resumes at 2:30 eastern. you can watch it live on c-

span2. in remarks earlier today, president obama confirmed that he will stay at the white house until the senate completes its work on health care legislation. the president commented after meeting with several small community bank ceo's. >> all right, everybody. it is good to see all of you. i just completed a meeting with 12 regional community banks, to take the same conversation i had with some of the larger banks last week, and that i have been having with co's and companies across the country over the last year, and that is how do we continue to consolidate the gains we have made during the course of this year in terms of economic recovery, but most importantly, how do we move forward over the next year so that businesses are getting the capital that they need and that we are starting to see people

fired again -- hired again, able to finance their homes and college educations and so forth? community banks serve a vital function all across the country. they are folks who know their customers, don't just lend the money, but also provide them advice, if they are entrepreneurs in getting started, they are intimately woven into the fabric of the community. it is fair to say that most of these community banks were not engaged in some of the hugely risky activities that helped to precipitate the financial crisis. at the same time, they have tried to do the best in the local and regional markets to make sure that businesses now being affected by the overall recession are able to pick themselves back up. what i did was to go around the room and hear from each of them. not all of these communities are the same.

yet everything from kalamazoo to harlem -- we have everything from kalamazoo to harlem. there were some general things that were out there. one, there are businesses that are looking for the that there that are profitable and can raise money. the key is to match them up with banks that are in a position to lend. there are some banks that have seen the increase in the savings rate and higher deposits give them a pretty good capital base, but they are still constrained by some regulatory restraints. we are looking to see if there is a possibility to cut some of the red tape. we don't have direct influence over the independent regulators, but we think that the more that we can highlight and in some ways the pendulum may have swung too far in the direction of not lending, after a decade in which it had gone way too far in the

direction of getting money out the door no matter the risk. if we can get that balance right, but for businesses and communities out there -- we just need to help make that happen. i also had a discussion with all of these bankers about the prospects for financial with the tort reform. as i said, many of the issues -- financial regulatory reform. but the peace issues, -- as i said, many of these issues -- most of them are very supportive of the idea of regulatory reform a trip which is one major that as we -- the idea of regulatory reform. we just want to make sure that as we make them better, we do not love them up with more paperwork and more burdens. we have an obligation to make sure that the regulatory schemes we come up with are more streamlined and efficient, and are sending clear signals to the

banks involved. i did emphasize to them that community banks do have a responsibility to their customers, and that many of the consumer protections that efforts to make -- and efforts to make consumer financial protection agency would apply to them. we think that is important. every bank large and small is providing credit cards and debit cards, providing mortgage loans. we think that the more we are making sure that the banks are competing by how obscure the fine print is -- rather, competing on the basis of the quality of their service and the terms of their loans, the better off consumers are going to beat and ultimately, the better off banks are going to be as well. i very much appreciate them all coming in. i think the main message that i

want everybody to take away, and certainly this is a message to quit from the conversation here, is that there remain -- message i took away from the conversation here, is that there remain enormous opportunities as we come out of this discussion for businesses to start growing again and start hiring again. everything that we are going to be giving -- going to be doing in the white house is going to be geared towards capitalizing and spurring additional lending, particularly to small businesses, because we feel very optimistic that the worst is behind us, and now is the time for us to seize opportunities. with that, i want to wish everybody, if i don't see you guys before christmas, a happy christmas, a very christmas and happy new year. all right? thank you guys. >> [unintelligible] >> i will not leave until my friends in the senate have completed their work.

my attitude is that they are making these sacrifices to provide health care to all americans, then the least i can do is to be around and provide encouragement and help -- >> [unintelligible] >> all right, thank you, guys. >> now were marks from one of the bankers who met with president obama of the -- now or marks from one of the bankers who met with president obama at the white house. >> sure. the president's message today was that they are listening, they know that the community banksç of this nation did not çcreate this train wreck, the lenders and that we have traction going in the communities of this nation, and we are working hard, and he is very much in support of that.

>> did he encourage you guys to lend more? >> he did encourage us to lend more could we talked at some length about -- he did encourage us to lend more. we talked at some length about certain programs and getting banks work engaged in that process. >> [unintelligible] >> it is problematic. i think that for some banks, again, i'm speaking from michigan's standpoint -- we have some challenges with the auto industry, and many of those things are having very, very difficult times. many don't qualify because of their fdic ratings. we of the opportunityç for an open discussion for ways to take a well-run bank that has run into difficulty right now and to try to give that opportunity to

survive in this economy. >> [unintelligible] >> to the president talk to you about the financial regulation, what you would like to see? >> he did. we talked about the regulatory reform bill. obviously, from the community bankers' standpoint, we are concerned about any more over- regulation in our industry. but we certainly do need something to take place for too big to fail banks and the unregulated. >> did the president make any additional assurance about tarp money? >> he did not. >> [unintelligible] >> he did not. that is something that we are going to be looking at. >> anything in the new program to encourage lending -- are they

talking about approaching lending through less restricted capital -- [unintelligible] >> no, it was not. >> from the community bankers' perspective, to you think is wise at this juncture for giving money to the banks? >> i think the community banks led to the ground level. -- lent at the ground level. we are seeing dollars in the state of michigan going to parts of the economy where it is not as a bad shape. i think more dollars in the community banks that are being alone at the current level would certainly help local economies. >> [unintelligible] >> i think that is one potential issue, yes. >> [unintelligible] >> commercial real estate is an

issue right now. we certainly have been over- abundance in our state. it speaks to the issue of the amount of inventory and evaluation. is really a very difficult situation for community bankers to load on commercial real- estate right now. that has been looked at very carefully. could i stop right here? i appreciate you guys agree much it thank you all. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> freshman democratic house member parker griffith of alabama has announced in the past hour that he is switching to the republican party. here now is his brief announcement from owensville, alabama. -- huntsville, alabama. >> it has been a tough decision for virginia and i, my family.

but this one to say thank you for taking time out of the middle of the day. -- i just want to say thank you for taking time out of the middle of the day. it has been a pleasure to serve this past year. i was elected by the people of north alabama as an independent conservative congressman. i'm a pro-business, pro life, pro-second amendment, and have worked hard to support our brands and represent alabama's that these good as the 111th congress has progressed, i am concerned that the bills and policies pushed by the current democratic leadership are not good for north alabama or our nation. more importantly, they do not represent myçó values and convictions. while i voted against health4++ care, i voted against cap-and- trade, and two huge spending stimulus bill, i now believe that i have to go even further and stand with the party that is more in tune with my beliefs and

convictions. for that reason, i am ç announcing today that i am joining the republican conferenceñr immediately. this is not an easy decision for me. i only arrived at this step after much discussion, much prayer, and i take this step because i believe that our nation is at a crossroads, and i can no longer aligned myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, and hurts our economy, and it drives us further and further into debt. unfortunately, there are those in the democratic leadership that continue to push an agenda focused on massive spending, tax increases, bailouts, and health care bill that is bad for our he!q!jut system, that for our patients, and that for our physicians. -- bad for our patients and

physicians. i always considered myself an independent voice and i have tried to be that in congress. after watchingç this jennifer scammed, a belief that the differences in the two parties cannot be -- watching this agenda firsthand, i believe that the differences between the to do all parties could not be more clear. i must align myself with the republican party and speak out clearly on these issues. i have also been very concerned about support in congress for our defense and nasa programs. that are not only important to our community, but to our national defense and the future of our country. and our international allies. since election toxd congress, 'e fought hard to educate other members on the importance of a strong national missile defense program, and that we must give our nasa programs more support if we are to maintain our lead in manned spaceflight. while there are great democratic supporters of these programs,

but increasingly find that my allies in fighting -- i increasingly find that my allies in fighting for these initiatives come from the republican party. as we move forward in fighting for these programs, i believe that working as a republican and joining with richard shelby, jeff sessions, mike rogers, spencer bachus, and the rest of our delegation, will allow me to be a more effective voice on these issues. i also wanted take a moment to discuss health care legislation currently before congress. as you know, i am a physician, and i understand our health care system. i spoke out early and often in my opposition to the health care bill, and i voted against it in the house. it appears today that this health care bill will pass the senateç in one of our first vos -- and one of our first votes of the new year will be on this package. i want to make it perfectly

clear that this bill is bad for our doctors, bad for our patients, bad for the young men and women who are considering going into the health-care field. asç a doctor and as a republican, i plan to once again oppose this measure and hope that we can defeat this bill that is a major threat to our economy, it is a threat to ourç nation, and it is a threat to our health care system. i note there will be those who do not support my decision. i want you to know that it is not an easy decision to make. but i always remember that i was not sent to congress to represent a party. i was sent to congress to represent the people of the after watching as congress continues toç pursue policies that burden our children with debt and threaten our economy, and someone who is deeply concerned about the future of this country, i believe that joining with the republican

these liberal policies is what is best for our country, best for our alabamaw3, as for ourq'r the kitchen tables of the fifth congressional district. thank you very much for being here. i appreciate it. thank you. >>u! what did nancy pelosi sayo w3you when you told her thedh% thenews? >> i have not heard from her. >> but you had to contact your office? -- her office? >> no, i did not. >> are you concerned about the election? ç>> mine? ñrno, this not about politics. the pundits, the handicappers, this election.

this is and not about me winning or losing an election. this is about core beliefs and something i'mç convictedd8 abo. after seeing what has happened, this far, far adriftç the left that has happened in congress, -- farw3 driftçnb t(to thew3xt has happened in congress, there is no room in the democratic party for a pro-life, pro- business, pro-second amendment conservative businessman. these individuals like myself are not being considered in this draft come this far, far drift to the left, something that unless you see up close, you do not realize how severe is. -- severe it is. the distinction between the two parties could not be any clearer. you could see from the votes i have taken over the last yeart(i have tried to send that message to the democratic party -- get back into the mainstream, pay attention to what is goingw3 onn

america. we are watching them pass a health-care bill that virtually 2/3 of america as saying don't pass, leave it alone, start over again. they are completely ignoring the american people at their own risk. >> when you got to washington, what is the one thing that made you say, "i need to switch parties"? >> it was not one thing. it was a series of demonstrations of their philosophy. it was a lack of concern about what mainstream america was concerned about. it was time spent on a cap-and- trade buildi] that -- bill that was one-size-fits-ççall come p with absolutely devastate alabama's economy, make it difficult to recruit industry here. they had no year for that. it was cap-and-trade that took up three months of our time while we were losing up to 600,000 jobs a month.

