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

43–526 PDF 2009

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 16, 2008 

Serial No. 110–195 

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 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 16, 2008 

Page 

OPENING REMARKS 

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

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Kenneth Linn, Director, Federal CURE 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 3 

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the 

District of Columbia 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 

The Honorable Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Chairman, United States Parole Commission, United States Department of Justice (DOJ); accompanied by Tom 

Hutchinson, Chief of Staff, and Rockne Chickinell, General Counsel 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12 

Mr. Horace Crenshaw, District of Columbia Parolee, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 20 

Mr. David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Data 

Analysis, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 37 

(1) 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 5:08 p.m., in room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert C. 

‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Jackson Lee, and Gohmert. 

Staff Present: Jesselyn McCurdy, Majority Counsel; Bobby Vassar, Majority Chief Counsel; Rachel King, Majority Counsel; 

Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member; Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel; Kimani Little, Minority Counsel; and Kelsey 

Whitlock, Minority Administrative Assistant. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will come to order. Mr. Gohmert 

and I understand that Mr. Linn has a plane to catch and would 

like to testify, and I will defer our opening statements so that we 

can hear from Mr. Linn at this time. Mr. Linn. 

TESTIMONY OF KENNETH LINN, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL CURE 

Mr. LINN. Chairman, Committee Members, thank you for this opportunity to address you. My name is Kenny Linn. I am the Chairman of the Federal chapter of CURE. That is the Citizens United 

for the Rehabilitation of Errants, an organization that has been 

around since 1972. I represent the thoughts and the feelings of 

202,000 Federal inmates, their families, their loved ones and their 

friends. 

I am not going to address you today about the obvious. There will 

be other witnesses that can tell you about the 13,000 people that 

are still under the auspices of the United States Parole Commission. I would rather talk about something that I feel is more important. 

These are my feelings, the feelings of our board of directors and 

of our organization. It is inevitable that some form of early release 

is looming. We have no reasonable alternative option. We cannot 

continue down the present path because it is cost prohibitive to 

build the necessary prisons to house the future population at our 

present rate of incarceration, and it is unjust and inequitable to 

put mostly nonviolent first offenders in prison for the majority of 

their adult lives. 

2 

There are presently nearly 202,000 incarcerated Federal inmates. 

The number has increased exponentially since 1987 with no end in 

sight for this significant growth fueled by draconian sentences put 

in place by the United States Sentencing Commission’s reliance on 

guidelines and Congress’ mandatory minimums. More than half, 55 

percent of Federal prisoners are serving time for drug-related 

crimes. Nearly three-fourths, 72 percent, of the Federal prison population are nonviolent offenders. More than one-fourth, 34.4 percent, are first-time nonviolent offenders. 

Even though 97 percent of Federal inmates eventually are released, discharge may not occur for many years because better than 

9 out of 10 inmates convicted of Federal crimes will be released 

only after serving approximately 87.5 percent of their sentences 

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 that judges were forced to impose with no chance for 

early release and these sentences have uniformly been initiated 

and determined by the charging decisions of prosecutors. 

In contrast, old law inmates have an opportunity pursuant to the 

United States Parole Commission’s discretion for early release from 

prison and early termination of parole. Historically, the United 

States Parole Commission has promoted public safety and justice 

by fairly exercising its authority to release and supervise offenders 

under its jurisdiction through a conscious application of its own 

guidelines in each case. It has 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. 

Lengthy 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 roles 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 $30,000 to $40,000 per inmate per year. The 

total operational cost exceeds $6 billion yearly and, if one includes 

amortization of land and buildings, the total cost is more than $8 

billion. 

Our prison population is aging dramatically. The cost to house 

older inmates is twice that of younger inmates because of the increased medical costs. Our conclusion is that inmates can be rehabilitated and should have a second chance to lead positive lives. 

The fact that there are over 18,000 Federal inmates with sentences 

longer than 20 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 advantageous to reducing the burgeoning prison population 

and its attendant costs. An existing Federal agency with inmate release expertise is 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 permanent not only to adVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:38 Jan 26, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\071608\43526.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43526
3 

minister its present mandate of those 13,000 people under its auspices but also to be given a new mandate; namely, to review 

lengthy sentences so as to cut costs and set fair release dates. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Linn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH LINN

I. THE U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION’S MANDATE SHOULD BE EXTENDED. 

Although the U.S. Parole Commission (hereinafter USPC) was supposed to go out 

of business in 1987, it has consistently been given extensions over the years because 

of the thousands of ‘‘old law’’ inmates remaining under its jurisdiction (either still 

incarcerated or under post-incarceration supervision) and because those convicted 

under District of Columbia statutes have been placed under USPC management 

after the demise of the old DC Board of Parole. Control of the aforementioned 

supervisees is administered by U.S. Probation Services. The same probation officers 

that direct ‘‘new law’’ supervisees handle those under the ‘‘old law’’ as well albeit 

under a different set of rules. Any new change in procedures for these thousands 

of ex-felons might very well raise ex post facto concerns. 

If for no other reason than the sheer number of present and former inmates involved, it would be a monumental effort to legally change the rules and regulations 

that affect those supervisees presently being administered by the USPC. Moreover, 

many of those affected have not yet been given a release date by the USPC as provided by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1987. 

II. THE U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION’S MANDATE SHOULD BE MADE PERMANENT. 

The USPC has been extended four times since it was supposed to wrap up business in 1987. It presently has a staff that exceeds 100 people and a budget of more 

than $10 million yearly. However, the USPC is continually given supplementary 

tasks to accomplish. The original idea was for the USPC to establish a release date 

for each and every inmate, oversee those inmates after release, direct their conditions of parole, terminate parole at the appropriate time and revoke their freedom 

if a serious violation of parole regulations occurred. Two new tasks given to the 

USPC in recent years include command of District of Columbia inmates and authority over treaty transfer prisoners from foreign countries. 

Some agency must continue all of this work and what better agency than the existing USPC—rather than reinvent the wheel with a new bureaucracy. It seems to 

make little sense to ‘‘reauthorize’’ and ‘‘extend’’ the USPC every few years rather 

than make them a permanent body continuing with the same responsibilities presently in place. New related responsibilities may also arise. 

III. THE U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION SHOULD BE EXPANDED. 

It is inevitable that some form of early release is looming. We have no reasonable 

alternative option. We cannot continue down the present path because it is cost prohibitive to build the necessary prisons to house the future population at our present 

rate of incarceration and it is unjust and inequitable to put mostly non-violent firstoffenders in prison for the majority of their adult lives. 

