And i dont think that it would be advisable to have witnesses sit for an hour and a half and i dont know how many members will be coming back after an hour and half, so id like to wrap this up by 10 0, 10 43 0, 10 450, 10. I have an Opening Statement. I yield myself five minutes. Good morning and welcome to the eighth hearing of the judiciary committees Overcriminalization Task force. Todays hearing will focus on the collateral consequences associated with a criminal conviction. Over its first seven hearings, the task force examined issues related to criminal attempt over federalization, penalties and other issues which affect criminal defendants during oat investigative and prosecutorial phases of the criminal justice process. Toat investigative and prosecutorial phases of the criminal justice proces theoat investigative and prosecutorial phases of the criminal justice procesinvestigative and prosecu phases of the criminal justice process. However, todays hearing will examine the consequences that follow a criminal conviction which may not be immediately apparent during the pendency of a criminal case. The American Bar Association knows that some collateral consequences serve an important and legitimate Public Safety or regulatory function such as keeping firearms out of the hands of violent offenders, protecting children or the elderly from persons with a history of it physical, mental or sexual abuse or barring people convicted of fraud from positions of public trust. Others are directly related to the particular crime such as Registration Requirements for sex offenders, drivers license restrictions for those convicted of serious traffic offenses, or disbarment of those convicted of procurement fraud. However, advocates for reform in this area including our panel today have argued that in many cases, the collateral consequences applicable to a given criminal conviction recognize scattered throughout the code books and frequently unflown to those responsible for their administration and enforcement. This claim should sound familiar to members of this task force since the witnesses before us have repeatedly demonstrated that statutes carrying criminal penalties are also scattered throughout the u. S. Code. Additionally the Supreme Court recognized in padilla versus kentucky in 2010 that when a person considering a guilty plea is unaware of serious consequences that inexibly follow, this raises questions of fairness and implicates the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. I agree that this area is one that the fantastic force should consider during its evaluation of the over criminalization of federal law. There are several heres where i is concerns most notably with regard to the argument that advanced by many including at least one of our Witnesses Today that congress should force private employers to ignore employees criminal history when making a hiring decision via a ban the box and other legislative initiatives. Generally i do not believe that adult offenders who engage in violent and other form of conduct should be able to complain about the consequences of their actions. Additionally, over the Years Congress has repeatedly seen fit to make criminal history records available to be employers including schools, banks, power plants, and other vital parts of our nations infrastructure in order to protect Public Health and safety. Proposals such as ban the box run directly contrary to that important effort. Additionally, as the author of the adam walsh Child Protection and safety act of 2006, i have serious concerns with any efforts to characterize dangerous sex offenders who prey on our children as suffering from an unjust collateral consequence. Having said that, during my tenure in congress, i have been a consistent proponent of efforts to happy reality exoffenders and lessen their risk of reoffending following release. Last year, i reintroduced the hr34765, the Second Chance reauthorization act of 2013. This Bipartisan Legislation which has been cosponsored by the task forces Ranking Member, mr. Scott, would reauthorize and streamline the Grant Programs in the Second Chance act to help exoffenders become productive members of our society. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing today and look forward to hearing about these and other issues associated with the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction. It is now my pleasure to recognize for his Opening Statement the Ranking Member of the task force, the gentleman from virginia, mr. Scott. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, last hearing focused on the problem of overincarceration and the need for proportional evidence based in individualized sentencing. The pew center estimates that any ratio of over 350 per 100,000 in jail today begins to get a diminishing return for additional incarceration. They also tell us that anything over 500 per 100,000 actually becomes counterproductive because youre wasting so much money, youre messing up so many families, if so many people with felony records that it actually increases crime, not decreases crime. Data shows that beyond data shows since 1992, the annual prison costs from gone from about 9 billion to over 65 billion adjusted for inflation and that increase of prison costs was over six times greater than Higher Education. This hearing focuses on the significant punitive and often counterproductive collateral consequences that obstruct impede and undermine successful reentry. Our Witnesses Today will share the data that demonstrates that our existing system of state and federal collateral consequences waste money, violate common sense and ultimately counterproductive to the goal of Public Safety. Just like each of the 195 man doer to minimum in our federal code one at a time, each and every one of the over 45,000 collateral consequences that were written in the state and federal law got there slowly over time. When considered in isolation, a collateral consequence may not initially appear to be a high hurdle to reentry and success but taken together, these collateral consequences form a tightly woven web that restricts individuals from over coming the hurdles in their path. Many of these collateral consequences are born from the worst of the worst of these tough on crime sound bites masquerading as sound public policy. Just as mandatory minimum sentences sentence people before theyre even charged or convicted, based solely on the code section violated without any consideration to the seriousness of the crime or the role of the defendant, collateral consequences apply across the board into all convicted felons. For example in the drug context in the fiscal year 2012, 60 of convicted federal drug defendants were convicted of offenses carrying a mandatory minimum penalty of some sort. Right now restrictions on your ability to work, live, learn and survive are the same irrespective of your offense or how