we had a theoretical concept called cap-and-trade, and every month we were losing jobs. it was a series of events that led to my decision. >> what would you say the democrats in your district that elected and that might have some hard feelings? >> i think that might be the case, but i think the democrats who elected me elected an independent voice, someone would bring his experience to congress as an independent businessman and physician. we are not republican americans, we are not democratic americans, we are american democrats or american republicans. we need to be americans first here. we need to get back to that. i will say to them that i will d er presented them, and we are going to bring jobs and do what is right for this -- as i have represented thm% and we are jobs and dt is right for this district.nd dt

>> are you worried about being called a flip-flopw3per? >> not really. i have been called worse. >> would you mind ttaking a step back for us? xd>> which camera is it? here? çok, good. >>ç if you get messages from people in the democratic party oksaying they are very disappointed, what do you say to them? >> i think that is an expected reaction. if they give time to this, they will see that i will represent democrats and republicans are well. i think even the democratic party in alabama understands what is happening in washington, that the national democratic party really does not represent,

truly does not represent alabama. i think they will understand the decision. i will understand the comments, and i appreciate each and every one of them. >> is this the first time you have ever switched parties, or change your mind about how you feel about policy? >> no -- i mean, yes, it is the first time i've switched parties. it is not the first time i've changed my mind about something that is going on. my mind is pretty open. >>ç you are there any washingtn and get to see what is happening. -- they're in washington and get to see what is happening. other things that you question and that obviously changed your mind? >>ç yes. the first stimulus bill was a poorly thought out $787 billion with no accountability to it. weç sought negotiationsw é577çg and huge bonuses -- saw negotiations with the edgy and huge bonuses coming out of the

pockets -- with aig and huge bonuses, and the pockets of taxpayers. we saw the leadership like thousands of jobs being lost every month, continuing to cap-and-trade bill. we lost 7 million-plus jobs in the last year, and we've not made any effort thus far -- i am very disappointed that we did not fund the transportation and infrastructure bill, which would have put thousands of people back to work. the stimulus bill did not have e-verify in it. we did not even know if we were putting americans back to work or non-americans back to work. a lot of that disappointed me. iç was willing to discuss it, i was willing to work with anybody who would listen to me, but i did not find that i had a place at the table. >> what about a call from the

state democratic party to return thousands of dollars of donations? >> we would be happy to do that. absolutely. ç>> what you said people were disappointed -- what do you say to people who are disappointed in the decision of may? -- you have made? w3ç>> even though i voted agait the administration on major issues initiatives, i've brought millions of dollars into the arsenalçñr, several thousandsf dollars to a new science building, been able to bring road projects year. i knowñr how to work across the aisle, how to work within our group. i'm going to bring toç the fifh district jobs, i am going to protect the jobs that are here, and i will make sure that everybody understands thatç na, the space program that started

in this district -- i am going to make sure that everybody understands that when you go in for a ct scanner, that the technology to place out here at marshall. i'm going to make sure that when you have a mammogramw3 or when your wife has a mammogram, that you make sure that you know that the technology in the hubble telescope makes that technology even more accurate and will make sure that we find nasa. -- we fund nasa. i continue to be disappointed that we, who wentç to the moon, and we need to go again --ç i m waiting for a commitment from the administration and i have a group of peopleçó with me who wl make certain that we fund the programs that we need. >> will this party switch play any role in the election coming up? >> i did not make this with a political concern. i will run the race, at all of youçç here a year ago or two s

ago no that i love politics, and i love the people of this district. this is not about politics. it is about a conviction that i have that america is on the wrong track and the leadership in congress is taking us down the wrong road. i can run a race. i'm not worried about that. >> ok, thank you, everybodyç. >> c-span, christmas day, a look at 20 to and politics, including republican congressman eric cantor, nbc's did agree, buzz aldrin on the legacy -- nbc's david gregory, a buzz aldrin on the legacy of apollo 11, and later, he was strategy against al qaeda in afghanistan, and at 8:00 p.m. eastern, remembering the lives of william f. buckley and senator ted kennedy. qall next week, a glimpse into america's highest court, with

unprecedentedçw3 conversationsh tennis supreme court justices about the work, the history, -- 190 supremeq court justices abot the work and the history of the building. çstill in time for the holiday, "american icons" on thadvd, c- span's original documentaries on the iconic homes of the three branches of the american government. for this and other gift-giving ideas from c-span, visit c- span.org/store. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," a conversation about crime and punishment at 8:00 a.m. eastern time with will marling, director of the national association for victim assistance, then marc mauer, executive director of the sentencing project. all starting at 7:00 a.m..

the anti-drug abuse act of 1986 created stricter punishments for crack cocaine offenses compared to powder cocaine offenses. here is a forum on the sentencing guidelines, posted by the american civil liberties union. it is about one hour. >> i think we are all here. but all we get started? good morning. i am the director of the naacp washington bureau, and the senior vice-president for advocacy a policy -- advocacy and policy. we are here to focus on with a crucial civil-rights issues of our generation, the disparity of crack and powder cocaine sentencing laws in our country, and how racial disparity along those lines has become so obvious, so prevalent, and so undercutting of the trust and

integrity, quite frankly, of the criminal justiceq communityç -- that the criminal justice community needs to be successful to carry out responsibilities in our community. we are here to talk about legislation to begin addressing those disparities. with us is an esteemed group of experts. we have people that need to the far left, far right, democrats, republicans, religious activists and those who are rather agnostic. the bottom line, the most important thing, is that they all agree on one issue, and that is that there is a big problem in america when you have the kind of racial disparity b.c. but our criminal justice system, particularly -- we see in our criminal justice system,

particularly in the disappearancdisparity in sentenn powder cocaine and crack cocaine. first, we are going to hear from chris burns an attorney adviser to the staff director on the u.s. commission on civil rights, but at the agency charged with investigating, reportingok on, and making recommendations concerned with civil rights issues. he has helped to draft several of the agency's high-profile reports, a member of the federalist society, a draft of the federalist society's recently released white paper, çproposing to eliminate disparitiesç between carter and crack cocaine sentences. ladies and gentlemen, chris burns. [applause] you will then hear from lisa rich. she has served as director of legislative affairs at the national pc-based law firm. she has worked on several

congressional investigations and three independent counsel investigation, and is the author of a number of articles on criminal procedure and sentencing, and as an adjunct to professor at george washington university. ladies and tacoma, -- ladies and gentlemen, lisa rich. [applause] our next panelist leads a justice fellowship. he was a republican leader of the california state assembly before being convicted of accepting a campaign contribution during an fbi sting. he spent 29 months seeing the prison system from a buried different perspective. --çç a very different perspec. ladies and gentlemen, pat no lan. [applause]

we will then hear from paul butler, a federal prosecutor, law professor,ç and author of "let's get free -- a hip-hop t heory of justice." he teaches at civil rights and jurisprudence at georgetown university law school. our final speaker was released earlier this year as a result of sentencing guidelineok chang. after serving more than 10 years of a 15-year federal crack cocaine sentence, his twin w3brother convicted of the same time is still incarcerated. in 1998, they were convicted of conspiracy to distribute powder and crack cocaine just a few months after graduating from high, moderate, howard university. he currently resides in -- from my alma mater, howard university.

he correctly reside in washington, d.c., and is working to put his life back on track. [applause] çwe will hear five minutes from each of our speakers and then we will have time for questions and answers from each. our first speaker, chris burns. >> thank you so much, mr. moderator. i'm appearing in a person capacity to present my paper. i wrote this as part of a new federal initiatives project of the federalist society. i'm sort of a lone wolf. the purpose of this project is to monitor and analyze significant proposals coming from the new congress and administration with an eye towards a constitutional and legal implications. the society hopes that this will continue to foster debate about these and other important issues. as such, that the the federalist

society nor my paper takes any position with respect to the proposed legislation on the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, but t(the paper should be axd usefud straightforward summary ofç the çwhere does the disparity come from? çxdthei]i] anti-drug abuse act6 imposed aqç(m@ndatoryçç minim persons convicted of trafficking atç least five gras of crackçfá cocaine and 500çó s mandatory sentence of 10 years for a person traffic)@'gmy 50 gf crack cocainet(çç and 1,000 gf powder cocaine. çç abuse act of 1986, the sentencing commission apply to this 100-1 quantity ratio in the sentencing guidelines it is the list for federal corporateç --t

páup!lished for federal court. the congress targeted crack cocaine for either penalties than powder cocaine based on the assumption that first, crack was extremely and uniquely addictive, that crack use and distribution was more associated with serious and violent crime than other drugs, that crack was more çphysically harmful exposed toç itt( prenatally, tt proud to use and distribute crack, and finally, crack xdpotency ine thoseñççwcylowd ease of a demonstration led to what use. okçç-- easeç of administratio its wide use. in 2002ç reports, theyç foundt more recent data indicated that significantly less trafficking- related violence is measuredi] y weapons use and of violent injury than was previously assumed.

some credit the tough sentences of the anti-drug abuse act. others have argued that crack cocaine use is still a relatively associated with violent crime and powder cocaine, in part because crack transactions tend to be and to hand and involved gang members. crack users are less likely to ease a regular supplier as the main source, and users and sellers and directed in a matter that elevated personal an aggregate -- users and sellers interacted in a matter that elevated personal an aggregate used. in 2002, the department study linking crack use and prostitution -- attorneys appointed to a 1998 study that and but crack as -- that

identified crack as most closely linked with homicide rates. the statue's distinction -- it -- towns the conduct -- iofederl criminal law already contains penalties to address the violent conduct, and the circumstances of the individual case should govern their applicability. opponents of the sentencing policy also argued that there is a racially discriminatory impact on minorities. approximately 85 percent of those convicted of crack offenses in criminal court were african-american. likewise, the commission passed a 2007 report found that 81.8% of crack cocaine offenders in 2006 were african-american, but hispanics accounted for 57.5% of powder cocaine offenders in the same year.