There are presently nearly 202,000 incarcerated federal inmates. The number has 

increased exponentially since 1987 with no end in sight for this significant growth— 

fueled by draconian sentences put in place by the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s reliance on guidelines and Congress’ mandatory minimums. More than half (55%) of 

federal prisoners are serving time for drug related crimes. Nearly three-fourths 

(72%) of the federal prison population are non-violent offenders. More than onefourth (34.4%) are first-time non-violent offenders. 

Even though 97% 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 will be released only after serving approximately 87.5% of their sentences 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 that judges were forced to impose with no chance for early release and 

these sentences have uniformly been initiated and determined by the charging decisions of prosecutors 

4 

In contrast, ‘‘old law’’ inmates have an opportunity (pursuant to USPC’s discretion) for early release from prison and early termination of parole. Historically, 

USPC has promoted public safety and justice by fairly exercising its authority to 

release and supervise offenders under its jurisdiction through a conscious application of its own guidelines in each case. It has 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. 

Lengthy 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 on to 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 $30,000 to $40,000 per inmate per year. The total operational cost exceeds 

$6 billion yearly and if one includes amortization of land and buildings total cost 

is more than $8 billion. Our prison population is aging dramatically. The cost to 

house older inmates is twice that of younger inmates because of the increased medical costs. 

CONCLUSION

Inmates can be rehabilitated and should have a second chance to lead positive 

lives. The fact that there are over 18,000 federal inmates with sentences longer than 

twenty years most of whom are non-violent and many of whom are first-time offenders indicates that review of these sentences by the USPC would be attractive and 

advantageous to reducing the burgeoning prison population and its attendant costs. 

An existing federal agency with inmate release expertise is standing by to take over 

supervision of this plan. The USPC should be extended, expanded and made permanent, not only to administer its present mandate, but also to be given a new mandate, namely to review lengthy sentences so as to cut costs and set fair release 

dates. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Gohmert for questions. 

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Linn. Good luck on your plane. 

Mr. LINN. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Thank you all. 

Mr. SCOTT. Congresswoman Norton. 

Congresswoman Norton is in her ninth term as a Delegate from 

the District of Columbia. She is a Chair of the House Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management. She was named by President Carter as the 

first woman to chair the EEOC commission and came to Congress 

as a civil rights feminist leader, tenured law professor and board 

member of three Fortune 500 companies. 

Ms. Norton, we are pleased to hear your testimony about the effects of this legislation on Washington, DC. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, 

A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, especially for scheduling this hearing so expeditiously because extension of the United States Parole Board is a vital public safety 

measure and it is due to expire November 1, 2008. I do have to 

apologize that this is not the last time you shall have to have expanded the Commission. It was expanded only 3 years ago for 3 

years despite the fact that this is a permanent Federal commission 

that 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, D.C. Code felons, however, do and will 

perpetually come under the jurisdiction of the United States Parole 

Board, owing to a decision about 10 years ago by the Federal GovVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:38 Jan 26, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\071608\43526.000 HJUD1 PsN: 43526
5 

ernment at the request of the District of Columbia to assume the 

costs of certain State functions, because the District of Columbia is 

and remains the only jurisdiction in the United States that pays 

for State felons like housing, State matters like housing State felons. Our prisoners are now in the Bureau of Prison and the U.S. 

Parole Commission has jurisdiction. 

In the meantime, the Federal Government began about 20 years 

ago phasing out this Commission because the number of Federal 

code offenders was diminishing since new ones were not being 

added since the sentencing guidelines were passed. 

When Congress passed the National Revitalization Act, however, 

they created what amounts to a local Federal hybrid with the local 

wagging the tail, if I may say so, because we are talking about, as 

I speak, something over 2,500 Federal offenders whereas we now 

have close to 10,000 D.C. Code offenders under the jurisdiction of 

the Commission. 

Mr. 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 had that before. The only reason that it was phasing down and put on 3-year cycles, it was going out of business. 

Well, the Justice Department has been on automatic pilot. And 

when we approached them and said, why should we bother the 

Congress, take them away from urgent business every 3 years to 

say, to ask them to keep extending the Commission, they refused 

to do so. I was very puzzled by that refusal. Then I said, go back 

to them. How about 5 years? Why should we be back again here 

asking for an extension of a Federal entity whose public safety mission is permanent and is important both to the Federal Government and to the District of Columbia? 

One gets impatient with refusals of that kind because it is the 

inescapable reality that this Commission is going to be there. And 

it is also the case that Congress knows how at least since we became the majority to do the needed oversight and you don’t need 

a 3-year cycle or you should not need a 3-year cycle to do oversight 

of the United States Parole Commission. 

So you are going through what I regard as a needlessly mandatory ritual, and get ready to see us again in 3 years. 

Now more seriously, the courts have taken note of the fact that 

this Commission could—of course it could not, we have already spoken with the Senate—could go out of existence. So we have the 

Third Circuit having ordered the Commission, as I understand it, 

3 to 6 months before the date when the Commission was due to expire, to begin taking action in light of expiration. What the Commission has had to do is quite artificial and could be risky. Or may 

have to do. You will hear directly from the Chair. And that is to 

say, to adjust prisoners’ release dates, which is at odds with what 

the statute may have intended in 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 have already asked may prove unworkable. I don’t think 

it would be possible if other circuits were asked, but courts are in 

the business of making sure that they are not due process violations, not in the business of doing our business. So notwithstanding 

6 

the rank and efficiency involved in coming back in another 3 years, 

we are here to ask for another short statutory life with the promise 

that I will be 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 its growing jurisdiction over larger and larger numbers of D.C. 

Code felons. 

So I ask rapid passage of this bill, that it be put on suspension. 

And we have already been in touch with the Senate, indicate what 

is at stake here. So I think all are concerned, and that is why I 

so appreciate your getting to us so quickly. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Norton follows:] 

7 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


EHN-1.eps
8 


EHN-2.eps
9 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. I just had one quick question. 

The Federal Parole Board is the parole board for those eligible for 

parole before parole was abolished. And so there is a diminishing 

number of Federal parolees, potential parolees. But the Parole 

Board also serves as the Parole Board for Washington, D.C. prisoners. 

Is that right? 

Ms. NORTON. That is right. In fact the Parole Board for Washington was abolished and the Congress gave U.S. Parole Board its 

jurisdiction. 

