U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–438 PDF 2014

COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

OVER-CRIMINALIZATION TASK FORCE OF 2014 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 26, 2014 

Serial No. 113–100 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

OVER-CRIMINALIZATION TASK FORCE OF 2014 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

KAREN BASS, California 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 26, 2014 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Over-Criminalization Task 

Force of 2014 ........................................................................................................ 1 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Over-Criminalization Task 

Force of 2014 ........................................................................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery 

County, Dayton, Ohio 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14 

Rick Jones, Executive Director, Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 27 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 5 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable Spencer Bachus, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Alabama, and Member, Over-Criminalization 

Task Force of 2014 ............................................................................................... 54 

Material submitted by the Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, OverCriminalization Task Force of 2014 ................................................................... 60 

Prepared Statement of the Consumer Data Industry Association (CDIA) ......... 140 

Letter from the National Association of Professional Background Screeners 

(NAPBS) ................................................................................................................ 149 

Material submitted by the Federal Interagency Reentry Council ....................... 154 

Prepared Statement of the Brennan Center for Justice Legislative Office ........ 156 

(1) 

COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES 

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OVER-CRIMINALIZATION TASK FORCE OF 2014 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Task Force met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in room 2237, 

Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Task Force) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Sensenbrenner, Bachus, Gohmert, Conyers, Scott, Cohen, Johnson, Bass, and Jeffries. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Robert Parmiter, Counsel; Alicia 

Church, Clerk; and (Minority) Ron LeGrand, Counsel. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Task Force on Over-Criminalization 

will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare recesses during votes on the floor. Let me say we are supposed to 

have an hour and a half worth of votes beginning at 10:30 to 10:45, 

and I don’t think that it would be advisable to have the witnesses 

sit for an hour and a half, and I don’t know how many Members 

will be coming back after an hour and a half; so I would like to 

wrap this up by 10:30, 10:45. 

I have an opening statement. I yield myself 5 minutes. 

Good morning, and welcome to the eighth hearing of the Judiciary Committee’s Over-criminalization Task Force. Today’s hearing 

will focus on the collateral consequences associated with a criminal 

conviction. Over its first seven hearings, the Task Force examined 

issues related to criminal intent, over-federalization, penalties, and 

other issues which affect criminal defendants during the investigative and prosecutorial phases of the criminal justice process. 

However, today’s hearing will examine the consequences that follow a criminal conviction which may not be immediately apparent 

during the pendency of a criminal case. 

The American Bar Association knows that some collateral consequences serve an important and legitimate public safety, or a 

regulatory function, such as keeping firearms out of the hands of 

violent offenders, protecting children or the elderly from persons 

with a history of 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, driver’s license restrictions for those con-
2 

victed 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 are scattered throughout 

the code books and frequently unknown 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 will inexorably follow, this 

raises questions of fairness and implicates the constitutional right 

to effective assistance of counsel. I agree that this area is one that 

the Task Force should consider during its evaluation of the overcriminalization of Federal law. 

However, there are several areas where I have serious concerns, 

most notably with regard to the argument advanced by many, including at least one of our witnesses today, that Congress should 

force private employers to ignore an employee’s 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 forms of malum in se 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 employers, including schools, banks, power 

plants and other vital parts of our Nation’s infrastructure in order 

to protect public health and safety. Proposals such as 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 

that 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 help rehabilitate ex-offenders and to lessen 

their risk of their reoffending following release. 

Last year I reintroduced H.R. 3465, the ‘‘Second Chance Reauthorization Act of 2013.’’ This bipartisan legislation which has been 

co-sponsored by the Task Force’s Ranking Member, Mr. Scott, 

would reauthorize and streamline the grant programs in the Second Chance Act to help ex-offenders become productive members of 

our society. 

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing today and look forward to hearing about these and other issues associated with the 

collateral consequences of a criminal conviction. 

It is now my pleasure to recognize for his opening statement, the 

Ranking Member of the Task Force, the gentleman from Virginia, 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, our last hearing focused on the problem of overincarceration and the need for proportional evidence-based and individualized sentencing. The Pew Center on the States, estimates 
3 

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 you are wasting so much money, you are messing up so many families. You have so many people with felony 

records it actually increases crime not decreases crime. 

Data shows that since 1992, the annual prison costs have 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 offered 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 wastes the taxpayers’ money, 

violates common sense, and are ultimately counterproductive to the 

goal of public safety. 

Just like each of the 195 mandatory minimums got in our Federal code one at a time, each and every one of the over 45,000 collateral consequences that were written into 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 

overcoming 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 they are 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 and to ‘‘all convicted felons.’’ 

For example, in the drug context in the fiscal year 2012, 60 percent 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 expense, or how long ago it was or 

what role you played, the collateral consequences you face are not 

narrowly tailored or even tailored at all. It is a one size fits all, it 

is another example of tough on crime sweeping far too broadly and 

far too harshly. There is no reliable scientific data that demonstrates that any of these collateral consequences actually improve public safety, reduce recidivism, or save money. To the contrary, all of the evidence is just the opposite. 

Collateral consequences of conviction affect an individual’s ability 

to obtain necessary social services, employment, professional licenses, housing, student loans to further their education, the ability to 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. They serve to marginalize and stigmatize those with 

prior convictions and treat them as second class citizens. 

