>> my understanding is that the first chaplain of the senate was the episcopal bishop of new york, isn't that correct? and he used to read -- he took his prayers from the book of common prayer. that was acceptable to baptists at the time, quakers? >> well, it wouldn't have been their choice. but did he talk about the choice between bishops and presbyters and congregations as a way of governing the church? they have not offered a single example of a prayer in the founding era that addressed points on which protestants were known to disagree. and i don't think there is one. the founding generation kept government out of religious disagreements. and what has changed is not the principle. what has changed is that we have a wider range of religious disagreements today. if there are no further questions, we ask you to affirm. >> thank you, mr. laycock. mr. hungar, you have three minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. first i would like to correct one factual misimpression, the assertion that only non-christian prayer-givers delivered the prayer after 2008. it's not in the record, but the official web site of the town of

greece shows that at least four non-christian prayer-givers delivered prayers thereafter in 2009, '10, '11 and '13. on the sectarian points, clearly the line. >> counsel. >> i'm sorry? >> one a year. >> i'm sorry, your honor? >> four additional people after the suit was filed. >> yes, your honor. >> one a year. >> approximately. >> how often does the legislature meet? >> once a month. and on the sectarian line, i just like to point the court to the senate brief, the amicus brief filed by senators, pages 8 to 17 which shows the extensive history from the beginning of the republic until today of prayer in congress. that would be sectarian and unconstitutional under respondent's position. with respect to coercion, it's unquestionably true that there is less basis for claiming coercion here than there was in marsh. in marsh, senator chambers was required to be on the senate floor by rule, he had to be there to do his job and the practice was to stand every single time, which he did because he felt coerced to do it, whereas, here, the record suggests that there were three

times when somebody requested people to stand out of 121 occasions. the idea that this is more coercive than marsh is absurd. in marsh the court expressly rejected a coercion argument saying, "we expect adults to be able to deal with this." with respect to the history, as well, i think the debate in the continental congress, when this issue was first raised, shows what the american tradition has been. that is americans are not bigots and we can stand to hear a prayer delivered in a legislative forum by someone whose views we do not agree with. that is the tradition in this country, and that's why it doesn't violate the establishment clause. and finally, with respect to the fact that this is a municipality rather than a state or local federal government, that can't possibly make a difference as an establishment clause matter. it makes no sense to suggest that a prayer at the local level is more dangerous for establishment clause purposes than what congress is doing. only congress could establish a religion for the entire nation, which is the core preventive

purpose of the establishment clause. to suggest that there are greater restrictions on municipalities makes no sense at all. we think that the dangerously overbroad theories advanced by respondents are at odds with our history and traditions, which we reflect this tradition of tolerance for religious views that we don't agree with in the legislative context. respondent's theories also conflict with the religion clauses mandate, that it's not the business of government to be regulating the content of prayer and regulating theological orthodoxy. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. captioning performed by the institute.ptioning [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> if you missed any of that oral argument from november, we'll show it to you again at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. the-span2, it's

"communicators" with a look at the future of the wireless industry. on c-span3, a look at the military's response to sexual assaults. on the next "washington former senate staff directors discuss the housing reform bill making its way senate.the then reporter adam snyder looks trust fund which provides most federal support for state transportation projects, plus your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> you can now take c-span with you wherever you go. listen to all three c-span tv c-span radio anytime. there's a schedule of each of networks so you can tune in when you want. play podcasts of recent shows signature programs like

"afterwards," "the and "q&a."rs," take c-span with you whenever you go. download your free app online iphone, android or blackberry. have a fobbing fobbina facebood today. we're asking you, is your governor doing a good job? to post your comments and opinions and see how others feel about their governor in their state. .t's all on facebook.com/c-span advisor toa, senior president obama, briefed reporters today on climate change issues and upcoming events related to energy. it's 25 minutes.

>> good afternoon. happy monday. i hope everyone's recovered from prom and had a fine time on what glorioust to be a weekend weather-wise. as you can see, i have with me podesta, senior advisor to the president. he is no stranger to many of you or even to this briefing room. talk about issues around energy and energy that the president will be discussing this week. thel make a presentation at .op and stay for questions if you could direct questions to him at the top and then when done, we'll let him go and i'll remain for questions on other subjects. with that, i give you john podesta. >> thank you, jay. here.ood to be back not really. [laughter] you know i don't lie. [laughter] i'm going to run through a few noted. as jay

president obama, year of action, administration and the american economy are firing out on all cylinders when it comes producing more energy, and more energy efficiency as well as combating climate change. we prepared a few slides because we're doing a number of activities this week to give you some background and provide some were done by the c.e.a. town today, so forgive me, i don't have a ph.d. in economics but i think i can these slides.gh the united states is now the larger producer of and thegas in the world largest producer of gas and oil in the world. it's projected that the u.s. be the largesto producer of natural gas through 2030. straight months now we produced more oil here at home fromwe've imported

overseas. good-news story. next slide. the domestic energy production boosting economic growth overall. in 2012 and 2013 it octobered .it -- accounted for .22 and .24% of growth which is the record.on if you go to the next slide, as you can see, that's had had a direct impact on employment. 133,000 jobs in the last three years in the oil and natural gas extraction sector. and those numbers are projected to continue to grow. please.de, but at the same time, as we've been produced more oil and home, we'reat cutting our energy usage, dramatically improving energy efficiency. the's part of what president means when he says that we have an all of the above strategy, trying to produce more domestic energy but

it in a much more efficient way. as this slide shows, the efficiency standards like the fuel economy standards finalized down there driving mound of energy -- amount of energy necessary to produce goods or services. consumption of gasoline is well below the expected trend lines that you can see from 2006 and even 2010. expected as the energy efficiency standards come into out to 2025, that's expected to saver $1.7 trillion. go to the next slide. a cleanerevolving overall energy mix even as we boost domestic oil and natural gas production, improved efficiency. renewable energy is on the rise fastest-growing part of our energy mix. cleaner burning natural gas is the only fossil fuel growing as a share of the energy mix.

these trends will keep the united states economy competitive, keep the u.s. economy growing, help us achieve the president's goal of reducing then house gas emissions in range of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. please, the next slide. since president obama took office, we've increased electricity generation from by more than 10 times and tripled electricity production from wind power. last year's solar energy was the second largest source of new the gridty added to after natural gas. every four minutes another home or business went solar. government is doing its part to make sure that these trends continue and more energy is produced by clean renewable sources like whipped and and -- wind and solar. five years ago there was not one publicproject on the lands. today doi is on tract to issuing renewabler enough

energy generation on public lands to power six million homes. and finally, the last slide, please, power plants that created electricity by burning fossil fuels are still the largest single source of co2 emissions in the u.s. for012 they've accountedded 38% of co2 emissions and 31% of emissions over all. the transition to natural gas increases in efficiency and renewablesof more has meant that our co2 emissions from energy production are trending in the right way, and that is down. but we have more work to do. so that's what we're up to this week. -- just to give you a sense of where we are. we're work every day to implement the president's climate action plan. we've made, i think, important gains on all three fronts of the climate action plan that he year, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions,

resilience in american communities. the climate impacts we know are coming. the international negotiations to tackle this global challenge. this week we're taking further actions on the important part of the climate action plan, calling the national forth climate assessment. that will be released tomorrow here at the white house. release, theat president will be spend something time speaking to meteorologists about what the report's findings will mean for communities across america. national climate assessment will be the most authoritative and comprehensive scientific information ever produced about how climate change is going to impact all states andthe united key sectors of the national economy. it's been a tremendous undertaking. hundreds of the best climate scientists from across the u.s., just in the public sector but in the private sector as well, have worked over the last to produce this report. this assessment is about

actionable science. we expect it will gain an amount and useable knowlege state decision makers can take advantage of as they impacts of climate change and work to make their communities more resilient. oner in the week starting wednesday, the administration is going to be holding a three-day inter building summit here washington. in february of 2011, the president launched a better building challenge to help american commercial and industrial buildings become at least 20% more efficient by 2020. more than 120 diverse organizations representing over two billion square feet of real toate are already on track meet that 2020 goal and cut their energy use by 2.5% annually. these efforts obviously save families and businesses money on bills.tility they reduce energy demand. and they help us to achieve our reducingoals by greenhouse gas emissions. this week's events will