Mr. SCOTT. And so this has a peculiar impact on Washington, 

DC? 

Ms. NORTON. It does. In fact that is its major impact, Mr. Chairman. Basically a D.C. matter now. Indeed, we are looking at a matter that I believe was alluded to by Mr. Linn before, and that is 

the District of Columbia has the longest prison sentences in the 

world, in fact owing in part to some of the way the Commission operates. We are very pleased that the Court Services and Offender 

Administration—it is also Federal but it has jurisdiction over those 

who have been released from Bureau of Prisons—along with the 

Commission have taken steps to mitigate the effect of these longer 

sentences. And I am pleased that you will later hear from a witness from the District of Columbia who has had to bear these 

harsh effects so that you can see why our insisting upon oversight 

now and perhaps ultimately a longer life of the Commission is important. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Our next witness will be the Honorable Edward Reilly, the 

Chairman of the United States Parole Commission. Prior to his appointment to the Parole Commission, he served 29 years as a legislator of the State of Kansas. He served 1 year as a member of the 

Kansas City House of Representatives and 28 years in the Kansas 

State Senate. He is a member of the American Correctional Association, the Association of Paroling Authorities International, the 

National Criminal Justice Association, the National Committee on 

Community Corrections and the National Association of Chiefs of 

Police. He received his BA in political science from the University 

of Kansas. 

Our next witness after that will be Mr. Horace Crenshaw, who 

started parole in January 1999 with a parole expiration date July 

28, 2011. The past 2 years he has been employed by the A&D Auto 

Rental. He is a visual artist and received a Bachelor’s Degree from 

Howard University in fine arts. 

Our final witness will be David Muhlhausen, Senior Policy Analyst for the Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis. He is 

an expert in criminal justice programs, particularly law enforcement grant programs administered by the Department of Justice. 

He has testified before Congress on new challenges and needs of 

local enforcement as they take the lead in homeland security as 

well as the community-oriented policing service, the COPS program, and other Department of Justice initiatives. In addition to 

testifying on Federal law enforcement grants, Mr. Muhlhausen has 

10 

testified on improving the evaluation research done by DOJ 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 in 5 

minutes or less. And to help stay within that time, there is a timing light before you that will turn from green to yellow with 1 

minute left and to red when the 5 minutes have expired. 

And we will begin with Chairman Reilly. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE EDWARD F. REILLY, JR., 

CHAIRMAN, UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ); ACCOMPANIED BY 

TOM HUTCHISON, CHIEF OF STAFF, AND ROCKNE 

CHICKINELL, GENERAL COUNSEL 

Mr. REILLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Ed Reilly, Chairman of the United States 

Parole Commission. I have with me today, I would like to introduce 

my Chief of Staff, Mr. Tom Hutchison, and Mr. Rockne Chickinell, 

who is the legal counsel for the Commission. 

I am very pleased to be here today to discuss the reauthorization 

of the U.S. Parole Commission. I have submitted a prepared statement that I understand has been made a part of the Subcommittee’s hearing record. 

By way of background, President George H.W. Bush appointed 

me to the Commission and named me Chairman in 1992. President 

Clinton continued me in that role until 1997 and President George 

W. Bush named me Chairman again in 2001. 

Although the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 abolished parole 

and the Parole Commission, the Commission still exists, 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 significant tasks given to the Commission by Congress after the enactment of the Sentencing Reform Act. 

What are those functions? First, the Parole Commission makes 

parole release and revocation decisions for Federal offenders convicted of offenses committed before the U.S. 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’s Superior Court. Congress gave the Commission this responsibility when it enacted the D.C. Revitalization Act in 1997. 

Third, the Commission sets and enforces 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. This function derives 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. 

11 

Fourth, the Commission makes release decisions for transfered 

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 1 of 1987, 

that offender is eligible for parole. The Sentencing Reform Act provides that if a foreign offense is committed on or after November 

1, 1987, the Commission determines a release date, taking into 

consideration the United States sentencing guidelines. 

It should be emphasized that all of the functions currently carried out by the Commission will have to be carried out after November 1 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 safeguarded by a commission whose primary 

mission is public safety. 

I also urge Congress to act very quickly since the winding down 

mechanism of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 requires the Parole Commission to set release dates for parole-eligible Federal offenders still in prison and to do so in a sufficient time to give those 

offenders an opportunity to take an administrative appeal of their 

release date. That process takes about 90 days, which means that 

the deadline for acting on these cases of some 1,500 offenders is the 

end of this month. That will require a significant effort by the 

Commission and detract it from its ability to carry out the Commission’s other 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 dates. Up until now, such litigation has not succeeded. The courts are very cognizant that enactment of legislation 

can be time consuming and that 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 was 

making progress in moving legislation to extend and address the 

life of the Commission. 

In view of that decision, I urge Congress to move forward as 

promptly as possible to secure enactment of legislation that would 

extend the life of the Commission. 

I thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. I express my deep personal appreciation for the support we have had 

from Congress. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reilly follows:] 

12 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD F. REILLY, JR. 


EFR-1.eps
13 


EFR-2.eps
14 


EFR-3.eps
15 


EFR-4.eps
16 


EFR-5.eps
17 


EFR-6.eps
18 


EFR-7.eps
19 


EFR-8.eps
20 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Chairman Reilly. 

Mr. Crenshaw. 

TESTIMONY OF HORACE CRENSHAW, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

PAROLEE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I was only notified about this hearing yesterday, 

so I don’t have any prepared statement. Thanks to the Chairman, 

the Committee and especially Congresswoman Norton. Public 

speaking is not my forte. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Just talk to us. Don’t worry about public speaking. Just talk to us. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I am primarily going to focus on my interactions 

with the U.S. Parole Commission. I did a bad thing in 1980, a really bad thing, and was sentenced to 8 to 24 years. I was, under D.C. 

guidelines, sentenced to a District of Columbia facility. At the time 

there was overcrowding. So they were sending the excesses to the 

Federal system, which had the result of meaning I had to do more 

time because—not unable to be adjudicated under D.C. guidelines. 

The Federal Parole Board using different guidelines made us do 

more time. So instead of on my sentence probably being parole eligible after 6 years, I wasn’t granted parole until I had done 12 

years. 

But after I made parole, 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 art. I started painting and left 

with the impression that I could be good at this. 