Just as the Children’s Defense Fund has recognized that secure 

housing, employment, education and other social services are the 
4 

best crime-prevention resources to redirect individuals from what 

they call the cradle to prison pipeline, toward 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 can’t be surprised that 

some choose to return to the very paths that led them to prison in 

the first place. Often there is no bearing, no correlation, and no relevance between someone’s prior conviction and the job they are applying. 

Now, in some circumstances, there may be value in looking at 

the criminal conviction. For example, it makes sense for someone 

with an embezzlement conviction to be denied a job at a bank. But 

what does a 30-year-old marijuana possession conviction have to do 

with someone getting a good paying construction job? Now the 

EEOC has issued guidance that provides that an employer’s use of 

an individual’s criminal record may discriminate against them if 

there is a disproportionate impact on certain minorities without 

any job-related relationship. That could constitute discrimination 

and so although the criminal record may be relevant—can I have 

about 30 more seconds. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. SCOTT. 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, thank you for holding the hearing, and look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The the time of the gentleman has expired. 

Without objection other Members’ opening statements will be 

made a part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:] 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. It is now my pleasure to introduce the two 

witnesses this morning. 

Mr. Rick Jones is the executive 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 course. He is also on the faculty of 

the National Criminal Defense College, in Macon, Georgia, and is 

frequently invited to lecture on criminal justice issues throughout 

the country. 

He currently serves as Secretary of the National Association of 

Criminal Defense Lawyers and previously served that organization 

as a two-term member of the board of directors, parliamentarian, 

co-chair of both the Indigent Defense Committee and the special 

task force on Problem Solving Courts, and is currently co-chair of 

the task force on the restoration of rights and status after conviction. 

Mr. Mathias Heck is a prosecuting attorney for 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 was a 

very wise choice, and his J.D. Degree from the Georgetown University Law Center. 

I would ask all of you to limit your opening remarks to 5 minutes. I think you are all aware of what red, yellow and green 

means in 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. 

TESTIMONY OF MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., MONTGOMERY COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DAYTON, OHIO 

Mr. HECK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Task 

Force. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comment about 

Marquette—Okay? Thank you. 

Again, good morning, I appreciate your comments about Marquette University, and I know it is very dear to your heart. 

In addition to being the prosecuting attorney from Montgomery 

County, Dayton, Ohio, I am also 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 ABA’s view of 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 thereto may be 

collateral sanctions or disabilities that are also imposed in addition 

to the sentence. 
12 

That sentence could be probation, could be to the penitentiary, 

or a combination of both. These collateral consequences of conviction include such familiar penalties of disfranchisement, deportation, loss of professional licenses, felon registration, ineligibility for 

certain public welfare benefits, even loss of a driver’s license, and 

many more. 

Over the last number of years, collateral consequences have been 

increasing steadily in variety and severity throughout the country, 

and they have been accumulated with little coordination in State 

and Federal laws, making it almost impossible to determine all of 

the penalties and disabilities applicable to a particular offense. 

Now, some collateral sanctions or consequences do serve an important and legitimate public purpose. As the Chairman has already mentioned, keeping firearms out of the hands of persons convicted of crimes of violence, or barring persons who have been convicted of embezzlement from holding certain public interest jobs, or 

denying driving privileges to those convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide. Other collateral 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 as 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 

very spearheaded, reentry programs because we see this as a public safety issue. Nonetheless, not all collateral consequences of conviction are affected. Many have no relationship to public safety and 

prevent a former offender from doing productive work in order to 

support a family and contribute to the community. This effect to 

employment results and represents one of the more difficult issues 

facing, I think, our justice system and our Nation. The reality is 

that ex-offenders who cannot find jobs that provide sufficient income to support themselves and their families are more likely to 

commit more criminal acts and find themselves again back in prison. 

Now, the American Bar Association has adopted a comprehensive 

set of principles regarding collateral sanctions, and they have two 

primary goals, one to encourage awareness of all involved in the 

justice system process of the full legal consequences of a conviction, 

so when someone is convicted they know what’s going to happen. 

And, secondly, to focus attention on the impact of collateral consequences on the process by which a convicted person can get into 

reentry and 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 if there is a 

collateral sanction to a particular crime, 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 au-
13 

thorized by Congress. We started it in 2009, we just completed it, 

and we have adopted and found 45,000 collateral consequences. 

And, again, the hope is that we can categorize these and that everyone knows, it is open to the public, to defense lawyers, to prosecutors, and that way everyone can understand what the collateral 

consequences are. They are readily available, and they know what’s 

involved. Thank you very much, and I appreciate it, and I will be 

glad to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heck follows:] 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Heck. 

Mr. Jones. 

TESTIMONY OF RICK JONES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NEIGHBORHOOD DEFENDER SERVICE OF HARLEM 

Mr. JONES. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you 

this morning. 

We have a lot of ground to cover and a little time. I am going 

to get right into it. Sixty eight million people in this country are 

living with a criminal record. That is one in every four adults. 

Twenty million people with felony convictions, 14 million new arrests every year, 2.2 million people residing in jail or prison, that 

is more than anywhere else in the world. 

As a member of the NACDL task force that produced this collateral 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 stakeholders in 

the criminal justice system. 

