[House Hearing, 115 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM AND EFFORTS TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JUNE 28, 2017 __________ Serial No. 115-28 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov http://oversight.house.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 26-561 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Darrell E. Issa, California Ranking Minority Member Jim Jordan, Ohio Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Justin Amash, Michigan Columbia Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Jim Cooper, Tennessee Blake Farenthold, Texas Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Thomas Massie, Kentucky Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Mark Meadows, North Carolina Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey Ron DeSantis, Florida Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands Dennis A. Ross, Florida Val Butler Demings, Florida Mark Walker, North Carolina Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Rod Blum, Iowa Jamie Raskin, Maryland Jody B. Hice, Georgia Peter Welch, Vermont Steve Russell, Oklahoma Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Mark DeSaulnier, California Will Hurd, Texas John Sarbanes, Maryland Gary J. Palmer, Alabama James Comer, Kentucky Paul Mitchell, Michigan Greg Gianforte, Montana Sheria Clarke, Staff Director William McKenna General Counsel Sean Brebbia, Senior Counsel Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on June 28, 2017.................................... 1 WITNESSES The Hon. Tim Scott, Senator from South Carolina Oral Statement............................................... 1 The Hon. Cory A. Booker, Senator from New Jersey Oral Statement............................................... 4 ............................................................. Mr. Bryan P. Stirling, Director, Department of Corrections, South Carolina Oral Statement............................................... 14 Written Statement............................................ 17 Pastor Omar Jahwar, Founder and CEO, Urban Specialists Oral Statement............................................... 92 Written Statement............................................ 94 Mr. William C. McGahan, Chairman, Georgia Works! Oral Statement............................................... 99 Written Statement............................................ 101 The Hon. Alexander Williams, Jr., Center for Education, Justice and Ethics, University of Maryland Oral Statement............................................... 104 Written Statement............................................ 106 APPENDIX July 13, 2016, CNN ``Black Senator Describes Facing Unfair Scrutiny by Police'' submitted by Ms. Norton................... 140 Representative Elijah E. Cummings Statement...................... 142 Letter of June 28, 2017, from Justice Roundtable, submitted by Mr. Connolly................................................... 144 Letter of June 27, 2017, from Families Against Mandatory Minimums, submitted by Mr. Connolly............................ 149 Letter of June 28, 2017, from The Sentencing Project, submitted by Mr. Connolly................................................ 151 CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM AND EFFORTS TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM ---------- Wednesday, June 28, 2017 House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Washington, DC The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:03 p.m., in Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trey Gowdy [chairman of the committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Gowdy, Duncan, Jordan, Amash, Gosar, Foxx, Massie, Meadows, Ross, Walker, Blum, Hice, Grothman, Hurd, Palmer, Comer, Mitchell, Maloney, Norton, Clay, Lynch, Connolly, Kelly, Lawrence, Watson Coleman, Plaskett, Demings, Krishnamoorthi, Welch, and DeSaulnier. Chairman Gowdy. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will come to order. This is a hearing on criminal justice reform and efforts to reduce recidivism. We are pleased to have two of our friends from the other side of the Capitol, and my friend from Virginia has graciously agreed to defer his opening statement so we can hear from you first. It is my pleasure to introduce first the Senator from South Carolina, and then the gentle lady from New Jersey will introduce Senator Booker. Senator Scott was sworn into the U.S. Senate in January 2013 and has been a strong advocate for smart, effective criminal justice reform. He has supported a variety of criminal justice reform legislative initiatives and has launched his Opportunity Agenda, which is a new way forward that includes robust initiatives to give our students and workers a chance to succeed. Senator Scott, on a personal note, I want to thank you for everything you have done in this realm in South Carolina. It is not something we are often asked about back home, criminal justice reform, and for you to take a leadership role on this to both elevate it to a higher level of public consciousness and to advocate for it says a lot about your commitment to it and your character. With that, you are recognized; and then we will go to Ms. Watson Coleman for Senator Booker. WITNESS STATEMENTS STATEMENT OF TIM SCOTT Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and to the members of the committee, it is good to be back on the upper side of the chamber. Thank you very much for allowing me to come back. It is good to see old friends that I had the privilege of serving with, particularly my friend Ms. Norton on the Rules Committee. We enjoyed our long hours working through the wonders of committee life in the House. I would also like to say to Chairman Gowdy congratulations on your chairmanship, and I am certain that you will make America proud as you search for the truth, wherever it may take us. I want to thank Senator Booker, who has been my friend and champion on a number of issues that we have both championed together, from my Opportunity Agenda, from working on ways to reinvest in distressed communities, to criminal justice reform, to apprenticeship programs. He has been a true champion for the people on a number of initiatives that go far beyond my agenda, and it is good to have him here with us today. Criminal justice reform is a critical topic facing our nation as a whole. Today's hearing is focused on recidivism and reentry programs, and I would like to spend a few minutes on a broader topic first, the topic of incarceration as a whole. What is the best way for us to reduce recidivism? To ensure people from all walks of life and from every single community have access to opportunity. For too many, and specifically communities of color, this is simply not the case. The poverty rate among blacks and Hispanic Americans is between two and three times higher than the majority population. Nearly a quarter of the children who live in poverty do not graduate from high school, compared to just 6 percent of those kids who never lived in poverty. Seventy-eight percent of those in prison do not have post-secondary education. They did not graduate from high school. What does that mean? In 2010, a person who did not graduate from high school had an income of around $19,000. The person who graduated from high school had an income of