Congress

[Courtesy of the Office of U.S. Senator Joe Biden, Jr.] FOR RELEASE: November 5, 2007 CONTACT: Elizabeth Alexander, 202-224-5042 ABA Endorses BIDEN Bill to Eliminate Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Disparity American Bar Association Applauds Biden’s Leadership on Sentencing Reform and Urges Senators to Support Biden Bill Washington, DC – The American Bar Association recently announced its “strong support” for Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.’s (D-DE) Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007 and “urge[d]” Senators to support the bill. Sen. Biden’s legislation would completely eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, two forms of the same drug, and it would also abolish the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine, the only drug for which there exists a mandatory minimum sentence for mere possession for a first time offender. “Over twenty years ago, Congress enacted a sentencing scheme that punishes crack cocaine offenses far more severely than powder cocaine offenses," said Sen. Biden. "This is a terrible flaw in the criminal justice system. It’s based on the bogus notion that the crack form of cocaine is more dangerous and crack users are more violent than powder uses. And that logic just hasn’t played out.” Currently, under the so-called “100-to-1” cocaine sentencing disparity it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack to trigger the five- and ten-year mandatory minimum sentences under federal law. In other words, powder cocaine offenders who traffic 500 grams of powder (2,500-5,000 doses) receive the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as crack cocaine offenders who simply possess just 5 grams of crack (10-50 doses). “I applaud and appreciate the American Bar Association’s decision to stand with me on this important issue,” said Sen. Biden. “It’s time for Congress to act in a real way. The current 100:1 disparity is unjust, unfair, and the time has long past for it to be undone. I look forward to working with the ABA and others to enact my bill into law.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 26, 2007 CONTACT: Bill Piper at (202) 669-6430 or Tony Newman at (646) 335-5384 On Day That Feds Raid and Shut down Ten Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in California, Congress Rejects Proposal to Protect Seriously Ill Patients and Their Caregivers from Federal Arrest House Rejects Amendment to Cut Off Funding to the Raids, 262 to 165 Majority of Democrats Vote for States’ Rights and Compassion, While Republicans Betray Both Their Principles and Their Grassroots Base As the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration raided and shut down ten medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives considered and rejected an amendment that would have prohibited federal law enforcement agencies from arresting and prosecuting terminally ill patients and their caregivers in states that have legalized marijuana for medical use. The amendment was voted down, 262-165. Offered by Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), the amendment received 150 votes from Democrats and 15 votes from Republicans. “It is outrageous that members of Congress rejected a sensible amendment to protect sick people and their families ," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. "We will make sure that voters in their districts know that they voted to send cancer and AIDS patients to federal prison for following their doctor’s recommendation." "With soldiers dying in Iraq, new terrorism threats emerging, and the federal defecit so large, both Congress and the Bush Administration need to get their priorities straight," Piper continued. "America can not afford these raids on medical marijuana patients and their caregivers, not on fiscal terms, not on law enforcement and national security terms, and not on human terms. This ongoing assault on the will of California voters is an utter waste of federal resources, and it's causing great suffering to sick people and their families. If we don't stop this federal interference now, the feds could start interfering with the laws of Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island and other medical marijuana states." Background and Key Facts: Twelve states passed laws allowing terminally ill patients to use marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington). More than 70 percent of voters support the right of patients to use marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation – including substantial majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents (Gallup, Time/CNN, Pew Research Center, other polls). In 1997, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to assess marijuana’s medical value. After two years of reviewing the scientific data available “the study team found substantial consensus among experts in the relevant disciplines on the scientific evidence about potential medical uses of marijuana.” The study team concluded, “nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety…all can be mitigated by marijuana.” The esteemed medical journal, The Lancet Neurology, reported that marijuana’s active components “inhibit pain in virtually every experimental pain paradigm.” Health organizations supporting legal access to medical marijuana include: American Academy of HIV Medicine, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association, American Preventive Medical Association, American Public Health Association, California Academy of Family Physicians, California Medical Association, Florida Medical Association, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, Lymphoma Foundation of America, New England Journal of Medicine, New York State Association of County Health Officials, New York State Hospice and Palliative Care Association, New York State Medical Society, and the Whitman-Walker Clinic. Faith-based organizations supporting legal access to medical marijuana or state discretion on the issue include: Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church, National Council of Churches, Progressive National Baptist Convention, Presbyterian Church (USA), Religious Society of Friends (Philadelphia Yearly Meeting), Union for Reform Judaism, United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalist Association, and the United Methodist Church. No religious denomination opposes medical marijuana.