In Northern California, we heard from a chief of police who is 

dealing with a significant crime problem, a rising murder rate, and 

widespread community distrust. As he searched for solutions, he 

realized that he was policing from a place of fear. That was his 

term, policing from a place of fear. He was not serving or protecting the community. He was at war with the community. His officers did not really know the citizens they were policing. Distrust 

and fear was the order of the day. It wasn’t until he took the time 

to get to know the people he was charged with protecting, that he 

recognized and appreciated their humanity. Trust and understanding improved, and his crime problem began to decline. 

Sixty eight 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. Fourteen 

million new arrests every year. We are prosecuting from a place of 

fear. Forty five thousand, collateral consequences on the books in 

this country, 45,000 road blocks 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 mind set. We must move 

from 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 affected community, job 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. Fourteen 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 
26 

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 avoidance and 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 meaningfully 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, there 

must be clearly established guidelines for decisionmakers to follow, 

guidelines with respect to relevancy, passage of time and evidence 

of rehabilitation. There should be a presumption of irrelevance for 

any conviction beyond a certain number of years and for anyone 

who has shown evidence of rehabilitation. 

Finally, consumer reporting agencies and background check companies must be regulated. Rap sheets are not a commodity. We 

should not be creating a market in the buying and selling of people’s conviction records. There are some law enforcement agencies 

in this country that sell rap sheets. That must stop. Any records 

disclosed must be accurate. The FBI Web site, which is the main 

source of criminal record acquisition, is wrong 50 percent 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 the restoration of rights 

and status after conviction. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:] 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Mr. Jones. 

The Chair is going to put himself at the end of the questioning 

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 in enforcing the 5-minute rule so that everybody has 

a chance. I do have a reputation of looking at the red light. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Heck, Ban the Box has been mentioned. Is banning the box where you have to check off on your application that you have been convicted of a felony, does that prohibit an employer from considering on an individualized basis your 

criminal record? 

Mr. HECK. 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 we are seeing a lot of problems that are associated with that 

particular issue. 

Mr. SCOTT. The point is, if you don’t check off the box, it does 

not subsequently eliminate the employer’s consideration of your 

record, but only on an individualized basis and whether or not the 

record is relevant to the job. 

Mr. Jones, are you familiar with the EEOC guidance? Can you 

say a word about that? 

Mr. JONES. Ban the Box, you are absolutely correct, Congressman Scott. Ban the Box does not prevent an employer from having 

an opportunity to review and determine relevancy of a person’s 

criminal record or criminal conviction. All Ban the Box does is get 

the person’s foot in the door initially. It allows them to have an opportunity to prove their credentials, to prove their ability to do a 

job. 

And once an employer is in a position to think that this individual is able to do the job and is someone who we would like to 

employ, they then have the opportunity to review the person’s 

criminal record and decide whether it is relevant, whether they are 

rehabilitated, whether there has been enough passage of time so 

that it is not a factor. But they do at the end of the process have 

the opportunity to know and evaluate the person’s record. So Ban 

the Box is not a wholesale preclusion. 

Mr. SCOTT. But you never would have gotten to that point where 

you would have been considered if you had checked the box. The 

application would have been thrown in the trash. 

Mr. JONES. That is right. 

Mr. SCOTT. When you talk about collateral consequences, a couple things that haven’t been mentioned is the total waste of money. 

I know California many years ago spent a lot more money on higher education than prisons. Now prisons have exceeded by large 

margin what they are spending on higher education. So the waste 

of money crowds out things, and that is a collateral consequence 

of over incarceration, and children with parents in prison are also 

at high risk. 

Just very briefly, Mr. Heck, can you tell me whether the automatic, across the board collateral consequences help keep people 
39 

from coming to jail or add to coming back to jail? For example, a 

collateral consequence of unemployment making it more difficult to 

get a job, does that help or hurt in terms of recidivism? 

Mr. HECK. I think it is counterproductive to what we are trying 

to do. I think any type of across the board sanction, without looking 

at the particular offense and the particular offender is counterproductive. 

Mr. SCOTT. What about education? 

Mr. HECK. Well, education is the same way. It is interesting in 

Ohio, we have dealt with that and the legislature has over the last 

year. There are a number of alternatives that we now offer to prison, and I mean, a number of different alternatives that they have 

to try because, again, it makes no sense. When we are talking 

about reentry, most of the individuals who go to the penitentiary 

are going to be released, and so I think we have to look at that on 

the front end rather than saying what are we going to do after they 

are released. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well and if you cut back on your right to get an education, education has been studied over and over again. That actually the more education you get the less likely you are to come 

back. Denying somebody an education seems to be clearly counterproductive. 

Mr. HECK. Absolutely. 

Mr. SCOTT. What about, have you studied the implications of the 

right to vote in terms of recidivism? 

Mr. HECK. Again, the project that the American Bar Association 

has just completed looked into that as a collateral consequence. 

Again, I see no reason why someone is not restored to the right to 

vote. That is 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. SCOTT. Mr. Jones, have you done any studies to show the impact on recidivism for any of these things I have mentioned? 

Mr. JONES. Well, certainly when you disenfranchise, you are 

disenfranchised. You want to enfranchise people. So you certainly 

don’t want to take way 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 that they can’t do that job. It is counterproductive, and 

it absolutely leads to frustration and recidivism. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus. 

