Paul. And that is on the Violent Crime side, we tend to have a lower crime rate than a lot of other states while at the same time keeping our incarceration rate lower by using more probation and using more treatment options. So thats why im a fan of the work thats been done here. And my first question is really along those lines of drug courts. Ive led some. Efforts here on drug courts and getting funding for drug courts carrying on the work of many that came before me, including ted kennedy and jim ram stead over on the house side. When we look at what this bill might save, we know that drug courts save money. And we know that getting some of the nonviolent offenders out of the prisons will save money or reducing their sentences. Do you think we could use some of this money to pay for things like drug courts ms. Yates, do you think that will be helpful as we look at how we are going to make up for the fact that we are going to be bringing people out of prison. But they not only need Reentry Programs, they may also need treatment down the line or to prevent them from getting into trouble in the first place. Im hopeful we will be able to use some of the money saved for a variety of intervention programs, which include drug courts and alternatives to incarceration that the states being the leaders have proven is more effective than just throwing everybody in jail sometimes for longer than they need to be there. I think its important we spend money on drug courts, alternatives, as well as the back end, reform and reentry as well. What do you see from the department of justice in a reduction in funds . We dont. They are trying to do predictions now. Its hard to get our arms around exactly how many defendants will be impacted by this. Thank you. Also, in this bill in the sentencing reform and corrections act it adds a ten year minimum mandatory sentence when the death of the victim includes interstate Domestic Violence. Or if the oftener uses a dangerous weapon during the offense. As you know ive done a lot of work in the Domestic Violence area. Im glad this is in here. Could you talk about the importance of this to the bill . Yes. And we agree and support these provisions. Ten years doesnt seem like too long to spend in prison for someone who is convicted of Domestic Violence that has that kind of result. Particularly when you compare that again to some of the sentences for drug defendants. So we are very happy that this is a provision in the bill and support this as well. Very good. Could you talk a little bit in my state, we have more sentencing guidelines. Thats what we use. If you are going to depart, you explain why you departd, and its not exactly done in the same way as the mandatory minimums on the federal level. I know senator white house has been asking you about this, but especially in a state like mine where we tend to have lower incarceration rates for drug crimes, the five year the lower level five year sentence was very important to me in our office when we would handle the bulk of the cases in our state, actually, probably nearly half of the crimes in the state of minnesota because our population of our county was approximate 25 . Could you talk a little bit about how that works for the local prosecutors . Again i know you answered some of this with him and how this law, if you think it affects it in any way. Especially for states that have really relied on the power of the lower level federal drug sentencing to try to get pleas in their state laws or at least get the five year when we dont have much like that in our state. Well, the five year will still be there and still be available for defendants who really need the mandatory minimum the most. Its still going to be effective for defendants who have prior records, for those who have guns, who were involved in violence, who were any kind of leader in an organization. And from a federal resources standpoint it does seem those are the defendants where we should really be targeting our resources to begin with. Very good. Thank you very much. Senator from minnesota . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ms. Yates, earlier it was suggested that fbi director comeys concern about Violent Crime rates sentence reform more broadly. Can you clarify today whether that is indeed the case. Whether in fact thats director comeys view . Im sorry, i didnt entirely understand the question. It was suggested that fbi director comey was concerned that that sentencing reform might increase crime rate of crime. What are hise views on sentence reform. I know from my conversations with director comey he is supportive of the goals of sentencing reform. With respect to i mean i think we all share concern and want to ensure any reforms we undertake are not going to contribute to an increase in Violent Crime. Thats why i think its really important to look at the specific provisions of this bill and to see the defendants who are being provided relief here are not those that are responsible for Violent Crime. In fact, its precisely the group who is not involved in that. Its those who dont have guns, who dont have leadership positions, who arent involved in violence. In fact, in looking across the country, most recently at some of the pockets that weve seen of increased gun violence across across the country, we are not finding any correlation at all there with states that have enacted sentencing reform or criminal Justice Reform and an increase in gun violence. Nor are we seeing a profile of those defendants that would lead us to believe that they would match up with the defendants that would be provided relief here. Well, id like to talk about retroactivity. Uhhuh. And the nervousness about some of that. And speak to that nervousness about how that would work. Yeah. Because its one thing people say its one thing for a judge to be taking, you know, all these factors in when they are sentencing, but when you are releasing people, you cant