For Immediate Release: June 28, 2007 For More Information: Naomi Long, T: (202) 669-6071, or Grant Smith, T: (202) 669-6573 Congress Votes to Lift Washington, DC Syringe Funding Ban Change Will Save Thousands of Lives Today the U.S. House of Representatives rejected an amendment that would have restored a ban that prohibits the nation’s capital from spending its own (non-federal) money on syringe exchange programs. The ban was eliminated weeks ago in committee. Congressman Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) tried to reinstitute a modified ban on the floor that would have had a chilling effect on the existing needle exchange program in D.C. (which currently operates entirely on private funds), but the House rejected it 216 Nays to 208 Yeas. In 1998, the Republican-led Congress barred the District Government from spending its own local funds on syringe exchange programs. The ban has been reauthorized in the appropriations bill every year since. But with Democrats now in power, the push to lift the ban gained traction. The Drug Policy Alliance applauds Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), who chairs the Financial Services Subcommittee, for spearheading the effort to lift the ban, and recognizes the tireless efforts of D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. “This is a huge step in helping to reduce HIV and AIDS in Washington, DC,” said Naomi Long, director of the Washington Metro office for the Drug Policy Alliance. “We are pleased that Congress decided to stop playing politics with the lives of intravenous drug users in D.C. at a time when the District is suffering from a HIV/AIDS crisis.” It has been long established by the scientific community that needle exchange programs reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS amongst people who inject drugs without increasing drug use. In Washington, DC, injecting drugs is the second-most common means of contracting HIV among men – and the most common form among women. Approximately one-third of new AIDS cases annually are the result of intravenous drug use. Supporters of needle exchange include the American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, Centers for Disease Control and three former U.S. Surgeons General. A number of faith communities officially support needle exchange including The Presbyterian Church (USA), Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ.

[The letter, complete with pictures, can be found at http://www.celebstoner.com/content/view/243/34/] Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman acknowledges on his website that he was a "campus organzizer in the '60s" when he attended Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY. His Wikipedia entry states: "He ran for student senate and opined in the school newspaper that his fellow students should vote for him because he knew that 'these conservative kids don't fuck or get high like we do... Everyone watch out, the 1950s' bobby-sox generation is about to take over.'" Several photos (reproduced here) show the then longhaired Coleman speaking through a bullhorn and unfurling an anti-war banner with other students. Since that time, the Brooklyn, NY-born politician graduated from the University of Iowa Law School and stayed in the Midwest, where he worked as a prosecutor in Minnesota for 17 years before his two terms as mayor of St. Paul. In 1996, he switched parties - from Democrat to Republican - and in 1998 he lost the Minnesota governor's race to Jesse Ventura. In 2002, Coleman was elected senator by a 2% margin. He benefitted from the sudden death of the state's incumbant Paul Wellstone, who died in a plane crash 11 days before the election. NORML board member Norm Kent, who is a lawyer as well, went to Hofstra with Coleman. Kent recently received a form letter from Coleman regarding his current anti-marijuana positiion. It reads, in part: "I oppose the legalization of marijuana because, as noted by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, marijuana can have serious adverse health affects on individuals. The health problems that may occur from this highly addictive drug include short-term memory loss, anxiety, respiratory illness and a risk of lung cancer that far exceeds that of tobacco products. It would also make our transportation, schools and workplaces, just as examples, more dangerous." Offended by Coleman's comments, Kent fired of a letter to his former smoking buddy. NORM KENT'S LETTER TO SEN. NORM COLEMAN Dear Mr. Coleman, My friend Norman. Years ago, in a lifetime far away, you did not oppose the legalization of marijuana. Years ago, in our dorm rooms at Hofstra University, you, me, Billy, your future brother-in-law, Ivan, Jonathan, Peter, Janet, Nancy and a wealth of other students smoked dope. Sure, we had to tape the doors shut, burn incense and open the windows, but