Mr. BACHUS. 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 companies to keep accurate records hurts millions of individuals. That is a little separate situation, but is that a big problem, 

too? 

Mr. JONES. That is a big problem, particularly when people are 

being denied opportunities without even having a conviction, but 
40 

merely the arrest is enough in many cases to deny a person the opportunity. 

Certainly when records are not updated, someone has received a 

certificate of relief from disability, someone has been pardoned, 

those things are not added to the record and are not known, it 

hurts the person right off the bat because all we are seeing is an 

arrest and many times not even an arrest that leads to a conviction 

that is denying people opportunities. 

Mr. BACHUS. What, if you know, the FACT Act has certain strict 

regulations on what can be reported in a background check. Is that 

violated, and what is the process for combatting that? Do you 

know, or under the EEOC? 

Mr. JONES. 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 decision makers, 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. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, do employers actually get the criminal record 

or criminal history, or are they told whether or not the person 

meets a certain criteria? Do you know? 

Mr. JONES. Employers are actually given a person’s rap sheet. 

They can actually, they can buy them from consumer reporting 

agencies. In some cases they can get them directly for a fee or not 

from law enforcement agencies. 

So the access an employer or other decisionmaker has to a person’s complete criminal rap sheet is far too loose and easily available, and they have them. 

Mr. BACHUS. All right. I am the co-sponsor for legislation with 

Mr. Sensenbrenner and others, Mr. Scott, I think, of the Second 

Chance Act, which helps State and local government agencies and 

community organizations improve prisoner reentry nationwide. Do 

any of you have comments on the Second Chance Act and how it 

might help? 

Mr. HECK. 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 it is so important. Without looking up front at what is going to happen to an individual who is sentenced to the penitentiary, knowing that that 

individual is going to come back into the community, is just very, 

it misses the entire point of what we are trying to do. 

We are trying to make productive citizens out of these individuals and to help them, and to just warehouse individuals, as a 

prosecutor I can tell you just warehousing individuals in the penitentiary makes no sense at all, and I think we have to be smarter 

on crimes, smarter on who is sentenced to the penitentiary, and 

also to help whether it is education, whether its having someone 

to be helped get job, have employment, have housing when they are 

released. So I commend all of you for supporting that. 
41 

Mr. JONES. And NACDL certainly supports the Second Chance 

Act. Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want you to know that I think this over-criminalization 

panel is one of the most important in the House Judiciary Committee, and what we are doing is working on ways to get this as 

much into the legislative mainstream as possible, so we would welcome any thoughts that you have now or in the future about this, 

it is that critical. 

And after the votes this morning, in 2226 Rayburn, right down 

the hall, we are 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? Do you have any 

thoughts on that, gentlemen? 

Mr. HECK. I do. Thank you for the question. 

First of all, the Collateral Consequences of Conviction Project 

that was funded by the NIJ and just completed by the American 

Bar Association, this is a grant we got and many reasons because 

of Senator Lahey from Vermont, although it was a $750,000 grant. 

The American Bar Association, because of the immense and the 

depth of this project, invested another $750,000 of its own money 

and it was 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 say how effective are they? How relevant are 

they? Retool some. Limit some. Some have just been overbroad, or 

they have applied forever. 

And so they need to limit some of them. So we are hoping again 

that Congress will take advantage of this monumental project that 

we have just completed and maybe use it, and we’ll be glad to assist in any way possible. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, we intend to. 

Now, what about going beyond the American Bar Association. 

You know that there are dozens of law organizations and associations across the country. I am thinking about widening our approach so that we can begin this discussion with them working off 

of the good initial work that you have started. 

Mr. HECK. I 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, and I know we 

are going to be having conversations about this. 
42 

I know State prosecutor’s associations are going to have and are 

always concerned about collateral sanctions and the effect it has on 

not only the offender, but on the community. 

Mr. CONYERS. You are giving prosecutors a great new description 

here. I always think of prosecutors as the bad guys that are trying 

to rack up as many convictions with as many severe penalties as 

possible. I mean, I think this is an incredible—has there been some 

kind of turnaround on the—have we been making progress that we 

didn’t know about or what? 

Mr. HECK. Congressman, let me assure you that I really believe 

I can speak, not on behalf of the NDAA, because I am not the 

president. Henry Garza from Texas is now. But what I am saying 

is 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. 

Mr. CONYERS. How refreshing. Can I get just a—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you and I appreciate your being here. 

Sorry I was late. 

This is a project that is near and dear to my heart, and when 

Ed Mace called and asked if I would participate in something that 

dealt with a problem that I saw as a massive problem, over-criminalization, something that as a formal prosecutor, judge, chief justice, has driven me crazy because I had seen when people want to 

beat their chests and show how tough they are, well, let’s slap a 

criminal penalty on something. 

And so, as you know, as we talked about there are maybe 5,000 

or so crimes that are not in 18 U.S. Code where they ought to be 

as a criminal code, and I had wondered why in the world have we 

not been able to clean this mess up before? And what I heard is 

it seems like every time a project gets fired up to try to clean up 

the criminal code, that it ends up being a big Santa Claus Christmas bag, and people start trying to throw more and more in it, and 

then overall you lose too many votes and people go, I can’t agree 

to that, wait a minute I loved the idea, I was on board, but now 

you have thrown that in the bag I can’t agree to that; and then it 

loses the impetus and nothing gets done over and over. 