At the ripe old age of 42, I went to a university, Howard University, and pursued a degree in fine arts. While I was incarcerated 

I had been in several what they call gladiator camps but really the 

most difficult thing I had ever done was at 42 to go to class with 

18- and 19-year-old students. I did really well, got my degree in 

1995. My work is really good. I did a lot of portraits. Actually I 

have done some of your constituents. I did a portrait of Mr. Conyers, Ms. Kilpatrick. 

For me I don’t do success well. And as a result I started using 

drugs. That was my first interaction with the U.S. Parole Commission. During the process, speaking to other inmates who had been 

before the Parole Board, they said, with dirty urine you are definitely going back to prison. But you know, I thought I was the Parole Board poster child. I mean, a college degree, all these connections. And certainly they wouldn’t send me back for one dirty 

urine, but they did. They gave me 18 months. And along with that, 

they took the 4 years of good time I had accrued while out on the 

street. 

I got out of there again in 1997, stayed clean, got back on track, 

painting, doing the right thing, got back on track, stayed clean 

until 2008, at which time I got too fabulous again and started 

using the drugs. But this time when I saw the Parole Commission 

and I really thought they were going to send me back, they let me 

go into a drug program, which meant that I kept my job, I kept 

my contacts, and I was able to continue my painting business. And 

I am out here sitting before you all now. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Muhlhausen. 

21 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID B. MUHLHAUSEN, Ph.D., SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS, THE HERITAGE 

FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Thank you. My name is David Muhlhausen. 

I am a Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at the 

Heritage Foundation. I thank Chairman Robert Scott, Ranking 

Member Louie Gohmert, and the rest of the Subcommittee for the 

opportunity to testify today on the reauthorization of the U.S. Parole Commission. The views I express in this testimony are my own 

and should not be construed as representing any official position of 

the Heritage Foundation. 

The concern over high crime rates, a failed rehabilitative model 

of corrections led Federal and State governments to reform their 

correctional systems. In 1984, the U.S. Congress passed the Sentencing and Reform Act. The act made major changes to Federal 

sentencing policies by replacing indeterminate sentences with determinate sentences. The act also abolished parole. As a result of 

the implementation of determinate sentencing, offenders sentenced 

to Federal prison were required to serve at least 85 percent of their 

sentences. With good behavior, the offender could earn an early release with the remaining 15 percent of their original sentence. 

The switch to determinate sentencing was intended to set in motion the eventual termination of the Parole Commission. While the 

planned phase out of the Commission has yet to take place, Congress has extended the life of the Commission several times. Not 

only has the life of the Commission been extended but its responsibilities have been extended as well. 

Today the Parole Commission still oversees Federal old law cases 

that predate sentencing reform. More important, the Commission’s—the majority of the Commission’s workload concerns District 

of Columbia offenders. In fiscal year 2006 the Commission was responsible for thousands of District of Columbia offenders. However, 

the authorization of the Commission is set to expire on October 31 

of this year. 

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 indeterminate system is not justified. The 

continuing need for determinate sentencing can be justified for several reasons. 

First, long prison terms for serious crimes are just. Indeterminate sentencing grant parole boards too much discretion in release 

decisions. This discretion all too often came at the expense of public 

safety. Determinate sentencing made incarceration terms more 

meaningful by ensuring that offenders actually serve most of their 

sentences. This change helped restore the credibility of the courts. 

Second, incapacitation deterrence works. During the 1970’s and 

1980’s, Federal, State and local officials recognized that the rehabilitative model of corrections did not work. Deterrence and incapacitation became the primary mission of corrections systems. 

Thus, Federal and State governments adopted such reforms as determinate sentencing, truth in sentencing and increased sentence 

lengths. Over the years several studies have demonstrated a link 

between increased incarceration and decreases in crime rates. After 

22 

controlling for socioeconomic factors that may influence crime 

rates, research indicates that incarceration reduces crime significantly. For example, Professor Joanna Shepherd of Clemson University found State truth-in-sentencing laws reduced violent crime 

rates across the Nation. 

Third, determinate sentencing reduces disparity in sentencing by 

treating offenders equally. Indeterminate sentencing and parole decisions were criticized for placing too much discretionary power in 

the hands of judges and parole boards. The wide discretion given 

these decision makers led to the perception of an arbitrary sentencing system. Determinate sentencing helped reduce this problem. 

While the Sentencing Reform Act greatly diminished the original 

responsibilities of the U.S. Parole Commission, the agency still performs important functions such as overseeing Federal old law cases 

and offenders from the District of Columbia. Congress should reauthorize the Commission, but avoid any temptation to revive indeterminate sentencing and parole at the expense of public safety. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Muhlhausen follows:] 

23 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID B. MULHAUSEN


DBM-1.eps
24 


DBM-2.eps
25 


DBM-3.eps
26 


DBM-4.eps
27 


DBM-5.eps
28 


DBM-6.eps
29 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

We will now have questions for the panel. And I will begin by 

recognizing myself for 5 minutes. Mr. Muhlhausen, your testimony 

seems to perpetuate a misunderstanding about determinate sentences as, quote, increasing sentences. Those are two different 

things. 

Let me ask you a question of whether it would be better to have 

indeterminate sentencing of a few getting out in one and a half 

years, most getting out in 3 and a few serving 10 years or everybody get out in 3 years? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, I think it depends on the nature of the 

crime. I think that one of the things that happened was that the 

crime the person was convicted of, if they are sent to prison, we 

are saying that this person needs to be incarcerated, it should be 

for a set term, something that is meaningful. In combination with 

other reforms, it helped lead to increased sentences. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would it be better to sentence a person to one and 

a half years to 10 years and they got out when they are ready or 

everybody serves 3 years, ready or not, here they come? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. It depends on the sentence, what the crime 

was. 

Mr. SCOTT. What is the sentence? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. It would depend on what the crime was. I 

would say if it was a serious offense, I would say the safe bet is 

for the longer sentence that is appropriate. 

Mr. SCOTT. 3 years. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Yes. But it depends. 

Mr. SCOTT. As opposed to possibly serving 10? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. It depends on the individual. It depends on 

what the crime was. 

Mr. SCOTT. When is it best to determine when it depends? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, I think—— 

Mr. SCOTT. A judge, if you are talking determinate sentences, it 

is not whether they serve 3 or they serve 10. The question is 

whether it is determinate or indeterminate. Okay. Here we go. A 

year and a half to 10 years, average of 3, where some, the most— 

the worst will actually pull all 10? Or everybody out in 3 years, 

ready or not, here they come? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. If you can ensure that the serious offenders 

stayed in and deserve—I would prefer the range. 

