we have no reasonable alternative option we cannot continue down the present path because it's cost prohibitive to build the necessary prisons to house the future population out at our present rate of incarceration and it into an unjust and inequitable to put mostly nonviolent first offenders in prison for the majority of their adult lives there are presently nearly two hundred two thousand incarcerated federal inmates the number has increased exponentially since one thousand nine hundred seven with no end in sight for this significant growth fueled by drug company and sentences put in place by the united states sentencing commission's reliance on guidelines and congress mandatory minimums more than half fifty five percent of federal prisoners are serving time for drug related crimes nearly three fourths seventy two percent of the federal prison population are nonviolent offenders more than one fourth thirty four point four percent are first time nonviolent offenders even though ninety seven percent of federal inmates eventually are released discharge may not occur for many years because better than nine out of ten inmates convicted of federal crimes would be released only after serving approximately eighty seven and a half percent of their senses under the new sentencing guidelines new law inmates have no incentive to rehabilitate and are all painted with the same brush since the bulk of the population is new law the result has been prison overcapacity facility instability and increased danger to both inmates and staff the new system essentially doubled the sentences the judges were forced to impose with no chance for early release and these sentences of uniformly been initiated and determined by the charging decisions of prosecutors in contrast old law inmates have an opportunity pursu to the united states parole commission's discretion for early release from prison and early termination of parole historically united states parole commission has promoted public safety and justice by fairly exercising its authority to release and supervise offenders under jurisdiction through a conscious application of its own guidelines in each case it is done this by a willingness to give due regard to individual circumstances while applying the least restrictive sanction that is consistent with public safety and the appropriate punishment for the offense when the sentences have an inordinate impact on inmates families particularly on children who must be raised in broken families moreover with the loss of a wage earner inmates families are forced onto the welfare rolls with the resulting negative impact on state budgets depending upon whose numbers one wishes to use the cost to the country to incarcerate our huge federal population runs approximately thirty thousand to forty thousand dollars per inmate per year the total operational costs exceed six billion  dollars yearly and if one includes amortization of land and buildings total cost is more than eight billion dollars our prison population is aging dramatically the cost to householder inmates is twice that of younger inmates because of the increased medical costs our conclusion is that  real rehabilitated and should have a second chance to lead positive lives the fact that there are over eighteen thousand federal inmates with sentences longer than twenty years most of whom are nonviolent and many of whom are first time offenders indicates that review of these sentences by the united states parole commission would be attractive and adventitious advantages to reducing the burgeoning prison population and its attendant costs and existing federal agency within may release expertise of standing by to take over  supervision of this plan the united states parole commission should not only be extended it should be expanded and made permanently made permanent not only to administer its present mandate of those thirteen thousand people under its auspices but also to be given a commission it was expanded only three years ago or three years despite the fact that this is a permanent battle commission deals with a vital public safety concern that is increasing even as the number of federal prisoners under its jurisdiction diminishes because federal parole has been abolished a growing number of district of columbia  code felons however do and will perpetually come under the jurisdiction of the united states parole board owing to a decision about ten years  ago by the federal government with the at the request of the district of columbia to assume the costs of certain state functions because the district of columbia is and and the us parole commission has jurisdiction and meantime the federal government began about twenty years ago phasing out this commission  because the number of federal code offenders was diminishing since new ones were not being added since ago censuses and guidelines were passed when congress passed the national revitalization act however they created what amounts to a local federal hybrid with a local wedding the title if i may say so because we're talking about as i speak something over twenty five hundred federal offenders where as we now have close to ten thousand d c code offenders under the jurisdiction of the commission chairman i have to tell you that the only reasonable thing to do would have been to grant permanent status to this commission just as we have said before the only reason that it was phasing down and put on three year cycles it was going out of this no but the justice department has an automatic pilot and when we approached them and said why should we bother the congress take them away from urgent business every three years to say  extension of a federal entity whose whose public safety mission is permanent and is important both to the federal government and to the district of columbia and one gets so you're going through what i regard as a needlessly mandatory ritual and get ready to see us again in three years now more seriously the courts have taken note of the fact that this commission courts of course it  not we've already spoken with the senate could go out of a could not go out of existence so we have the third circuit having ordered the commission over as i understand it order to allow for the possibility of appeal in case parole is denied now for a moment i ask you to imagine what would happen if other circuits also decide to ask the commission to take such steps what they've already asked may prove unworkable and i think it would be possible if other circuits were asked by the courts or in the business of making sure that they're not due process violations not in the business of doing back asking for the permanent extension allowing you to do whatever oversight you think appropriate but not having a hearing of this kind which puts in jeopardy the commission itself and of suspension and we've already been in touch with the senate to indicate what is at stake here so i think all are concerned and that's why i so appreciate your getting to us so quickly thank you very much  improving valuation research and the deterrent effect of the death penalty i welcome all of our witnesses today and thank you for joining us today your written statements will be entered in the record in their entirety but i ask you to