And so that is one of my concerns as we go here. I hear from people going, yeah, you are right. We got to stop this over-criminalization, and also we got to stop the militarization of some of these 

Federal Departments. And you know, the EPA doesn’t need a 

SWAT 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 didn’t put a sticker on a thing he 

mailed to Alaska with an airplane with a line through it. He put 

ground only, checked that, but he didn’t put the sticker. I mean, 

we need to stop that. 
43 

And so people are getting that and they are getting all on board, 

and then when we start saying, well, we are also looking into 

whether or not maybe employers shouldn’t be able to find out if you 

committed a crime before they hire you. Oh, wait a minute now, 

wait a minute. This is a very sensitive industry, and you are telling 

me I don’t get to know if he has been stealing from his last job, 

or in this daycare job I don’t get to know that this person has actually molested people in the past. 

And I can tell you as a judge, had a case where because of the 

law trying to protect people, protected a child molester; and it 

wasn’t until he molested and destroyed other lives that he got 

stopped, and because of the way the law was, the juvenile probation department didn’t even get to know that he had had these 

other incidences just because of the way he was protected. 

So I am really concerned that we may be getting into an area 

where we are going too far if we are not too careful. We lose the 

steam because, let me just ask you guys. Why would it be appropriate for Congress to force private businesses to ignore somebody’s 

criminal history? 

Mr. JONES. 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 

person’s criminal record. There need to be clear relevancy guidelines that adhere across the board so that decisionmakers understand what is relevant and what is not when looking at a person’s 

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 a 

person has his foot in the door then he—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well my time is about to expire, and I want to 

get this question in. Isn’t it true that those who access individual 

criminal histories are already subject to strict regulation regarding 

the use of that information under Fair Credit Reporting Act and 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; isn’t that true? 

Mr. HECK. That is correct. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So it is not just wide open already. 

Mr. HECK. And I think there are safeguards. I think there are 

some abuses to it. No question about it. I understand what he is 

saying, but I do think that there are collateral consequences that 

are appropriate. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay, thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California, Ms. 

Bass. 

Ms. 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 be reintegrated; and it seems 

like part of what has happened over the last couple of decades is 
44 

that we no longer have that belief and in fact you can spend some 

time 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, you could not get a license to be a 

barber. At the same time in our State prison system, we had a barbering program where we taught felons how to be barbers and then 

didn’t allow them to have the license when they left, and so we had 

to change that law and we had over 54 occupations that you 

couldn’t do if you had been a felon. 

Mr. Jones, you mentioned that there should be a presumption of 

irrelevance. And you know, the experience about Ban the Box, I 

completely understand what you mean in terms of getting your foot 

in the door to even say that it was a conviction from 30 years ago, 

and it was when I was a college student or something like that. Because if you don’t check that box and then you find out, then you 

are subject to immediate termination because you have lied. 

So when you were talking about a presumption of irrelevance, I 

wasn’t sure if you were really talking about that rhetorically, or if 

you actually meant that that is what we should do and then I 

wanted to know how we would go about that? 

Mr. JONES. Well, thank you for the question. There are studies 

that suggest that after a certain number of years a person’s conviction is—a person is less likely—is no more likely and in some cases 

less likely to reoffend than anybody in the general society. 

So when we are talking about evaluating a person’s criminal 

record for whether or not they should be accessible to an opportunity or benefit, then what we really need to do is we really need 

to look at whether or not there is any relevance to the opportunity, 

what the passage of time has been, and whether or not there is any 

evidence of rehabilitation. 

And when the passage of time has been such and there is evidence of rehabilitation, there really ought to be a presumption of 

irrelevance, that the conviction is no longer relevant to whether or 

not this person ought to have that opportunity. 

Ms. BASS. So, and I agree with you, but how do we do that? Is 

it a law? Do we pass a law that says that? And then I am assuming 

that you would exempt certain times of crimes? 

Mr. JONES. Exactly. And I think that there have to be guidelines 

that are set out clearly for decisionmakers, for employers and landlords and others, there have to be guidelines that clearly instruct 

individuals as to what is relevant and what is not and what the 

passage of time is and what the evidence of rehabilitation might be 

so that people understand and know we are all playing by the same 

rules. 

But once we have those guidelines and we are all playing by the 

same rules, then there ought to be a presumption of irrelevance. 

Ms. BASS. And one of you, and I am not sure which one, made 

reference to the fact that the FBI Web site is wrong a significant 

amount of time. I wanted to know how it is wrong? Is it the wrong 

people are listed, wrong charges are listed? 

Mr. HECK. Well, I am not sure exactly what you are referring to, 

ma’am, except to say that so many times when we have the silver 

streaks or we have the histories of convictions, that many times 
45 

that people who input that data, that it is incorrect. And I think, 

that not only saying the FBI—— 

Ms. BASS. So it could be both, the wrong charges and the wrong 

people? 

Mr. HECK. Exactly. I think it is incumbent, I mean I find out 

when we are looking at defendants who we have charged in my office and my assistant prosecutors will try to get a record check, we 

have to make sure that we confirm that, to make sure it is accurate, because many times the inputting of that data and the way 

it goes through our Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Identification is wrong. 