we got high, and yet we grew up okay, without the help of the Office of National Drug Control Policy's advice. We grew up to become lawyers. Our other friends, as you go down the list, are doctors, professors, parents, political consultants and professionals. No one ever got cancer from smoking pot or diabetes from using a joint. And the days of our youth we look back fondly upon as years where we stood up, were counted and made a difference, from Earth Day in 1970 to helping bring down a president and end a war in Southeast Asia a few years later. We smoked pot when we took over Weller Hall to protest administrative abuses of students' rights. You smoked pot as you stood on the roof of the University Senate protesting faculty exclusivity. As the President of the Student Senate in 1969, you condemned the raid by Nassau County police on our dormitories, busting scores of students for pot possession. You never said then that pot was dangerous. What was scary then, and is as frightening now, is when national leaders become voices of hypocrisy, harbingers of the status quo, and protect their own position instead of the public good. Welcome to the crowd of those who have become a likeness of which they despised. Welcome to the mindless myriad of legislators who gather in cocktail lounges to manhandle their martinis while passing laws against drunk driving. We have seen more people die last year from spinach then pot. We have endured generations of drug addicts overdosing on a multitude of drugs, from heroin to crystal methamphetamine. In your public life, as an attorney general, mayor and United States senator, you have been in the forefront of speaking out against abuses which are harmful. You have been a noble and honorable public servant. How about not being such a dope on dope? How about admitting that if the Rockefeller drug laws were applied to Norman Bruce Coleman on Long Island in 1968, or to me, or to our friends, and fellow students, you, I and others we knew and loved might just be getting out of jail now? How about recognizing that for too long too many have been wrongly arrested, unjustly prosecuted and illegally incarcerated for unconscionable periods of time? How about recognizing that you have peers who have smoked pot for 25 years or more and they are successful record producers, businessmen and parents? How about standing up and saying you have heard and witnessed countless stories of persons who have used pot medicinally, as I have, to endure the effects of chemotherapy? You who have travelled to Africa and seen the face of AIDS so up close and personal would deny medicinal marijuana relief to those souls wasting away from malnutrition, nausea and no access to fundamental medicines? How about not adopting the sad and sorry archaic path of our office of drug control, which this week suggested pot smokers are more likely to become gang members than others? How about standing up and saying: "I, Norm Coleman, smoked pot in 1969." That "I am not a gang member, a drug addict or a criminal." How about saying: "I was able to responsibly integrate my prior pot use into my life, and still succeed on my own merits." How about standing up not only for who you are, but who you were? How about it, Norm? I will always love, admire and cherish what you have achieved and accomplished and the goals you have met. I will always fondly look at the remarkable success of your present. How about you looking back at your past and saying: "What I did was not so wrong and not so bad and not so hurtful that generations of Americans should still, decades later, be going to jail for smoking pot - nearly one million arrests for possession last year." Can't Norm Coleman come out of the closet in 2007 and say "These arrests are wrong - that there is a better way, and we need to find it." You might find more integrity and honor in that then adopting the sad and sorry policy of our Office of National Drug Control Policy. You might find the person you were. Norm Kent

For Immediate Release: June 6, 2007 For More Info: Bill Piper (202) 669-6430 or Naomi Long (202) 669-6071 Rep. Tiahrt (R-Kan.) Continues to Make Uninformed Statements That Discount the Proven Effectiveness of Needle Exchange Programs Advocates to Deliver Mountain of Evidence to Tiahrt’s Office Today So the Kansas Congressman Can Stop Embarrassing Himself Despite Washington, D.C. having one of the worst HIV infection rates in the country, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) continues to ignore the mountain of scientific evidence that proves the effectiveness of syringe exchange programs at reducing the transmission of HIV/AIDS, hepatits C and other infectious disease. Tiahrt’s assertion that there are no proven studies that show the efficacy syringe exchange programs is a direct effort to sabotage a recent Congressional effort to remove