just release people retroactively and give them a get out of jail free cord. But just i wanted to talk to the reality of this, which is that the sentence reductions would not be automatic. As i understand it, the Justice Department and judges would have to look at the facts of each case. Can you explain how, if enacted, the resentencing process would work and what factors a judge would have to consider before reducing an offenders sentence . Retroactivity, we believe, is an important component of this bill because it gives defendants who received prison sentences that are longer than necessary to keep the public safe an opportunity to have their sentence reconsidered. But its just that. Its an opportunity to have that sentence reconsidered. And the prosecutor who handled the case and the judge who sentenced the case would then look individually at each defendant that comes up, would look at the circumstances of this case, would look at the background of the defendant, and would make a determination as to whether or not Public Safety would be negatively impacted by reducing the defendants sentence in this specific case. And it would be done on a case by case basis. Now, some had expressed experience about retroactivity and the ability to be able to implement that. I can tell you there are some aspects of Retroactive Application that the department strongly supports in this bill. For example, the fair sentencing act. There are other aspects of it that will be more challenging for us. But we are committing to ensuring we do that case by case analysis, regardless whether its the Retroactive Application, or the fair sentencing act or the other provisions of the bill. So what you are saying is that resentencing would depend heavily on the facts. Absolutely. Of each case. And offenders seeking a reduced sentence would file a petition. Every petition would have to be evaluated on its merits, each offenders criminal history and individual circumstances would have to be thoroughly examined. And doing this the right way would really require a commitment of the department and judicial resources. Can you speak to whether doj has the resources . Certainly time, but also an adequate number of staff to process and respond to petitions for retroactive sentence reductions . Well, we can always use more prosecutors. I wouldnt be doing my job if i didnt make a pitch for more resources. There is a time and place to do that. And this is the wrong committee. I know that. Yes, we will allocate our resources within the department of justice in a way to ensure we are meeting our obligation to ensure we are keeping the community safe. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Yes. Ms. Yates, we thank you very much for your testimony. And appreciate very much your being here. For you and also let me announce for the second panel that since several Members Around here, you may get questions and answer in writing. And those questions have to be submitted i think within seven days. For you, ms. Yates and the department and for the secondible pa, if you get questions in writing, we would approve appreciate a prompt response. Thank you very much. And ill you may go now. Thank you for your time. Thank you, senator. Im going to have the panel come while i introduce you so i dont waste a lot of time. I welcome our second panel. Judge Michael Mukasey served as attorney general under president george w. Bush. He was also a u. S. District court judge in new york. He is now a partner at the law firm of debavouse and plimpton. Hilary sheldon is the Washington Bureau director and Senior Vice President for policy and advocacy for the naacp, one of the leading civil rights organizations in the United States. Craig deroche is an executive director, justice friendship and Senior Vice President of christian prisoner ministries. Debi campbell is a member of families against mandatory minimums and served 16 years in prison for crimes related to the distribution of meth. Steven cook, president , National Association, assistant u. S. Attorneys, and is testifying today in that capacity. He is also an assistant u. S. Attorney, tennessee. Marc mauer, executive director, the sentencing project, and one of the countrys experts on sentencing policy, race, and criminal Justice System. Heather macdonald is a thomas w. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute for policy research and a contributing editor in at city journal. She has written widely on criminal Justice Reform, policing, racial profiling, and race relations. Brett tollmman is a former u. S. Attorney and former chief council for crime and terrorism subkeb of this subcommittee. Easy a shareholder at the law firm of ray quinny and nebekker. I would like to personally extend my thanks to mr. Tolman because he had to rearrange his schedule so that he could testify today. Normally im pretty darn lenient on how long people run over five minutes, but i would like to im not going to cut you off in the middle of a sentence, but i hope maybe after if you go one minute ill wrap the gavel and you will stop. Go ahead general mukasey. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im grateful to the chairman and the Ranking Member and the rest of the committee. Ive submitted a written statement that institutes my testimony here. And im not going to burden neither the committee nor the record by repeating it. Its easily summarized. I think that sentencing is a matter not only for judges but for the political branches as well, including particularly the congress. And that i think this bill achieves the proper balance by preserving mandatory minimums where they are necessary and yet increasing the flexibility with which judges can approach sentencing. I think the principle measure the success of my system is not the incarceration rate, its the crime rate. That has to be watched carefully. Finally with respect to retroactivity, i was relieved to hear it is the departments position that the position of the government on retroactivity is going to be set in each district by the prosecutors in that district where the case was originally brought and decided of course by the sentencing judge applying all of the standards that are set forth in 35503a of title 15, the appropriate sentencing consideration in addition to the record of each defendant while incarcerated so as to assure we dont make any mistakes. With that, if the committee has any questions, im happy to answer them. Well, you are done already . Mr. Shelton. Perhaps he could yield the duration of his time. Good afternoon chairman, Ranking Members, and members of the esteemed committee. I appreciate the ability to i pro with you the thoughts and opinions of the naacp. Im hilary shelton. Our nations criminal Justice System of which sentencing policy is an integral part is not working. Despite the fact that americans are being discriminated at high rates we are not seeing an equivalent drop in crime. Too many people are being locked up for too long over nonviolent offenses and they are not getting the support they need to become protective members of sort either in prison or once they are released. Furthermore, the Racial Disparities which exists among people who come into quack our criminal Justice System as led whole communities as well as many others throughout our nation to lose faith that the system is fair and unbiased. Too Many Americans are being convinced that the justice is not blind when it comes to race and ethnicity. 2. 2 Million People currently in our prisons or jails, approximately 1 of every 110 adults are longed up in america today. Today more more than 205,000 people in prison alone. A growth of almost 800 since 1980 when changes in our sentencing laws began to be enacted. Too many of those in jails are incarcerated for nonviolent offenses. The rapid increase in incarceration is especially disturbing to the naacp since more than 60 of men and women currently ins cars rated today are racial and ethnic minorities. For africanamerican males in their 30s one in every ten is in prison or jail on any given day. Despite making up the 13 of our nations overall population africanamerican comprise 30 of offenders convicted of an offense of carrying a mandatory minimum sentence in 2014. The question as to why racial and ethnic minor it is is overrepresented among those incarcerated is complicated. The naacp is committed to reducing the number of those incarcerated. Thus the naacp was pleased with the introduction of a 21223 the sentencing reforming act of 2015 occurred. It address some of the prominent flaws in our sentencing system today. And it speaks to the overwhelming severity of the problem and acknowledgment by all that something must be done. Specific language supported by the naacp include a reform of mandatory drug sentences for prior felonies including three strikes you are out. A broadening of the existing safety valve and the creation of a second safety val. A Retroactive Application of the fair sentencing act. Juvenile record sealings and expungement. A prohibition on solitary confine men for juveniles and the right that they establish procedures for background checks. The naacp feels the act is a good start yet more can be done to reform the system. We look forward to enact additional sentencing reform, including wed like to see an addressing of all mandatory minimum sentences. An increased use of evidencebased sentencing alternatives, including drug, veteran, and Mental Health courts. A concentration on using prison space for career and violent criminals, reducing recidivism through education and with job training opportunities for prisoners, this includes restoring eligibility for prisoners among other steps. Endeath reports by congress to the department of justice to the extent on which reforms have addressed overincarceration and Racial Disparities. Allow me to conclude my sharing with you one anecdote of an individual who will be helped by this legislation. Mr. Alton mills has served 22 years of a mandatory life sentence for enacting as a street level courier in a crack cocaine conspiracy. At his 1994 sentencing the federal prosecutor conceded that the thrust of the evidence against mills was that mills did whatever the drug ring leaders told him to do. Prior to his federal life sentence, mr. Mills had never spend a single day in prison. He received a mandatory life sentence only because the prosecutor contended mr. Mills two prior probation sentences for simple crack possession involving less than five grams on each occasion warranted a mandatory lifetime imprisonment. Mr. Mills sentence was particularly harsh because every person above him in the drug conspiracy will be released from prison by 2020, before him. Unable to apply his discretion at the 1994 sentencing the federal judge called the sentence farcical and drooul cruel and unusual, with no avenues for legislative or judicial relief mr. Millss only hope at that point is columnentsy. S 2123 would render mr. Mills eligible for a petition for a reduction in his sentence which would lead to his release from prison in the near future it is our hope. Mr. Mills case is one example of our problems with our Current Systems and policies. The naacp is pleased to work with this committee and produce and enact legislation to abate and eventually end the injustices that plague our system today. Mr. Chairman, i thank the committee again for inviting me here today and stand ready to answer your questions. Thank you mr. Deroche. Thank you mr. Chairman, Ranking Member leahy and the member of this committee for the ability to testify about the significant criminal justice legislation you will be considering. Im privileged to speak in my capacity as the advocacy arm of prison friendship. The bipartisanship of this act represents our Faith Community which has long advocated for a more restorative approach to crime and punishment. Our foun