Ms. BASS. I have a piece of legislation that I have introduced 

called the Success Act which is looking at you know, a piece of collateral damage which says that young people who have a certain 

crime cannot get financial aid, and I am 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? 

Mr. HECK. Well, I think a lot of them do relate to education, either directly or indirectly and 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 you know, society, makes no sense at all. 

Mr. JONES. It is very difficult to make the argument that there 

is a public safety benefit from allowing young people to get an education. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s time is expired. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Jeffries. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And let me thank both of the witnesses for your testimony and 

for your work on this very important issue. 

Let me start with Mr. Heck. You testified earlier today, I believe 

appropriately, that automatic blanket, across the board imposition 

of collateral consequences is counterproductive. In that regard, how 

would you suggest the Committee look at or the Task Force look 

at, how the collateral consequences that you believe may be appropriate in certain circumstances are narrowly tailored to fit the severity of the crime so that we don’t broadly sweep individuals into 

this blanket fashion. 

Mr. HECK. And I appreciate the question. 

And I do think that some collateral consequences if they are applied so broadly across the board are not relevant to that individual 

case or that individual offender. That is what I don’t think the law 

has been looking at, the offender, not just the offense. 

For example, in Ohio if someone owes child support and they are 

not paying their child support, their driver’s license is suspended. 

It is so ridiculous and I have told my prosecutors who handle those 

kinds of cases, we are not going to ask for that. In fact, we are 

going to say it shouldn’t be done because we are asking the person 

to pay child support and saying you can’t have a job to pay it. So 

I think we have to have a look what the collateral consequence is 

because some are appropriate. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And when we craft the law, who should be given 

the discretion to make the determination as to the appropriate ap-
46 

plication of a collateral consequence if one is appropriate under 

limited circumstances? Should that be the court? Should that be 

built into the law in some way? 

Should the prosecutor have in the first instance have that opportunity? I don’t know that everyone is as enlightened as you are or 

the prosecutors in your office. Who should have that opportunity to 

make that determination? 

Mr. HECK. There have been a lot of suggestions made on that. 

I believe, not the ABA, I believe that it should be the court. I think 

the judges are in a unique position to see both sides of the denominator, to see what is going on, and that they should make the judgment. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Jones, do you have thoughts on that? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, I think that everybody in the system needs to 

be aware, 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 that 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 

that relief at sentencing is important, but I think all the players 

in the system ought to know and be aware at every step of the 

way, of the collateral consequences and their impact. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now on that point, you mentioned that there were 

45,000—I think both of you in your testimony, 45,000 collateral 

consequences, which is a staggering number. 

So that is a difficult undertaking but one that obviously is necessary, and I think we as a Task Force are going to 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? 

Mr. JONES. That is right. And that number is growing. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. 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? 

Mr. JONES. Well, I think that even just looking at some of the 

legislation that is proposed, certainly there always is this notion 

that first time offenders, non-violent misdemeanants, are more 

often the subject of legislation. But the fact of the matter is that 

at some point everybody’s coming home. Right? The vast majority 

of these folks are coming home, and we need to think about and 

incorporating and be prepared to embrace all of these folks because 

nobody is merely the product of the worst thing that they’ve ever 

done, and we all deserve a second chance. 

So I would strongly suggest that as you think about how to set 

these guidelines and evaluate relevance, that you include every-
47 

body, including those 20 million folks who are living with a felony 

conviction. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman’s time is expired. 

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We need to reject wholesale demonization of every person who 

has a brush with the criminal law. Persons who are released from 

prison should be given a second chance, and we need to enter into 

a new age of restoration and redemption. These are things that are 

listed in your conclusion, Mr. Jones, and I think that those are very 

important ideals that we should seek to live up to. 

Oftentimes, it is we ourselves that are the perpetrators of overcriminalization. It is certainly the legislators are responsible and 

certainly judges and prosecutors who both are elected are responsible for getting tough on crime and throwing the book at people 

and implementing the policies that we enshrine into law. 

But I will ask you both. You are both members of the bar. You 

are both attorneys. You are licensed to practice law, and you know 

that when a person suffers a felony conviction and even misdemeanor convictions in many States, they are barred from being 

able to be licensed to practice law. Do you believe that those types 

of barriers, which are collateral consequences, do you believe that 

those should be removed from a person’s ability to practice law, to 

get a law license? Mr. Heck? 

Mr. HECK. I think like in any other collateral sanction, I think 

they have to be looked at the offense and the offender and I think 

there are cases. We have seen it in Ohio, where thoseimpediments 

have been removed and someone who was convicted, say, for example, of voluntary manslaughter or murder have become lawyers. We 

have seen it with a lot lesser offenses. 

And yet at the same time we have seen cases where someone 

who was convicted of a theft or a fraud was not given the license 

to practice law in Ohio. So there has to be some type of parity also. 

There has to be some type of fairness and equity if we are going 

to have any collateral sanctions at all. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So you would be against blanket bans on all who 

have been convicted being ineligible to receive a license to practice 

law? 

Mr. HECK. I would think blanket bans do not serve any public 

purpose, blanket bans; correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think that means what I asked. 

Mr. HECK. I agree with you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay, all right, thank you. 

And Mr. Jones? 