progress for our private and public sector. and then finally, coming out of solaronth's white house summit anticipating this week's better building summit the has been using the power of his phone and all of us in the white house have been get more commitments from more partners on these key sectors to get more efficiency in our bill sector, more deployment of solar across the economy. we'll have some announcements to that at the end of the week. need all hands on deck if we're going to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. the impacts that the ipcc warned so ago, just a month or and that the national climate assessment will bring into sharp u.s. with respect to the so with that, let me go ahead and take some questions. >> julie? >> thank you. i had a question on power plants. you mentioned this briefly as it your last slide. can you give us any sense about what the president is planning terms ofront in

executive actions and regulations perhaps later this year? askediously the pleas has the epa to move forward to regulate existing power plants the clean air act. he set a june 1 deadline. i think we will meet that or be to it. modeled a has proposal that's being reviewed through an interagency process right now. so we will propose -- we will have a proposed rule out in the beginning of june. >> mark? >> one of the charts that you ofwed showed a declining use gasoline and greater energy -- gasoline.ient use of an impact of that is that the highway trust fund is running out of funds. trust fund, as you know, has been the source of funding for infrastructure country. this to what extent would the administration support increasing the gas tax to that fund or replace funding in some other way? >> as you know, we just put

bill on service transportation which replaces it in a different way. an importantised point. the stable funding for the great theastructure needs that united states is currently whether that's crumbling roads and bridges or building a more modern infrastructure across the board to move our goods and freight to make thently, driving experience more efficient, building more transit people inside urban environments is a pressing need. but the secretary of just senttion legislation to the hill last i think, thatday, covers both what we need to do it.how to pay for >> john. shows -- it's been a big story for a while -- the rapid increase in natural gas production. much cleaner than coal. obviously a lot good about that.

much of an environmental downside has there been to this fracking -- >> for the most part, there's been up side as we've seen cleaner natural gas replacing dirtier fossil fuels in the electricity system in particular. that gas is a concern that's frabbinged, if you will -- frabbinged, if you will, thats produced through method is done in the cleanest, most efficient way. , therticular administration released a strategy a couple of weeks ago that goes to the question of how we ensure that production methods in andproduction of both oil gas in that process. for the most part that's state level -- regulated at the state level, but i think there are ways in which that the united states -- the federal government can take thes to ensure that we use

best practices, capture that that -- and ensure which, of course, has a heavy it'st on the climate if just allowed to be released into the atmosphere. to i think there are ways control that. and we're working both in both at the oil and gas production level and also at the transportation level. of energy has had intensive negotiations -- or not , withations, discussions the transportation people because there's a lot of leakage that level asat well. we need to get that methane leakage down, but i think there are practical ways to do that. alexander -- peter alexander? >> thank you. is it possible for the president as suggested to have climate the keye one of components of his legacy and also to support the keystone pipeline? those two in conflict or can he accomplish both at once? >> i'll leave that one to jay.

think you know, when i came here, i said i'm not going to pipeline.e keystone so i'll just defer that to a later question. >> bill? fact that most of the inspection stuff is regulated by state governments, the federal government do to ensure that water quality geologiced, that disturbances, all of this reported very much by people, frackingple, where the is taking place. >> well, i think we have that can at e.p.a. support -- and at the department of energy, which has a major research program going on this, to provide state regulators, you know, up-to-date, scientific about the best utilized.that can be at this point i think we're trying to work with the states to ensure that people can be

reassured. obviously different states are going different ways on that question in terms of providing regulation of oil and gas production or deciding to all.no production at >> there's no government regular -- i mean, there's no federal regulations. think, again, the methane strategy will produce, some steps to deal with that issue. the issue around particularly fracking fluids is largely managed at the state level. >> alexis? >> john, when democratic challengersear from that they're not supportive of industry, that the administration is not being supportive, when you look at data and they look at this data, what is the message that they have to counter those s that this administration is against oil and gas? >> well, obviously we've seen a in both oil and gas production. i don't think would have seen

aat if you didn't have practical approach. obviously in the first term that the large oilh, spill in the country's history spill in the gulf, but we're back on track to produce more oil and gas in the itself and i think with better procedures for making sure that that's done in a safe and effective and environmentally friendly way. -- i think the statistics that i just presented argument -- belie the argument. people will make that argument. but i think, as i said, if you look at the -- adds i said, the overall mix is cleaner, more domestically produced. turned the corner so that we're not producing more oil than we're importing. i thinke all facts that can be utilized by candidates to we're on the that right path to have a cleaner, more secure, more american-made energy future for

country. >> steve? >> mr. podesta, this seems like centerpiece of the president's agenda, climate, getthing he can't really much out of congress. you said we need all hands on deck. is there anything that you think get through congress this year, anything that you're working on or that you see in congress? >> well, the senate's taking up energy efficiency legislation this week. passedee if that can get and get on to the floor. important bill. it will move us in the right direction on energy efficiency. question ofstill a whether that will be filibustered so they won't be not thiset to it or week. >> you mentioned the catastrophic impact of climate change. survey everything that you've seen coming in, what do you think are the areas that the most immediate, federal attention on this? so much has been written about it. how far off it is and so forth. >> well, i think -- again, we've

put out at climate.data.gov a first tranche of information about sea level rise. tot's particularly going affect communities on the eastern seaboard in florida, you gulf.in the so i think that's building resilience towards what is rising sea level is something that communities need to grapple with and need to grapple with it right now in terms of their infrastructure investments, how they're the future.ut and obviously we're in the midst of experiencing major droughts in california, in the colorado .iver basin that comes along with greater fire risk. has putadministration forward a new way of budgeting riske question of fire going forward. with seeing that already

intense fires already in the plains in oklahoma, in california. i think you have to pick two, i be twoay those would good ones to a-- ones to attend to. peter, theknow, president recommended a billion year'sfund in this budget that would begin to support communities to develop resilience plans and do lookr planning to take a at what you'll see tomorrow, which is a national climate assessment, which begins -- it doesn't localize it, per se, but it begins to take the climate regionaln down to a level. so it breaks the country apart, anticipates what's going to each region, and has another separate breakout on what's happening to the ocean the oceans because of increase in cidification, what effect of that may be on the productive economies that are know, particularly

coastal communities and ocean-oriented economies. ofi think that kind information will help communities plan. that we've proposed, i think, will provide the resources that would be useful give communities a jump-start on their planning. communities obviously are already on top of that as a events,f catastrophic really, particularly as a result of what happened in the gulf katrina and what happened with superstorm sandy in the northeast. climate change doubters, you say what? out'd say probably look your window and you'll begin to feel the effects. 97% of scientists agree there's an overwhelming amount that exists that climate change is real, it's co ening, it's caused by the co2 pollution and other, you

pollutants that we're putting into our air that cause climate change. it's well-known science now. the data continues to come in. if anything, we're seeing some the effects that were predicted by the models coming than wereickly predicted in the models that ago.ed even a decade so i think if you want to try want particularly if you to try to side with the polluters and argue that the public -- to the american public that climate change is not happening, today, certainly in the future that's going to be a losing argument. >> mike? >> the statistics you presented pretty much read like a whole hearted endorsement of fracking. when the president was in brussels a couple of months ago, thepoke recommending eastern europeans step up their technologies. my question is is fracking the energyto the world's needs or is fracking a disincentive to develop renewable energy?