long ago it was or what role you played. The consequences you face are not narrowly tailored or even tailored all at all. Its a onesizefitsall there is no reliable Scientific Data that demonstrates of these collateral consequences improve Public Safety, reduce recidivism or save money. To the contrary, all the evidence is the opposite. Consequences of conviction affect an individuals ability to obtain necessary social services is, employment, professional licenses, housing, Student Loans to further their education, the ability to the interact with their children and critically power through the voting in the democratic process. All of these restrictions among tens of thousands of other ones have resulted in lifelong Civil Penalties that prevent individuals from transitioning back to society successfully and serve to marginalize and stigmatize those with prior convictions. Just as the Childrens Defense Fund has recognized secure housing, employment, education and other social services are the best Crime Prevention resources to redirect individuals from what they call the cradle to prison pipeline towards a cradle to college and career pipeline, so too must we apply the same data to redirect those reentering our communities after serving their sentences. When there is no hope for a decent job because employers refuse to hire those with a prior conviction, we cant be surprised that some chose to return choose to return to the very paths that led them to prison in the first place. Often, there is no bearing, no correlation or no relevance between someones prior conviction and the job theyre applying. Some circumstances there may be value at looking at the criminal conviction. It makes sense for someone with an embezzlement conviction to be denied a job at a bank. But what does a 30yearold Marijuana Possession conviction have to do with someone getting a good paying construction job . The eeoc has issued guidance that provides that an employers use of an individuals criminal record of may may discriminate against them if there is a disproportionate impact on certain minorities without any job related relationship. That could constitute discrimination. So although the criminal record may be relevant, could i have about 30 more seconds . Without objection. Although the criminal record may be relevant, the untargeted overly broad denial of all jobs because of any federal record may actually constitute discrimination. Mr. Chairman, i thank you for holding the hearing and look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. The time of the gentleman has expired. Without objection, other members Opening Statements will be made a part of the record. It is now my pleasure to introduce the two witnesses this morning. Mr. Rick jones is the executive director and a Founding Member of the Neighborhood Defender Service of harlem. Mr. Jones is a lecturer at Columbia Law School where he teaches criminal defense externship and a trial practice cures. Course. Ourse. He is on the faculty of the National CriminalDefense College in macon, georgia and is frequently invited to lecture on criminal justice issues throughout the country. He currently serves as secretary of the National Association of criminal defense lawyers and previously served that organization as a twoterm member of the board of directors parliamentarian, cochair of both the Indigent Defense Committee and the special task force on problem solving courts and is currently cochair of the task force on the restoration of rights and status after conviction. Platform mathias heck is a prosecuting attorney from Montgomery County, ohio. He previously served Montgomery County as a law clerk and then as assistant prosecuting attorney. He received his undergraduate degree from Marquette University which is a very wise choice and his jd degree from the Georgetown University law center. I would ask all of you to limit your opening remarks to five minutes. I think youre all aware of what red, yellow and green means and the timer before you. And even though i introduced you second, the prosecution always puts their case in first. So mr. Heck, the floor is yours. Good morning, mr. Chairman. Members of the task force. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comment about marquette. Okay . Thank you. Again, good morning. I appreciate your comments about Marquette University. And i know its very dear to your heart. In addition to being the prosecuting attorney for Montgomery County, dayton ohio i am honored to be the chair of the criminal justice section of the American Bar Association which is a section of about 20,000 members which include the whole array of the partners of the criminal justice section and the criminal justice process in the american system. And that is judges, defense lawyers, prosecutors, law professors and other Law Enforcement personnel. I appear today to talk about the abas view you have collateral sanctions and how it relates to convictions and also highlight some of the things that the American Bar Association has done. As many of you know, the american legal system has long recognized that certain legal disabilities or collateral sanctions result from a criminal conviction in addition to a sentence. So there may be a prescribed sentence relating to a crime but attached there to may be collateral sanctions. Or disabilities that are also imposed in addition to the sentence. That sentence could be probation, could be to the penitentiary or a combination of both. These collateral consequences of conviction include such familiar penalties disenfranchisement, deportation, loss of professional licenses, felon registration, ineligibility for certain Public Welfare benefits even loss of a drivers license and many more. Over the last number of years, collateral consequences have been increasing steadily in variety and severity throughout the country. And they have been accumulated with little coordination in state and federal laws making it almost impossible to determine all of the penalties and disabilities applicable to a particular offense. Now, some collateral sanctions or consequences do serve an important and legitimate public purpose. As the chairman has already mentioned, keeping firearms out of the hands of persons committed of crimes of violence or barring persons convicted of embezzlement from Holding CertainPublic Interest jobs or deny diagnose driving privileges to those convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide. Other sanctions are more difficult to justify particularly when applied automatically across the board to a complete category of convicted persons. And the reason is, it results in serious implications not only in terms of fairness and as a prosecutor i can say this, not only in regards to fairness to the individual charged but also to the resulting burdens on the community on the citizens. Collateral consequences can also present challenges to the issue of