Mr. JONES. I would agree. I mean, unless you can show me that 

there is some public safety benefit, that outweighs the individual 

right for a person to you know, get a law license after they have 

gone to law school and passed the bar and practice law, unless you 

can show me that there is some public safety benefit that outweighs that individual being able to practice law, then I would certainly say that you should not have that restriction, and you should 

not have any automatic mandatory ban. 
48 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you know of any initiatives by the ABA or by 

any State bar association to address that particular issue, either 

one of you? 

Mr. HECK. No. I know the project of the Collateral Consequences 

of Conviction Project did not entail that. It had to do with cataloging and just assembling and identifying all the collateral consequences, which was again a monumental task. But as far as the 

particular issue that you are talking about, I do not know of any 

State or the American bar tackling that yet. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Thank you. 

And how do collateral consequences disproportionately impact 

communities of color and the poor? 

Mr. HECK. I think that just like we see a disproportionate as far 

as imprisonment is concerned, I think that goes along with that, 

because so many times the collateral sanctions are attached to a 

conviction. 

So I think that once you see the effect it has on the incarceration 

and imprisonment, you are going to see the thing on collateral 

sanctions and I think collateral sanctions especially as it relates to 

employment, as it relates to having an income and housing, really 

has an effect in that regard. Thank you. 

Mr. JONES. The answer is profoundly. There are studies that 

show that African American men who have never had any trouble 

with the law at all are less likely to get a job than similarly situated White men with a felony conviction. 

There are studies that show that African American men are 

seven times more likely to be arrested for crimes, particularly drug 

possession crimes, when the usage of drugs in those community is 

the same. So the impact of its collateral consequences on African 

American individuals, their families and society is profound. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

These issues affect my constituents in a major way. Second 

chance opportunities for employment is one of the things I hear 

most from constituents. If somebody has had a conviction at some 

time in the past, they can’t get a job, the continuing cycle. But 

more fundamental is the loss of the right to vote. 

And I don’t know if this has been addressed extensively by you 

all, but do either of you all know the history of those particular 

laws? I was reading about civil death or however it is called, yeah, 

civil death, and that seemed to take away your right to vote and 

everything else and being described as barbarism condemned by 

justice by reason and by morality, et cetera. But, we have these 

laws. 

Does Maryland have a law like that, Mr. Heck. 

Mr. HECK. Maryland? 

Mr. COHEN. Yeah. 

Mr. HECK. I have to be honest with you. I am not familiar with 

the Maryland law, sir. 

Mr. COHEN. Which State are you from? 

Mr. HECK. I am from Ohio. 
49 

Mr. COHEN. I am sorry. I was thinking it was Maryland. They 

joined the Big Ten, and I am all confused. 

Mr. HECK. I appreciate that. 

Mr. COHEN. Ohio doesn’t have such a law, does it? 

Mr. HECK. No. 

Mr. COHEN. It is mostly southern States; right? 

Mr. HECK. That is my understanding. I have not done a study 

of that, but that is my understanding. You know, there is a history 

of what you say that disfranchisement of the right to vote, which 

again to me is so important it trumps everything. 

And so I think when you take someone’s right to vote away and 

with the idea of never giving it back, I just think that should never 

be. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Jones, are you familiar with any history on 

these laws? 

Mr. JONES. You know, I have my own thoughts, but they would 

be conjecture. I don’t know, but I will tell you this. By the history 

disfranchisement, by the time I get back to New York this afternoon I will know, and I will get that to you. 

Mr. COHEN. I think the history goes back to Jim Crowe, and I 

think it was kind of a southern thing and really if you look at the 

States that have those laws and/or had those laws, they are generally the same States that Justice Roberts said no longer 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 voting areas where you had 

preclearance, and those are the same States that put a scarlet letter on individuals that says thou shalt not vote. Voting, in my district we had an election in May, a primary election for county offices, very important and about 10 percent of the people who were 

registered voted. 

And so my theory is if people who had convictions in the past 

were allowed to vote, if they voted, by their simple action of voting 

they would show they were in the upper 10 percent of the citizenry. 

You know so, to say that they could—— 

We do in Tennessee, have a law which I was happy to have sponsored and passed that allows you to get your right to vote restored 

without going to court and without having the D.A. Come and bless 

you, et cetera. But, a guy in the House, kind of a Neanderthal-type 

character, put an amendment on the bill which passed, and it said 

that if you were behind in your child support you couldn’t get your 

right to vote back and it is not something that is pretty clearly intended to have a disparate impact. 

Mr. JONES. Well there are two States I believe, that this Task 

Force ought look at, that allow individuals to vote while they are 

in prison. I think that is Maine and Vermont, and you can conjecture and speculate as to why those two States allow that, but I do 

believe that Maine and Vermont, but somebody can correct me if 

that is wrong. 

Those two States allow you to vote while you are in prison, and 

I think that everybody, that is right. 

Mr. COHEN. It is Vermont, and which is the other State? 

Mr. JONES. Maine. 
50 

Mr. COHEN. Maine. But you have to be eating lobster or cheese 

or something at the same time. 

I yield the balance of my time. Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. 

Well, we still have some time left, so I will now recognize myself 

for 5 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? 