think -- again, we put a major emphasis, and i quoted statistics, 10-time increase in solar, three times increase in wind. we're very committed to renewable energy. but at this moment as a bridge, a world in, from forh there are still needs fossil fuels to power our economy, to a world in which we zero carbon from source energy, whether that's technology because we can sequester the carbon that's coming from the release power plants or from more renewables in the system, more energy in theurce system, we think it's a toctical and viable way reduce emissions in the short run. so obviously there are issues around the oil.ction of gas and but, again, in the administration's view, those can

the properth through application of the best practices to produce that oil gas. >> time for one more. >> you mentioned the energy to thency bill moving senate. i was wondering, what level of have that the republicans will push back on some of the carbon emissions to that bill and what work, if any, you guys are doing to shore up democrats and on that issue. >> i think that, you know, the question of whether they'll find -- they'll find various ways, particularly in the house to try to stop us from using the authority we have under the act. air all i would say is that those ofe zero percent chance working. we're committed to of moving forward with those rules. we're committed to maintaining the authority and the president's authority to ensure that the clean air act is fully implemented. that's critical to the health of the american people, the health healtheconomy, and the

of our environment. so they may try, but i think takers at thisno end of pennsylvania avenue. i think with respect to the tomitment of democrats support a cleaner energy future, i think there's a strong sentiment there. quite a bit of organization that's led senatorarly by whitehouse in the senate, senator boxer and others, to ensure that we get the right c outcome. so, again, this is bipartisan legislation on efficiency. we hope that it gets to the floor. it passes.t the but if it passes with unacceptable writers, then it know, to thed, you watery depths, i guess. thanks. >> thank you, john. from the plan,n if you take that 150 number from

the incentive auction, the age block, you need to figure out int comes next, what comes that 2018, 2019, 2020 tranche the two identify that spectrum needs to start right now. you referenced the cisco projections. they are staggering. nowo projects that between and 2018 the demand for mobile wireless bandwidth will increase eight-fold. if you thought traffic in washington was going to increase between now and five years from now, you'd say we need new roads. problem.face that same you need more spectrum. the auctions will help. additional infrastructure help.ment will new tech nothing will help. -- technology will help. but we also ought to be working atrophying out what that next tranche is after the insenttive auction. for the wireless industry? tonight on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> on the next "washington

journal," former senate banking committee staff directors dwight mem.g and andrew ol and then adam snyder looks at the highway trust fund which most federal support for state transportation projects. calls, facebook comments, and tweets. "washington journal" is live at c-span.. eastern on books,an's newest "sunday at eight." >> half the reason i did this book is martha because when she arrived in berlin with the , she was in love with what she referred to as the nazi revolution. the nazis,hralled by which is really -- really struck surprisingpletely thing given what we know, hindsight. how could you actually be enthralled with the nazi

there she was. >> erik larson, one of the from our book notes and "q&a" conversations. "sundays at eight" now available at your favorite book seller. >> we have a facebook question today. several governors are up for re-election this fall and we're you -- is your governor doing a good job? log on to post your comments and see how others feel about their governor an in their state. at facebook.com/cspan. >> several state attorneys general met here in washington today to discuss confronting racial and cren seng disparities. this panel then focused on ways to reduce crime and how to access toncerns over job opportunities once a person leaves prison. this is an hour and a half. >> thank you very much.

this next panel is on the collateral consequences of theinal convictions and impacts of those collateral rates ences on recidivism rates. collateral consequences as we know are the additional mandated bypically state statute that attached to criminal conviction that are not the direct consequences of the conviction such as fines, and/or probation. they are the further civil consequences that are triggered a consequence of the conviction. state imposell these consequences. they include but are not limited to loss or restriction of professional licenses, ineligibility for public funds including public welfare benefits, public housing, and student loans, loss of voting rights, ineligibility for jury and a big one in colorado is loss of hunting privileges.

deportation of immigrants. while collateral consequences have always accompanied criminal convictions in the united states, their number in impact expanded dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s. collateral consequences have garnered increased attention in if large part because of the record number of exiting u.s.ow correctional facilities and returning to communities across .he country the numerous collateral consequences that attached to convictions are perceived as frustrating reintegration for both individuals and for communities. collateralin that consequences are a barrier to successful re-entry for many offenders. while many nations impose dla collateral consequences on criminalls with records, most such restrictions appear less severe than in the states. for the most part, courts have held that the failure to advise potentialtive collateral consequences does not give rise to a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel and that court advisement of collateral consequences is not required.onally only the collateral consequence of deportation has been made an general rulethis by the united states supreme v commonwealths of kentucky. legislatecircles of live reducing collateral consequences or providing for waivers or schemingions from them. -- exemptions from them. hopefully that will set the believe will be a very interesting discussion. we have three distinguished .anelists with us today immediately to my left is esther big letter, the director of university's labor and employment law program. she develops forums and conferences on critical and evolving labor in employment law issues and teaches in both city. and new york a graduate of kornel and george -- cornell and georgetown ms. bigty law center, letter began her career a field attorney with the nr fer lrb and

then -- nlrb. she then represented unions in andphases of labor law represented plaintiffs in title vii litigation. returning to public service she was the deputy director and general counsel of new york city's bureau of labor services enforced the equal employment opportunity requirementses in city contracting. is a member of the new york city bar association, labor and employment committee, the american bar association section of labor and employment law, and the new york state bar association labor and employment law section. recipient of006 thalition cook and constant cook aaward for commitment to women's and for improving the climate for women. thanks for joining us. .ppreciate it very much scott burns was the elected prosecutor in iron county, utah, for 16 years before being selected by president george w. to serve as the deputy drug czar at the white house.

house ining the white 2009, mr. burns was selected as the executive director of the national district attorney's association, and after five years recently relinquished that to his nativeturn utah to practice law. mr. burn has received numerous awards and honors for his work as a prosecutor, has been a fierce advocate of victims' a national spokesperson on behalf of america's 40,000 prosecutors. thanks for joining us. prior to his appointment as alaska's attorney general, was a partner in .he anchorage law firm mr. garrity began working at the firm in 1979 with a practice litigation and appeals before state and federal courts. as lead counsel in civil and criminal law matters as well as proceedings before the alaska state commission on human rights, and the u.s. land commission. in fairbanks,d garrity's private practice focused on areas and industries

reflecting alaska's growth and history including natural resources, oil and gas, and construction. he's been involved in numerous complex cases including class antitrust. in 2005 he was appointed by the governor to serve alaska as a uniformed law commissioner to the national conference of commissioners on uniformed state in 2007 he was honored by his peers when he received the alaska bar association board of governor's professionalism award in recognition of exemplary conduct in his association with public, his colleagues, and the legal community. 2011, he was elected to the american bare foundation in recognition of outstanding dedication to the welfare of the community, the the profession, and the advancement of the objectives of the american bar association. received histy undergraduate degree in political science from the university of hawaii. graduated with a j.d. coup laude from the university

of santa clara. general garrity and his wife lived in arrange roar for 30 and have five children. we'll have the same format as the last panel. each panelist will speak for approximately 10 to 15 minutes. then i'll pose some questions and we'll open up to the audience for questions. esta, do you want to begin? .> i will begin >> good morning, everyone. i can't tell you how thrilled i am to be here, but i do feel a little bit like i'm a duck out water. as the only employment lawyer on the only and perhaps labor and employment lawyer in , it's a little intimidating. let me say that i grew up in new york city. take the subway all by myself at night. [laughter] yes. somebody back there.

yes. thank you. i take the subway by myself at night. but i have been the victim of twice and having my house broken into twice. i live in brooklyn. always very worried when my sons are out late at night. come to this subject having been a traditional labor and employment lawyer, but when i over to cornell, one of the things that became of interest to me was the use of social science research in if labor and employment law and how together.me how do lawyers use social science research? do sociologists, industrial organizational psychologists, use what they see in the legal profession for the research that they do? so this is where i come from. when i think about this topic of andateral consequences recidivism, the first thing i hydra.f is a hid this has so many pieces to the

puzzle. we certainly have race discrimination. fierce. -- fear. we have negligent hiring. we have drug addiction. topic, my favorite employment. we have crime. we have public safety. all of thist through the lens as an employment lawyer. want tooyment what we know, is when criminal records are being used as a selection device. does this selection device, is it job related? is it related to the job to be done? and can the employer show a business necessity? so those are the hallmarks of how i think about this issue. when i think about criminal records, and i've read extensively. i've done many conferences, talked to many scientists who study the issue. it appears that we all begin to think about someone with a criminal record as they're all the same, that somehow the not different, it's the record and the record only that he with think about. refrain from engaging in

criminal activity as many different reasons as people get it, perhaps. what we do know is that nearly people released from prison serve for non-property -- non-violent offenses, including drugs, 37%, and 25%.rty, some people have been clean for 10, 20, and 30 years. and somehow we act when we look at collateral consequences as been clean isve irrelevant. so that their debt to society never paid. so a forever rule is in place. argue that ao forever rule is not always appropriate. put a face on this for you if you'll give me a few minutes. case of darryl langdon. the story was told in the howard in 2011.w he in 2010 had just been turned job as a boiler room

engineer in the chicago public schools. state law that said anyone who had a drug conviction could not work in the public school system. he had been convicted in 1985 of a drug conviction for possession of cocaine, a relatively minor amount of cocaine, and he had gotten a court order relieving him of this employment bar but public schoolago system refused to hire him. with a he was caught half-gram of cocaine and sentenced to six months probation. what was interesting about this that he worked for the chicago public school system at his job, didn't lose and in 1988 they sent him to an assistance program. it was the turning point in his life. familyme a responsible man, a respected member of the community, and he continued to chicago public school system until 1995 when there was restructuring in the system and he, with many others, were laid off.