around $28,000. Graduated from college? Fifty-two thousand dollars. Black and Hispanic dropout rates are consistently higher from 1963 to the year 2012. The annual black unemployment rate for this nation was around 11.6 percent. To put that in perspective, during all the recessions that happened during those 50 years or so, the average unemployment rate for the entire nation was around 6.7 percent. Very different patterns. More black and brown children grow up in poverty. More do not graduate from high school. More earn less and are oftentimes employed less. As you, Chairman, and so many others have heard my story as a kid growing up in a single-parent household who flunked out of high school as a freshman, I understand intimately and personally what these statistics translate to in the real world. It translates into a pipeline that too often leads to incarceration, a pipeline that too often leads to low expectation of oneself, and a pipeline that too often reinforces the negative stereotypes that are pervasive in our society. And the impact that it has on the human condition is tremendous, and it is consistently negative. I believe that those are some of the reasons why black men, men like myself, are incarcerated at a rate six times higher than men that look like you. This is an epidemic that we have to wrestle with as a nation, as one American family working together to find solutions that work for everyone in every place, no matter where they started. The concept of opportunity as a solution for incarceration is something that is real, it is measureable, and it is something that I have lived, thankfully, through. While we must find ways to promote and lower recidivism rates, I want us to continue to focus on opportunity, improving our education system, encouraging entrepreneurs and small business owners to grow and invest in low-income communities. This can solve a lot of problems and specifically prevent the conversation of recidivism. I have had an opportunity to sit down with quite a few organizations to talk about reducing recidivism. I visited a few state prisons in South Carolina with Bryan Stirling, who I am happy to see, the Director of our Corrections Institute, will be on the next panel. One such program I visited is called Turning Leaf, located in Charleston, South Carolina, run by Amy Barch. She has a recidivism rate of 18 percent, when our national average is closer to 70 percent, and she deals with only the most difficult inmates. Another program is called Proverbs 22:6, which works throughout both South Carolina and North Carolina to help reconnect inmates with their families. My chief of staff and I visited both Kershaw and Lee County correctional facilities with Proverbs 22:6 founder Cyril Prabhu, and what we experienced that day was the reconnection of inmates with their children with a program that transforms the life of the inmate and gives him a reason to believe that the future can be different. To watch the reunification of family after we served them lunch and spent a couple of hours talking with them was one of the most moving experiences I have had in my life, and I understood why the success of the recidivism program Proverbs 22:6 has been so powerful in the lives of these inmates. Here is a statistic that we should pay attention to, and this is why Proverbs 22:6 is so important: 82 percent probability for a child whose parent is in prison to end up in prison. Let me say that one more time. If a child has a parent in prison today, there is an 82 percent probability that that child will end up in prison. Working to reconnect families is one of the ways that we can reduce recidivism. What is the recidivism rate for the Proverbs 22:6 program? Six percent. Six percent. Since 2012, the number of children in the program has gone from 800 to 5,000 children whose parents are incarcerated in 10 different prisons. I was in California last weekend meeting with programs in California, the Bridge Academy, that basically fills the gap. So they do not replicate any existing programs. They simply connect not the inmate but the entire family to the programs and resources that are already available. They make them aware of them, they make sure they attend, and through an 18-month process their recidivism rate is zero. There are ways for us to improve public safety, reduce recidivism, and restore families and the American Dream for people who have lost hope. I look forward to the national debate that must continue on this very important topic. I know that I am running out of time. As you know, we in the Senate cannot necessarily tell 5 minutes of time. We anticipate that you will give us 10 minutes or an hour. That might be too long. Let me just say that your commitment, Mr. Chairman, the committee's willingness to hear the testimonies, ask questions, is a very important part of what we can do to help restore the American Dream for so many people in so many dark places that have lost hope. I want to thank you again for holding this important hearing. My door will remain open to work with anyone from anywhere at any time to address this very important issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gowdy. Thank you, Senator Scott. We will now recognize Ms. Watson Coleman from New Jersey to introduce our friend, Senator Booker. Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Chairman, and congratulations on your appointment. I look forward to working with you in a bipartisan way on issues as important as this. Welcome, Senator Scott. It is good to see you, and it is my pleasure today to introduce my friend and fellow New Jerseyan, Senator Cory Booker. Senator Booker was elected to the United States Senate in 2013 and since then has established himself as an ally for what is right. As an innovative and bipartisan problem-solver, Senator Booker is committed to developing collaborative solutions that address some of our most complex challenges. He has fought for New Jersey resources, whether it is for Super Storm Sandy victims, the transportation system, or just to keep our community safe. He has been actively engaged in the pursuit of justice and opportunity for our citizens, particularly those who have been incarcerated and for whom we expect a second chance. As a member of the State Legislature, I worked with then- Mayor Cory Booker on many initiatives around criminal justice reform and second-chance opportunities, and I have witnessed his steadfast commitment to those issues here in the Senate. So it is a proud day for me to be able to recognize him, to welcome him to OGR, and to give him this opportunity to share his thoughts and his vision to this end. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman Gowdy. Senator Booker? STATEMENT OF CORY BOOKER Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, please know that this is a moment for me that I could not have dreamed of, that Bonnie Watson Coleman and I, when we were just local politicians, never imagined that she and I would be in the Capitol together serving as congress people together, and it is an honor to have that privilege, and I thank you for affording me that. Mr. Gowdy, I just want to put it out there right away, you have been a gentleman, somebody of honor in working with me on these issues. I have come to have a deep respect for you, and you are somebody who I now have on speed dial and have been just grateful for your interest in this issue and your willingness to work so hard on it. Please allow me a moment just to say my prayers are with Elijah Cummings. He is recovering, I know. There is no physical ailment that is tougher than he is, and I look forward to seeing him back in the chair. But, Mr. Connolly, I am grateful that you are standing in his place. I want this committee to know about my personal experiences. I grew up in an incredibly nice town in the Northern New Jersey suburbs as a result of blacks and whites, Republicans and Democrats who actually came together and fought for my family to be the first black family to move into town. We had to get a sting operation and have two white people pose as my parents after they were told the house was sold to actually get the house. On the day of the closing, the white couple did not show up. My father did, and a volunteer lawyer named Marty Freidman, the real estate agent, attacked my father's lawyer, put a dog on my dad after a whole bunch of legal rigmarole. We were able to get access to this town and become, as my father affectionately called us, the four raisins in a tub of sweet vanilla ice cream. [Laughter.] Senator Booker. I grew up in this town--a town of affluence, this town of incredible opportunity and incredible public schools--until I was 18 years old, went off to Stanford University, Oxford University, Yale University, to the point where my father's frustration told me, boy, you have more degrees than the month of July, but you ain't hot. You have to do something for your country. I made a decision at that point to move, really following the calling of a great American prophet. Some of you may have studied him in graduate school, Chris Rock. I moved onto the south end of Martin Luther King Boulevard. Chris Rock says why is it that often the most violent street in many cities is named for the man that stood for non-violence? Martin Luther King Boulevard in Newark actually is a great testimony to King, even in the 1990s when I first moved there, with some of the greatest educational institutions New Jersey has. But the south end of that street was in very difficult shape. It has been 20-plus years. I still live in that neighborhood. I have 99 colleagues--it sounds like the beginning of a rap song, but I have 99 colleagues, and I will tell you this, I might be the only one that lives in a community that is below the poverty line. The median income is $14,000 per household. It is a black, mostly black, majority black, black and Latino inner city. And I sit here with passion to the folks before me to let you know that I have witnessed this country's failure to live up to its promise that is written on the Supreme Court wall that says ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' I have seen with my own eyes, experienced with my own friends, there is no difference in America between blacks and whites and Latinos and Asians in drug use, no difference whatsoever. When I was at Stanford's campus there was a whole lot of drug use going on, but the drug laws in this country are enforced disproportionately against people of color. If you are black in America, you are almost four times more likely to be arrested for using marijuana, for using more serious drugs, or for dealing them. And I say this in the beginning of my remarks to make this understanding that there is something seriously wrong in this country that we have gone so far off the rails that we have defined ourselves as the greatest civilization in all of humanity for locking up its own people disproportionately for non-violent drug crimes, often for crimes that two of the last three presidents admitted to doing. Remember, they did not talk about just some marijuana usage. It was felony drug use and drug possession. And what hurts me is that while we as a nation were disinvesting in our infrastructure--remember, we inherited from our grandparents the greatest infrastructure on the planet Earth. The World Economic Forum in my daddy's age ranked the infrastructure of the United States the number-one in the world. Now the World Economic Forum ranks us out of the top 10. But there is one area--and I have traveled around the globe, like many of you have. There is one area that even leaders in other countries stopped and asked me about that we have built our infrastructure in that puts the rest of the world to shame. Between the time I was in law school and the time I became Mayor of Newark, New Jersey, we in this country were building a new prison every 10 days, hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars, incentivized by us here in the Federal Government to build out the largest prison industrial complex on the planet Earth and to imprison more people within our country than humanity has ever seen, 4 percent of the globe's population, one out of every five imprisoned people on the planet Earth. And the people we imprison is stunning. We take the most vulnerable people in our population, not the privileged who grew up in places like my home town, or the people who go to Stanford and Oxford and Yale, who use drugs at the same rates, but we imprison the most vulnerable. Overwhelmingly, we imprison the poor. Overwhelmingly, we imprison the mentally ill. Overwhelmingly, we imprison the addicted. Overwhelmingly or disproportionately--excuse me--we imprison people of color. And it was startling for me, jarring for me, having lived 20 years in places of privilege and 20 years in my phenomenal city, to see how the criminal justice system is tearing apart communities, enforcing poverty. There is a college study that came out, a university study that came out that said the United States of America would have 20 percent less poverty, 20 percent less poverty today if we had incarceration rates just like our industrial peers. In fact, we know why. The American Bar Association points it out. Because that 17-year-old kid caught in Newark, New Jersey for doing things that maybe a third of Congress has done, who pleads to a felony count--and, by the way, our criminal justice system is no longer--and you know this, Mr. Chairman--is no longer juries, no longer judges. Ninety-eight percent of our criminal convictions are now done by plea bargain. So a kid who is now facing mandatory minimums stacked on top of each other versus taking a plea and getting right out of jail, now that 17-year-old faces, according to the American Bar Association, 40,000 collateral consequences, cannot get a Pell Grant, cannot get a business license, cannot get a job, cannot get food stamps, cannot get public housing, in many places cannot vote. So we have a system now that is so broken that it has nothing to do with the ideals we hail of liberty and justice, and that is what frustrates me, because now I found partnerships with people all across the political spectrum who understand that this is an American shame. I never thought when I came to Washington that the Koch Brothers' general counsel would become a dear friend of mine, Mark Holden, because of our partnership on these issues; that Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, Christian evangelical leaders across the country, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, even the other bald black guy in the Senate, Tim Scott. We are united in this cause to see that this is one of