Mr. SCOTT. Under the liberal deceptive parole system, as it has 

been disparaged, some actually pulled all 10 years, couldn’t get out, 

couldn’t make parole. Some got out early. A decision was made 

when it was time for them to get out. And some were determined 

not ready. They were held all 10 years. Now the question again is 

would it be better for all of them to get 3 years, ready or not, here 

they come? Or some getting out early and some appropriately held 

three times longer? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. If we had a system where we had confidence 

in the decisions made, I would go with the option you are leaning 

towards. 

Mr. SCOTT. One and a half to 10? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. It would have to be that we have confidence 

in the system and it works. 

30 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. But you would prefer 3? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. If we couldn’t trust the judges and the Parole 

Board, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, that is the choice we have to make as legislators, whether or not everybody gets out in 3 and those who could 

have stayed all 10 get out in the 3 with the rest of them. 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. One of the things I think that—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Suppose you had Willie Horton and somebody who 

rehabilitated, shows no likelihood of recidivism in the objective 

judgment of the Parole 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 10 and not 

get out in 3 like everybody else? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, I would say that any system that sentenced Willie Horton and the other person to only 3 years would 

be terribly unjust. They should serve longer. 

Mr. SCOTT. This is the kind of—you can’t catch up with it kind 

of thing that determinate sentence tries to suggest. You are trying 

to set—— 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Well, if you had murderers who were sentenced for 3 years only, that wouldn’t make sense. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you want to compare that to 10, the comparison isn’t one and a half to 10 whether people serve 3 or 10. If you 

want 10 to be the average, then you are talking about 5 to maybe 

30. Now, let’s go—if you want them to serve 10 years, average 10 

years, would it make more sense to let some out in 5 and some out 

in 30 or everybody out in 10 years, ready or not, here they come? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I would be opposed to both instances because 

both sentences are too short for murder. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Let’s go 30 years. Would it make more sense 

for everybody to get out in 30 years or some to get out in 10 and 

some to get out in 50? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I would prefer 30 years. 

Mr. SCOTT. Everybody—— 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. People convicted of murder, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. So Willie Horton gets out the same time everybody 

else gets out. You can’t hold—the thing about this determinate sentence and the kind of misleading thing here is you don’t want to 

let anybody out early. That is the half truth in truth in sentencing. 

The whole truth is, you can’t hold people longer either. And you 

would give up the opportunity to hold the worst prisoners much 

longer so that everybody gets out on the average? 

When you talk about determinate sentencing, why is Willie Horton and Charles Manson and that bunch, why are they smiling? 

They are smiling because they get out in the same average time 

as everybody else. You cannot hold them longer under determinate 

sentence because when the average comes, they get out with the 

rest of them. 

Now, my question again is, if you are talking about a sentence 

one and a half to 10, average 3, would it make more sense to give 

everybody the 3 or give Mr. Reilly the opportunity to tell some of 

them, no, you are not ready in 3, we are going to hold you to 10? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. I would prefer to have a longer sentence either way. 

31 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I didn’t—well, see, you are trying to make—you 

are trying to use determinate sentence to create the longer sentence. Once you have figured out what the average is, my question 

is, would it make sense to be able to hold some much longer than 

average or not? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. If you had faith in the system, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. It would make sense to be able to hold some longer 

than average? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. That is that liberal deceptive parole system 

you are talking about. 

Now, Mr. Reilly, when you make the decision to set a parole 

date, when is that decision made? 

Mr. REILLY. When we make the decision, it is usually after the 

person has served, depending upon their sentence that they are 

given, and they are given a hearing. A professional examiner conducts that hearing after review by analysts of the conduct of the 

individual in the institution, how they have progressed, what they 

have done while they have been in the institution, and a recommendation is then made to the full Commission. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would you consider whether or not they have a parole plan; that is to say, they have something to do and somewhere 

to go? 

Mr. REILLY. Most definitely. It is a major part of it. 

Mr. SCOTT. And does it make sense to you that if you have two 

people before you, one has a plan where they have a job lined up 

with somewhere to go and a support system and another person 

that chose no rehabilitation at all, does it make sense to let them 

out on the same day under determinate sentences? Or does it make 

more sense for you to use your common sense and recognize the 

one is ready to go and the other one isn’t? 

Mr. REILLY. I would like to think that over the course of the existence of the Parole Commission that is the—since the Sentencing 

Reform Act, we have been using common sense because we have 

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 are 

talking obviously about determinate versus indeterminate, our concern of course is dealing with those folks who went in under the 

indeterminate sentence structure. And those are the people we are 

very critically concerned about at this point because of the fact that 

if the Commission does go out of business, obviously they will not 

have due process and the court will end up giving them due process. It won’t be the Commission, and the courts will make that decision as to what happens to them. 

So I think the environment we are in right now is one that— 

where our concern is the critical nature of moving forward in terms 

of doing something with this legislation. I am delighted to say that 

even Mr. Vassar and I attended for 2 days along with representatives of the Department of Justice a symposium; since I do serve 

on the U.S. Sentencing Commission as an ex officio member by virtue of being chair of the Parole Board, or Parole Commission, we 

did have the opportunity to listen to 2 days of extensive testimony 

from a variety of folks from all walks of life and academicians and 

32 

so on, calling to attention the fact that there needs to be a look 

probably at the overall criminal justice system in terms of the future, where we are going and so on, alternatives, if you will, that 

could be pursued, which many of our States are doing. Kansas is 

one of the leaders, and I am delighted to say I come from Kansas. 

Mr. SCOTT. And I think your point is that this discussion might 

better take place on another day. Let’s get this legislation passed, 

is that what I am hearing? 

Mr. REILLY. I think that is where I am going, Congressman. I 

think it is another debate for another day, really. And I certainly 

welcome the opportunity. 

Mr. SCOTT. Your point is well taken and we are going to try to 

have that debate. 

Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. Well, let me ask Dr. Muhlhausen, one 

of the motivations for determinate sentencing was to alleviate disparities in sentencing across the country. That had been a problem. 

But especially disparate sentences that disadvantaged minorities, 

and I was wondering from the research you have done, has the determinate sentencing structure worked to address those disparities? 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Yes. I believe especially on the State level 

what you will see is that before sentencing guidelines were implemented on the State level you will find wide disparities in how people were sentenced for similar crimes. Then when—especially in 

Pennsylvania, for instance, the sentences came much more uniform, where people who committed the same crime were having 

very similar sentences. And so no longer you had so much of a disparity that could be drawn upon by background characteristics in 

individuals. So I would say that one of the benefits of the sentencing guidelines is it helps reduces disparity. 