the next 13 years he worked in his own mortgage business doing real estate until the real estate turndown. and then he decided he obviously needed another job. he got a job in a hospital engineer. a building but wanting to make more money and wanting the benefits that school systemblic could provide, he reapplied for that job. been sober for over two decades. he had raised two sons as a had had nont and he further problems with the law. interviewed three times. he was honest on his application about his conviction. they tested him for the skills of being an engineer. and just as he was about to be was told he was ineligible for employment because of the provision in the code prohibiting people convicted of a long list drugimes including felony, convictions. so it's the langdons of the you i amt i will tell very, very concerned about.

race plays aat role here. the eeoc, when it issued its hiring people with criminal records in 2012 -- and all know these statistics, i apologize. about one in 17 white men are time in prisonve during their lifetime. hispanic men, and one in three african-american men. and hispanicsans are incarcerated at rates disproportion at to their population.he in 2010, black men had an imprisonment rate that was nearly seven times higher than white men and almost three times higher than hispanic men. so we have a large population a criminal record. we have a population that needs .o be served in my colleagues' and my view employment is one of the most important places where someone

can gain a sense of confidence, sense of responsibility, and can continue on in a law-abiding way. in 2003, diva paga did a study in which she wanted to look at how employers look in hiring someone with a criminal record. she did a very interesting study involving entry-level positions for the job. how the studynto was done later if anybody is interested. but it involved applying for a and then callbacks. everyone who was in this study was well trained, presented themselves exactly the same way. however, some on their resume said they had a criminal record and some did not. there were white teams, hispanic 25e8z teams.ack what she discovered was that a everyone.ecord hurts 34% of the whites who applied for these entry-level jobs criminal record received callbacks but only 17% a criminalith record.

a 50% drop in the number of back. called employers are more likely to call back a white applicant with record 3.4 times more over a black person with a criminal record, and significantly whites with criminal records were called back more often than african-americans with no .riminal record it's very hard to get a job out there. in general, and certainly if you have a criminal record. prison, we know, is often a door.ing the pew study indicated that 45% almost half returned to prison in the first often technical violations of parole rather than crimes. so, if people don't go back what can we do to encourage and their employment? people age out of crime. we do know that research shows that there is a decrease of risk for arrests over time depending

of crime whether it be property, drugs, or violence. after a while you get too old to do many of the things that are .nvolved in crime and i have those statistics if anybody's interested. approximately 1.5 million people reside in american prisons and are released each year. we talked earlier today about populationn prison since 1970, the h era of mass incarceration and the war on drugs. over seven million people are part of an overall correctional population. that includes people who are on probation and parole. one in four adults has a criminal record. we now spend, as a country, over $70 billion on incarceration costs, housing, who are guarding people really not contributing to our economy. study of 40 states found that the average yearly

person incarcerating one is about $31,000. i will tell you that it's a lot state. new york and suggested that if we could population b son by 1%, 14,000 people, the result would be a saving of $434 million. and i didn't believe the number so i checked the math. sure.o make so i and my colleagues believe that reintegration into communities as facilitated by employment, people need to have asact families as much possible. children need to be living with their parents. and employment plays an role.ant one study showed that 89% of the orple who violate probation parole are unemployed at the time. ofther study showed 58% reduction in recidivism or wasrrest after someone employed for 30 days.

wase's a recent study that done on a program in new york city c.e.o. that has a employmentve program. they take people right out of prison. they get jobs. ad they are also given significant amount of training with them tol work improve their marketability, to improve their ability to get theirto improve prospects. there was a study done in which there was a control group. jobs.oup got the and all of the training. the other group got access to jobs. and given access to community ofp but the no the same kind work that the first group was given. group came to the program after being out only three months. it tushed out -- turned out to be that was a very important issue. what they found was after one nor there was actually difference, no difference, which in terns andng, employment between the two.

-- in earnings and employment between the two. was aat they did find significant decrease in recidivism. people who had been enrolled in a job and having the extra services given to them, 9 wentivism rate for them down between 16% and 20%. a huge chunk, i would say. now let me move to another issue involving employment, and that's background checks. only one minute? background checks, quickly. that background checks have become a standard part of what employers use when they hire people. 55%,hat we found was that sherm found it the society of human resources professionals, of employers use background economics because they're afraid of negligent hiring. a study two summers ago at cornell in new york city hiring at negligent lawsuits from 1990 to 2012 to if negligent hiring, hiring

someone who you should not have hired because the fear is you not done the kind of study you should have done on them, and then they hurt a third person. a customer or they hire -- they hurt another employee. discovered, look being at the likelihood of being sued, the likelihood that criminal in thoseere involved lawsuits -- just let me finish this piece. only 168 reported cases. we used lexis verdicts and this.ments for that we have found 78 cases where the plaintiff won or there settlement. from the 168 cases we whittled to 78 cases where there was a real case of negligent hiring, not just something one threw up against the wall like spaghetti to see what would stick. found 41 cases in all of those years that were true negligent hiring. evenen whittle it had down further to see if it was a primary claim. was in 28y claim cases.

19 plaintiff and nine settlements. to know how many of those involved a criminal record. and what we discovered was only 11 out of the 28 involved a criminal record. so employers' fear of being sued for negligent hiring was really -- should not be a great you thinkcially when about new york which there are various employers. 5588,115 -- 588,115 reporting employees. number,you look at that you see it's negligentible. the last thing as my time up is, study, when we did this one of the things we were not able to see is whether, in fact, any of the employers took into account the requirements of our law, we call 23a, which requires an eight-factor analysis if has a criminal record and you've done your due diligence. then the criminal record, the will not be is it

admitted into evidence in a lawsuit. hiring so the 23a factors are very much like the eeoc guidelines which i'm sure we'll talk about later. thank you. [applause] esta.nk you, a littleu want to give prosecutor's perspective on this issue of collateral consequences? >> thank you. inviting me. general, always a pleasure when you're here. don't know if you're a big deal back east, but on the west side of the country he's a big .eal a u.s. attorney. >> take all the time you want, scott. [laughter] pissed that the teleprompters are gone. we were at dinner last night two of my heroes, william danpatrick of syracuse, and done y donovan of staten island

talking about running for office. you run for attorney general? yeah. how did that go? well, i can trace it back to lost.i it was 1996. and bob dole was running for president. to salt lake city. and i drove up from mayberry, the little town i lived in, pilot, and i was standing there. and i was so excited. . was going to meet bob dole i found out later he was not doing well. so orrin hatch bailed on him. to introduceed him. i'm stuck in a vote. and senator bennett, i've got busy with the constituent. go, great, governor leavitt. three-time governor, secretary of health an health and human s, big deal, well spoken. they go, he couldn't make it got stuck in traffic in salt lake city he got stuck in traffic? [laughter] so they said, burns, you're general,or attorney you need to introduce him. i'm like, i'm going to introduce bob dole? here.s like 500 people i'm like, no -- so i walked up there. orrin'ser, do you have notes? what should i say?