reentry and reentry is very important. It may become a surprise to many of you but local prosecutors throughout the country have already spearheaded reentry programs because we see this as a Public Safety issue. Nonetheless, not all collateral consequences of conviction are effective. Many have no relationship to Public Safety. And prevent a former offender from doing Productive Work in order to support a family and contribute to the community. This effect to employment results and represents one of the more difficult issues facing i think our Justice System and our nation. The reality is that exoffenders who cannot find jobs that provide sufficient income to support themselves and their families are more likely to commit more criminal acts and find themselves again back in prison. Now, the American Bar Association has adopted a comprehensive set of principles regarding collateral sanctions. And they have two primary goals. One to encourage awareness of all involved in the Justice System process of the full legal consequences of a conviction. So when someone is convicted, they know whats going to happen. And secondly, to focus attention on the impact of collateral consequences on the process by which a convicted person can get into reentry and become back come back into the community and be a productive member of the community. They also call for a significant number of reforms to the law. Number one, the law should identify with particularity the type, severity and duration of the collateral sanctions. So everyone knows what it is. Now the collateral consequences of conviction project which is funded by the National Institute of justice and completed just recently by the American Bar Association is something that was authorized by congress. We started it in 2009. We just completed it and we have adopted and found 45,000 collateral consequences. And again, the hope is that we can categorize these and that everyone knows its open to the public to defend defense lawyers, to prosecutes and that way everyone can understand what the collateral consequences are, theyre readily available and they know whats involved. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Ill be glad to answer any questions. Had. Thank you, mr. Heck. Mr. Jones . Thank you, mr. Hec. Mr. Jones . Thank you for the invitation to appear before you this morning. We have a lot of ground to cover in a little time. Im going to get right into it. 68 Million People in this country are living with a criminal record. Thats one in every four adults. 20 Million People with felony convictions, 14 million new an arrests every year, 2. 2 Million People residing in jail or prison. Thats more than anywhere else in the world. As a member of the nacdl task force that produced this lateral damage report, i had the opportunity to travel to every region of the country and listen to the testimony of People Living with convictions as well as to the testimony of many other stake holders in the criminal Justice System. In Northern California we heard from a chief of police who was dealing with a significant crime problem arising murder rate and Widespread Community distrust. As he searched for solutions he realized that he was policing from a place of fear. That was his term, policing from a place of fear. He was not serving or protecting the community. He was at war with the community. His officers did not really know the citizens they were policing, distrust and fear was the order of the day. It wasnt until he took the time to get to know the people he was charged with protecting that he recognized and appreciated their humanity. Trust and understanding improved. And his crime problem began to decline. 68 Million People living with convictions more than the entire population of france, we are in danger of becoming a nation of criminals because we are policing from a place of fear. 14 million new arrests every year. We are prosecuting from a place of fear. 45,000 collateral consequences on the books in this country. 45,000 roadblocks to the restoration of rights and status after conviction, we are legislating from a place of fear. The time has come for change in our national mindset. We must move from the penalty, prosecution, and endless punishment to forgiveness, redemption and restoration. A great way for this task force to begin the healing process is to implement the first recommendation in our report. A call for a National Restoration of rights day, a day every year where we can celebrate redemption and restoration with Educational Programs for employers, skills training workshops for the effective community, jobs fairs, certificate of relief programs at no cost and no cost opportunities, no cost opportunities to clean up your rap sheet. More concretely, there are four steps this task force can take that will have an Immediate Impact on the Collateral Damage of collateral consequences. First, you must repeal federal mandatory collateral consequences. 14 million new arrests each year, 68 Million People living with convictions, mandatory automatic across the board collateral consequences make no sense. You cannot paint with that broad a brush. There is no Public Safety benefit in stripping people of their right to vote. Eliminate mandatory collateral consequences and stop creating new ones. Second, you must provide meaningful federal relief mechanisms for those People Living with federal convictions. First and foremost, 14 million new arrests each year is indicative of the problem. We must create avenues for diversion in the federal criminal Justice System. Defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges must be cognizant of diversion opportunities and promote them. Judges have to be empowered with relief at sentencing. Individualized relief tailored to the individual and unique circumstances. The federal pardon process must be reinvigorated and carried out. Pardons should be routinely granted in the ordinary course of business. The process must be transparent and accessible to all. The media must be informed and aware of the process and there should be dedicated staff committed to the regularized review of pardon applications. Third, for those discretionary consequences that remain, they must be clearly established guidelines for Decision Makers to follow guidelines with respect to relevancy, passing and of time and evidence of rehabilitation. There should be a presumption of irrelevance for any conviction beyond a certain number of years and from anyone who has shown evidence of rehabilitation. Finally, consumer reporting agencies and Background Check Companies must be regulated. Rap sheets are not a commodity. We should not be creating a market in the buying and selling of peoples conviction records. There are some Law Enforcement agencies in this country that sell rap sheets. That must stop. Any records disclosed must be accurate. The fbi website which is the main source of criminal record acquisition is wrong 50 of the time. It must be cleaned up and maintained. And there must be an easily accessible no cost method for individuals to check their rap sheets and make corrections or updates. The time has come to end the economic drain of collateral consequences. The endless government intrusion into the lives of our citizens and the social and moral havoc they wreak on individuals, on families and entire communities. We need a coherent National Approach to forgiveness, to redemption, to restoration of rights and status after conviction. Thank you. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, mr. Jones. The chair is going to put himself at the end of the question queue. Just so in case we run out of time, all of the other members will be able to ask questions and at this time, well, before recognizing the gentleman from virginia, mr. Scott, let me say that the chair is going to be especially vigilant at enforcing the fiveminute rule so that everybody has a chance. Why do you say that . I do have a reputation of looking at the red light. Gentleman from virginia, mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Heck, ban the box has been mentioned. Is that where you have to check off if youve had a felony, does that prohibit an employer from considering on an individualized basis your criminal record . What we first of all, on behalf of the American Bar Association, the American Bar Association has not taken a position on that. I think there are discussions that have to be had on that. I think were seeing a lot of problems that are associated with that particular issue. The point is, if you dont check off the box, it does not subsequently eliminate the employers consideration of your record but only on an individualized basis and whether or not the record is relevant to the job. Mr. Jones, do you know, are you familiar with the eeoc guidance on the can you say a word about that . Ban the box, youre absolutely correct, congressman scott. Ban the box does not prevent an employer from having an opportunity to review and determine relevancy of a persons criminal record or criminal conviction. All ban the box does is get the persons foot in the door initially. It allows them to have an opportunity to prove their credentials, to prove their ability to do a job. And before and once an employer is in a position to think that this individual is able to do the job and someone who we would like to employ, they then have the opportunity to review the persons criminal record and decide whether its relevant, whether theyve rehabilitated, whether theres been enough passage of time so that its not a factor but they do at the end of the process have the opportunity to know and evaluate the persons record, so ban the box is not a wholesale preclusion. You never would have gotten to the point where you would have been considered if you checked the box, your application would have been thrown in the trash. When you talk about collateral consequences a couple things that havent been mentioned is the total waste of money. California many years ago spent a lot more money on Higher Education than prisons. Now prisons have exceeded by a large margin what theyre spending on Higher Education. So the waste of money crowds out things and that is a collateral consequence of overincarceration and children with parents in prison are also at high risk. Just very briefly, prosecution mr. Heck, can you tell me whether the automatic across account board collateral consequences help keep people from coming to jail or add to coming back to jail . For example, collateral consequence on employment making it more difficult to get a job, does that help or hurt in terms of recidivism . I think its counterproductive to what were trying to do. I think that across the board, any type of across the board sanction without looking at the particular offense and the particular offender is counterproductive. What about education . Well, education is the same way. Its interesting in ohio, we have dealt with that and the legislature has over the last year. There are a number of alternatives that we now offer to prison. And i mean, a number of different alternatives that they have to try because again, it makes no sense when were talking about reentry, most of the individual whos go to the penitentiary are going to be released. So i think we have to look at that on the front end rather than say what are we going to do after theyre released. If you cut back on your right to get an education, education has been studied over and over again. More education you get, the less likely you are to come back denying somebody an education seems to be clearly counterproductive. Absolutely. What about have you studied the implications of the right to vote in terms of recidivism . The project that the American Bar Association just completed looked into as a collateral consequence. Again, i see no reason why someone is not restored to the right to vote. That is a to me a fundamental right, personally as well as the American Bar Association that should be respected and i think they should be restored. Mr. Jones, have you done any studies to show the impact on recidivism for any of these things ive mentioned . Certainly when you disenfranchise and youent wa to enfranchise people. You dont want to take away their right to vote or their sense of participation in the democratic process. With respect to the money that the government spends on educating people to hold any kind of license to be a barber, for example, it makes no sense to educate someone and to give them a license to be a barber to pay for that and then when they get out, tell them they cant do that job. Its counterproductive and it absolutely leads to frustration and recidivism. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from the alabama, mr. Bacchus. Thank you, mr. Chairman. One statement here in mr. Jones testimony is even with conviction records, the well documented failure states record when charges are dismissed or records sealed and the failure of private data company to keep accurate records hurts millions of individuals. You know, thats a little separate situation, but is that a big problem too . That is a big problem, particularly when people are being denied opportunities without even having a conviction, merely the arrest is enough in many cases to deny a person the opportunity. Certainly when records are not updated someone has received a certificate of relief from disability, someone has been pardoned, those things are not added to the record and are not known. It hurts the person right off the bat because all were seeing is an arrest and many times not even an arrest that leads to conviction that is denying people opportunities. What if you know the fact act has certain strict regulations on what can be reported in a background check. Is that violated and whats the process for combating that . Do you know . Or under the eecoc . It is