the ban on funding syringe exchange programs in Washington, D.C. In a strong editorial in today’s Washington Post calling for D.C. to be allowed to fund needle exchange programs, Tiahrt is quoted claiming “…needle exchange programs have been proven in many studies to be ineffective and a threat to the surrounding community, especially the children.” In response, the Drug Policy Alliance will hand deliver numerous studies proving the effectiveness of needle exchange programs to Tiahrt’s office today. “Rep. Tiahrt’s claims that syringe exchange programs don’t work is similar to claiming the world is flat,” said Bill Piper, national affairs director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “We want him to have the information so he doesn’t continue to embarrass himself and, more importantly, sabotage this life-saving measure.” Every established medical, scientific, and legal body to study the issue concurs in the efficacy of improved access to sterile syringes to reduce the spread of infectious diseases: including the National Academy of Sciences, American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and President George H.W. Bush's and President Clinton's AIDS Advisory Commissions. Eight government reports concur that access to sterile syringes deceases the transmission of infectious diseases without increasing drug use. No reports contradict these findings. On Tuesday, June 5, Congress moved one step closer to lifting the funding ban on syringe exchange programs in Washington, D.C. The House Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government removed the ban from an appropriations bill that includes the city’s spending plan. In 1998, Tiahrt and the Republican-led Congress barred the D.C. government from spending its own local funds on syringe exchange programs. The ban was reauthorized in the appropriations bill every year since. But with Democrats now in power, the push to lift the ban gained traction. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), who chairs the committee, spearheaded the effort to lift the ban. It has been long established by the scientific community that needle exchange programs reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS amongst people who inject drugs without increasing drug use. In Washington, D.C., injecting drugs is the second-most common means of contracting HIV among men—and the most common form among women. Approximately one-third of new AIDS cases annually are the result of intravenous drug use. DC’s syringe exchange program is crucial to getting people with substance abuse problems into drug treatment. The program estimates it refers about 50 people a month to treatment. Needle exchange programs help public health professionals assess the medical needs of clients, gain trust in the community by meeting clients in their own surroundings, and provide educational materials and referrals.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 5, 2007 CONTACT: Naomi Long, (202) 669-6071 or Bill Piper, (202) 669-6430 Clean Syringe Funding Ban for District of Colombia Lifted Rep. Serrano Removes Provision Prohibiting Tax Payer Money Going to D.C. Syringe Exchange Programs Today Congress moved to lift the funding ban on syringe exchange programs in Washington, DC. The House Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government removed the ban from an appropriations bill that includes the city’s spending plan. In 1998, the Republican-led Congress barred the District Government from spending its own local funds on syringe exchange programs. The ban has been reauthorized in the appropriations bill every year since. But with Democrats now in power, the push to lift the ban gained traction. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), who chairs the committee, spearheaded the effort to lift the ban. “This is a huge step in helping to reduce HIV and AIDS in Washington, DC,” said Naomi Long, director of the Washington Metro office for the Drug Policy Alliance. “We are pleased that Congress decided to stop playing politics with the lives of intravenous drug users in D.C.” It has been long established by the scientific community that needle exchange programs reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS amongst people who inject drugs without increasing drug use. In Washington, DC, injecting drugs is the second-most common means of contracting HIV among men - and the most common form among women. Approximately one-third of new AIDS cases annually are the result of intravenous drug use. Supporters of needle exchange include the American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, Centers for Disease Control and three former U.S. Surgeons General. A number of faith communities officially support needle exchange including The Presbyterian Church (USA), Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ.