the racial disparity is concerned, because some believe that it fosters this respect for a lack of confidence in the criminal justice -- fosters disrespect for and lack of confidence and the criminal- justice system. some plan that it discourages jurors because the perceived unfairness but some think that the disparity comes from the fact -- the notion that statistically speaking, more african-americans use and sell crack cocaine than whites. minorities comprise a disproportionate number of those permitted to pursue self- destructive drug habits without the intervention of government.

what if congress were to address these concerns by raising the threshold quantities for crack cocaine offenses? the sentencing commission's to dozens of the report estimated that going to a 1-1 -- 2007 report estimated that going to a one-one ratio would reduce the number in prison by 2010. some pointed out that this analysis bills to take into account any potential increase in crime -- fails to take into account any potential increase in crime that may result from releasing crack users. .

what's the court -- the court clarified its campbell into verify that they had the guidelines based on policies written is within the general, not just under the determination that it demanded a sentence in a particular case. it seems the sentencing commission and federal judges already have signaled in the way into the party from the 100 to one quantity ratio. thank you very much. [applause] >> our next speaker, lisa rich, director of legislative and public affairs for the ninth states sentencing commission. >> thank you very much for that introduction.

it is an honor for me to be here today with a group of people who have worked so tirelessly on this issue. if you notice -- a few notes, here to giveñi you tidbits on whawhere to look for more comprehensive testimony than right hrm. ñrit would be virtually impossie for me to walk you through the sentencing table and all of that. what i will tell you is that the sentencing commission has testified four times in the past five years before congress. those of you on the senate side, i would recommend looking to our april, 2009 testimony because the data that is included in there will update the 2007 report that chris was talking about withñr fiscal 20008 numbe. what the commission -- 2008 numbers. what the commission can do for you rightñi now is provide you with empirical evidence, best practices, and let you all decide what needs to be done. but the important thing that the

commission wants to stress is that something needs to be done. since 1995, the commission has been advocating congress to make changes to the 100 to one sacha jori scheme. as chris noted in 2007, the -- statutory scheme. as chris noted in 2007, the commission did what they could by taking the -- the basic defense levels and dropping them by two for crack cocaine offenses. it alleviated the pressure that some had put on sentences are incorporating the statutory 100 to one ratio throughout the guidelines. but there is an important provision that i have to stress to you all. 28 usc 994a requires the provision be tied to the statute. the provision was added by the

2003 protect act and it competes with the commission can do. if we're going to make changes to crack, it is incumbent upon congress to make the changes because the commission can only go so far. chris indicated that based on the supreme court precedent in starting with booker through this year's decision earlier this year, the district -- the spillers decision earlier this year, it is for judges have more discussion. but they do not have discretion for the mandatory minimums. they only have discussion with respect to the guidelines. more important, let's not forget what the sentencing reform act in 1988 -- in 1984 was passed in 1984, it was to limit disparity. what we're seeing now because of the supreme court laws is that you are seeing some disparity, you are seeing some judges who say, i completely disagree with the 100 to one ratio, so as far as i'm concerned, i will

sentence it 121. but a judge in the very next courtroom -- sentence it one to one and a judge in the next court term may have a different guidelines. that needs to be fixed. that is why the commission is advocating that congress take action quickly. i want to highlight for you because i think it is important to -- i think there has been some confusion up on the hill about what exactly is the commission has recommended. beginning with our 2000 to report and reiterated in our 2007 report we suggested that if a ratio other than one to one was going to be used, that'd be no more than 20 to one. a lot of times i'm up on the hill and i hear that the commission has said 20 to one. that is not the case. we simply said that the ratio should be no more than 20 to one. we also said that you should

increase of the quantities for crack starting, for instance, at 25 grams. the commission has made it clear that it has not received any empirical evidence. it is not aware of any literature. it is not aware of any studies that suggest that the quality levels for powder should be changed. it reiterate that in every single testimony that it gives before the house and senate. it is in its 2007 report. the commission has said, no reason to change carter. the commission has also recommended that the penalties -- to change powder. the commission is also recommended that the penalties to be the same. one other thing that i would note from a policy perspective, if congress does act, and we certainly hope that you do this coming year, we would ask that the congress present the commission with the emergency amendment authority. this would allow the commission

to operate as quickly and expeditiously as possible outside its sort of normal legal requirement to work to make sure that whatever statutory changes congress enacts get action -- actually get done. the bill passed on the house side out of representative scott as the bill does not have that, so we would encourage that house -- that the added asñr well. some notes with respect to stats, chris had in the skid -- had indicated from our 2007 report the racial makeup for fiscal year 2008 -- 80.6% of crack defendants in the federal system were african-american. by contrast for potter, 52.5% were hispanic. -- for poweder, 52.5% were hispanic. you can see it is primarily

minorities involved. citizen should is something to take into consideration. there're a lot of -- there is a lot of talk about alternatives to in concert -- incarceration. citizenship matters because if you are a non-citizen, you are not entitled to participate in a number of those programs. almost 40% of those powder offenders are non-citizens. you need to keep those things in mind. average sense length, the average set -- sentence length for crack cocaine offenders is 115 months. in fiscal yi 2008, it was 91 months for powder cocaine offenses. i would also note that 91 months is higher than we have seen the past. the average base quantity level for crack cocaine still remains

about 50 grams, just so you know. also, a quick note about mandatory minimums, those convicted of crack cocaine, 80.6% are exposed to some sort of mandatory minimum with 80% of powder cocaine offenders are. the important thing is the safety valve provisions, those provisions that allow sentences below the but -- below the mandatory minimums to be employed. only 14.3% of offenders for crack cocaine in fiscal year 2008 were eligible for safety valve vs 40% for powder cocaine. the reason for that is that the criminal history categories are often higher in crack cocaine offenses than they are for powder and that will keep them out of the eligibility. all of these things are things that need to be considered from a policy perspective. i encourage you to come to the

commission, ask us for advice. if you are senate staff, we can give you numbers, point you in the right direction, because that is what the commission is for. we are here as a resource to make sure that policy in this important area is done as based on empirical evidence, best practices actually meaningfully done rather than a repeat of what we did in 1986. thank you very much. [applause] >> the next person we would like to bring to the podium as pat nolan, vice-president of prison fellowship. >> thank you. thank you to the sponsors for putting on this forum. this is an issue that is very important not only for the devastating impact it has on individuals, but for the impact is having on our communities as well. prison fellowship is a faith

based ministry and we are motivated by our love of jesus christ and his strong love for the disaffected in life, for those that he called "the least of these." and he said whatever we do for the least of these brothers would do unto him. and in looking at the impact of the disparate sentences on the crack and powder cocaine, it is offensive to those who have a sense of justice and also to those who have a sense of mercy. the sentence, for any crime, should reflect the magnitude of the harm that is done. it should be in proportion to it. the debacle -- the biblical law of an eye for 9242 is was not asking for the level of punishment -- and i for an eye and a tooth for a truce was not

asking for the level of punishment, but for restraint on punishment. there should be no more than that. the sentence or the punishment should not outweigh the harm that is done by the crime. in the case of powder verses crack where there is no pharmacological difference between the two, we have 100 times the sentence. it was pulled out of the air politically. it was at a time when both left and right, black and white, were reacting to the tragic death of len bias and to the popular culture new jack city and you have the house republican conference and the black caucus joining together and passing this and it was truly an arbitrary figure of 100 to one. it wanted to show they were serious about crack and they did it by these astounding sentences. but as with all things are done in haste, there were unintended consequences. it has been devastating.

it has been devastating on the individual lives of relatively low-level crack dealers that have done these long sentences. it has removed them from their families, from the community. it has essentially made them unemployable and it has removed voting rights for them in many states. it has also had an effect on the entire community when you have the astounding number of black males removed from our cities. it leaves a hole in the community. a whole swath of young men are taken away to prison, leaving women without spouses, children without parents. and in fact, in the rush to run of the score, oftentimes the mother is punished, too, for merely taking a phone call or some other low-level crime as part of the so-called conspiracy. we reach out to the church and

say, this is wrong, this is offensive. this is offensive to god and it is offensive to us. and we have to act and we thank the sponsors of the forum for doing this, for addressing this in balance in our law -- this imbalance in our law. any time there isñi testimony on this, assistant u.s. attorneys predict waves of violence that will come from any early release of these prisoners. at the hearing of the sentencing commission and assistant u.s. attorney for north carolina, they described crag gains as "they enforce their turf with semi-automatic weapons, and shootings." she said, "the impact on the committees will cease with, will lease was sudden -- will be

sudden, and in my opinion, a reversible. she predicted a wave of violence when these people were released. we now have the facts, what has actually happened as a result of the early release. and the u.s. office of the court has published them. of the 6524 who have been released early under the provisions of the sentencing commission, that is 6005 from 24, only 248 have failed -- 6524, only 248 have failed. that is 3.8% failure rate. that is something less than virtually every other category of offender. this puts the lie to the parade of horribles that were visited on the commission and before every congressional hearing on this that somehow crack dealers are more violent, that waves of terror will descend upon our communities.