Now there is always questions whether or not that person should 

be sentenced to that length of time or not. But you are going to 

have more even sentences across the board. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, thank you. And I wanted to ask Chairman 

Reilly, do you have any estimate for when Federal parolees will no 

longer be in the criminal justice system? 

Mr. REILLY. That is an excellent question, Congressman. We 

don’t have a projection that has been run out. We have done that 

in the past. It hasn’t proven so far to be accurate in terms of the 

numbers because we are still dealing, as we said earlier, 1,581 that 

are incarcerated in the old law Federal classification and 2,576 who 

are out under supervision. Obviously people violate. They come 

back into the system. 

It is very hard to make a sound projection. One time we did look 

out to about 2010 and thought, as we did 5 or 10 years ago, that 

there was a way to start to really phase down even more dramatically the Commission. We are down to 72 staff. When I came originally we had 145. Our budget has remained fairly flat-lined all the 

way along so we have basically stayed in the status quo position. 

But that is something we could work on and try to provide the 

Committee in terms of giving these long-range projections and plug 

in the fact we can’t say this is ironclad because of people reviolating and so on. 

33 

Mr. GOHMERT. I think it would be very helpful if you could. Our 

colleague, Ms. Holmes Norton, brought up, you know, that we keep 

having to do this over and over again. And it would be really helpful to know what we are looking at in terms of length of time that 

it would be needed. 

Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Reilly, did you give 

an idea of how long you would like us to reauthorize this for? 

Mr. REILLY. Well, the recommendation for reauthorization is for 

3 years. That is the recommendation that the Department has 

made, and we support that. We feel that in that period of time they 

are suggesting to us that there should be another look at this 

whole situation in terms of criminal justice issues, and we support 

that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Then reclaiming my time, Mr. Crenshaw, you had 

mentioned that you violated earlier and were sent back to prison 

for use of drugs, and then it happened again. What drug was that? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Heroin. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Heroin. At what point did you obtain a heroin 

problem? Was that before you went to prison the first time? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I am curious. Did you have any exposure, any opportunities to have heroin while you were in prison? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Yeah, there was drugs available. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman has a right against self-incrimination. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. There were drugs in prison. 

Mr. GOHMERT. When he was in the first time, I am sure limitations has long since gone on that, from what he said, so he would 

be way beyond that. But when we are dealing with the system and 

we are dealing with people—— 

Mr. SCOTT. He is not represented by counsel. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I wasn’t asking a question because of the 

timeline we are talking about here that would have—Mr. 

Crenshaw, I am not trying to get you in trouble, but how long ago 

was it that you first were released from prison? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. First in ’92. 

Mr. GOHMERT. In ’92. So we are talking 16 years ago. I don’t 

know of anybody, D.C. or otherwise, that would allow prosecution 

for 16 years or more ago. But it does help me. I am curious what 

people deal with in prison. Are we helping them to rehabilitate in 

prison, and are we not helping them? 

Then my next question was going to be, was there any drug 

treatment or drug rehab available during that first time you were 

in prison? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. No. 

Mr. GOHMERT. None at all. Not even a 12-step program? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Not in the institutions where I was. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Not in institutions at all where you were. How 

about the second time you went back in? Was there any type of 12- 

step or any other program? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. When I went back the second time, Occoquan 

had started the first drug program in a D.C. facility and I was a 

part of it. The first program. 

34 

Mr. GOHMERT. What kind of program was it? Was it a 12-step 

program? Do you understand what I am talking about, a 12-step 

program? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I do. I don’t know that they designated it by any 

particular name. It wasn’t a 12-step program though. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Just a drug rehabilitation type program, that 

what while you were incarcerated the second time? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Was it helpful at all? I know you re-offended later 

from what you said, but obviously—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I think it was. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Would you consider yourself a drug addict? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I don’t think that is an unfair question. 

From the thousands of people I dealt with, it seems like, well, in 

the 12-step program, the first step is to admit there is an addiction, 

and then if there is, then you know you are going to be dealing 

with it every day for the rest of your life. So by my asking about 

was the program helpful, obviously you re-offended later, but that 

is a battle that gets fought every day, I am sure. Correct? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Yes, it is. 

Mr. GOHMERT. If I can just ask one more question. Since you 

have been released, you said you weren’t committed back this time, 

but that you have gotten rehab assistance now. What kind of program is that? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. It is methadone maintenance. 

Mr. GOHMERT. It is methadone. Is that proving helpful to you, do 

you feel like? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Do you recommend that program for others similarly situated? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I think people should be given options. 

Mr. GOHMERT. What I am asking, I would like to have our money 

spent on programs that work. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, it works for me, and I know others that it 

has worked for, but I know some who it didn’t work for. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I see. Okay. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Our presence has been requested downstairs. If we 

show up we will have a quorum. 

The gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I won’t ask any questions. If the gentleman 

would yield to me just for a moment, I just wanted to put a couple 

points on the record, and then I will yield back. I wanted to thank 

the witnesses. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for this 

hearing. 

My point is, I was given a brief summary of Congresswoman 

Norton’s testimony, and I certainly want to cooperate and collaborate with the system that is being utilized in the District of Columbia and is being helpful. However, I do want to get from Chairman 

Reilly, if I could, sort of a breakdown of the service and how the 

parole officers are functioning. 

My concern is that we need trained parole officers that know how 

to treat different classes of clients, and if an individual comes out, 

35 

is gainfully employed and 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 

are a success story. We are finding issues like this around the 

country. 

The second point is, I have an early release initiative, H.R. 261, 

and I frankly believe we should engage in some form of review of 

early release. 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. I think that that would be very important. 

So, I would hope that I could get a response, Chairman, in writing, about what kind of training goes on to the existing parole staff, 

parole officers, if you will, how do they assess parolees, how do they 

assess a success, and how do they refrain from condemning a person who is actually doing well on their own. 

I would appreciate your consideration of those questions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony. We apologize. 

We went way over because of the confusion on the floor and we 

couldn’t begin in time. 

Without objection, the hearing record will be left open for 1 week 

for the submission of additional materials. 

Without objection, the Subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

37 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

We have several distinguished witnesses appearing before the Crime Subcommittee to discuss the current and future role of the United States Parole Commission. 