On Monday, the editorial board of the New York Times sternly denounced the U.S. Congress because of a law that does not allow Washington, D.C. to use city funds to support needle exchange programs. The objections raised are the same tired and indefensible hooey that runs counter to esteemed medical and public health advice worldwide. Please consider writing and sending a Letter to the Editor to the New York Times commending them for their stand. You may personalize your letter to share testimony about yourself, someone you know or perhaps the community where you live and why you endorse increased public health and safety. Perhaps a fact from this webpage could be the core of your letter http://www.drugwarfacts.org/syringee.htm Letters to the New York Times must be 150 words or less for publication. They must also be exclusive to the Times. So please don't send a copy of a letter which has been printed elsewhere. Please also contact your members of Congress about this issue. To find out how to contact them go to http://congress.org/stickers/?dir=congressorg&officials=1 Thanks for your effort and support. It's not what others do it's what YOU do. ********************************************************************** Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center: http://www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides Or contact MAP Media Activism Facilitator Steve Heath for personal tips on how to write LTEs that get printed. [email protected] ********************************************************************** Contact: [email protected] Pubdate: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 Source: New York Times (NY) Copyright: 2007 The New York Times Company CONGRESS HOBBLES THE AIDS FIGHT Washington, D.C., is one of America's AIDS hot spots. A significant proportion of infections can be traced back to intravenous drug users who shared contaminated needles and then passed on the infection to spouses, lovers or unborn children. This public health disaster is partly the fault of Congress. It has wrongly and disastrously used its power over the District of Columbia's budget to bar the city from spending even locally raised tax dollars on programs that have slowed the spread of disease by giving drug addicts access to clean needles. Every state in the union allows some system for providing addicts with clean needles. But nearly a decade ago, ideologues in Congress who were unable to derail needle programs in their own states chose to grandstand on the issue when it came time to pass the District's appropriation bill. Barred from spending local tax dollars on these medically necessary programs, the city has limped along with a privately financed operation that turns away more people than it serves. Critics offer the same know-nothing arguments. They say that handing out needles legitimizes drug use -- even though studies here and abroad showed long ago that the programs cut the infection rate without increasing addiction. They say that addicts should be offered treatment instead of clean needles -- even though addicts who want treatment must sometimes wait for months or even years to get in. While they wait, they continue to use drugs and become infected. Congress's ban on even locally financed needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia is an insult to the city's voters and a clear hazard to public health. Ideologues, in the House in particular, need to get out of the way and let public health officials save lives. ********************************************************************** PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by e-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] if you are not subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others can learn from your efforts. Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( [email protected] ) will help you to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing efforts. To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form.

FedCURE pleads with all you, in the most strongest terms, to get behind Judith's heartfelt message and contact your Congressperson NOW! Urging him or her to support The Second Chance Act, especially the Republican leadership – Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) expressing disappointment with the delay and urging them to strongly support the Second Chance Act. Link to Contact Congress and Tips on Writing Congress: http://www.fedcure.org/ContactCongressREP-SEN.shtml and http://www.fedcure.org/documents/TipsonWritingtoCongress.pdf. Hon. Louie Gohmert Ashley H. Callen Legislative Director/Counsel Office of Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) 510 Cannon HOB Washington, DC 20515 202.225.3035 ph 202.226.1230 fax [email protected] Dear Congressman Gohmert: I am one of the incarcerated Federal prisoners that you seem to feel are not entitled to any "Perks" upon release from prison. I feel put upon to reply to the letter from Ashley H. Callen, Legislative Director/Counsel in your office. I am one of many thousand federal prisoners. I am also one of many thousand federal prisoners who is truly innocent of the charges levied against me. I was tried and convicted on a charge of "Conspiracy to Money Launder". The conspiracy part is what caused me to receive a very heavy sentence. I was one of about 15 people indicted in a "front money scam".. The fact that I did not do what I was accused and convicted of is irrelevant at this time. I am