summarize your testimony commission i am very pleased to be here today to discuss the reauthorization of the u s for all commission i have submitted prepared statement that i understand has been made part of the subcommittees hearing record i way a background president george h w bush appointed me to the commission to name me the chairman in one thousand nine hundred two president clinton continued me in that role into until one nine hundred ninety seven and president george w bush named me chairman again in two thousand and one although the sentencing reform act of hundred eighty four abolished parole and the parole commission commissions still exist and the usual question that i always get hit with is why well the answer to that question is because the commission carries out a number of important functions congresswoman norton has mentioned those including sleep difficult task given to the commission by congress after the enactment of the sentencing reform act one of those functions first the parole commission makes parole release and revocation decisions for federal offenders convicted of offenses committed before the us sentencing guidelines took place also for military offenders convicted of military crimes in military courts and serving their sentence in a federal bureau of prisons facility secondly the commission makes parole release and revocation decisions for parole eligible offenders convicted in the district of columbia superior court congress gave the commission this responsibility when it acted the d c revitalisation act in one thousand nine hundred seventy third the commission steps in and forces the conditions of supervised release for district of columbia offenders sentenced to a term of supervised release by the district of columbia superior court the majority of the commission's work in this regard involves making revocation decisions the spunk and arise from the d c revitalization act and related district of columbia legislation that abolished parole for the district of columbia offenders and replaced it with supervised release fourth the commission makes release decisions for transfer treaty offenders united states citizens convicted of a crime in a foreign country who elect to serve their sentences in this country if the foreign offense was committed before november one thousand nine hundred eighty seven that offender is eligible for parole the sentencing reform act provides that if the foreign offenses committed on or after november one  seven the commission determines a release date taking into consideration the united states sentencing guidelines should be emphasized at all of the functions currently carried out by the commission will have to be carried out after november one of this year there is no federal agency authorized to carry out any of these functions of the commission at this time and there is no district of columbia agency authorized to carry out any of these functions at this time extending the life of the commission is the best course of action to ensure the orderly administration of justice to ensure that the public is adequately safeguard a commission that is primary's mission primary mission is public safety i also urge congress to act very quickly since the winding down mechanism of the sentencing reform act of one hundred eighty four requires the pro commission  eligible federal offender still in prison and to do so insufficient to a sufficient time to give those offenders an opportunity to take an administrative appeal of their release da that process takes about ninety days which means that the deadline for the acting on these cases of some fifteen hundred offenders is the end of this month that will require a significant effort by the commission and detracted from its ability to carry out the commission's other say public safety functions and much of that effort may well be wasted if congress decides that the life of the commission should be extended in previous years federal offenders citing the winding down mechanism have sought to compel the commission to give them early release date up until now such litigation has not succeeded the courts are very cognizant that enactment of legislation can be time consuming it is not uncommon for congress to act very near a deadline this month one court congresswoman norton mentioned has indicated that the commission must soon have to set a release date for a parole eligible federal offender under this winding down mechanism or provision the decision came before a bill was introduced or even considered to extend the commission's life or if there was any other public indication like this hearing that congress is making progress in moving legislation to expand and address the life of the commission in view of that decision i urge congress to move forward as promptly as possible to secure an act of legislation that would extend the life of the commission i thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today plus my deep personal appreciation for the support we have had from congress  show thanks to the chairman committee and especially congresswoman norton public speaking is not my forte which had the result of meaning i had to do more time because my prison experience made me want to do the right thing be a productive member of society also in prison i learned that i had an ability in our i started painting and left with the impression that i could be good at this at the right age of forty two i went to university howard university and pursued a degree in fine  art while i was incarcerated i've been in several what they call gladiator camps but really the most difficult thing i've ever done was at forty two to go to class eighteen and nineteen year old  i did really well at my degree ninety five my work is really good i did a lot of portraits actually i've done some of your constituents  for me i don't do success well and as a result i started using drugs that was my first interaction with the commission during the process speaking to other inmates who had been before the parole board  meant that i kept my job i kept my contacts i was able to continue my painting business and i'm out here sitting before you are now be construed as representing any official position of the heritage foundation the concern over high crime rates a failed rehabilitate a model of corrections federal and state governments to reform their correctional systems in one thousand eighty has the life of the commission been extended but its responsibilities have been extended as well today the pro commission still receives federal old law cases that predate sentencing reform more important the commissions the majority the commission workload concerns district of columbia offenders in fiscal year two thousand and six the commission responsible for thousands of district quandary offenders however the operation other station of the commission is set to expire in october thirty first of this year while the commission while the role of the commission is greatly diminished the commission still performs important functions that should continue therefore reauthorization of the commission is warranted however a return to the old ind released decisions this discretion all too often came at the expense of public safety the term