the fact of the matter is, having only 248 fail on their supervision at this point is a remarkable statistic. this means these are not, as a whole, this image of violence, hellbent on leather destroying, a wave of locusts that would be released on our community. i think is important -- it is important that the fears that are preyed upon by u.s. attorneys and by government officials predicting this wave of violence need to be answered by the facts. they just do not hold up to analysis. this has been a state decision by the commission. i would really commend them for having the courage to make the decision to lower the level and also to make it apply retroactively. but it was also the just thing to do. and it is our job to work with congress so that they also do

the just thing and bring the sentences into balance with the harm that is caused by dealing in crack cocaine i would make one last point. the federal government really does not belong dealing with crack cocaine. the problem with the federal government is powder cocaine. crack cocaine is cooked and sold locally. it is inherently unstable and there are no shipments of crack cocaine through cities, across states and across national borders. it is a local drug that can be handled by local police and local statutes. what is federal is the traffic in powder cocaine. truckloads of powder being brought into the u.s. and shipped across street -- state lines and to our cities and then being sold or cooked as crack. the federal job is to take care of the cross national border problem and not to get involved in the local enforcement of

laws. to any conservative you talk to, you need to just say this is a matter of states' rights. the fact of the matter is that local laws should enforce local problems and the laws of subsidiary of the church tells us that the problems are best solved at the level closest to the people. i think we need to argue with them, why have we federalize this problem? the federal problem is powder cocaine and the federal government should get out of the crack cocaine business. -- the crack cocaine in for the business. thank you. [applause] >> our next speaker, professor paulçó butler, and george washington university law school. >> good morning. before i started teaching at george washington, i was a prosecutor at the department of justice and during that time i served as a special assistant united states attorney

prosecuting gun and drug cases. i remember a case that happened at the office during that time where an undercover officer had arranged to buy some cocaine from a dealer. he went down and sat in the car with the dealer and the dealer produced powder cocaine. the undercover officer knew that the penalties for crack cocaine were substantially higher, so he said, i want to crack. the dealer says, no problem. he went back upstairs, he took the powder added some baking soda to it, put it in a microwave and cooked it up because that is all crack is is powder with baking soda in a microwave. he prodded back downstairs and his time in prison increased -- he brought it back downstairs and his time in prison increased dramatically just from that one act. that started me immediately about how this distinction

arises and does it do any good? and as a former prosecutor i am very concerned about public safety. that concern is the main reason why i support eliminating the disparity between crack and powder because it does not make us any safer. it misdirects police and prosecutors away from high-level offenders. those are the real bad guys, the baddest of the bad guys. that disparity unfortunately provides an incentive to focus on the little guys. these are the street level sellers of crack. as a former prosecutor, maybe i would not be complaining is the disparity actually worked to get the doughboys off the street. but if you drive around any city, you know that it does not. i can take 15 minutes away from here, the u.s. capitol, and show you where you can buy some powder cocaine or some crack cocaine. the best way to get the joke boys off the street -- dope

boys off the streets is to treat the attics and take away the street level sellers. it would be more effective if the prosecutors would focus on the drug kingpins. but unfortunately, only 6% of cases are against those kingpins. as a former prosecutor, i know that people are most concerned about violent crime. 94% of crack cases do not involve any violence at all. but under a mandatory minimum, those young people -- by and large, they are young -- they get locked up for five years or 10 years and who they get locked up with is hard core thugs. it is like taking these young people and sending them to a finishing school for crime. by and large, they do not come out better than they went in. if judges have more discretion

to fit the crime to the punishment, they could look at someone like lawrence or a student at harvard and say, maybe, this one-size-fits-all approach, it just does not work. maybe i could actually have the power to be a judge and for the sentence to the crime. unfortunately, now, judges do not have that power. one unfortunate fact is that these laws have had unintended racial consequences that have resulted in unprecedented levels of incarceration. young black men are the most incarcerated group in the history of the world. not right now, not in the united states, but in the history of the world. there has never been a demographic group that has experienced a level of incarceration that young black men are experiencing right now.

and disparities and the drug sentencing laws are an important explanation. if we were to take the metro from here to bethesda and go to the national institutes of health and ask, how many black people are using drugs? do blacks use drugs more than other groups? they would say, no. nih says about 12% to 13% of people use drugs. but if we go six blocks to the department of justice and go to the bureau of statistics, and ask who is locked up for the crime, almost 60% 12% of people to the crime, 60% to the time. this makes a lot of people lose respect for the law. in my criminal law scholar leaving which i would say that the law has lost its deterrent effect. so, when so many people acknowledge that this crack/powder disparity includes

even president bush, president clinton, president obama, when the sentencing group advises congress on this law and says the disparity is unfair and congress still does not appear to listen, the law does not change. the law is having these devastating effects on families and neighborhoods. people get discouraged. it makes some people in these communities distrust the police, prosecutors, and the lawmakers. these are the people that need smart law-enforcement the most. when we equalize the sentences, everybody wins. and communities that have responsibly reduced the prison population -- and most often they do that by reducing sentences for non-violent drug offenders and letting some nonviolent drug offenders to serve and a corporate out -- time out of prison, in the communities where states have done that, crime has gone down. in new york, for example, they

reduced their prison population and the crime rate actually went down. i was fortunate enough to have lots of opportunities when i graduated from harvard law school and i joined the department of justice because i wanted to be one of the good guys. i wanted to protect people who came from iran with like the one i grew up in in the south side of chicago. my main commitments is to law- abiding citizens. i want to keep you safe. i want to keep you free. as a prosecutor, i had more power than the judge to determine what sa mandatory mine requires a judge to impose a specific sentence. again, it is this one size fits all justice that some judges are starting to rebel against. or, lot not -- lots of judges, actually. prosecutors, on the other hand, are largely unregulated. there are no laws that require to bring a certain case or

charge a certain amount for drugs. something seemed weird about this in balance of power. largely, prosecutors are good people, but it is the judge's responsibility to be sure that justice is done -- is done. and this misallocation of sets the dons took power in a democracy. in closing, eradicating the disparity allows the police and prosecutors to use their crime- fighting resources in the most responsible and effective way. what we're talking about here is a modest step. crack cocaine is still going to be illegal after this disparity is reduced. people who commit drug crimes using guns will still be punished harshly. but all we are asking is for the law to get rid of this unfairness. it will go a long way towards restoring confidence in american criminal justice.

people will respect the justice system more because the justice system will be more respectable. [applause] >> thank you, professor butler. those statistics were içó opening, and outrageous in so many ways. but we know it is not about the numbers. real people are affected by this level of discrimination. with that, i would like to bring our final speaker up, someone who has been at the receiving end of that disparity, lawrence garrison, served time for crack cocaine related offenses. we would love to hear from you. [applause] >> the morningñi to my fellow panelists and members of congress. my letter -- my name is lawrence garrison and on june 18, 1988, my twin brother, mark berson, and i were convicted wrongfully of conspiracy to distributeñr 5

kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base, shortly after graduating from harvard university in washington d.c.. i was sentenced on october 16, 1998 to 188 months and my brother to 235 months. we were both sentenced to a mandatory 15 years for 500 grams of crack cocaine. and brother was enhanced for testifying on his own behalf during the trial. african-americans are devastated by the past 23 years that have destroyed families, communities, too harsh crack sentences. in 1986, congress revised tools átacked drug offenders. it applied mandatory minimum penalties to conspiracy to commit certain crimes and a mandatory five years for simple possession of cocaine base -- also known as crack.

the anti-drug abuse act of 1986, african-americans make up 13% of this country's population, however, african americans make up 80.6% of crack cocaine offenders. the coverage center -- the average sentence for a crack cocaine offense is 122 months, serve predominantly by african- americans. the effect of mass in kirkland -- incarceration and predatory prosecution has damaged the african-american community. here, on the 23rd anniversary of the anti- drug abuse act of 1986, finally, congress has the chance to correct and repair the system that has been nothing but an just to african- americans. the anguish in prison today, including my brother. the u.s. sentencing information laid the foundation to reduce

the ratio from 100 to 1 to 21 for crack to powder sentencing phase. later, they made the amendment retroactive and on january 15, 2009, i was released. i arrived 36 months earlier to deliver this message today as an infected person. i represent the thousands of men and women that have been affected by the sentences for this harsh disparity. i would like to thank first and foremost, my mother, julie stohr, mary price, the drug policy alliance, jasmine tyler, the nacel, angela fraserñr and

others for finally bringing me to this 0.36 months early. -- bringing me to this place 36 months early. and what the gang, i would appreciate congress addressing this disparity. thank you very much -- and once again, i would appreciate congress addressing this disparity. thank you very much. [applause] >> with that, we know that there are a number of questions that arise. you have heard that we're 23 years since the implementation of the laws that created the disparity. the first question is to the panel, what has changed? very little we knew at the time that the law was passed that powder cocaine and crack cocaine are pharmacologically dissing dorschel -- indistinguishable. but we know that a lot was going on at the time. the first question simply is, what has changed and why does it need to change?

>> i think what has changed is that congress is now looking at statistics. you know, since 1995, the commission has sent out for reports on this issue and i think what we have seen is that pharmacologically there is no difference between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. i think we have seen that rates of ingestion, etc. are what causes the issues and i think looking at evidence. i think that is what congress is looking at. i would encourage congress to continue to look at statistics to continue to decide what is best for policymakers to make sound policy. i think that is the difference that we are, you know, 23 years later. >> thank you. patrick? >> we now have the evidence, and i think the more that comes in the more we realize that this

experiment in mass incarceration for crack and powder has not worked. and we see the impact of it. at -- but i also think that the factor has been the human face that has been put on it. i knew about lawrence garrison long before he walked free. i knew about them because of the work they did. and i think people like senator sessions, he has seen the impact of this. senator gramm, there come -- there are some conservative republicans that are working to try toñi change this. i wish they would go from one to one. for whatever reason, they are not ready to go there. but they see the human face impacted by this and realize the unfairness. i think is a combination of the statistics and the reality of the lies that are heard so deeply by this for no effect. >> one more question and that we

will open it up to the audience for questions as well. i want you to popular hand up if you have a question. the next question is, certainly, mistakes have been made over the last 23 years. what effect has that had on law enforcement ability to carry out its responsibilities? we often times here that we need trust, we need respect and appreciation by the communities we serve for law enforcement to be successful. but what impact has it had in 23 years? how are they viewed and how faithful is law enforcement able to be under the circumstances? >> i think these racial disparities have caused a tremendous erosion in respect for law enforcement among marin -- many american citizens. the hip-hop slang for getting arrested is called "catching a case." is a loaded your fault and a little bit the luck of the draw. it is kind of like catching the

flu. can anyone who has been to college on a college campus, you know that black people do not use drugs more than anybody else, but when people see this constant -- it seems like a rush to punish african-americans and to ignore it non-african americans that causes a lot of concern. finally, there is concern about the way that the government directs its resources. and by that i mean, how much money it costs to lock up all these people. it is classic in efficient government spending because there's no clear return. again, we would be safer if we were smarter about how we used prison and a lot of fewer people for these non-violent drug defendant -- offenses. but unfortunately, now, you have what you call million-dollar blocks because in that 1 street, that is how much the government spends too lot of people.