no, this is easy. teleprompter. just read what orrin was going to say. and said, oh, that's what that is? those state off the unions. i thought it was to keep the president from being shot. [laughter] i always remember as a kid, i could never be president because they do knees long quotes. said -- as lincoln reposed under a tree in -- i'm like, wow, how did they remember that? they were reading it. and so just as i'm going up, inningleman who knew had he, orrin hatch's advance guy he burns. me and goes, what? don't blow this. don't ad lib. don't go off. won't. he goes, no, i'm serious. this is bob dole. read it word for word. so now i'm nervous. said, all right. he came up. he's standing next to me. says, bob dole. how's it going? good. yeah, yeah. how's your campaign going? i'm going, not too well. [laughter] i'm like, you either, buddy. [laughter] came up.rds and i said, welcome to salt lake

international airport. pause. today it is my distinct pleasure. pause. to introduce to you a son of kansas. pause. president of the united states, bob dole. applause! [laughter] and he said who are you? [laughter] so it didn't go that well. but i wanted to try it. collateral consequences first at an ada panel maybe a year, year and a half ago. i googled it. wikipediaed. researched, read about it, tried as aply it to my life prosecutor for 16 years. and the world that we live in. and i was on the panel. i sat at the end. it was called padilla. amnestyhe aclu, international. i'm sure richard jerome is here. terribleed about how it was that mr. padilla was going to be deported and he

wasn't told about it and should the plea agreement. it's a big deal. i think everybody agreed if you're going to be deported, deal. big but as they went down the panel, i thought, i must have gotten the wrong case. poor mr. padilla, didn't fill out some paper work. he had been in this count man, a 30 years a family good man. they didn't even tell him. and i had to go back. because when they got to me, i'm like, i must have the wrong padilla. in kentucky guy was and he had over a ton of marijuana in the back of a and gottrailer arrested. i mean, that's not a minor deal, just over some paperwork. and he was not a citizen of the united states. well, i don't know about you, but if i'm in guatemala, be mexico, or anywhere else with a figuredope, i'm going to there's going to be a lot of consequences. and i would think mr. padilla would as well. think there on that panel tried to bring some common sense the discussion with respect to how far do we go?

when we left, i was shaking my people were some honestly talking about putting in the plea agreement, let's you gotback -- bill, new york. candace, you take texas. out all of the consequences that are collateral to a conviction in your state. back 385of them came collateral consequences. aat we were going to put into plea agreement? i don't know how many of you have been in a real courtroom, canng a real case, but you imagine going through that plea agreement? you can't groom a dog in montana. play a harmonica in maine. you can't -- you know. we -- you possess a gun, that's a big deal to certain people. but candace is head of our violence program for the past 20 years. some guy pistol whips his wife and is third time convicted ever domestic violencing and they do get upset. the seconder amendment i want my gun. they scream. .hey holler so i think what we have tried to do at the national district

attorney's association, i've had pleasure of serving under a great president this last year, of texas, is talk about collateral consequences and what's reasonable and what our lives but also remind everyone that in the states, some 40,000 when several holder stands up and talks about moving programs addressing issues, it is good we are here picked as in the city of philadelphia in six months, they prosecute more felony cases than all of the federal judges and prosecutors in one year. over 10 million felony level cases by state and local prosecutors. what we have been trying to talk about, in addition to collateral, we need to be concerned about that. that botched execution in oklahoma, did you hear about that? yes.

taking over for me and will be great -- i bet she got 20 calls. did you? i would always say my first question is what was the victims name? what did clayton duckett do? he was executed -- i got that part. what is going on? what he did is on june 3, 1999, 19-year-old.duct she was all excited. she had a tasmanian devil sticker and it -- in it. licensepersonalized plates and was a kind of frumpy girl and it helped with her competent at school. she had some friends over and ted her andduct her friends and drove her out to a rule area -- rural area.

figure friend jay -- great, had her stand in the great and she shot her. she didn't die. he went back to his truck while she is pleading. fixes the shotgun, went back and shot her again. he and his codefendants were laughing -- she is tough. she was laying there in the grave and got her friends covering heard with dirt. her friend said she is not dead and still alive. he buried her alive. i don't know -- it is kind of hard to me to get into great detail when they call about the botched oklahoma and the combination of drugs. was it more like a foot up? i think what we need to do in this country is talk about collateral consequences. talk about defendant's rights. out in theved

constitution recognizes criminal defendants. how many constitutional rights for victims? do we talk about collateral consequences for victims? there don't have a right to be present during a hearing. it doesn't say that anywhere. or to be told when somebody raped or killed their daughter is getting out of prison on parole. there is no right for that but here we are in washington, d.c. -- the race thing is not right. i think we all agree that an african-american applicant and a white applicant have a background check and may have similar records and the white guy gets called back. or the hispanic -- that is not right. those are things we have to change. i have a buddy in atlanta that is probably one of the biggest ledger pits -- philanthropists in georgia. he has made up for it. it is not right -- i don't know that we do.

i'm getting on a soap box. haveays love it because we a lively discussions about this whole clemency thing. i am like, really? honestly, i'd be open to hear your comments later, but we have federal prosecutors, federal law enforcement investigate, arrest people, charge them with crime. they go through a system either a jury trial or trial before a judge, get sentence pursuant to a law that congress, equivalent of our state to pass the laws, and then they go to prison. then we have the executive branch saying we are going to have highly trained assistant attorneys pull through these. bill fitzpatrick -- i am republican. a woman that was a democrat nominee graded -- nominated to be a federal judge, i could not carry her purse. she was bright and brilliant. she gets slapped down to be a federal judge who sends his

people because nine years ago, as part of her job as a prosecutor, she argued x instead of y in a guns case. br -- the nra comes out and says she cannot be a federal judge. judgmentupplanting the for criminal justice system under this thing called clemency. i think he should get out, i think he should get out. are inr the conditions my judgment, they are now saying the executive branch knows better. we are now coming in with these really smart assistant u.s. attorneys. we are going to let them out. we are going to give them clemency. i don't know. i said, who else has done that? i thought it was like tiffany's when we fix or will cases and now it is like going to the walmart.

we are going to bring in thousands of them and the president will exercise his right -- his right to clemency. it seems like it has become defendants rights, collateral consequences, let's figure out a way to help them before they get in. and then when they get out, we don't talk about victims. people that have been thrown in the trash. people who have been raped and burglarized. people who were family members of stephanie in oklahoma. we need to start talking about the collateral consequences of the victims of crime in america. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, scott, for living up for all my expectations. [laughter] general, thank you for sugarcoating that.

>> i am not a career prosecutor. in my state, i do have responsibility for all the district attorneys and criminal attorneys so it has been a bit of a learning experience. we have something called the criminal justice working group which is similar to what governor ben holland is describing -- van hollen is describing. it is cochaired by myself and the justice and the alaska supreme court. the public defenders are part of it, corrections, involved community agencies. so, it is a group of maybe 30 of us. we meet several times of year it to talk about these issues. that weruck by the fact talk about specifics but the one that caught my attention is the u.s. has prosecuted about five percent of the world's population, yet we house 25% of the world's prisoners. alaska, 60% ofn

individuals are nonviolent offenders. thatare not the people scott was referring to, the vicious murderers and so on. there is a cost associated with incarcerating them. we just opened a new prison last year. before that, we house a number of prisoners in colorado and a few private contracts. we brought all those people back home. it seems to me there was a transition occurring and general holder referred to it in the sense that people, including fiscal conservatives, are realizing there is a cost to being tough on crime. to society as a whole. state which is

very large, we have tried to tackle this. one of the first things we did was try to get an -- we talk about collateral contact lenses. -- consequences. there was a project going on of the national inventory of collateral consequences of conviction projects. it is funded by the aba and administered by the national institute of justice. we contacted them. we have some legislators that we were interested in. they moved us to the top of the list for some reason to try to get this information. they did take a look at our state and lo and behold, we have well over 500 collateral consequences in our statutes and our regulations just in alaska. that does not count -- there are a number of federal level that apply to stay prisoners.