frequently violated particularly in an age where you can get almost anything with a mouse click or a keystroke. So frequently, employers and other decisionmakers landlords are making decisions on less than Accurate Information and often inAccurate Information. And really there needs to be much greater limited access to these records, much greater regulation over the records. Opportunities for people to update and correct inAccurate Information in their rap sheets, all of these things need much stricter guidelines limited access and an opportunity at no cost for people to correct mistakes in their conviction records or their rap sheets. Well, do employers actually get the criminal record, criminal history . Or do they or are they told whether or not the person meets a certain criteria . Do you know . Employers are actually given a persons rap sheet. They can buy them from consumer reporting agencies. In some cases they can get them directly for fee or not from Law Enforcement agencies. So the access an employer or the decisionmaker has to a persons complete criminal rap sheet is far too loose and easily available. All right. And they have them. Im a cosponsor for legislation with plaintiff sensenbrenner and others, mr. Scott of the Second Chance act which helps state and local Government Agencies and Community Organizations improve prisoner reentry nationwide. Do any of you have any comments on the Second Chance act and how it might help . Well, again, i think with comments that have already been made, prosecutors around the country are certainly supporting and have started reentry programs. I think its so important. I think without looking up front of whats going to happen to an individual who it is sentenced to the penitentiary, knowing that that individual is going to come back into the community is just develop it misses the entire point of what were trying to do, trying to make productive citizens out of these individuals and help them. To just warehouse individuals as a prosecutor i can tell you, just warehousing individuals in penitentiary makes no sense at all. I think we have to be smarter on crime, smarter on who is sentenced to the penitentiary and to help whether its education, whether its having someone to help get a job, have employment, have housing when theyre released. So i commend all of you for supporting that. Nacdl certainly supports the Second Chance act. Gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from michigan, mrs. Connyers. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I just want you to know that i think this overcriminalization panel is one of the most important in the house judiciary committee. And what were doing is working on ways to get this as much into the legislative mainstream as possible, and so we would welcome any thoughts that you have now or in the future about this. Its that critical. And after the votes this morning, in 2226 rayburn down the hall, were going to have personal narratives of witnesses that have experienced some negative collateral consequences. So we wanted to invite not only you two distinguished lawyers but everyone here to join us, if you can. My first question to both of you is, how can we ramp this subject up as effectively and as thoughtfully as possible without overdoing it or creating a backlash or anything like that . If you have any thoughts on that, gentlemen . I do, thank you for the question. First of all, the collateral consequences of conviction project that was funded by the niha and just completed by the American Bar Association. This is a grant we got and many reasons because of senator from vermont. 750,000 grant. The American Bar Association because of the immense and the depth of this project invested another 750,000 of its money money and just completed again recognizing about 40,000 to 45,000 collateral consequences. What we would hope what the American Bar Association hopes is that congress and the states use this database that we have to identify all the different collateral sanctions or consequences throughout the country in the federal system. All right . And to look at them and say, how effective are they . How relevant are they . Retool some. Limit some. Some have just been over broad or theyve applied forever. And so they need to limit some of those. So were hoping again that congress will take advantage of this monumental project that weve just completed. And maybe use it and well be glad to assist in any way possible. Well, we intend to. Now, what about going beyond the american bar . You know that there are dozens of law organizations and associations across the country. Im thinking about widening our approach so that we can begin this discussion with them working off of the good initial work that you started. Well, he appreciate the question. And again, i think your point is well taken. As a former president of the National District attorneys association, i know that district attorneys across the country are very concerned about this project and are very interested in what the results are that we just finished. I know were going to be having conversations about this. I know state prosecutors associations are going to having and are always concerned about collateral sanctions. Ng and are always concerned about collateral sanctiong and are always concerned about collateral sanction and are always concerned about collateral sanctions. And the effect it has on not only the offender but on the community. Youre giving prosecutors a great new description here. I always think of prosecutors as the bad guys that are trying to rack up convictions as many convictions with as many severe penalties as possible. I mean, i think thats i think this is an incredible of has there been some kind of turn around on the have we been making progress that we didnt know about or what . Well, congressman, let me assure you that i can really believe i can speak not on behalf of the ndaa because im not the president. Henry gars from texas is now. I think most of the prosecutors realize that. This idea of just putting people away, that may have been the thought of some prosecutors many years ago but that is really not the thought today. The thought today is be smarter on crime and to identify those individuals who must be prosecuted and are a threat to the community. Could i get just a gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from texas, mr. Gohmert. Thank you. And i appreciate your being here. Im sorry i was late. This is a project thats near and dear to my heart and when ed meese called and asked if i would participate in something that dealt with the problem that i saw as a massive problem, overcriminalization, something that as a former prosecutor, judge, chief justice has driven me crazy, because i had seen, when people want to beat their chest and show how tough they are, well, lets slap a criminal penalty on something. And so as you know, we talked about there may