I especially want to thank Representative Holmes Norton for taking time out of 

her schedule to testify and for her dedicated service to the District of Columbia. If 

an issue in Congress affects the citizens of the District of Columbia, Rep. Holmes 

Norton is always there to ensure that the best interests of the city are considered. 

Today’s hearing concerns one of those issues, namely, the reauthorization of the 

United States Parole Commission. I am pleased to have introduced—along with 

Ranking Member Smith and Representatives Scott, Gohmert and Holmes Norton— 

legislation that would once again extend the Parole Commission’s authorization for 

another three years. 

This will be the fifth time since the elimination of federal parole in 1987 that the 

Parole Commission has been reauthorized. I know Representative Holmes Norton 

has supported extending the Parole Commission permanently and I hope she will 

discuss her position on permanent extension. 

In the more than 20 years since the elimination of federal parole, Congress has 

debated whether or not to phase-out the Parole Commission. Currently, the Commission has jurisdiction over all decisions regarding parole release for D.C. prisoners and decisions on mandatory release supervision and revocation for all persons 

serving D.C. felony sentences. 

The Commission also has jurisdiction over federal and foreign transfer treaty offenders convicted before November 1987, some military code offenders and state defendants in the U.S. Marshals Service Witness Protection Program. According to the 

Parole Commission, at least 7,500 people will fall into one of these categories by 

2010. This is why Congress, in the 1996 extension of the Parole Commission, finally 

recognized that there would be a need for the Commission through 2002 and beyond. 

As part of this hearing, I would like to make three brief points regarding the extension of the Parole Commission. First, I hope we can discuss whether it makes 

sense to permanently extend the parole commission in light of increasing numbers 

of D.C. offenders under supervised release who are under the jurisdiction of the Parole Commission. 

Second, I would like to hear more about whether parole has been successful in 

helping individuals who have often served long sentences in prison to reenter back 

into society. 

Third, I would like to know whether the U.S. Parole Commission is the appropriate agency for to make decisions about D.C. offenders. 

Again, I thank each of the witnesses for agreeing to appear before the Subcommittee today and I look forward to hearing your thoughts about the future of 

the Parole Commission. 

f 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, 

TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s important hearing on the ‘‘Reauthorization of the U.S. Parole Commission.’’ I support this bill and I urge my colleagues 

to do likewise. This bill is necessary. 

The United States Parole Commission’s (Parole Commission) authority will expire 

October 31, 2008. The House legislation to extend the Parole Commission authority 

for three more years will be introduced prior to this hearing. The purpose of the 

hearing is to examine the current and anticipated future role and operations of the 

Parole Commission in light of the elimination of federal parole. 

38 

The Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) provisions of the Comprehensive Crime Control 

Act of 1984 created the United States Sentencing Commission which is responsible 

for establishing sentencing guidelines for the federal courts and a regime of determinate sentences. Under the SRA , defendants sentenced for federal offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987 serve determinate terms under the sentencing 

guidelines and are not eligible for parole consideration. In addition, the SRA provided for the elimination of the Parole Commission on November 1, 1992, five years 

after the sentencing guidelines took effect. This phase-out provision of the SRA did 

not adequately take into account the number of persons sentenced prior to November 1, 1987 who would not complete their sentences by November 1992. In order 

to avoid serious ex post facto constitutional issues by eliminating or reducing parole 

eligibility for pre-1987 defendants, the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 extended 

the life of the Parole Commission until November 1, 1997. 

The authorization of the Parole Commission was again extended for five more 

years under the Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1996 (1996 Act). The 1996 Act 

authorized the continuation of the Parole Commission until November 1, 2002, but 

Congress also recognized that some form of a parole function would be necessary 

beyond 2002. 

In 1997, the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement 

Act of 1997 (1997 Act) gave the Parole Commission a number of additional responsibilities. The 1997 Act provided for the elimination of the District of Columbia 

Board of Parole and the transfer of its responsibilities to the U.S. Parole Commission. Also, the 1997 Act required the District of Columbia to move to a determinate 

sentencing system (at least for some offenses) and provided for terms of supervised 

release to follow the imposed determinate sentences. Under the 1997 Act, the Parole 

Commission was given continuing responsibility for supervision and revocation decisions of D.C. Code offenders who are given terms of supervised release under the 

new determinate sentencing system. 

In August 1998, the Parole Commission assumed jurisdiction over all decisions regarding parole release for prisoners confined for D.C. Code felony sentences as well 

as mandatory release supervision and revocation decisions for all persons serving 

felony sentences under the D.C. Code. In August 2000, the District of Columbia enacted a determinate sentencing system for all offenses ‘‘committed on or after August 5, 2000.’’ These offenders receive a definite term of imprisonment followed in 

most cases by a period of supervised release which may continue for a number of 

years. During the period of supervised release, the offender’s behavior is closely 

monitored under conditions determined by the Parole Commission that are designed 

to protect public safety and maximize the likelihood of successful reentry into society. 

The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act of 2002 

(2002 Act) extended the life of the Parole Commission until November 1, 2005. The 

2002 Act also requested a study be completed before the expiration of the Act examining whether responsibility for District of Columbia offenders sentenced to supervised release should remain with the Parole Commission or be transferred to another agency. In 2004, DOJ completed the study requested in the 2002 Act and concluded that the Parole Commission should continue to carry out its responsibilities 

regarding supervised release of District of Columbia offenders. The most recent extension in the 109th Congress (S.1368/HR 3020) passed by unanimous consent in 

the Senate and on suspension in the House with the support of the Chairmen and 

Ranking Members of both Senate and House Judiciary Committees. 

Congress has also given the Parole Commission additional responsibilities, including the responsibility for making prison-term decisions in foreign transfer treaty 

cases for offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987and jurisdiction over state 

defendants who participate in the U.S. Marshals Service Witness Protection Program. In addition, the Parole Commission has ongoing responsibility for the remaining ‘‘old-law’’ federal offenders in prison or under supervision who were sentenced 

before November 1, 1987 and military code offenders serving sentences in Bureau 

of Prisons institutions. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) estimates by 2010 the parole population will be: 

1. Federal Offenders: 881 (decreasing) 

2. DC Offenders: 3,471 (decreasing) 

3. DC Supervised Release Offenders: 3, 218 (increasing) 

Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith are the lead sponsors of the legislation and Reps. Scott, Gohmert and Holmes Norton have agreed to be original cosponsors. Last week, Sens. Leahy and Specter introduced a companion bill in the 

Senate to extend the Parole Commission for three years. The Senate bill was 

hotlined for floor action upon its introduction. 