some local communities have their own little new wants is on some of these consequences whether it be getting ataxic lab backs a taxicab license -- a taxicab license. many of them are licensing anything that is licensed by the state like morticians, nutritionists, hearing aid pillars -- dealers. there is a number of collateral consequences i don't think our material and the sense of discussion we are having today that people coming out of the system, prison are not going to be affected by them. it could. they happen to choose one of these obscure professions but by and large, i do not think they are. we do have the people that work in the liquor industry, cabaret licenses. they need to work to get a

license to sell liquor and that would be an area that could be affected. anmercial driving licenses, area that people could end up trying to seek a new job in. commercial fishing is a big industry in our state and you need a license for that. these convictions all affect the people's ability to get back to those jobs. studying the issue, we have been taking a look at it. tipink it is probably the of what other states have as well. we look and we do have a variance process. i think this is true for many states as well. the division of health and social services licenses are the main license in our state. variance programs of and we learn on average about 10

to 20 variance requests are received every month from people who are employers that want to hire somebody that has a record that would otherwise be barred under the applicable regulation. they take about a month to process on average and many the paperwork has been turned in initially so they have to turn back and get more information. it takes about one month the process and about 75% of them, the applications are received, are granted. there is some progress. we also learned that for commercial driving licenses, we have maybe 35,000 individuals with commercial driving licenses and alaska. -- in alaska. revoke less than one

percent of licenses on an annual basis because of a criminal conviction. be ahing i thought might higher number is actually not that high. so, you are kind of left wondering what is the impact? intuitively, we know it is important for people when they get out to have some options. our state, i cannot speak for the national average, about 60% of lower population -- of our population is rearrested within three years. that is one of the main goals of ours. it is trying to reduce a that recidivism level. we do think that creating opportunities is reasonable. not for the vicious criminals. those people are going to have to carry around those

convictions forever and with good reason. many largeany, subset of nonviolent offenders -- those people can be bad people and violin and we have to recognize that as well. we're looking at trying to create opportunities for them. the other interesting thing is federal drug felonies -- a lif etime ban for food stamps and temporary assistance as possible. states can opt out of that or they can minimize or moderate the ability of the person to become eligible again. in our state, we are one of 11 states that have not changed those. we still enforce the federal ban. these are federal moneies. i think the feds tapered

ministering the program in the states. you get out of -- you have a family and you get out of prison. it bars you from getting the federal benefits could be hard. reader statistic that i between 1991 and 1998, the number of kids who have had a parent incarcerated in the state or federal facility has increased over 100%. kids -- families need a way out. people getting out of the system need a way to support the family. is it our state? we have not altered or changed the federal law. we never opted out and allowed people to regain those benefits that meet certain conditions. we are taking a look -- of the next step in when we are doing

anyway is to try to come up with what we are calling a certificate of completion. there are over 500 statutes and regulations. it is a patchwork process. there is no rhyme or reason to it when you go through it. it has been happening or enacting the law changes. the certificate of completion is intended -- the details is not legislated. youru have completed utilization and sentence -- a rehabilitation and sentence, you get the certificate will be issued by a court or a commissioner. then, you have something you could take to an employer and that employer hopefully will regardless of race consider you as eligible and would give you a

job if you are entitled to it. it is similar to what the other which isort out there done by the uniform block and -- commission -- it is a model act. it approaches this issue on a number of levels. one is to come up with an inventory of all these consequences. act seeks to establish some causal connection between the restrictions and the offense. for example, look at our state commercial fishing licenses. theft ore convicted of crime involving dishonesty, you can have your license, your

commission will -- or commercial -- your commercial fishing license revoked. i don't know the connection between crime of dishonesty and a commercial fishing license, but this uniform act that was proposed would try to impose some sort of reasonable restriction, reasonable causal connection between that. if you have served your sentence, you have the certificate that you can use and to show -- it is proof that

you've been through the system, you are worthy. you paid your debt to society. the numbers are getting so overwhelming. we are getting into that direction. the other major thing that is happening in our state is pretty topical right now which is the expunging of records. we have a thing called court view. arrests, convictions, acquittals, and your record. this last session -- the conservative senators got through a bill to require expungement of arrest records and acquittals. it is on the governor's desk right now and it has a fair amount of scrutiny. i think with good reason. people who are quitted does not

mean they are innocent. it means they are not incident -- guilty. the prosecutor didn't meet the burden of proof. i have few misgivings about expunging the records of acquittal arrests. i think it is a fair question. the idea of being, referred to these instances already, these things follow you around for the rest of your life. the public can access it. it is not that collocated. without more expert nation -- explanation, an employer see somebody with an arrest record and you don't know what it is. you know what the circumstances are. if you have a guy without an arrest record, an applicant -- i myself, youfor would probably go with the guy without an arrest record. that is another front where

progress is being made but not without controversy. the number of these measures have been vetoed. there was one in our state right now which i think the jury is still out on. i'm not sure what the governor will do. -- i appreciate the comments from the other panelists. it is something we have to wrestle with as a society. >> thank you, all three of you for your comments. general, you raise an issue at the heart of this . what are we trying to accomplish philosophically with collateral consequences? i pose a two or three part question. they are not intended to be. e punitive for the crime. they're supposed to cobbler some additional societal goal. public safety, deterrence. of you, are all you

there certain collateral consequences that you feel are more rationally related to public safety than others? some clearly are trying to garner public safety. number two, is there a deterrent effect because we know that collateral consequences increased dramatically in the 1980's and 1990's and crime decreased significantly in the 1980's -- beginning in the 90's. are people not engaging in some criminal behavior because -- gosh, i don't want to but my license at risk or something like that? all three of you, philosophically, what are we trying to accomplish? are we accomplishing it? which collateral consequences make sense to you? do you want to start? >> not at all.

think the purpose of collateral consequences is for public safety. to do know you are going something that violates the law, you're going to jirga, that seems like a good deterrent been thinking you can't be an animal breeder somewhere. or you won't be able to cut hair or any of the other places where there is licensing requirements and at the other political criminal if you have a record, you cannot do that. do i think it meets that goal for public safety? what we really need to have in terms of all the things we've been talking about is an individualized assessment. i don't want people out on the street either, people love engaged in criminal violence, a rpisapist. we would never want a pedophile working on a public school, a private school, in any place where they would find children. for most of these, we are talking about is the

relationship between the job to be performed and the criminal act that the person was found guilty of and has served his or her time? i don't think it is a deterrent. onlynk public safety could be met where there was this relationship between the job and the license, whether it is driving a car or anything. >> you wouldn't have a problem if you were convicted of a sexual offense, you cannot be a schoolteacher? >> absolutely not. we want to protect our children. >> scott? >> i concur. these acrossme of the country, honestly, some of them were humorous. between thelection collateral sanction of somebody fifths convicted of their drunk driving that could not groom a dog. maybe it is drunk grooming, i don't know. [laughter]

as you say, i think in the beginning the obvious common sense, real-life purpose is to keep sex offenders from being a boy scout leaders. to keep people that are violent andof situations socially through employment. that is legitimate and i think all reasonable americans would support that. some of them are silly. >> i agree with the rest of the panel. i am not an expert. there are experts here. i think in terms of the reduction of crime that is occurred -- i think a large part is demographics. you look at the 18th to 30-year-old age group and i think you could pretty much track criminal statistics with the size of that population goes up or down. the baby boom that we had

through the war and that group reached its prime age. i agree with what scott and esther said. they make perfect sense. none of us would ever advocate getting away with it. it has become a juggernaut. my state alone is well over 500. i do not think that is reasonable. >> it is the legislature that created many of these collateral consequences. it themy frustrations is legislature wants to pass a bill that suggest the courts invite people of these collateral consequences, why don't they just a limited some of them? i think that would be more appropriate way. to understand on this panel, you have some speed guys and local guys. we don't entirely trust the federal government, ok? >> i gathered that.