incensing made incarceration terms more meaningful by ensuring that offenders actually served most of their sentences this change helped restore the have demonstrated a link between increased incarceration and decreases in crime rates that they're controlling for social economic factors that may influence crime rates research indicates that incarceration reduces crime significantly for example professor  sensing and pro decisions were criticised for placing too much discretionary power in the hands of judges and parole boards the wide discretion given these decision makers led to the reception of an arbitrary sentencing system determine sens reduce this problem well the sensory format greatly diminished the original responsibilities of the us pro commission they just he still performs important functions such as overseeing federal law cases and offenders from the district of those are two different things one of the let me ask you a question of whether it would be better to have indeterminate sentencing of a few getting out one and a half years most getting out in three and a few serving ten years or everybody get out in three years well i think it depends on the nature of the i think that one of those things happened was that the person the crime the person depends on the individual it depends on what the crime with ok when does it depend when is it best to determine when it depends i think that there's a judge judge if you target dermott sentences it's not whether they serve been disparaged some actually pulled all ten years couldn't get out couldn't make parole some got out early decision was made when it was time for them to get out some more determined not ready they were held all ten years now the question again is would it be better for all of them to get three years ready or not come or some not early and appropriately held three times longer if we had a system where  three with the rest of them one of the things i think you had when you horton and somebody who rehabilitated no likelihood of recidivism in the objective judgment of the paro board would you hold would you want them all out on the same date or would you like the opportunity to hold willie horton and charles manson the whole ten and not get out and three like everybody else i would say that any system that manson and that bunch while they're smiling they are smiling because they get on the same average to everybody else you cannot hold them longer under the term of sentence because when the average comes they get out with the rest of  y question again is if you're talking about a sentence one and a half to ten average three would it make more sense to give everybody to three or mr riley the opportunity to tell some of them now you're not ready and three we're going to made when we make the decision it usually after the person is served depending upon their sentence that they're given and they are given a hearing a professional examiner conducts that hearing review the conduct of the individual in the institution how they have progressed what they have done while they've been in the institution and a recommendation is then to the full commission where do you consider whether or not they have a parole plan that is to say they have something to do and somewhere to go most definitely in order to make sense to you that if you have two people for you one has a plan where they have a job lined up somewhere to go and a support system and another person that shows no rehabilitation at all does it make sense to let him out on the same day under determine it or does it make more sense for you to use your common sense and recognize one is ready to go another wanted and i'd like to think that over the course of the existence of the parole commission since the sentencing reform act we've been using common sense because we haven't been very fortunate that we haven't had any major catastrophes with those folks that we have had to review but with regard to the discussion here because i see that we're talking obviously about determinant versus in determining our concern of course is dealing with those folks who wait and under the determin sentence structure and those are the people we're very critically concerned about at this point because of the fact that the commission does go out of business obviously they want to do process and the court will end up giving them due process be the commission and the courts will make that decision as to what happened so i think the environment we're in right now is one of the we're our concern is the critical nature of moving forward in terms of doing thing with this legislation i'm  board parole commission we did have the opportunity to listen to two days of extensive testimony from a variety of folks from all walks of life and academicians and so on  calling to attention the fact that there needs to be a lot probably of the overall criminal justice system in terms of the future and where we're going to turn it if you will that could be pursued which many of our states are doing one of the leaders and i'm delighted to say i come from guideline to help reduce is disparity now there's always questions whether or not the person should be sentenced to that length of time or not but you're going to have more human senses across the board thank you chairman route do you have an estimate for when federal parolees will no longer be in the criminal justice system that's an excellent question congressman we really don't have a projection that has been run out that's something that we we've done it in the past it hasn't proven so far to be accurate in terms of the numbers because we're still dealing with as we said earlier fifteen hundred eighty one that are incarcerated in the federal classification and twenty five hundred  five or ten years ago that there was a way to start to really phase down even more dramatically the commission were down to seventy two staff when i came originally we had one hundred forty five our budget really flat lined all the way along so we basically stayed in the status quo position but that's something we could work on and try to provide the committee in terms of giving a long range projection and plug in the fact that we really can't helpful however i do want to get from chairman riley if i could sort of a breakdown of the service and how the parole officers are functioning my my concern is is that we need trained parole officers that know how to treat different classes of crimes and if an individual comes out is gainfully employed  is doing well the parole person should make sure that that is gainful employment but not stigmatize the person as to being involved in criminal activities just because they're a success story and we're finding issues like this around the country the second point is i have an early release initiative to sixty one and i frankly believe that we should engage in some form of review of the early release and i don't know if the parole commission could be tasked with that the viability of an early release program because of course we don't have parole and i think that that would be very important assess what do they how do they assess success and how are they refrain from condemning a person who is actually doing well on their own and i really appreciate