a lot of people have said is, imagine if we took some of that money and spend it on health care, on education, on job training. imagine what a difference that might make. but to to many american citizens, it seems like the way that the government response to a predictable problems caused by unemployment and lack of access to treatment and to care is to lock people up. again, that this truck -- that does cause a tremendous amount of lack of respect for our system. >> with that, let's open it up to questions from the audience. why don't we start back here and work our way up? >> i am from the citizens opposing prohibition. i made a retired police detective from fort worth. a question for ms. rich, you listen to experts around the country. 23 years ago, the congress mistakenly believed that the 100 to one ratio with mandatory

minimums would be a deterrent effect. the punishment would be so harsh that nobodyçó would dare -- dare sell drugs because of the punishment. i learned in my 18 years that drug dealers accept punishment as a condition of employment. as you listen to experts in the criminal justice field, do they also understand today that particular promise? as paul was saying, you can buy crack anywhere, you can buy cocaine anywhere. drugs are readily available to america's youth. the decision -- to the decision makers are around the country get it now that these harsh punishments have no deterrent effect? >> howard, thank you very much for that question. just to let you all know, what's it sentencing commission is doing is at the 25th anniversary, the commission is holding a series of regional hearings across the country to hear from judges, u.s. attorneys, defenders, the

community activists who here -- to hear what they have to say about sentencing generally. i cannot really answer your question because of the way that it is worded. it is sort of one-sided. i appreciate that. we are hearing, though, that judges are frustrated by mandatory minimums. i do not think it is any surprise that judges feel they are in the best position to do what, i think, is truly what one judge described in one of his hearings is one of the most human thing as someone can do is to judge another person. of course they are advocating for more discretion and we do hear of this, but you also appear from law enforcement that say that mandatory minimums work for us. it helps us on the street. i think what the commission is going to be doing is take all of this information across the board from all of these parties and put it together in a meaningful way so that it can be presented to congress and we can go forward with respect to policy. star that is not a more definitive answer, but i hope

that gives you something. -- sorry that is not a more definitive answer, but i hope that gives you something. >> next question. >> first, i would like to thank all of the panelists for their superb presentations. i'm a policy analyst for the open society policy center. i first started looking into this issue in the early 1990's when i testified before the u.s. sentencing commission when they were first studying this issue. there is a bit of legislative history that sometimes gets lost because i was there in 1995 when the commission gave its recommendation for one to one. and congress rebuffed the advice of its own body of experts and actually directed the commission to not come back, but to go back to the drawing board and do not come back with something that

does not say one to one or the quality. since that time with the four ensuing reports, the commission has, in fact, all of congress' directive. i do want to say that mr. byrnes excellent article for the federalist society is one of the most balanced approach is that i've seen the really lays out the argument for both sides. i want to raise the issue -- if congress had not said, do not come back with a ratio that is one to one, would we be looking at something that is different today? will congress be saying, well, the last thing you said was 20 to one and they hang their hats on that? i wanted to bring data and up and see if anyone has any reflection on that? -- i wanted to bring that up and see if anyone has any reflection on that. >> in 1995, the commission did

rick -- make a recommendation that the sentencing guidelines, the ratio is there in the one- to-one. it is 700 plus amendments that the commission has submitted to congress as part of its regular amendment cycle. it is -- it has only ever had two rejected and that was one of them. she is right, congress did come back to the commission and say, think about this again. i want to stress that i think that we may be in a different world, but it was only a guideline amendment. that was not a statutory fixed. who knows what would have happened after that? but more importantly, i think it was a time for the commission to reevaluate what its role is as an advisory body and i think this particular commission and the commissions that have released the 2002 and 2007 report see themselves as being the expert body. they're the ones that are supposed to read -- require the statistics, to give the

groundwork for policymakers, to make those difficult political decisions. that is why the commission since then has not come out to say, we are going to pick a ratio. that is for the policymakers to do and what we are trying to do is to make sure that you have all of the information, regardless of what you end up deciding to do to be able to make that clear. i would also point out another piece of legislative history that goes along with this. i mentioned in my opening remarks about the provision of 994-a which basically gives the a direction to the commission about how to operate. that language that became part of the protect act first started to float around in 1995. it was in direct response to the commission's actions with respect to the crack cocaine amendment because what then democrats and congress wanted to make sure was that the commission could not change the guidelines without the statute being changed as well. it took them eight years to get

that language included, but that is the history of 994-a. we need to keep that in mind that rightly or wrongly, congress has expected the guidelines to follow the statutes and that is why the commission did what it did in 2007. it did make that a man it retroactive. and i did want to point out that everyone has -- it did make that amendment retroactive. and i do want to point out that everyone has been happy with that. the smoothness of that has been echoed to the system, the u.s. courts, the probation office, the department of justice and bureau of prisons -- ever worked in a concerted effort to make that happen. about 260 people have been released early as a result of that, lawrence being one of them. about 15,000 motions have been granted to reduce terms. people have not necessarily gone now, but their sentences have

been reduced. 7000 have been denied. i think that goes along way to also assure people about the public safety effects and the concerns that the commission had in making sure that we were not just opening the floodgates, as some had testified before they were concerned about. public safety concerns really are up there. >> i would like to give personal as well as political perspective on the 95 overturning of the sentencing commission recommendation. i was incarcerated at the time. during my two or more years in prison, i got a lesson in drugs that i never had while i was in the legislature. one of the fellow's work in the garage with me and he took it as his duty to instruct me about

the reality of drugs and their impact and what were low-key drugs and those that were intense. anyway, it was quite an education. through the process i found out about the disparity and the and justness of it. -- and the unjustness of it. i have friends that kindly accepted my very expensive collect calls from prison. we lined up republican votes against the motion to overturn the sentencing commission, supporting the one-to-one ratio. and then, janet reno as the attorney general came out and oppose the sentencing commission's recommendation and those republican votes unraveled. we went from 35 to 17. there were still 17 courageous enough to stand up, but basically, the others said, why on earth should we be attacked from the right as being soft on

crime than general reno and the clinton justice department? the reason i bring that up is because it is important that this be bipartisan. when i was in the legislature in california, we would say we need to hold hands and jump in the icy water together. we have a stake in doing this together and we cannot have one side of cheap shot in the other. the republicans who voted for a one-to-one ratio really felt undercut by janet reno and the clinton justice department. we really need to build trust where both sides are willing to stand down from this awful war of words and talk realistically about the drug policy with both parties in gage and not one side -- with both parties engaged and not one side taking cheap shots at the other. the best way to do that is to have some solid conservatives supporting the reforms, too. that is what we are working on. it is both teams working

together saying this is reasonable and rational and there is not one advantage to one side or the other in doing that. >> it is great to see the breadth and depth of support from all sides of the aisle. with that, we want to thank all of those who participated today for their fantastic presentations in helping to open our minds to take a closer look. for those senate staffers that have come on behalf of their bosses, hopefully taking back information will enable congress to act quickly. enough is enough. 23 years of mistakes have proven out that this was a problematic policy approach. we understand much of the undergirding of the time, but it is our responsibility now to make sure we fix this injustice. thank you all so much for being here. there is information just outside the room that you can take back to your offices and organizations. we look forward to moving things forward very quickly. thanks again. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

[indistiguishable conversation] >> on washington journal tomorrow, a conversation about crime and punishment with will marling, plus headlines and your phone calls beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern every day, c-span's "washington journal." harry reid has announced within the are an agreement with the republicans to hold a final vote on legislation thursday at 8:00 a.m. eastern. that move allows the republicans to technically stick with its promise to force a vote on christmas eve while still making it possible for senators and staff to return home for the holiday. the senate plans to finish work thursday on a two-month extension to the national debt

level as well. c-span, christmas day, a look ahead to 2010 politics including republican congressman eric kanter and nbc's david gregory. buzz aldrin, and fellow astronauts on the legacy of apollo 11, a discussion on the role of muslims in america and the world. later, a former cia intelligence officer on u.s. strategy afghanistan and the -- u.s. strategy against al qaeda in afghanistan. >> now available, c-span as the book, "abraham lincoln: great american historians on our succeed president" a perfect gift for the history buff in your life. it is a unique perspective from 56 scholars, journalists and writers. from his early years to his relevance today. abraham lincoln in hard cover and your favorite bookseller and

wherever digital audio downloads are sold. c-span.org learn more. /lincoln -- learn more at c- span.org c-spa. host: faiz schwartz is the executive director of the hope now alliance. -- a faith schwartz the executive director of the hope now lines. we see loan modifications are not happening as quickly as they could and those that are getting them are doctors -- and many of those that are getting them are defaulting again. what is the situation? guest: that -- this year, there have been over 3 million solutions offered to borrowers with permanent modifications and repayment plans verses 7 under

50,000 foreclosure sales of homes. -- 750,000 foreclosure sales of homes. the government is in the process of loan modification offers lower payments to bar wars while they're in the process of documenting those mortgages. i think is important to note that when a bar were read -- read defaults, it could be consumer debt or perhaps unemployment. host: the hope now alliance helps to reduce these mortgages that are under water. what does your group that is -- do that is different from the federal government? guest: we have been servicing giving in industry, and on private housing counselors to try to keep these homes from foreclosure. we work with the government on any tools available.