>> i have to tell you some of us have an adverse reaction when guidanceuts out suggesting that it is inappropriate for employers to ask about criminal convictions on initial job applications because, for those of us that interested to reserve public safety, we have a general sense there is some relationship here. employers ought to have some backgrounds ifl they are going to hire someone. what is the eoc trying to accomplish? >> let me be clear that we didn't say you cannot inquire about someone's criminal background conviction. that is not what the guidelines talk about. classes,as protected

race, sex, religion, age, disability. criminal record is not a protected class. what we're looking at is the theory of disparate impact. when you have a neutral role but has a disparate impact on a group. it could be a role of that you didn't unroll intent to discriminate, but it ends up discriminating. the ones that are the easiest to think about -- i will get your answer. the ones that is easiest to think about his height and police department. to be a height requirement in new york and i had a disparate impact on women, gettingnos, and asians positions in the police department because they couldn't meet the height requirement. that is an example of a neutral rule. we are saying there was a disparate impact on minorities. on african-americans and latinos. it doesn't say you cannot do a background check. it doesn't say you cannot ask that question on an application.

it does say that if you have a rule thatneutral you will not hire anyone with the political record, that is the problem -- a criminal record, that is the problem. not saying you will consider anybody with a criminal record, but that you will look at that record and analyze it just like you would anything else. their education, whether they meet the requirements of the job, taking a look at it but not a blanket rule. >> either of you have comments about the eoc guidelines? >> she is much more versed in this. i know she is very knowledgeable about the number of states -- alaska is not one of them. that is something that wouldn't surprise me but to ban employers from having to box -- a box on

the application that says if you have been convicted of a crime. you couldn't do it at that stage because as i mentioned, that is when many of these people are screened out. --ebody has check that box, ban the box legislation. d beenuy that have arrested, is on your shortlist. at that point, you can inquire but then in the context of a face-to-face interview. it is not that these can never come up, it is when they come up and the band the box legislation to prohibit them from being right there in the application but it is something that comes up. this is something we have looked at in our state as well. -- one employer did it

on a voluntary basis in minnesota. -- thgroups in retail at is one in recent past i recall. >> bed bath and agreement to take the box off. the box has nothing the -- the guidelines don't go to ban the box. it is by state legislation. >> does new york state have a box? >> i don't know. i can't answer that question. the concept comes out of the american with disabilities act in which you cannot ask someone in a hiring situation until you are about to make a conditional offer of employment. reasonableeed accommodations. you think i are -- am qualified than you do an

individualized assessment because i the criminal record. that is the concept behind it. >> scott, where are we going with this -- as you know, you see more and more movements to have greater advice about -- greater advisement about collateral consequences. do you think there is a notion that padilla could be extended and judges and prosecutors will have to be more focused and actually come up with lists? where are we going? >> i think that is the real concern in the real world. i spent the last few days because i haven't done it in a while just sitting in a courtroom how real women and men try cases in real courtrooms in america. that struck by the fact 85% of prosecutors offices in this country have for prosecutors or less.

really small towns and small counties. miami and chicago and said he a go and across the country -- san diego, and across the country. theyt majority of america, know who their neighbors are. they know that the smith kids are always in trouble. bobby got arrested again. the small consequences in small communities is that people know who committed a crime and who didn't and what the justice system did. they have great faith in the criminal justice system and how they look at each individual case. get some really smart person in has these collateral consequence thing and we have to have plea agreements that are two inches thick and we have

public defenders that don't make a lot of money having to sit at the jail for an hour and a half, you cannot do this and that. are you talking me out of it? i think we have to be very careful. i see thery time attorney general, the last time i spoke he was kind enough to set this up. this whole thing about the criminal justice system is broken. too long, too many low-level offenders have been locked up and we need to change that. collateral consequences is one of them and reentry -- really? i would like to come to washington once and just celebrate the fact that homicides are down 50%. rape, robbery, burglary down 40% and 30%. you couldn't walk safely into major cities in this country. we turned it around and no one mentioned the national academy of sciences report.

recidivism. they came out with a study this week. it is really high. it is like 70%. felons commit new offenses within three years of being released. what somebody decided a long time ago, smart people in this room, if they are going to continue the audacity to commit crime after crime, we are going to lock them up for a long time. i know people will not like it. we are five times more than uganda, whatever. crime is down dramatically. and otherissue issues, i hope good men and women will reflect and think about it. how we have two real prosecutors here from new york to try cases every year -- how does it affect their lives when people are ready for the next case? three of the spent

most interesting years of my life running the colorado prison system. at is oneentified in th of the weakest areas of the criminal justice system is reentry. what we do trying to bring inmates back into society. force have ak particular look at reentry and what are you trying to do? >> we do. we try to go where others have gone. we have something called partners in progress which is on our task force, the executive director of that. they're working with a grant of a couple of million dollars. a three-year project to create housing for prisoners as they come out of the system. taskforcese reentry

in major burros. at that level, they're doing something ready for rent which is a workshop that our state people are trying to do. it takes people and teaches them some basics about the landlord-tenant situation. how it works out, how to do some housekeeping, some basic stuff that people who may have lived on the streets before that. we are trying to do that. -- iot of the people struggle with this -- arrested for violating. that is a huge part of in terms of our population the conditions are set when they are sentenced and they do the time, but they

violate. get drunk or high, whatever the case. and another program that has shown a lot of progress which is called pace. aiiin, i give credit to haw that had hope. people get out and typically violate several times. certainecutor may allow levels of violations to build up before they take the time to revoke, file a petition, stuff like that. pace is built on the idea that you violate the first time and primarily, it is a failed drug test or failed to show up to the drug test or fail to show up to regular meeting with your officer, boom. they assembled the judge and prosecutors and you will go to jail for first offense. the idea is to show immediate

consequences. that has shown some progress, it has just been going in the last couple of years. they also implemented one in fairbanks which is aimed at more domestic violence offenders. the one in anchorage, the pace program was for folks on drug offenses. palmer's started one as well which is about 40 miles of outside of anchorage. i think stuff like that are important. they need to be immediate consequences, not severe. something to get their attention to let them know. again, hopefully, that will reduce the size of the population because that is a big constant. it is a revolving door. because they committed a new crime but because they violated. we are following and trying to build on what are the people of done. it is showing some promise. >> we have about 20 minutes.

lets see we have many questions from the audience. that many are convicted felon or not, you are free to ask questions, ok? [laughter] our first volunteer in the back there. >> i just had a question about -- i am mark. i have a question about what folks think about idea of allowing prosecutors to waive -- i guess a judge could. a prosecutor to be able to waive some collateral consequences. fairnk there may be a amount of support in this room but i will like to see what other agencies think about that as well. >> great question. know that prosecutors have the authority to waive necessarily. that is not to say they

couldn't. a question i have in my mind as to whether they could waive it at that time. how much time judges spend -- it is an interesting concept. i think it is worth studying. statutes havehe given that authority to a different agency and state government. they do process them and most of them are approved. i was pleasantly surprised to learn that. it can be done by the prosecutor. that would be better. i don't know the legality of it. quacks either of you -- >> either of you? >> i think real prosecutors could correct me but in some

sense every single day when you're engaged in plea negotiations, there is some weighting of collateral consequences by you will plead a and not z. are you going to be a registered sex offender for life? if you plead to this other offense, i am going to relieve that. i think it would be difficult to take statutory consequences and say, i am the prosecutor, i have the authority to waive your drunken dog running. -- dog grooming. >> there was a big controversy in denver when it was found at the denver district attorney was putting a lot of offenses down to a non-deportable offense for a parent. making the person not subject to automatic deportation.

do you have any notions about where the waivers are to take place in this instance? >> since i am proponent of individual assessment and looking at the person as they are now, not the record. for example, it would seem to me that within state government, a procedure could be set up where a person would require to have that particular licensing, a prohibition wait for them -- waits for them, and then the government agency would be the one that waves it with an appeal. annow in new york, there is administrator we hear is when a waiver is not granted, you have the right to appeal. if he -- it seems to me that's what belongs in state government where they could do the individual analysis. >> that seems to make sense. it should be the barber board that decides whether the guys been barber.