Mr. HECK. As far as my position is concerned, again the ABA has 

not taken a position on that. I think we have to look again at the 

individual involved and the individual crime. So for example, we 

have had cases and domestic violence is something that is certainly 

on my radar screen personally and my office, and something just 

like child abuse that we take very seriously. 

And when we have a domestic violence case, I think we have to 

look, is that person an owner of guns, or did that person use a gun? 

And I think those are the distinctions that have to be made. So I 

think a broad, simply designation of someone who owns a gun 

should never be able to own a gun again, I think has to be looked 

at very seriously, as opposed to using a gun again in domestic violence and I have no problem with that person not being allowed to 

own a gun. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. So do you think the current law which applies to misdemeanors as well as felonies is a good law? 

Mr. HECK. Depending on the circumstance. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. 

Mr. HECK. Again, depending on the circumstance, I think—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. It shouldn’t be across the board? Mr. 

Jones? 

Mr. HECK. I don’t think it should be across the board. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Jones? 

Mr. JONES. Mandatory, automatic, across the board consequences 

ought be repealed, and we ought to be looking at individual tailoring the denial of opportunities to individual circumstances and 

individuals and individual people. They should not be across the 

board automatic mandatory. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am kind of surprised. I think the NRA 

would agree with both of you on this. 

Let me ask you another question in the time that I have left. 

When I first was elected to Congress, my wife and I owned a twofamily House that was across the street from an elementary school, 

and we lived in one half of it, and I rented out the other half. Say 

somebody came and applied and was a person who was a recognized minority, applied to live in the other half, and I found out 

before leasing it to them that they were registered sex offenders. 

Could my denial of housing because they were registered sex offenders, not because they were persons of color or a protected minority, be a defense in a fair housing complaint? 

Mr. HECK. Not in Ohio, because they would not be allowed to live 

there in Ohio. You are saying you lived right across the street from 

a school; correct? 
51 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I did. 

Mr. HECK. Right, no. In Ohio, and that has been going on and 

increasing the number of feet as well as the number of instances 

where a convicted sex offender may live. It started out within so 

many feet of a school, so many feet of a bus stop, so many feet of 

a daycare, so many feet from where children will be. So many—so 

that has become more broad. 

However, in the specific instance that you mentioned, no because 

under Ohio law they would not be permitted to live there anyway 

and we have had cases like that, my office has on the civil side, 

which we also represent, have actually ordered people to move and 

have got eviction notices for people and orders to have them move 

out because of the close proximity to schools. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. So if I was accused of denying housing 

under the State or Federal Fair Housing Law because I denied 

them the lease because I lived across the street from the school, in 

Ohio I could go to the district attorney and have him represent me 

against the Fair Housing complaint? 

Mr. HECK. Well, under Ohio law we cannot represent an individual interest, but I can assure you that we would stand right 

next to you from the standpoint that that convicted sex offender 

should not live there. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Jones? 

Mr. JONES. Let me say two things about the sex offender issue 

and if you look in our report, you will see that not only prosecuting 

attorneys who work in this area but also individuals who are responsible for administering State sex offender registries say the 

same thing. 

Two points. The first is that anyone is more likely to be abused 

in that manner by someone within the four walls of their home, 

than they are by someone who is either delivering their mail or 

cutting their grass. You are much more likely to be molested or 

abused in some way by someone who is under your roof. 

And secondly, the overwhelming majority of arrests in these 

types of cases are by first offenders. The number of people who are 

sexual predators who are serial offenders is very small. 

So that these prosecutors and these people who run these sexual 

registries, what they say is the residency restrictions that we have 

placed on these folks are wrong-headed and don’t make sense and 

are actually counterproductive because you are more likely to have 

a problem with Uncle Sam than you are with the guy who is delivering your mail. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, my time is expired. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for your testimony and good 

answers to questions. 

Thank the Members for participating. Does anybody wish to put 

printed material into the record? 

The gentleman from Alabama. 

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the, Chairman. 

I ask permission to—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Microphone please. 

Mr. BACHUS [continuing]. Submit testimony in the record from 

Mr. Jessie Wiehl on behalf of Justice Fellowship, which is an independent prison fellowship ministry, which offers his perspective on 
52 

the challenge of reentering society after he served a sentence for 

a criminal offense. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent that the testimony from the Robert F. 

Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights; Bernard Kerik; 

Piper Kerman; Lamont Kerry; Anthony Pleasant; and reports from 

The Sentencing Project, ‘‘State-Level Estimates of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States 2010’’ and ‘‘A Lifetime of Punishment: The Impact of the Felony Drug Ban on Welfare Benefits,’’ all 

be placed on the record. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

And, if there is no further business to come before the Task 

Force, without objection the Task Force stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:42 a.m., the Task Force was adjourned.] 
(53) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
54 

Material submitted by the Honorable Spencer Bachus, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Alabama, and Member, Over-Criminalization 

Task Force of 2014 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 

f 
60 

Material submitted by the Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, OverCriminalization Task Force of 2014 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 

f 
140 

Prepared Statement of the Consumer Data Industry Association (CDIA) 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 

f 
149 

Letter from the National Association of 

Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) 
150 
151 
152 
153 

f 
154 

Material submitted by the Federal Interagency Reentry Council 
155 

f 
156 

Prepared Statement of the Brennan Center for Justice Legislative Office 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 

Æ