today, the make a home affordable program is probably the number-one program being used. in fact, that voluntary program becomes mandatory when the servicers sign it. that is the first defense in getting the modification. if they feel that modification, there are other options to keep them out of foreclosure. -- if they fail that modification, there are other options to keep them out of foreclosure. the government's program is actually -- if a borrower has 37 -- 31% of their income making a mortgage payment, they can lower at two% to get to the affordable payment. they can even lower the principal. those types of restructuring have been appalled -- across the government. then they look at alternatives or repayment plans to keep

people from foreclosure if that is a better outcome for both the homeowner and the investor. host: in the role of hope now? guest: we are facilitating all the tools of the market. we work closely with the government. we host of reach events with the government across the market in regions at risk. we were just in los angeles during that war was off 1500 families who met with counselors, servicers. host: how many people have you helped modify their mortgage payments? guest: this year alone we about about 2.6 million non-government workouts. someñi aren't modifications and some are ketchup -- some are modifications and some are catching up programs. somewhere around three or 4 million people have been helped through this process this year.

host: have you actually lower monthly mortgage payments for consumers? guest: yes, of course. that is happening across the market with or thought the government program. what the government introduced is a subsidized program of taxpayer dollars. never before have more resources been put to this problem to lower payments and extend opportunity for sustainable mortgages. every quarter, the fdic had a program that allowed you to lower those rates, extend terms, and keep people on affordable payments. host: if the home water goes through the open allies and its aim hormone -- if the homeowner goes to the hope now alliance and gets a home payment modification, or other fees that are tacked on the go into effect later on? guest: your question is, are there hidden fees or penalties associated? host: yes.

the allies has signed a for the government program, so they will follow thatñr protocol. and a great thing is that if they do not qualify because they have a lower payment already, it may still be worth it to modify that loan in a different way, held the borrower stay in that home if they want to stay and they may have a different format. again, what ever is in the best óinterest of the borrowers, homeowners, and investors. host:ñi lincoln, neb., nancy coe on the republican line. çócaller: my question would be e health care bill, they mentioned the lean on homes if you could not make your health insurance premium payments that are required by the federal government. i haven't -- wonder of the impact of these loans that are

in effect right now. guest: any lenient need to be looked at for modification on the mortgage, but this is an adjustment for the borrower. they still have all their debts to pay. we are a big recommend a of a third-party counseling. host: washington d.c., maria, and again in line. caller: my question to you -- my daughter and her husband, between them they make $100,000.

[unintelligible] she lost her job for about six months and it was the second job. where can they go because they have been calling everywhere and they are not able to get financed guest:. : that is a great question. refinances -- not able to get financed. guest: that is a great question. if there is not equity in the home, and sometimes that is difficult to do. you are talking about a real issue that the second line of defense is to modify the loan, which means getting more affordable payment. disruption in income can be a significant factor in whether you qualify or not for a refinance. call 888-995-hope. and you can also go to the website of hope now for

counselors in d.c. jpmorgan has a lot of good programs in place. host: mark on the independent line. caller: six months ago, i contacted hauope and they triedo help me. and it has been a wild and nobody should be able to help me out. i lost my primary job. i do have one job, but i only make only $10. i fill out papers, nothing happens to me. i do not know if there's any hope for me right now. guest: sir, suntrust is a great

member of the hope now lines and 888-995-hope would be a great way to get escalations from them. the test would be, do you have enough income to qualify for an affordable housing be made to keep your home. and hopefully, you do. but you can work that through. and there is a formula that is applied to all mortgages. and if it is a fannie mae or freddie mac program, that is definitely part of the program if you are eligible. i urge you to keep calling on that issue and find out if resolution. resolution. host: host: president obama recently pushed the banks to be more proactive in reevaluating these hormones. what has been holed up? guest: it is not an uncomplicated process. the government program is more complicated than the private and proprietary programs.

when you are using taxpayer dollars to subsidize a modification, you need to document it fully. you have to have all of the income document verification, arch of affidavit, fraud affidavit to make sure that all -- hardship affidavit, fraud affidavit to make sure that all the income is eligible. we're working hard with servicers, counselors, looking at different avenues on how to document all of these loans. and we have a new web portal called loan accord that will keep the documents with counselors to push it to severson ears to make a better file to get -- to execute. . . run on the republican line. caller: we went to countrywide and then it got transferred to bank of america. we have been working through that whole program and the first they told us, well, the qualifications are that you have to be more than three months

behind on your mortgage, which will work. then they said we would definitely qualified. -- which we work. they said we would definitely qualified. qualified. and we get contacting and they would say, would you are still under review, you are still under review. eight months later, they contacted me again and i said, we are trying to go through the hope for homeowners program. and they go, okay, let us check on that. they came back and said you do not qualify because you are more than three months behind. guest: there are a few different scenarios. haut formal mourners is actually a government fha program. -- hope for homeowners is actually government fha program. they will review your file to see if you are eligible for the modification. in fact, they need to do that in

foreclosure. that is the question to ask, whether you are eligible. again, call 888-995-hope if you're having any questions on that. host: georgia, independent line. caller: i'm actually expecting twins and i lost my job during this process and my income has been drastically reduced. i have more king with bankamerica and they tell me that because i refinanced my house to get out of an arm that i am in eligible for any government programs. it looks like i am out of hope, too. guest: i do not know your situation. there is something called a net present value test that every

loan has to go through a review of what you owe verses what you make. and i know if that is what you have had applied -- i do not know if that is what you have had applied on your mortgage. i do not think we have solved for the unemployed homeowners who wants to keep their home. there is not a great program that is uniform across the market but i would talk to a third party who cares about your situation to explore every avenue. host: with the industry like to see congress or the obama administration to do something to add for the sport -- to add to this program for the unemployed? guest: the situation where you're looking for actively implement and you want to stay in your home, is there a temporary situation for six months to a year and then perhaps a modified, restructured loan to get you through this.

host: how much does of now reduced -- how much does hope now reduced your mortgage payments? guest: on average, $500 to $600 per month. host: next phone call, curtis on the democratic line. caller: i am a disabled veteran, vietnam. because of my income, they could not help me. but what they did is they refinanced my first home, but i have two mortgages. they got me in a situation where my home appraised at $200,000. then it dropped so bad to $130,000. i am unable -- in a situation where they refinanced by first loan -- my first loan guest: the

good thing is that you refinanced your first mortgage and that is important. there is a new program that has ruled out for second mortgages, which would ask all of the servicers and banks to sign up to modify the second mortgage. that is a new process that the government has ruled out. gmac is one of those servicers as well as others. i urge you to keep talking to gmac and others to look at where they can help with the second mortgage as well. host: next call, scott, republican line in georgia. caller: right now, i'm unemployed, do not have any income and it seems like there is no program at all for someone like myself. i called your home number there and they could not do much for me. i contacted the bank and they do

not want to work with you at all. they're just sitting around waiting to buy of everybody's property back for 20 cents on the dollar is what i think. and yourization is just kind of speaking with one to a and nad. ducouer really meeting dealt a a, it is just not there. host: i do not disagree -- guest: i do not disagree that there are not enough tools for the homeowner. it is incumbent upon us to look ahead ways to help people 43, 6, or even nine months what they are looking for reemployment. the banks want to keep you in your homes because they will take huge losses. host: on average, what is the average salary on those that

seek help from hope now and get help? guest: i'm afraid i do not know. but what i do know is that we started, it was a kind of subprime problem. now it is a high credit score with higher loan volume that is sometimes under water on their home. you could owe more than your home is worth. those are the issues facing all of us. caller: i have a question about the first mortgage and then the refinancing. in many states such as california, you could walk away from your first mortgage and not hurt your credit, but when you refinance -- and i do not think that a lot of people know -- you are stuck with that. it is just like buying a car. is a very big difference between your first mortgage and refinancing and isn't it dangerous to refinance when you

should have walked away from it? guest: i do not think so with record low rates. if you want to stay in the home, refinancing is a way to do that so you have a better mortgage verses walking away and looking for a new mortgage, which will take time and your credit availability to buy a new home. i think it is preferable to refinance and modify if you can before walking away. host: on the line for democrats, to shut in houston. -- patricia and in houston. caller: i am purchasing a home from a gentleman who got a loan from a of the bank. he bought a home and i'm buying it from him. the interest rate is ridiculous. i'm having a hard time trying to get someone to refinance for me.

guest: i do not feel like i know quite enough. it sounds like someone is going to give you the financing directly to buy the home. the rates are the 4% to 5% range. you do need more of a down payment to get those kinds of rates from fannie mae and freddie mac. that is your opportunity to get lower rates directly. host: keith on the republican line. caller: my wife and i have been trying for a year, since last january, to get our mortgage company to help us modify our mortgage payments of it without -- so we would not go out into default and they have put option -- put us off. every time we contact them they tell us to fill out of work that we have done it multiple times. then we send it in and they put us off again. we have been trying for a year to get them to help us. what do we do?

guest: have you worked with any third parties like housing counselors across the country, or the hope hotline? a third party can get the documentation and push it out to your lender. because there's a lot of good access and held out there from a third party if you are not getting the support you need. caller: yes, we have tried that. we tried someone locally that was affiliated with our mortgage company. we got on conference call with them and us and we tried to resolve this matter and they still put us off. they will not help us. guest: i would escalate. pat 888-995-hope -- at 888-995- hope they have an escalation program. host: how many banks are signed up for this escalation program? guest: there are 80 + people sign of for the government program, which is well over 90%,

95% of the market. we are well covered. host: conn., sandra, independent line. caller: me and via -- me and my husband have chase mortgage and our mortgage has always been paid had it. this is that i have lost my job and keeping their mortgage current has been a bit of a struggle conflic. we got a hold of the jays and has them if they would modify our interest rate and they said because we owe more than a home is worth, they could not do it. we got ahold of another and they said dagen we should cut back on expenses. guest: right now, only fannie mae and freddie mac investor

properties have the refinance option, which is of to 125% of the homes value. other investors will not refinance. that means modification is your % even though you are current, the mortgage needs to -- the mortgage companies to get your margin of, what has changed, and then assess the will situation. if you right into health @hopenow.com we can help you with that issue. host: next call is chris on the democratic line. caller: think what has happened is that these congressmen have taken millions of dollars of campaign contributions from the banks and then voted to deregulate the same banks. they have not been prosecuted at all.