be 5,000 or so crimes. Theyre not in 18 u. S. Code where they ought to be as a criminal code. And i had wondered why in the world have we not been able to clean this mess up before. And what id heard is that it seems like every time a project gets fired up to try to clean up the criminal code, that it ends up being a big Santa Claus Christmas bag and people start trying to throw more and more in it and then overall, you lose too many votes and people go, i cant agree to that. Wait a minute. I love the idea. I was on board but now youve thrown that in the bag. I cant agree to that. And then it loses the impetus and nothing gets done over and over. And so thats one of my concerns as we go here. I hear from people going yeah, youre right. Weve got to stop this overcriminalization and also weve got to the stop the militarization of many of these federal departments and you know, the epa doesnt need a s. W. A. T. Team and neither does the department of education for heavens sake. And we should never have, as we heard in this room, testimony about a poor little nerd that was trying to develop a new battery and he gets pulled over by three suburbans, run off the road, yanked out of his car, thrown down, boot in his back, handcuffed and drug off because he didnt put a sticker on a thing he mailed to alaska with an airplane with a line through it. He put ground only, checked that, but he didnt put the sticker. I mean we need to stop that. And so people are getting that and theyre getting all on board and then when we start saying, well, were also looking into whether or not maybe employers shouldnt be able to find out if you committed a crime before they hire you. Oh, wait a minute. Now, wait a minute. This is a very sensitive industry. And youre telling me i dont get to know if hes been stealing from his last job or in this daycare job, i dont get to know that this person has actually molested people in the past . And i can tell you as a judge, i had a case where because of the law trying to protect people, protected a child molester and it wasnt till he molested and destroyed other lives that he got stopped. And because of the way the law was, the juvenile Probation Department didnt even get to know that he had had these other incidents just because of the way he was protected. So im really concerned that we may be getting into an area where were going too far if were not careful. Weigh lose the steam. Let me just ask you guys. Why would it be be appropriate for congress to force private businesses to ignore somebodys criminal history . I just want to be thank you for the question. I just want to be Crystal Clear about ban the box, right . Because ban the box does not prevent an employer or other decisionmaker from knowing about a persons criminal record. There need to be clear relevancy guidelines that adhere across the board so that decisionmakers understand whats relevant and whats not when looking at a persons criminal record, and there also needs to be an opportunity for the individual to get his foot in the door to be able to present his credentials and his employability but once those things are done, once there are clear relevancy guidelines and decisionmakers know and once the person has had his foot in the door. My times about to expire. I want to get this question in. Isnt it true that those who access individual criminal histories are already subject to strict regulation regarding the use of that information under fair credit reporting act and equal Employment Opportunity commission. Isnt that true . Thats correct. So its not just wide open already. I think there are safeguards. I think there are some abuses to it, no question about it. I understand what hes saying. I do think there are collateral consequences that are appropriate. Okay, thank you very much. I yield back. The gentle woman from california, miss bass. Thank you very much, mr. Chair, and the Ranking Member for holding this hearing. I think this is such a critical issue for our nation. And earlier this year in my district, i had a town hall and we had several hundred people come talking about this very subject. And it seems like in our society, we used to have a belief that if you paid your debt to society, that you could can be reintegrated. And it seems like part of what has happened over the last couple decades is we no longer have that belief and in fact, you can spend sometime in prison, but then you can spend the rest of your life with the stigma and not being able to appropriately reintegrate. In california, when i was in the state legislature, we had a law that said if you were a felon, could you not get a license to be a barber. At the same time in our state prison system, we had a barbering program where we taught felons how to be barbers and then didnt allow them to have the license when they left. So we had to change that law and we had over 54 occupations that you couldnt do if you had been a felon. Mr. Jones, you mentioned that there should be a presumption of irrelevance and you know, the experience about ban the box i completely understand what you mean in terms of getting your foot in the door to even say that it was a conviction from 30 years ago. And it was when i was a College Student or Something Like that because if you dont check that box and then you find out, then youre subject to immediate termination because youve lied. So when you were talking about a presumption of irrelevance, i wasnt sure if you were talking about that rhetorically or if you actually meant thats what we should do. Then i wanted to know how we would go about that. Well, well, thank you for the question. You know, there are there are studies that suggest that after a certain number of years, a persons conviction is a person is less likely is no more likely and in some cases less likely to reoffend than anybody in the general society. Right . So when were talking about evaluating a persons criminal record for whether or not they should be accessible to an opportunity or benefit, then what we really need to do is we really need to look at whether or not there is any relevance to the opportunity, what the passage of time has been, and whether or not theres any evidence of rehabilitation and when the passage of time has been such and theres evidence of rehabilitation, there really ought to be a resumption of irrelevance that the conviction is no longer relevant to whether or not this person ought to have that opportunity. And i agree with you, but how do you do that . Is it a law . Do we pass a law that says that . And then im assuming that you would exempt certain type of crimes. Exactly. I think there have to be guidelines that are set out clearly for Decision Makers for employers and landlords and others. There have to be guidelines that clearly instruct individuals as to whats relevant and whats not and what the passage of time is and what the evidence of rehabilitation might be. So that people