almost 6 years into a 9 year sentence. I am 62+ years old. I spent the majority of my life as a businesswoman with a reputation for fairness and integrity. I am now a number in the federal prison system. As someone with business savvy, I have tried to help those in here who have not had the opportunities that I have had. I was instrumental in setting up a unit based education class program. This program allows women in the camp to take classes taught by other inmates. These classes range from the basics of tutoring for G.E.D. exams, to construction trades and CPR and Paralegal classes and everything in between. We have about 29 classes of all sorts available. The classes are 10 weeks long and in some cases longer. Women receive a certificate of completion at the end of the sessions. They are required to take a pre-class exam to help the teacher identify the basic knowledge of the students. There is also a post exam prior to receiving a certificate. Women here at camp Coleman are not idle. Many of these women will require assistance when the are ready to leave prison. Many of these women are first time non-violent offenders. Many were caught up in the minimum mandatory drug laws and are here for 10, 20 & 30 years. A number of these women gave birth to their children in prison and have had to rely on others to raise their children. So many of these women are anxious to begin a new life and a better life for themselves and their children. You and others like you, are trying to stop what could be a wonderful program in re-entry and family stabilization. Career education and training, drug counseling if required. From what I have read of the Second Chance Act, there are no provisions for cell phones or I-pods or Blackberry's. Nor is there any pork in the bill for people to go out and not work and not support themselves. All of this would require a great deal of effort on the part of the person re-entering society. Sir, are you aware of the cost of incarceration? At my age (62+), having been hospitalized three times in six years, the cost for maintaining out elderly in prison is in the range of $70,000, per person per year. For younger people the cost is approximately $29,000. multiply that cost by the an average of 200,000 federal prisoners. Astronomical isn't it? On the other hand the cost of 1 year of community college is $1,500. Which would make more sense. Teaching our inmates to become better people or keeping them in prisons? The cost of keeping an elderly person in home confinement would be somewhere around $2,000 yearly vs $70,000. Which would make more sense? The cost of incarceration is not only the dollars, but the family ties and community ties that are in some cases irreparable. I lost my husband of 28 years shortly after I was indicted. The stress that we were put under with the advent of my upcoming trail and monetary concerns caused him to have a massive heart attack. He died in my arms. My life was shattered. Not only was I facing a trial, but I was facing financial ruin in my golden years. I have lost everything that I worked for my entire life. I lost my husband as a direct result of this unjust charge, I lost my Mom shortly after I was incarcerated and my son no longer speaks to me. I have nothing to fall back on. I have no savings and no health care and no home to go back to. Yet you want me to leave prison with no financial or educational resources. Why? Do you think that it will be easy at this age to face a new beginning? Do you think that somewhere I have hidden resources to regain a life, any kind of life? My family, what there is left of them, is unable to care for me financially. They can help me with a place to live but then I am on my own. I will not be able to go back into the business that I know. I have to start from scratch. Can you tell me how to do that if I cannot access any government aid. As a convicted felon, I have no chance of renting an apartment, getting food stamps, or even getting any federal aid for education. As a convicted felon, I will be unable to get any sort of a job except maybe entry level. I have a number of things against me. My age, and worst of all a felony conviction. With the help of the Second Chance Act, I had a Second Chance available. You seem to feel that it is okay to throw me away. What you fail to realize is that I am you and you sir are me. You and most people do not realize that they are but a pen stroke away from a federal indictment. The proverbial ham sandwich being indicted. Isn't it less expensive and easier to retrain people and offer them a means to support themselves than to force them to return to illegal means as a way of life? Isn't it less expensive to allow these former felons to develop self esteem and to hold their heads up and become a productive member of society? Wouldn't there be more money available for Veteran's programs if there were fewer incarcerated? Why are you and some of your respected colleagues trying to hold us down? I have never been involved in drugs, but drugs can be self perpetuating and cause a ripple effect for years to come. The felons in prison for drug offenses, need to be able to leave here and feel gain self worth and feel that they made a mistake and paid their debt and that it will not be held against them the rest of their lives. If you do not feel that this is an issue to be reckoned with, I and many like me will disagree as strongly as possible. I firmly believe that these programs outlined in the Second Chance should be administered by people who are best able to utilize the funds to the max. If the answer lies in Faith based programs, let it be so. I have no problem with that. I truly believe that these programs will help people for many years to come. This is not a stop gap measure. This is a long range plan to help people help themselves stay out of prison. Recidivism is highest among the unemployed and the unemployable. You can put an end to this. The recidivism rate among the over 50 group is about 2%. So why are the elderly being forced to stay in prison settings where the medical care is virtually non-existent. There are no provisions for the elderly in prison. We are given very little, if any preventive care. Heart attacks, strokes and in my case bleeding ulcers are rampant. 