back here. >> i recently retired from the state supreme court in new york. probably other urban areas, a family is not entitled to public housing if any member of the family has been convicted of a crime. i think it is probably just felonies but it could be everything. on the one hand, i am very sympathetic. theve to be sympathetic to other people living in the building who do not want a former gang member or a drug dealer moving into the complex. by the same token, there is nothing more primitive genic than having somebody being released from prison having no place to live. i am just wondering what efforts have been made to reconcile that particular one? i don't think individual allies would really work because --

focus would really work because you have an immediate need, this person is being released from prison and he needs a place to live. living with family is probably the best option for the most part. on the other hand, he needs that immediately and we all know what bureaucracies are. individual assessment really take time. what work has been done in this area and whether you have any thoughts about that? >> if anybody has any thought in the area, it would be asked their -- has been ether. termthink about it and the of family living in public housing and the parent gets out and cannot go home. what does that mean in terms of breaking up the family? i haven't seen any particular studies on that so i am not aware. i know it is a big problem. >> i have not seen studies either. bridge partners -- in anchorage fields about 40 to 50 prisoners a day.

they provide them housing. i don't know if it is families. we privatize the prisoner who did have a family did it get out and they need a place to stay. i am not aware of any study. i know the one in anchorage. individualsnumber -- a number of individuals. they're trying to be flexible with the rules. that no alcohol would be allowed in the premises, for example. that is going to push people out. maybe give them more -- experimenting with allowing some alcohol on the premises. i don' is a very tricky area.

nothing is more likely to lead to recidivism than not having any place to go realistically. >> i will speak briefly to the law-abiding public housing. you would also hear a voice that while it is an entitlement and being subsidized by the rest of us, they do not want people that just got out of prison coming back and wreaking havoc. it might not be the nicest lace in the world but it is their home. do we have to be suggested to mrs. smith's son and don tate who just got out on a robbery for the third time and he is coming back? i think that is one way. there was a rational relationship between the consequence and for the good of the order of other people. >> yes? >> thank you. i'm with the consumer data industry association. the collateral consequences

discussion is really about saying no and part of this public policy debate short of saying no is an employer's right to no. there are public policy proposals to cut off after a certain time the employer's ability to ask a question about a criminal history. example, the human resources managers study that was discussed at the beginning of her comments shows that many employers to conduct criminal history checks but that study shows most employers conduct criminal checks responsibly and thoughtfully. they should continue to do so. attended,ference i some of the criminologist who spoke at that conflict -- conference say there is no redemption point. it could be 15 years after supervision ends. i think while many people agree that there should not be a just say no to any job for any person for any time.

i think we also need to be sure that we don't lose sight of the fact that employers have a right to know the entire breadth and criminalan employee's history so they can make safe and responsible decisions for them and their employees and their customers. >> comments on that? >> i guess i have several different comments. one is that more recent research has been done a retention time -- redemption time. andher study was completed it looks like 10 years, but it depends on whether we are talking about violence or drugs or property. leaving aside those people that immediately rescinded eight in the first three years. is no question that employers have a right to know who they are hiring. the question would be on a box but just moving it further down the road as opposed to having it up front and a blanket ban.

the biggest concern i have with background checks -- eric and i have been talking about this -- when you get a report back, sometimes it is not accurate. when a person is going to have an adverse employment as a result of that, they get a chance to know what that is and have it corrected. the problem is a gets corrected for agency a. it doesn't get corrected for agency b. the correction may not take place with respect to the repository or the federal government. i am talking about records that come back and it is not me, it is somebody else. all that is is 10 arrest records and no convictions. there is a problem with making sure when they are accurate, they are good. my concern is the accuracy. [indiscernible]

expungement was not fully thought through. i think that is what we are starting to realize. it goes to the same issue about fairness to the employer. whether is a bona fide qualification for the job. do you have any thoughts on this whole subject of expungement as it relates to these issues? >> what types of problems are you seeing? what sorts of problems are people seeing? >> it was a generic bill that allowed for expungement. it didn't really have many guidelines. i think between local defense attorneys and local judges, they have been creating a new body of law. it is really particularly difficult because we do not have the very specifics that would be necessary for an expungement. it is any d felony.

anything climbed down to a d. -- we were having our own controversy as we speak. have somesonally misgivings about getting rid of acquittals. i think it is going to be effective immediately. there was language in it that says the court is supposed to use the best efforts to go back and expunge. i have misgivings about it. there has been tough sledding in a number of states. i think north carolina agreed to a 15 year -- the crime had to be 15 years before -- they had to do that before getting by. that was something they could live with.

it is something i think is reasonable to talk about. arrest records and certainly after some time, i don't know it is fair for somebody who rejoin society to carry around that stigma anymore. in principle, i think it is a noble endeavor but i think once you get into details, there are a lot of issues raised. >> scott, do you have any feelings? prosecutors --l i was taught expungement was a fun thing. i thought it was the one chance i got to say, this person -- it has been nine years, he is a i can man, he has a job, stand before the court with pride and say, your honor, the concurs. k --

we rely on women and men to try cases all the time and i trust their judgment every day in indiana or wherever you are from to say yes. . or not, i don't want him out there without revealing the particular record. i think they are good when used appropriately. >> one last question. we have a point of agreement up here and it is pretty historic. >> what are you doing for dinner? [laughter] >> yes, sir? >> i came from vancouver british columbia and i think this discussion is pretty interesting. i e-mailed a friend during it because these collateral consequences are something that have to be considered by the prosecutor and the sentencing judge. recent decision, the supreme court says there are certain sentences imposed that might be within the appropriate range, but be on that -- it's in the

higher part of the range would be to somebody being deported or something like that or lose their right to appeal, that should be considered. not that the sentence should be provided but that has to be considered. part of the consequences and whether that is an appropriate consequences as a result. even when it wasn't before the sentencing judge, the prosecutor, or the defense attorney at the time for the sentence, it came later after the fact as fresh evidence. this person got a call from housing, from social services sank because of your conviction for fraud, you are no longer eligible for any social assistance benefits as a result of this. the attorney didn't know. in the court of appeals, they said this is fresh evidence we should consider and as a result we are going to grant her conditional discharge as opposed to an actual conviction on her record.

that is a comparative, understanding what could be done. it is not considered. it can be as a collateral consequence considered. decided whether it is appropriate or not and the discussion about check the box. i found it interesting whether you shouldn't have to mark whether you have been arrested or convicted. our law society asked that about every perspective lawyer. are you an alcoholic, do you have mental health issues, have you been convicted? it is not that any of those questions bar any of those people. it leads to more questions. for instance, someone who says they suffer medical health issues, they have to go to the doctor. those are consequences that are maybe possible. >> is your sense that canada has fewer collateral consequences then the united states? >> definitely.

500 seems amazing. we do have similar ones like immigration consequences, welfare benefit consequences, but not so pervasive. for instance, you get one person in the family but the whole family would be barred from social housing or something like that. i haven't heard of that. the 500 or so was beyond -- >> what is your sense about this after the fact? i didn't realize i wasn't going to get into housing and you come back and you can reconsider -- >> very interesting question. anno speak for the defenset bar. i will be surprised at those and kind oftions information is not shared with your client before they plead.

or shared by the judge if that is a consequence of the conviction. fraud convictions are one of those things and the laws that do have lots of consequences. it did surprise me when i looked at it. wethe deportation issue, have presumptive sentences in alaska for certain offenses. recently, our court of appeals decided that a gentleman who lived in the military -- he was in the military but was not a citizen. you lived here all his life but committed a crime. to presumptive sentence would've subjected him to deportation. our trial court and court of appeals upheld it. the trial court could sentence him to 364 days which was less the mightrigger, subject them to deportation. a citizen of alaska would have gotten that sense -- that

sentence. this individual because of his status got a lesser sentence in order to -- again, it was upheld by the court of appeals. accepteme court did not a review of it so it is a very interesting angle. and number of legislators didn't think it seemed right. sum led toothetical, a crime -- some plead to acri --t mightme have been up might've been not given housing. >> i love canada and you can rest assured you guys will be in lot nicer. i didn't know you deported anybody. i thought i could always go there if i got in real trouble. [laughter]

>> on that note, join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] >> the house may vote this week on a resolution to create a select committee to investigate in benghazit attack in 2012. john boehner has chosen trey gowdy to head the committee. so far there have been 13 hearings on benghazi, 25,000 pages of documents. we spoke with a journalist about the role congress and gaddy will lay. >> john boehner were announced lldt trey gowdy wi