interest-rate swap derivatives are about to hit the market and when those hit the market, the banks will collapse and all of these mortgages that are trying to float right now, the price of property will continue to fall. if a collapse in the united states and tricking people into financing property right now is unbelievable horrible. you are basically stealing their remaining well out of this country. the $750 trillion of unsecured debt with the swap derivatives, and now they want this health care bill that will bankrupt this country? they want to fund abortion which kills babies? and they want to violate my and they want to violate my guest: i don't follow all the legislation. my job is to keep people towards solutions that will stabilize the housing market. those who want to stay in their home should get that help before they go into foreclosure. host: what about the comments

about another pending waif with commercial real estate and the impact on real estate? guest: we are in a serious situation. we need to stabilize the housing front. for millions of people who don't go into foreclosure, and maybe some of them do re-default, they will need to find new homes and rental situations, but we still save millions of people from doing that. it is more of a stabilizing factor. host: we appreciate your time. thank you. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," a conversation about crime and punishment with the executive director of the national organization for victim assistance. then the executive director of the sentencing project. this is all starting at 7:00 and it is "washington journal" on c-

span. >> in this final white house briefing, many questions focused on the next steps in the health- care debate. if the legislation passes the senate this week, negotiators will have to work out their differences in a committee. robert kidd speaks with reporters for about 45 minutes. -- robert gibbs speaks with reporters. >> good morning. last week we did a happy hour briefing. today we do a brunch briefing. çwelcome to the last press briefing of the year. i know many of you will be disappointed. he collected christmas groans. you have to save those insightful questions for next year. today my friend is not christmas. >> [inaudible]

>> if you cannot feel it from here just come closer. go ahead. >> the president said his vacation plans will be contingent on the senate vote. wilkey stay in washington through christmas eve? >> -- will they stay in washington? >> they will make a decision later on when the president will leave. when we know the outcome we will let you know. no decisions have been made. >> ahmadinejad said the u.s. can set the deadline as it once, but it does not matter from them. -- set the deadline is it wants. >> i think the international community is united. this is not something the president has said.

this is not something just the president has said. this is something members of the [unintelligible] have said. that is why we are at the point where we are now with the international community, waiting to see for months whether iran will live up to its responsibilities. mr. ahmadinejad may not recognize the deadline that looms, but that is a very real deadline for the international community. i think all of those involved in the p5 would encourage iran to take that deadline serious. to live up to their response abilities. it is in his control what iran decides to do. the author -- the offer put

forward by the iaea that clarified for the world what iran's intentions were. now they have to live up to those responsibilities. if they fail, the international community will act accordingly. >> they decided to hold their output targets unchanged, so does the white house had any reaction? there is a strong message coming out of the conflict with oil prices around $80 a barrel. how does the white house feel? >> i don't have any guidance on opec, but we are trying to get some guidance. >> wants the state passes the health care -- once the states passes health care how does the presidency his role? will he be up to his elbows? >> let me say one thing first.

i will not get into it from here now getting into what that conference or those negotiations will look like. we are hopeful that the bill will pass the senate prior to the senate leaving for christmas, when every day they may decide that to be. i think the bill has a number of overwhelmingly good benefits for the american people. the president and his team will continue to play -- careful, guys. this room is not paid for. [laughter] the president will continue to play the role he has throughout this process. that is working with leaders and the house and the senate

discussing policy options. i think the role that he and his team has played has gotten us to the point where health care is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. the president is encouraged by that. the president has resolved to not let criticism bother him. >> when this goes to conference he will be involved about as much as he has been in the past. >> we would not be at the point where we are today if it were not for the president's every day involvement.

i know there have been reports to the contrary. i think the president believes we have gotten health care reform up to the point where it is in not -- it is not a matter of if. >> on iran, now that they have made their intentions clear that they will not abide by the deadline, has the white house started making plans for the next phase? >> we began making those plants weeks ago. you heard the president talk about this weeks ago. >> it is clear iran will not back down. >> that isç anç iranian decis. that is not a decision we will make. the decision for them to live up to their responsibilities is their decision. we have offered them a different path. if they decide not to take it,

then our delegation with the p5 will move accordingly. those preparations have begun. discussions have been had with leaders at the un in september in meetings with the president and the chinese on his recent trip, so we have begun to take those steps if iran is unwilling to pursue its responsibilities. >> the president is winding down his first year in office. is he at the point where he can say, this is kind of what i expected in terms of health care, economic recovery? is it would he expected or much more difficult? >> in terms of how? >> is it about what he expected?

>> i think the president was never under any illusion anything was going to be easy. we are talking about health care reform, fundamental change that will help in terms of health care reform millions have access to affordable health care, millions see costs reduced. we know this is a good thing for our fiscal picture. whether you have insurance or not, the important reforms about the way insurance companies to treat patients are in this bill. the senate bill has very strong provisions about preventing insurance companies from passing their own pockets. -- preventing insurance companies from padding their own

pockets. he came into office in january and we were looking at an economic picture that had not been seen by a president since president roosevelt. if you go back to that month, we had 741,000 jobs lost. the first quarter of 2009 saw a gdp production of more than 6%, a loss not seen in three decades. the president was not under any illusions this would be easy. i think he has focused domestically and in foreign policy on the ideas he thinks will make this country safer and more secure and get our economy back to recovery. >> your reaction to the death

of the woman who the president mentioned -- >> let me talk to the president about that. >> on healthcare on abortion language, has the white house been talking with the congressman from michigan? how confident is the president some sort of compromise in the congress can be worked out that will satisfy all parties? >> i will check to see whether we have had any conversations. i don't believe the president has talked to the congressman in the last few days. i don't know if staff has had conversations with him. i don't want to get into where some of these issues may be hammered out in a conference. it is better to let the senate work their will and get us to a point where you would have those negotiations. i think the president is confident we will be able to

figure out how to make health care reform a reality. i don't think this is a matter of if, it is a matter of when. >> i want to get the president's take on some of the language used regarding the health care reform. the chairman of the national committee twice said democrats are flipping the bird to the american people. >> [inaudible] >> it was not directed at nora, but the rnc. >> is the language inappropriate? >> just to give everybody some context as to why he came up with whenever he came up with. this was predicated on the fact that he had deduced that the

white house had pressured the congressional budget office into coming up with statistics that were good to -- that were good for the bill. i don't know how many questions i have been asked about cbo numbers. the notion that this white house is in cahoots with the cbo is delusional. i would suggest this for the rnc and in the republican party. there are millions of people without health care this okchristmas. there are millions of people watching health-care rates skyrocket. instead of giving chippy interviews, w3might be good to e part of a solutioni]ç to get hh careçq reform and make a reali. that is what the american people want to see. >> can i follow up on the

question about the president's involvement? senator feingold said the lack of support made keeping the public option an uphill struggle. i asked if it was the administration's fault? he said yes. there are some democrats who believe the president did not push hard enough. >> i think everyone is entitled to their opinion. we would not be at this point in health care reform were it not for the president's leadership. we would not be at a point where we were a couple of votes awayç to getting health care reform through the senate. at that point -- is somebody ordering a pizza? >> [inaudible] >> it is $30,000 if you answer

that call. [laughter] we will have health care reform through the house and senate. that has never happened before. we are at a place we have never been. we are closer to reform than we ever have been. you saw david axelrod and others disagree with, and if you go through what is in this bill and what is good for the american people i think this is a bill that will provide people with important protections and make true healthcare here reality. >> can you talk about the president's meeting with the small bankers? what is the message to them and how is it different than the meeting he had with the big banks?

>> i obviously this group represents several thousand community banks throughout the country. the president wants to have a discussion with the bankers here about ways in which we can work together to spur lending to small businesses. the president will reiterate his support for comprehensive financial reform. those are the main things that will be on his list. some issues like compensation are less of an issue for banks. we willxd have a better read out on the meeting later on. >> does he believe that the community banks are as reluctant to lend as the big banks?

>> these meetings are not about -- finding fault does not help somebody get a loan. we want to find out how people can work with community banks. it led to figure out ways in which the environment for lending -- where that can be çconducive for thesew3 banks. if there are things we can continue due to to help that çprocess, the president wants o help that. >> do you have any examples of ways in which lending can be increased? >> let me get a full read out of the meeting once they conclude. there is a lot done without hearing directly. >> you said three times it is not a question of if but when the health-care bill will be enacted.

do you see no deal crackers -- do you see no deal breaker is? >> there is import momentum for health care reform. -- there is important momentum. evaluating this legislation in the many ways it will help american people whether you have health insurance, whether you want affordable insurance, whether you think it is time insurance companies have to change their actions as it relates to things like pre- existing conditions, or whether you are concerned about the fiscal picture of the government, this bill will help all of those groups. i think the presidentç continus to believe we will get health care reform passed to his desk and signed. >> [inaudible]

has the white house been briefed on this? >> i am sure he saw the articles today. i don't know if he has been briefed by others. >> [inaudible] çó?;>> he would have equities n them. >> on the debt limit, blue dogs voted for it and they think they are negotiating with the white house for [inaudible] which the president is for. his white house negotiating in good faith? are they serious aboutñr enactig this and attaching it to the debt limit? >> obviously the house passed a temporary race through mid february. -- passed a temporary raise. obviously the president and the white house are negotiating in good faith.

we share the concerns of many in the blue dolle caucus that are concerned about the fiscal health of our country. >> [inaudible] >> lots of things are on the table. when you get elected and join the blue dog caucus we can do this right here. i am not sure the pan's will work in caucus. i don't want to dissuade year. çwhat color are your socks tod? we are going to be transparent. what are we wearing today? show them to the world with your purple stripes tie. >> they are the color of your time. -- the color of your tie. >> i rest my case.

[laughter] >> which billed as the white house think is better for the american people? >> i have not asked whether they have come to a conclusion as to which the legislation is better. i think in both bills you have many of the things i have talked about andy for months -- and four months. each of these meets the principles they president laid down in his speech in september. comprehensive health care reform is in each one of these bills. i]i]it helps with the cost of hh care. helps with affordable insurance, help with insurance reform. all of those things are in both of these bills. the president looks forward to signing a bill and making health

care reform a reality. >> the house bill has the public option and the senate does not. [inaudible] which does the white house prefer? >> again, i will not get into the negotiations that will take place once the senate passes a piece of legislation. those will happen [unintelligible] the president will be involved to get bills to this point and negotiations to get the bill to his desk. >> does the white house prefer this will carry out in public? >> we will hope to have this done quickly. >> you mentioned transparency. is now the time for transparency or is speed more important?