39 

As the expiration of the Parole Commission authorization draws near, DOJ is concerned that federal inmates who were sentenced prior to 1984 will begin to file motions for release under § 235(b)(3) of the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) should the 

extension not become law before the current one expires. This section of the SRA 

requires that in the event the authorization of the Commission lapses, release dates 

for inmates sentenced before 1984 must be set consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 4206 (repealed) three to six months prior to expiration of the Commission. 

Initially, Rep. Holmes Norton requested an indefinite extension of the Parole 

Commission’s authority. Ultimately, Ms. Holmes Norton agreed to co-sponsor the 

House legislation with a three year extension, because Senate co-sponsors of the 

companion legislation were not willing to extend the reauthorization beyond 2011. 

DOJ has proposed that during the next three year extension of the Parole Commission, an internal working group examine the future of the Commission. This 

working group would examine whether any changes to the Commission are necessary to reflect its decreasing federal parole responsibilities and evolving supervised release responsibilities. These changes may include transferring all or some 

of the Commission’s functions to an entity or entities inside or outside of the Department of Justice. 

A letter dated May 22, 2008 was sent to DOJ from the Federal Court of Appeals 

for the Third Circuit requesting information regarding Congress’ intent to extend 

the Commission. DOJ anticipates this will be the first of a number of such requests 

and are concerned that because reauthorization legislation has not been passed that 

it may create the perception that the Parole Commission will not be reauthorized. 

There will be two witness panels for this hearing. Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton 

will testify on the first panel. The Honorable Edward Reilly, Jr, Chairman of the 

Parole Commission will testify on the second panel along with Kenneth Linn, J.D., 

LL.M., Chairman of the Federal Chapter of Citizens United for Rehabilitation of 

Errants (CURE) and David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst for the 

Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of today’s witnesses. Thank you, and I 

yield the balance of my time. 

f 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LOUIE GOHMERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

The subject of today’s hearing is the reauthorization of the United States Parole 

Commission. The Commission is an independent agency within the Department of 

Justice that has the responsibility of supervising federal offenders that are eligible 

for parole. 

The Parole Commission also has jurisdiction over two separate groups of D.C. 

Code offenders, those convicted of D.C. offenses for which they can be paroled and 

those convicted under current DC law, under which they cannot be paroled. 

Today, the great majority of the U.S. Parole Commission’s workload concerns the 

District of Columbia offenders. That is because the group of offenders that the Commission was originally intended to supervise—federal offenders that are eligible for 

parole—are a small category of prisoners getting smaller every day. 

This decrease in the number of parole-eligible federal offenders is the result of a 

decision by Congress to end indeterminate sentencing, and therefore federal parole, 

with the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act or SRA of 1984. 

The SRA created a system of ‘‘supervised release’’ that requires an offender to receive a determinate sentence of incarceration—generally a term of months or 

years—followed by a period of release into the community under the close supervision of court officers. Congress passed this law to address concerns of sentencing 

disparities across the country. The SRA had the goal of imposing similar sentences 

for similar crimes nationwide. 

As a result of this law, the wide and seemingly arbitrary indeterminate sentences 

of judges were replaced with determinate sentences mandated by strong guidelines 

created by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. 

In passing the SRA, Congress also had the goal of correcting the failure of the 

federal corrections system to lower high crime rates. 

This new federal sentencing arrangement has been an unquestioned success. Determinate sentencing made incarceration terms more meaningful by ensuring that 

offenders actually served most of their sentences. Determinate sentencing also 

helped to restore the credibility of courts by making sentencing more uniform and 

ensuring that offenders actually served almost all of their original sentences. 

40 

Over the last 25 years, the national crime rate has dropped. This decrease in 

crime can be attributed to determinate sentencing, which keeps violent criminals in 

prison and off the streets. 

In an effort to lower local crime rates, the District of Columbia followed the federal example, by abolishing parole and establishing a system of supervised release 

in 2000. Under the D.C. system, the D.C. Superior Court imposes a term of supervised release, but the Parole Commission imposes the conditions of supervised release and is responsible for enforcing those conditions. 

Like the population of federal offenders eligible for parole, the parole-eligible D.C. 

offender population is declining over time, although at a slower rate than federal 

offenders. It has been estimated that it will take 25 years or more before the D.C. 

parole-eligible offender population disappears. Because all incoming offenders are 

now sentenced under the new arrangement, the D.C. supervised release offender 

population is increasing over time. 

By 2010, the Department of Justice estimates that there will be less than 900 parole-eligible federal offenders, with their numbers decreasing each year. The Department estimates that there will be around 3400 D.C. parole-eligible offenders, whose 

numbers will also decrease each year. It also estimates that there will be more than 

3200 D.C. offenders sentenced under the newer supervised release system by that 

time, with those numbers increasing each year. 

The Commission’s authority to supervise these offenders will expire on October 

31, 2008. The Department of Justice has requested that Congress introduce legislation to extend the Commission for another three years. In response to that request, 

Chairman Conyers plans to introduce the Parole Commission Extension Act of 2008. 

Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Smith, and I will co-sponsor this bill. 

The Department of Justice has indicated that it will evaluate the future of the 

Commission during the three year period when the Commission is extended. The 

Department will review whether any changes to the Commission are necessary to 

reflect its decreasing federal parole responsibilities and evolving supervised release 

responsibilities for the District of Columbia. These changes may include transferring 

all or some of the Commission’s functions to an entity or entities inside or outside 

of the Department of Justice. 

I expect the Department to share the results of this review and look forward to 

receiving them. This review will be beneficial to Congress and will help Members 

make an informed decision about the future status of the U.S. Parole Commission. 

I thank the witnesses for joining us today and I look forward to hearing their testimony. I yield back the balance of my time. 

f 

41 


A-1.eps
42 


A-2.eps
43 

f 


A-3.eps
44 


B-1.eps
45 


B-2.eps
46 

f 


B-3.eps
47 


C-1.eps
48 


C-2.eps
49 


C-3.eps
50 

f 


C-4.eps
51 


D-1.eps
52 


D-2.eps
53 


D-3.eps
54 


D-4.eps
55 

f 


D-5.eps
56 


E-1.eps
57 

f 


E-2.eps
58 


G-1.eps
59 

Æ 


G-2.eps