understand and know were all playing by the same rules. Once we have the same guidelines and playing by the same rules, then there ought be a presumption of irrelevance. One of you made reference to the fact that the fbi website is wrong a significant amount of time. And i wanted to know how its wrong. Is it the wrong people are listed, wrong charges are listed . Well, im not sure exactly what youre referring to, maam, except to say that so many times when we have the silver streaks or we have the histories of convictions that many times people who put, input that data, that it is incorrect. And i think that not only. So it could be both the wrong charges and the wrong people. Exactly. I find that when were looking at defendants who weve charged in my office and my assistant prosecutors will try to get a record check, we have to make sure we confirm that to make sure it is accurate. Many times the inputting of that data and the way it goes through our bureau of investigation identification is wrong. I have a piece of legislation ive introduced called the success act which is looking at a piece of Collateral Damage which says that young people who have a certain crime cannot get financial aid. And im wondering if in the tens of thousands of Collateral Damage examples that you two talked about, are there a number of them that relate to education . Well, i think a lot of them do relate to education. Either directly or indirectly. I think the idea of preventing young people who may have made a mistake from making amends from doing what they were supposed to do and then later in life restricting them from having the education that benefits not only them but Society Makes no sense at all. Its very difficult to make the argument that theres a Public Safety benefit from allowing young people to get an education. Gentle womans time has expired. The gentleman from new york, mr. Jeffries. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And let me thank both of the witnesses for your system and for your work on this very important issue. Let me start with mr. Heck. You testified earlier today, i believe appropriately, that an automatic blanket across the board imposition of collateral consequences is counterproductive. In that regard, how would you suggest the committee look at or the Task Force Look at how the collateral consequences that you believe may be appropriate in certain circumstances are narrowly tailored to fit the severity of the crime so that we dont broadly sweep into individuals into this blanket fashion . And i appreciate the question. I do think that some collateral consequences if theyre applied so broadly across the board and not relevant to that individual case or that individual offender, thats what i dont think the law has been looking at, at the offender, not just the offense, for example, in ohio, if someone owes Child Support and theyre not paying their Child Support, their drivers license is suspended. Its so ridiculous. Ive told my prosecutors who handle those kinds of cases we are not going to ask for that. In fact, were going to say it shouldnt be done because were asking the person to pay Child Support and saying you cant have a job to pay it. I think we have to look at what the collateral consequence is because some are appropriate. When we craft a law, who should be given the discretion to make the determination as to the appropriate application of collateral consequence if one is appropriate under limited circumstances . Should it be the court, should there be built into the law in some way . Should the prosecutor have in the first instance have that opportunity . I dont know that everyone is as enlightened as you are or the prosecutors in your office . Who should have that opportunity to make the determination. There have been a lot of suggestions made on that. I believe, not the aba, that it should be the court. I think the judges are in a unique position to see whats going on and that they should make the judgment. Mr jones, your thoughts on that . Yeah, i think that everybody in the system needs to be aware, educated, updated. Prosecutors, defense counsel, Everybody Needs to understand at every step of the process, the implication of collateral consequences as we go through the process i do think relief at sentencing by the judges who are able to tailor to the individual and remove and repeal consequences that are of no moment and are irrelevant is a good thing. So i believe relief at sentencing is important. I think all the players in the system ought to be aware at every step along the way of their consequences and packet. Both of you mentioned in your testimony there were 45,000 collateral consequences which is a staggering number. So thats a difficult undertaking but one that obviously is necessary and i think we as a task force have to think through how to create Greater Transparency as it relates to those consequences and obviously take steps in my opinion to reduce many of them. But you mentioned that 68 Million People in america i guess are living with convictions. Is that right . Thats right. That number is growing. And that 20 million of those individuals have felony convictions which mathematically i gather would leave 48 million with misdemeanor convictions or criminal violations in some way, shape, or form. Now, if we are to look at this issue in terms of collateral consequences, has any work been done to look at the consequences associated to those convicted of felonies versus the consequences associated with those convicted of misdemeanors . And is it relevant for us to think through this issue in that fashion . Well, i think that even just looking at some of the legislation thats proposed, certainly there always is this notion that, you know, first time offenders, nonviolent misdemeanents are more often the subject of legislation, but the fact of the matter is that at some point, everybodys coming home, right . The vast majority of these folks are coming home, and we need to be thinking about and incorporating and be prepared to embrace all of these folks because nobody is merely the product of the worst thing that theyve ever done and we all deserve a Second Chance. So i would strongly suggest that as you think about how to set these guidelines and evaluate relevance, that you include everybody. Including those 20 million living with the conviction. The gentleman from georgia, mr. Johnson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We need to reject demonization of every person who has a brush with the criminal law. Persons released from prison should be given a Second Chance and we need toant here in a new age of restoration and redemption. These are things that are listed in your conclusion, mr. Jonas. And i think that those are very important ideals. That we should seek to live up to. Often times, it is we ourselves that are the perpetrators of overcriminalization. Certainly the legislators are responsible. And