>> getting things done for the american people is the most important things we can do for millions of americans who struggle with the cost of health care. >> what does the team believed about this? [inaudible] >> we did not have a briefing this morning. the president usually gets his information -- >> [inaudible] ç>> i think -- you have seen te number revisedç down based on inventory. i take you back to what we saw in the first quarter of the year, a gdp downturn we had not seen in three decades. we saw an increase in that and a

slight lessening in the second quarter. now we have seen positive growth for the first time in over one year in each of the numbers that were put out for the third quarter. we are hopefulç to continue to- continue the trajectory for the economy we have seen over the past few quarters. as i have said countless times, this was not a problem that would be solved overnight. >> [inaudible] >> i don't think the president will be satisfied until we see not just positive economic growth, but growth that lead to positive jobs growth. the millions of people who want to find work and cannot will be able to do so. >> the deals in the last few minutes to procure the [inaudible]

does the white house consider anything that they saw a play out in the senate caucus objectionable? >> i would refer you to what david said overç the weekend,oe legislative process is what the legislative process is. >> [inaudible] legislation is not something the white house considers crucialç. the president talked about things that could be done differently. >> one of the things that will be done differently is we will have health care reform. the president thinks that is a good thing for the american people. >> the white house issued a statement noting the death of the ayatollah. i don't recall any white house noting the death of previous leaders of the revolution in iran. he is obviously a critic of ahmadinejad. why did they choose to note his

death? >> i would point you to what the president said to his speech earlier. i would simply say thatç if you look at his actions post- revolution in order to seek greater human rights, it is something we all support. i refer you back to what we talked about earlier with iran. they have an opportunity to take steps to fulfill their international responsibilities. when not only have not seen that from iranians, we have seen throughout the past several years attemps to hide what their activities were. this administration working

through the iaea have taken steps to bring the international community along. if iran fails to live up to his obligations by the end of the year, we will take our next steps. >> does the white house believe this statement had an energizing affect on demonstrators who showed up? >> i don't know. i have not heard directly on that. >> can i ask about the budget coming hunt? -- the budget coming up? in these remarks earlier this week the president said it will require tough choices. has he said to the chiefs, you have to do [unintelligible] he talked about things like spending freezes. are their marching orders yet? >> the president has been involved over the course of the last three weeks probably five

different budget meetings. peter has worked with agencies about their budget requests for the next fiscal year. not all those decisions have been made. i think the president has expressed a concern about continuing our economic recovery, doing what we have to do to create an environment where the private sector is creating jobs, and in the long term, take steps toç reduce our deficit and take the necessary steps to get us back on a path towards fiscal responsibility. i mentioned this possibility in health care and not based on the fact that cbo reports that our budget situation will they -- this bill is not just deficit- neutral, it will improve our

fiscal situation. one of the reasonsç this debate has taken so long is unlike other things in washington in the past few years, the president made a commitment to pay for at. the two biggest drivers in the budget deficit we have right now -- one is economict( activi, at which the president is working hard to restore. the two biggest spending programs are 2001 tax cuts not paid for and a prescription drug benefit that was not paid for. the president proposed comprehensive health care reform and changed the way washington works by talking about and paying for understanding we have to take

steps to get our country back on a path towards responsibility. >> my question is about agency budgets the president will have to submit. has he told them it is time for an austerity budget? >> i will let get ahead of what the budget will look like, but it will not look as it has in the past. >> just two questions. does the president's support senator a kafka -- senator akkaka's reorganization act creating a hawaiian government? if so, why not support statehood for american indian reservations? >> is that two questions? >> no.

>> that seems like free. >> it is only one and it had two parts. [laughter] >> can i just contemplateç that for a second? ç>> you are a very funny man. >> i practice. i will give you a one part answer. this was passed last week. >> -- this was asked last week. >> does the president believe a flight attendant who directed someone to the rules after asking someone to turn off their cell phone -- >> we may need a couple of flight attendants in this room to tell people to turn off their cell phones. i think senator schumer has apologized. if it was not reported you would

not be asking me your question. >>. christmas to you. >> -- merry christmas to you. >> are they cooking up something for the new year? >> they continue to talk about details for what the president talked about in his speech to help that atmosphere to create jobs. some of those meetings have been budget meetings as well, so those continue. they will certainly continue. >> now that we have finished the 2010 spending bills i am wondering how you viewed the process. the final bills had $8 billion in earmarks. how would you evaluate the way things work this year? what will it call on congress to

do differently? >> i don't want to get ahead of budgetary announcements that will be made in february. çi said this last week when we were asked about this that far from perfect, the legislation did have a reduction inç earmarks. obviously the president said that we would like to see bills go through in a regular order in a more orderly way. that was made much more difficult based on -- we have watched the floor of the senate be taken up by a series of delaying tactics which many would find it curious considering the fact that they follow bills that have passed

88-10 and something like 95-5. it is unclear why people would delay a piece of legislation that passes 88-10. we will certainly look for more congeniality next year in making the process flow more easily. >>çó a question on the navy seas case. one of them was arraigned today. does the president believe the court-martial was the [unintelligible] ç>> i don't think the president should get involved in the legal cases like this. if you are looking for comment, either the pentagon or department of justice is the place to debate. >> just one more question. will the president be attending

church on christmas? how is the search for a church billing? >> i don't know what his president -- i don't know what the president's schedule is. some of that is in flux. the president has attended fairly regularly at camp david a church he is comfortable in and has enjoyed attending. the president understands whenever he goes to church it is in many ways a number of inconveniences' for parishioners to go through. the president has tried to minimize that. >> i wanted to get more detail abvó+q how t÷@%uju)qq't will structure his vacation schedule, because they are never really on vacation. is he planning to set aside a window for briefings?

do you expect you would get at least one update a day on that? >> i don't have the schedule in front of me. i would hit on a point in which you did, rarely are presidents on vacation. i went to hawaii with candidate obama and national party candidates are also not on vacation much of their. i think the -- not on vacation mucht( either. if there areç updates surroundg health-care, is always available. the president will continue to get -- he is always available. the president will get security updates as he does here and when he travels abroad. we will have an extensive

network of whatever is needed to stay on top of whatever situations happen. >> does he plan to work on the state of the union address on his vacation? is the speechwriter going for part of the trip? anyone at the chief of staff level going for the trip? >> let me tryç to get a list of who is going. i do not believe the speechwriter is going. the president has had meetings on the state of the union, there is a meeting today that is on the state of the union and preparations made for that. lots of those meetings have happened at the staff level. let me get a fuller list. i know bill and nick are going, but i just want to confirm which

people are going. >> will he be doing any public events during his vacation? >> no. he will probably take the girls out, they may do various things around hawaii, but there are no public events. >> is there a date for the state of the union? >> no. [laughter] >> we will not tell anyone. >> sometimes in 2010. >> do you know if the president called tim kaine's radio show this morning? >> i don't know if he did that that would be inaccurate. >> it sounded like him. >> i think this is the governors oklast radio show and i know the

was a call sheet that led in -- call sheet that went in. >> just a follow-up, why did the president and his team never bring up the public option in discussions with senator lieberman? >> i will not rehash -- >> itsç not really rehashing. >> it is generally rehashing. the president has been clear on what he supported. member is in the senate have been clear on what they did not support. the president believes that and he would refer you to an interview he did yesterday. health care reform contains 95% of what he wanted in health care reform. the president is quite pleased with the product and looks

forward to signing a comprehensive health care. >> he said he did everything he çxdcould to get the public optn passed. >> absolutely. >> the commander in northern iraq said women shoulders to get pregnant will be subject to court martial. hasv: that rule passed through the defense department and the white house? >> i have no knowledge of this. let me go find some back reformation. >> he might have already addressed this, but is the present considering any pardons? >> no. i don't know in terms of broader partans. in terms of jack johnson, the department of justice recommended not giving pardons.

>> were there others he is considering? >> let me check if there are others. >> [inaudible] one of her major concerns about the cost of this bill and is the class act on long-term -- the cost of this bill is a class act. does the white house share any concern about that provision? >> i would have to talk to some of the guys on that, but i think the president is comfortable with where the senate bill is and looks forward to its passage. >> i know the white house doesn't like to set deadlines for health care, but with the present like to sign this week for the state of the union? >> -- but would the president like to sign this before the state of the union? >> he would like to sign it as soon as congress sends it to

him. >> all the back and forth with boats for the public option seems to have cooled off -- all the back and forth with the votes for the public option. will the president reached out to them? >> i think david mentioned this. nancy spent 45 minutes with governor dean on the phone to walk him through what was in the senate bill. i think governor dean mentioned that things like medical loss ratio awwas something in the bill. i think his earlier criticism that nothing was done about things like that after hearing from somebody as smart as nancy was in terms of that policy, he

came to the conclusion that some of the things he did not believe or in the bill were in the bill. >> there are some folks to think there could be lasting damage from this episode. what concerns does the white house have? some folks who supported candidate obama have problems with the way things have gone. >> i would say the same thing the president would say, which is look at the entire bill. look at what this bill does if you are concerned about skyrocketing costs of health care. that is addressed in this health care reform. if you are concerned about 30 million americans that have lost basic insurance, look at what this bill does for them. look at what it does to stop insurance abuse in pre-existing conditions. look at what the legislation

does on medical loss ratio. look at what it does for our fiscal picture. understand about 95% of what he wanted is in this legislation. the president is very proud of this legislation and the fact that is about to get through the senate. he is proud it has gotten through the house. it is not a matter of if but when we have comprehensive health care reform, something that presidents have tried to do for 70 years, and what many people have been working decades on as well. when people have a chance to look at all of what is in the legislation, that people will be as proud as what we are