15 months ago, I was hospitalized with bleeding ulcers. I almost died here at the camp because of the incompetent care that I received. I was told that there was nothing wrong with me except for high blood sugar. This is not now and never has been a problem in my life. I was bleeding internally, but no one here recognized the symptoms. There is no managed care. There is no real food. The allotted cost for feeding inmates is somewhere around $1.62 per day per person, below the poverty level. Poor food, poor housing conditions, unclean housing units and little medical care add up to a very expensive cost of incarceration. Hospital stays for people like me are expensive. I have been hospitalized three times, the last time just this past week. I have undergone surgery that could have been prevented. I respectfully ask that you reconsider your opposition to this bill. Allow me to go home and become a productive member of the senior society. I have much to offer and would like to see my family again outside of the confines of prison. I do not want to die in here, and that is a very real fear. I am not alone in that fear. We have many women here who are older than I and in worse physical health. We are Social Security eligible and Medicare eligible, some of us are even able to work outside of the home. Allow the prison system to save the thousands of dollars a year that they spend on me and the other elderly. Take that money and put it to programs for the Vets. We are not asking for I-pods or Blackberry's or cell phones. We are asking for a chance. Certainly if you or someone that you care about were in this position, you would be pushing for this bill to pass. Our families feel the same way. I may not be able to vote now, but at some point I will again be able to vote and I would like to think that the candidate of choice is a person who is fair minded and caring. I believe that with your support and the support of other Republicans this bill, which is advocated by the Justice Department and the Bureau of Prisons and American Bar Association, the Public Defenders Association to name a few, would be passed. Sincerely, Judie Giglio Reg.No. 11197-017 Federal Correction Complex Camp P.O. Box 1027 Coleman, Fl. 33521-1027 P.S. This letter is being forwarded to your office by my daughter, as copy is being forwarded to Gene Guerro Open Society Institute and FedCure.

WASHINGTON, D.C.: Federal crack cocaine penalties overstate the harmfulness of the drug, apply mostly to low-level offenders, and hit minorities hardest, concludes the U.S. Sentencing Commission in a new report to Congress, "Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy," released today, May 15. Based on these findings, the Commission maintains it's consistently held position that current crack cocaine penalties significantly undermine the congressional objectives of the Sentencing Reform Act, including fairness, uniformity and proportionality. The solution? Congress should act, says the report. Mary Price, vice president and general counsel of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), a national, nonpartisan sentencing reform organization, says, "The prisoners, children and families torn apart by these unjustifiably harsh penalties are watching closely and will welcome crack sentencing reforms that restore some justice to crack penalties. Only Congress can change our harsh mandatory minimum crack laws. Lawmakers should not squander the important opportunity presented by the most recent set of findings and recommendations by the Sentencing Commission. The time is ripe for reform, especially given the bipartisan support for crack sentencing reform that has emerged in recent years." In its report, the Commission again unanimously and strongly urged Congress to act promptly on the following recommendations: (1) Increase the five-year and ten-year mandatory minimum threshold quantities for crack cocaine offenses to focus the penalties more closely on serious and major traffickers, (2) Repeal the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine and (3) Reject addressing the 100-to-1 disparity by decreasing the five-year and ten-year mandatory minimum threshold quantities for powder cocaine offenses, citing no evidence to justify such an increase in quantity-based penalties for powder cocaine offenses. In addition, the Commission seeks authority to incorporate any future changes to the mandatory minimums for crack into the federal sentencing guidelines. FAMM strongly supports these recommendations and looks forward to working with members of Congress to implement these reasonable and long-overdue reforms to crack cocaine sentencing. Visit www.ussc.gov to read the report.