certainly judges and prosecutors who are elected are responsible for, you know, getting tough on crime and throwing the book at people. And implementing the policies that we enshrine into law. But i will ask you both, youre both members of the bar. Youre both attorneys. Youre licensed to practice law and you know that when a person suffers a felony conviction and even misdemeanor convictions in many states, they are barred from being able to license practice law. Do you believe that those types of barriers, which are collateral consequences, you believe that those should be removed from persons ability to practice law, to get a law lice . Mr. Heck . I think like any other cla collateral situation, they have to look at all element. In ohio, someone was convicted and removed. Someone convicted of manslaughter has become a lawyer. We have seen where someone is convicted of a theft or fraud was not given the license to practice law in ohio. So there has to be some type of per di, some type of fairness, if there are sanctions at all. So you would be against blanket bans on all who have been convicted being ineligible to receive a license to practice law . I dont think blanket bans do any justice. All right. Mr. Jones . I think unless there is some Public Safety that outweighs a persons right to get a law law sense, to pass the bar, unless there is some Public Benefit that outways that person practicing law, then i would say, he should not have that restriction or any automatic mandatory bans. Do you know of any initiatives by the aba or state Bar Association to address that particular issue . Either one of you . No. I know the project of the collateral consequence of the project did not entail that. It today had to do with catalogd assembling the collateral consequence. Which was a monumental task. But the particular issue you are asking about, i dont know of any state or bar tackling that yet. Thank you. I think that just like we see, disproportionate as far as imprisonment is concerned, i think that goes along with that. Because so many times the sanctions are attached to a conviction. I think that once you see the affect it has on the incars rag, imprisonment, you will see the thing on collateral sanction. I think collateral sank sanctions, as it relates to employment, as it relates to income and housing, really has an effect in that regard. The answer is profoundly. There are studies that show that africanamerican men who have never been in have never had trouble with the law at all, are less likely to get a job than white men with a felony conviction. There are studies that show that africanamerican men are particular likely to be addressed for drugrelated crimes in the community is the same. So the consequences on individuals, families, and society is profound. Thank you. The gentlemans time is expired. The gentleman from tennessee, mr. Cohen. Thankou, mr. Chair. Thosish ice affect my constituents in a major way. Second chance opportunities for employment is one of the things i hear most from constituents, somebody had a conviction at some time in the past and they cant get a job. The continuing cycle. But more fundamental is the loss of the right to vote. And i dont know if this has been addressed. Just extensively by yall, but do either of yall know the history of that particular those laws . I was reading about civil death or however it is called. Civil death. And that seemed to take away your right to vote and everything else. And being described as barbarous and barberism by reason and by more ality, et cetera. But we have these laws. Does maryland have a law like that, mr. Heck. Maryland . Yes. I have to be honest, im not familiar with maryland state. Which state are you from . Ohio. Oh, sorry. They all join the big ten and im confused. Oh ohio doesnt have that law . Right. It is mostly southern states. What you say, disenfranchisement, the right to vote, which to me is so important, it trumps everything. When you take someones right to vote away and with the idea of never giving it back, i just think that this should never be. Mr. Jones, are you familiar with my history on these laws . I have my own thoughts, but they would be conjecture. I dont know, but i tell you this, the history of disenfranchisement, but by the time i get back new york this afternoon, i will know. And ill get that to you. I think history goes back to jim crow. I think it was a southern thing. And really, if you look at the states that have those laws and or had that laws, they are general lit same states that Justice Roberts said no law room, have to have preclearance, because it is a wonderful world, according to Justice Roberts. It is hard to fathom when you look at the history of discrimination in this country and look at it in boating areas. And those are the same states that put a star let let are on individuals that says thou shall not vote. Voting in my district, we had an election in may. Primary election for county offices. Very important. About 10 of the people who are vej jered voted. So my theory is, if people who had convictions in the past were allowed to vote, if they voted by their simple action of voting, they would show they were in the upper 10 of the citizenry. We do in tennessee have a law that i was happy to have sponsored and passed, allows you to get your right to vote reinsteered. Without having the d. A. Come and bless you, et cetera. But the guy if the house, kind of the knee andre that will character put an amendment on the bill which passed and it says that if you were behind in your Child Support, you couldnt get your right to vote back. And it is not something that is pretty clearly ib tended to have a desperate impact. There are two states i believe that this task force out to look at, to allow voting while in prison, and i think thats maine and vermont. You can speculate as to why the two states allow that. But i do believe that maine and vermont, and somebody correct me if its wrong, those two states allow you to vote while youre in prison. I think that everybody thats right. Is vermont. Which is the other state . Maine. Maine. Right. Have you to be eating lobster or cheese or something. Thank you. Yield the balance of my time. Thank you. Thank you. We still have some time left. So ill now recognize myself for five minutes. Both mr. Jones and mr. Heck have said that we should repeal all mandatory collateral consequences that apply across the board. Now one part of federal law prohibits anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of Domestic Violence from possessing a firearm, do you believe that congress should repeal this law . As far as my position is concerned, again, the aba hasnt taken a position on that. I think we have to look again at the individual involved in the individual crime. So for example, we had cases, Domestic Violence, which is on my radar screen, and my office. And like child abuse, we take it very seriously