the great shames in our country, and it is crushing communities like the one in which I live, like the one in which the congresswoman is from. And if there is injustice that Langston Hughes called what happens to a dream deferred, what happens when certain communities do not benefit from the liberties and the ideals of this country in ways that they themselves begin to lose faith in the promise of America? I will tell you this: I was in yet another Federal lockup. It was a women's prison in Connecticut, just last month, and I walked in and I asked the warden, this strong, great leader, I asked her what percentage of the women in this prison have been victims of sexual trauma, of sexual assault, of violence? And this warden turns to me and says about 95 percent of the women are victims of sexual assault. I visited a Federal prison in New Jersey and I asked the warden there how many folks here have been here too long, are no threat to our society, our taxpayers are wasting their dollars on, and he just started laughing. He said, Cory, too many to count. You see, we have lost our way. It is not like we are looking for restorative justice. It is not like we are looking for the ideals of this country. Our criminal justice system is built up for retribution. And the beauty of this moment in American history is that there are enough examples--you heard them from Senator Scott--that show us a different way. We see state after state demonstrating the truth. We can actually make our states safer. Public safety should be number one. There are ways to make our states safer, save taxpayer dollars, elevate human potential, take care of the weak, and drive what we should be driving toward in the society, where we give our children more solid ground on which to thrive. So in the United States Senate, I am proud that we cobbled together a bill. Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin together on a bill, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz and myself and Senator Whitehouse together on a bill. What worries me is that my colleague, a man whose character I have never maligned, a man, Jeff Sessions, who served with dignity, a man who I stood with and gave medals with to the marchers on the Edmund Pettis Bridge, that on this issue he is so wrong. He wrote recently that we should turn back the reforms we were starting to make in the Justice Department, and that we should go back to punitive sentencing, the most harsh possible. Well, that will cost taxpayer money. That will not be a pursuit of justice. It may be law and order, but everyone here who loves and savors democracy has seen enough totalitarian states establish law and order but lack justice. So I call upon this committee, my brothers and sisters who savor liberty as much as I do, who love this country and her ideals as much, if not more, than I do, let us not let this dream be deferred in our country any longer. I want to tell you right now that there is the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, but there are other things as well. I had my first-ever bipartisan, bicameral bill done with this committee. Elijah Cummings and Darrel Issa joined me and Ron Johnson in the Senate on just a simple step. We reintroduced the bipartisan Fair Chance Act, a bill that would make a dramatic difference in just someone coming out of prison getting a job. We call them Ban the Box bills that have been done all across this nation, so-called Red States, so-called Blue States. In fact, Walmart, Home Depot, Starbucks have all done this. But the biggest employer in our country, the Federal Government and its contractors, has not done this. This is about making sure that it is striking the right balance. It is a bill that allows returning citizens to get their foot in the door and be fairly considered for jobs, while allowing employers to know who they are hiring. There are so many brilliant ideas out there. Senator Scott pointed them out. We did them in shoelaces and bubble gum in Newark where we showed that we can drive recidivism down, elevate human life, bring the wardens in from our Federal penitentiaries. The ones who I have gone around and talked to all know what we are doing is terribly wrong, all know commonsense things that we can do to make it right. So I encourage this committee. The worst type of privilege in America, the most insidious type of privilege, is to know that there is a serious problem out there that is tearing apart communities, that is hurting Americans. The most insidious type of privilege is knowing that there is a serious cause out there but it does not affect me or my family, and therefore it is not that important or urgent. The biggest cancer on the soul of our country right now is the American criminal justice system, and we can make it right. I want to end again with Langston Hughes. He said very simply that there is a dream in this land with its back against the wall. To save the dream for one, we must save the dream for all. I do not know what Leader McConnell's plans are this week, but I will probably be going back to Newark on Thursday evening. On my block there are incredible kids, kids with the same amount of genius and potential--in fact, more so--than I had growing up in a very different community. It is hurtful that I know the percentages for those children. If you are black born in America today, you have a one in three chance of going to prison. That is a stunning statistic. And even worse than that, if you are a black kid in America-- you heard the data--your chances of having an adult in prison, a parent in prison, is dramatic. In fact, for all kids it is one in 28 of your children right now have a parent that has served in prison. This is not the America for which we dream. This is the dream with its back against the wall. We can do something about this. We must do something about this, and I know my colleagues, with a sense of urgency and patriotism and, dear God, with a sense of love, I know this Congress in this bipartisan way, that we the people can change our country and make, as my dear brother says in Bible study, we can make justice roll down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream. Thank you. Chairman Gowdy. On behalf of all of us, we want to thank Senator Scott and Senator Booker not just for your public passion but also for your private commitment that has demonstrated itself over the course of the last several years. So, thank you. We will stand in recess ---- Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman? Chairman Gowdy. Yes, ma'am? Ms. Norton. A point of personal privilege. I would like something to be entered into the record. I want to thank both senators for coming. Senator Tim Scott never spoke of an incident or incidents that are relevant to this hearing because that is typical of him not to speak of something that is relevant that relates to him even though it relates to everyone else. And I am going to ask to be put into the record an article from CNN.com, ``Black Senator Describes Facing Unfair Scrutiny by Police,'' where Senator Tim Scott did something that he said was the most difficult when he gave a speech because it was the most personal. He described how he had been stopped seven times by law enforcement here, I believe, in the District, on Capitol Hill. It was my friend, Mr. Clay, who brought this to my attention. He said but the vast majority of the time I was pulled over for nothing more than driving a new car in the wrong neighborhood or some other reason just as trivial. Mr. Scott has been pulled over for stealing the car, accused of stealing the car he was driving in. He described the plight of a former staffer who sold his ``nice car'' because he was so tired of being targeted by suspicious police. In the same speech on the Senate floor, Senator Scott praised the police for the dangerous lives they lived and complimented them on the work they do. That is the kind of man Senator Tim Scott is, and I ask that that be put into the record. Chairman Gowdy. Without objection, and obviously I agree with everything you said, Ms. Holmes Norton. I think he is planning on including that in his memoir, and so he was hoping that you would buy the book and read those stories as opposed to doing it in a newspaper article. Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman? Chairman Gowdy. Yes, sir. Mr. Connolly. I just want to thank our two witnesses. I have not heard more eloquent statements, and bipartisan, about our criminal justice system and its many failures and the consequences in human lives, and the scar on our country. I want to thank you both because I think it is a great way to begin this hearing. Thank you. Chairman Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. They called votes. Thank both of you. We will be in recess, subject to the call of the Chair. [Recess.] Chairman Gowdy. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will reconvene. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses at any time. I want to thank our four witnesses for your patience with our vote series. The gentleman from Virginia and I will give our opening statements, and we will recognize each of you for your opening statements, and then we will start the questioning. This hearing is on one aspect of our criminal justice system. I want to say another thank you to our two senators who were with us, and I want to thank two people who are not with us today. One is Elijah Cummings, for his commitment to criminal justice reform, which is a commitment that has spanned three decades. Mr. Cummings and I have spoken about today's hearing several times, and he very much wanted to be here. He will be back soon, and we will continue to explore this topic particularly within the jurisdiction of intergovernmental cooperation. I also want to thank Bob Goodlatte, who is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Criminal justice reform is ostensibly an issue within the jurisdiction of that committee. Chairman Goodlatte has been very gracious and accommodating in allowing us to go forward even as he and his committee do the very same. And the reason is there are at least two committees in the House that are exploring our criminal justice system, because it is so vital to the strength and longevity of our republic. Our justice system must be both respected and worthy of respect. Our justice system must both be fair in reality and perceived as fair. Our justice system must be proportional. It must protect the innocents. It must punish those who have not conformed to societal norms, with those societal norms being reflected and codified in our law. Fair, evenhanded, proportional, just, equal in intent and application. Those are not merely aspirations, those are expectations. They are our expectations for the world's most envied justice system. I guess ``blind'' is the word that most of us use to associate with justice. Justice is blind. It is blind to race. It is blind to gender. It is blind to status. It is blind to wealth. It is blind to everything other than the merits of the relative arguments. In reality, Lady Justice, who is the mythological personification of our aspirations and expectations, is not blind. She is blindfolded. She can see. She just affirmatively chooses not to see who or what is before her. That is really hard. That requires discipline. It requires restraint. Lady Justice may not look, but that should not keep us from doing so to make sure that our justice system is as perfect as mortals can make something. A significant percentage of our fellow citizens have some criminal history. And the overwhelming majority of those currently incarcerated will be released from confinement when the sentence is completed. What do we do when the sentences imposed have been served, the debt to society paid, the offender is reentering society? There are familial obligations to be met. There are societal obligations to be met. There may well be restitution owed to the victims of the previous conduct. And what we owe most to the victims is to lower the chance that they will be victims again. It is in all of our interests these reentries be successful. It is in all of our interests these transitions back into society are successful. Those leaving incarceration for reentry will often find society has changed, sometimes dramatically. There will be educational deficits and skills deficits in addition to the challenge of overcoming the stigma of a conviction. Our penal system has several aspects to it. There is a punishment aspect. There is a separation from society aspect. There is also a rehabilitation aspect, a restoration, if you will, a correction. We ask the prisons at both the state and Federal level to do a lot of things. And as I tell one of our witnesses who is my friend and the Director of the Department of Corrections in South Carolina, Bryan Stirling, he has the hardest job in all of law enforcement. Keep those confined who are supposed to be confined. Protect the safety of the women and men working in the prisons. Protect the safety of other inmates. Provide health care, meals, and make sure those incarcerated are ready for reentry. And, oh, by the way, you will only make the news if something goes wrong or if there is an escape. Today is not about what has gone wrong or escapes. It is about hearing what works with respect to reentry, and it is about hearing how we can best serve the broader society by lowering recidivism. The lower the recidivism rate, the fewer the victims there are. The lower the recidivism rate, the lower the cost to society. Tim Scott is not with us right now, but I want to say what I said about him earlier. It is not easy to talk about criminal justice reform back home. We are, frankly, not asked about it a lot. So for him, it is the dual challenge of both elevating an issue to the level of public consciousness and then addressing the merits in a respectful way. It takes courage to do that, and we are lucky that Tim has that in abundance. And I will say this on behalf of Senator Booker, who was with us earlier: he not only talks about criminal justice reform in open congressional hearings, he talks about it at corner tables of restaurants with no one else around. He talks about it in private conversations when there is no attention to be had. He even talks about it with people with whom he may not agree on any other issue, which demonstrates a level of commitment that is necessary to effectuate change. There is nothing more disheartening than to hear our fellow citizens express distrust or disrespect for our justice system. When all the other institutions of society are challenged, the justice system should be the one that we can run to. To paraphrase from an old hymn, the ground at the foot of the courthouse is level. We should have confidence in the justice process from the moment we enter the courthouse until the debt is paid and the correction is complete. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on how we can help those reentering society, what works, what does not work, and how we can bolster confidence in this realm of our justice system. And with that, I will recognize my friend from Virginia. Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me congratulate you and welcome you in your debut as our new chairman. I think speaking for all of the Democrats, we look forward to working with you and trying to find common ground as much as we can. Parenthetically, let me make a note, however. House Rule 10, Clause 4, authorizes this committee to, quote, ``at any time, to conduct investigations on any matter without regard to the jurisdiction of another standing committee.'' Under the Obama Administration, God knows, this committee never hesitated to exercise its proud authority, from Operation Fast and Furious to Benghazi--by the way, we even sent the retiring chairman to Libya on the Benghazi investigation by this committee--the IRS, or Secretary Clinton's emails. We conducted these investigations while there were parallel, ongoing criminal investigations in some cases, and when other committees had full-blown investigations that were overlapping jurisdictional authority. I do not think this committee can unilaterally give up its oversight responsibilities with respect to the Russia thing, conflicts of interest, or any other matter involving a new administration that may come to its attention. Oversight is not a matter of our personal or political preferences. It is a constitutional and institutional duty. Having said that, turning to the subject at hand, I want to acknowledge what the Chairman just did, our ranking member. He has been a leader on this issue. This is a passion for him about criminal justice reform. He sends his regrets but he is recovering nicely and he will be back with us, we hope, after the recess in July. The Chairman was gracious enough to schedule a second hearing, which would then allow Ranking Member Cummings, obviously, to participate. From my point of view, there are four key principles that ought to guide our efforts to ensure that punishments fit the crime and that ex-offenders have a real chance to turn their lives around. First, as Ranking Member Cummings has written, we must acknowledge ``that each person's ability to be self-sufficient in a law-abiding way is a core pillar of public safety. Expanded educational and economic opportunity will make us not only more prosperous but safer as a society.'' Not surprisingly, lack of education and opportunity will significantly increase the risk of imprisonment, as we heard from our two colleagues in the U.S. Senate. An African American man without a high school diploma has a nearly 70 percent chance of being imprisoned sometime in his mid-30s. In some states, more is being spent on prisons than on higher education. The President's 2018 budget initiates a unilateral retreat on public funding for education, unfortunately. It cuts the Department of Education by $9.2 billion, or 14 percent. It eliminates teacher instruction grants; enrichment and remediation programs that provide extended learning time; the public student loan forgiveness program, which helps our teachers, firefighters, and public servants repay student loans; raids the Pell Grant program and ends Federally- subsidized student loans. These cuts will hurt our ability to fight crime by creating economic and educational opportunities. Second, we should not fill our prisons with non-violent drug offenders who are no threat to the safety and well-being of our communities. When mandatory minimum sentences force judges to sentence non-violent offenders, in some cases for decades, they not only lose their livelihoods, their children and communities bear a devastating loss as well, and we heard that kind of testimony from our two colleagues in the Senate earlier. Alternatives to detention like the Veterans Treatment Docket, which I helped work with my local court in Fairfax County, have demonstrated success diverting individuals into community-based rehab programs, as opposed to automatic, rigid jail sentences. Third, we must ensure that once individuals have served out their sentences, they truly have a second chance to get back on their feet. Too often, post-release restrictions leave men and women with few opportunities to provide for themselves and their families. I commend my own governor in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, for actively restoring the fundamental right to vote for 156,000 ex-offenders in Virginia. He personally signed the orders restoring those rights for every one of those people. I hope Virginia can be a model for other states to remove impediments that punish ex-offenders long after they have served their debt to society. Finally, we must acknowledge that our criminal justice system has disproportionately had an impact on Americans of color. African American men are more than six times as likely as white men to be incarcerated. Approximately 37 percent of the men in state and Federal prisons are African American men, even though the African American population is 13 percent of our total population. Recognizing the devastating impact of policies like mandatory minimums on entire communities, the Obama Administration worked to give prosecutors more discretion on charging decisions and to commute the sentences of non-violent drug offenders. Unfortunately, our new attorney general, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, seems to want to turn back the clock on policies we feel failed in the past and reimpose the imposition of extreme sentences for low-level and non-violent crimes. From what he labels being ``soft on sentencing,'' the Attorney General has argued for so-called time-tested criminal justice practices. The reality is that mandatory minimums and other harsh measures have been tested, and they have failed. The Trump Administration's budget would also slash the Bureau of Prisons, ironically, by a billion dollars, exacerbating overcrowding, eliminating nearly 2,000 prison guards and 6,000 administrative staff, which I think could jeopardize the physical safety of both guards and inmates. We do not have to choose between being just or compassionate. Smart policies, like those we heard advocated for a little earlier in this hearing from our two senators and by Congressman Cummings and others on this committee, allow us to do both. We can take immediate positive steps for exactly that kind of bipartisan reform. Ranking Member Cummings and Congressman Issa of our committee have a bipartisan, bicameral bill called the Fair Chance Act. It is within the committee's jurisdiction, and I hope we can mark it up in the near term in one of the markups planned by our new chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for considering the request. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and look forward to cooperating with you on this very important topic. Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Virginia yields back. We will hold the record open for five legislative days for any members who would like to submit a written statement. We will now recognize our second panel of witnesses. I will introduce you and administer the oath en banc, and then I will recognize you individually for your 5-minute opening statements. We are pleased to welcome Mr. Bryan Stirling, who is the Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Pastor Omar Jahwar--and if I mispronounce anyone's name, forgive me-- Founder and CEO of Urban Specialists; Mr. William McGahan, Chairman of Georgia Works!; and the Honorable Alexander Williams, Jr., former United States District Court Judge for the District of Maryland and currently at the Center for Education, Justice, and Ethics at the University of Maryland. I would ask all of you to please rise and let me administer an oath, pursuant to committee rules. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? May the record reflect all the witnesses answered in the affirmative. There is a clock or a color scheme that will alert you. Just keep in mind that all members have the full body of your opening statement, so to the extent that you can summarize it in 5 minutes, that will allow members more time for the question and answer session. With that ---- Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman? Chairman Gowdy. Yes, sir. Mr. Connolly. Sorry. Just a unanimous request. I should have asked earlier. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement by Elijah Cummings on this matter, and letters from Justice Roundtable, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, and the Sentencing Project, for the record. Chairman Gowdy. Without objection. Chairman Gowdy. With that, Director Stirling. STATEMENT OF BRYAN P. STIRLING Mr. Stirling. Chairman Gowdy--I am used to calling you Solicitor. But Chairman Gowdy, congratulations on your new position. Ranking Member Cummings, we wish you a speedy recovery. Other distinguished members, Mr. Lynch. My grandmother was actually born and raised for a time on Dent Street, so a lot of my family members are still your constituents to this day. Thank you all for this opportunity and your interest in criminal justice reform. As someone who has spent close to a decade in this arena, first as a Deputy Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, and now going on three-and-a-half years as the Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, it is encouraging that Congress is focused on improving outcomes in our criminal justice system. I would like to recognize two people that are with me today. First of all, behind me is Sandy Barrett. She is in charge of programs and services, a lot of the recidivism things. And then I have Warden Nena Staley of Manning Correctional. I am going to talk about her program in a little bit. Warden Staley is also, to brag a little bit-- Representative Duncan earlier talked about Clemson, the national championships. I want to talk about South Carolina's a little bit. She is sister-in-law with Dawn Staley, who is a national championship women's basketball coach at USC. I would also like to recognize Mike McCall. He has been a warden at several of our prisons around the state, at Lee and other places. He has done some great work with recidivism. And really I want to recognize all the correctional officers and staff from around the country, from South Carolina and around this nation who work really hard every day in very difficult environments, very under-appreciated, very stressful, in my state very understaffed, to keep us safe at night, and also to rehabilitate. I would like to give a quick overview of the South Carolina prison system. As of Monday, we had 20,256 folks incarcerated; 3,404 of those folks are mentally ill. That is 17 percent of our population. I am going to get back to the mentally ill in a little bit. That number is the lowest since 1997. I know there are some folks from Dew here. Senator Malloy in South Carolina and others on the Sentencing Reform Committee are responsible for that work. Representative Sanford actually signed that into law in 2010. In 2016 we admitted 8,798 offenders. We were down 30 percent from 2010. Our recidivism rate is almost at an all-time low of 23.1 percent. We have closed six prisons, and Pew has estimated that we have had a cost avoidance of $491 billion. We moved from 11th in incarceration per 100,000 to 20th. Our crime rate is down. A lot of the work that has gone into this has been done by Pew, Senator Malloy, Governor Sanford, the innovative programs that we have. I will say this: Justice Brandeis did write at one time that states are the laboratories for democracy. So some of the things I am going to say here may translate to the Federal system, and they may not. That will be up to the committee to look at in the future. One thing I always say, I look at it, is 85 and you. Eighty-five percent of the folks who are incarcerated serve under five years. So you have a choice, we have a choice as a state. I want you to think of a loved one, a family member. Who do you want sitting next to them at a coffee shop? Who do you want sitting next to them in church? Who do you want sitting next to them at school? Someone who has been warehoused for three to five years and fed three times a day and given constitutionally adequate medical care, or do you want someone who has been connected to their family, mental health treatment, has the skills, has a job, they know how to deal with anger issues and know how to perform as a citizen? That is a choice we have as a state. That is a choice we made in South Carolina. I think you are seeing the results of it now. A couple of programs. We do CIU, Columbia International University, associate arts degree. We have Northeastern Tech. We have a lot of jobs coming to South Carolina, a 4.1 percent unemployment rate, which makes it difficult to hire correctional officers, but it makes it really easy to get folks hired. SC Thrive. We try to hook people up with services when they leave. One of the things Governor Haley and Director Cheryl Stanton of DEW said to me is these folks are coming out, we need to get them jobs, jobs agency corrections, 900 people a month are leaving. So now our program at Dew--and I texted this to Chairman Gowdy earlier--people that go through that program, 75 percent after 18 months are still employed. It teaches employability skills, how to write a resume, how to explain incarceration, Federal bonding, Federal tax credits. Also, we have the Second Chance program where everybody that leaves the Department of Corrections under DEW is signed up. They know where their services are, they know where their office is. They also have an opportunity where a couple of days a week there is someone who knows how to interact with someone who has been incarcerated, because sometimes they are intimidated by the government process helping them find a job. We do WorkKeys, apprenticeships, on-the-job training, the YOA program, and I will be quick on this one because I see I am out of time. Seventeen to 25-year-olds, 50 percent were coming back to prison, 50 percent. It was a failure, and they were coming back for a lot longer. Judge William Byars, who is a judge, family court judge, took over corrections, and Ginny Barr are doing great work with this. The recidivism rate right now, they are held to a standard, is 22 percent. They have a mentor. It is not someone who is there to take them to prison. That is what law enforcement is for. What they do is they are mentors and they try to hook them up with services, but they do have graduated responses. One quick story, and I will leave on this. We had one young man who kept on getting in trouble, kept on getting in trouble. One of the requirements for the YOA program is to have a job. So we took him down to fill out an application, and we thought he had a literacy problem, thought he could not read. Well, he could not read because he could not see the paper. So we took him to a free clinic, we got him glasses, and we will never see him again, and he kept on getting in trouble because he could not read. I am happy to answer any questions, and I want to thank Governor Haley and Governor McMaster for the support they have given us. Governor Haley visited three or four prisons while she was there and really worked on workforce development, and she knew that these folks were getting out and that they needed the services when they left. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee members. [Prepared statement of Mr. Stirling follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Gowdy. Thank you, Director. Pastor Jahwar? STATEMENT OF OMAR JAHWAR Pastor Jahwar. First let me say thank you to Chairman Gowdy and to these representatives we have on this great committee, and for allowing us to testify to give voice to the work that we do. I do want to say to start that my son, Omar Jahwar, II, is here, and one of our great workers, Urban Specialists, Edward Loredo. I am saying this to my son so when he brags on me that he can be accurate that I did acknowledge him when I was in Congress. Twenty years ago I stood before a similar committee that was headed by then Chairman Henry Hyde and John Connors about the effective ways in deterring a child from becoming involved in criminal activity, and what we said then is that it is necessary to pursue the core of the problem. There were a number of variables that we said were the root of youth crime. Back then it was economic disparity, cultural insensitivity, and the lack of moral identity. But concerning intervention and reformation, I warned against using a blanket solution that isolates each category of dysfunction. An effective solution to youth crime requires an holistic approach, one that treats the entire individual and, in turn, the larger family, and then the community. Today, we are attempting to cure the poisonous fruit that grew from that untreated root. Twenty years later, these high-risk youth have become ex- offenders trying to raise families and re-integrate into a damaged society. The solution to their lack of production as citizens cannot be merely punitive, as we have been talking about, and I am so glad that you understand it. Again, it must be holistic. We must walk people getting out of prison through the process of redemption and lead them into productive citizenship. We attempt to train and we use what we call Urban Specialists to intentionally dive deep into the lives of these to transform the fundamental values that are guiding destructive behavior and degrading urban culture and greatly limiting their potential. We train and empower our organizations and businesses and individuals to collaboratively operate in the community, stimulating the economy and uplifting their personal spirits. Collectively, we can help each other economically, socially, and spiritually. In turn, we create change together to build a greater and stronger community. We use what we call a 3-I Model, and I will explain it if there are any questions about your model. And that model we use to empower organizations, businesses, politicians, and citizens so we can transform the urban culture. In Urban Specialists, we use this common approach to invade the culture, we are intrusive in our action, and build up strong community institutions. I am personally committed to advancing the cause of the voiceless who suffer silently in an attempt to become productive citizens of this great country. If there are ways that we can collectively ensure a better process and a better outcome, the Urban Specialists group is ready to serve. I want to say personally that I was the first gang specialist hired by the State of Texas. So for many years, I was working inside the prisons, and my job was to negotiate peace in prisons with men who were violent. And what I realized is that most of these men were not violent perpetually. They were violent as a response to what they felt was a violation, and my job was to create civility in their mind so that their behavior could follow where their heart was going. But unfortunately, many of these men, who I knew had transformed inside the prison, once they walked out, they had to go into a community that was not prepared for their transformation. So in order for them to be released from prison, they had to tell the guards that they had changed. But in order for them to go back to their neighborhoods, they had to tell the neighborhood citizens that they were the same. So it was a dichotomy of a lifestyle. So what we decided to do was go into those neighborhoods and say who is it that can lead these young people back to their civility, and normally it was those who you did not know. It was some people who were former OGs and former gang leaders and former prisoners and grandmothers and other teachers and pastors who were informal coalition to help transform urban culture. So what we want to do is provide as much pressure as we can and as much opportunity as we can so that those who really want to be citizens do not feel like they are perpetually left out because of a mistake or because of an environmental choice. Some people do what they do because they know no other choice, but we want to give them those choices through the efforts that we do. So, thank you for allowing us to be a part of the solution, and if we can offer any help, we are absolutely poised to do so. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Pastor Jahwar follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Gowdy. Thank you, Pastor. Mr. McGahan? STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. MCGAHAN Mr. McGahan. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy and Ranking Member Connolly. My name is Bill McGahan, and I am the Founder and Chairman of a non-profit called ``Georgia Works!''. I am a graduate of the University of Virginia, and I am married to a woman for 26 years who is a graduate of Socastee High School, South Carolina. Georgia Works! helps formerly incarcerated and homeless men become productive citizens. Since our founding in 2013, we have helped 316 men get jobs, remain clean, and get an apartment, and virtually all have not returned to prison. We have an additional 170 men in the program today, and they are all working toward full-time employment. About 70 percent of our participants are felons. When a man comes into our program, our voluntary program, we ask him to do three things: to be clean of alcohol and drugs, and we test when they come in and throughout the program; not to take handouts from the government or anyone else; and to work. Over 6 to 12 months we work with each of our clients on their obstacles to employment: the lack of a driver's license, wage garnishments, criminal history, a lack of a high school diploma, past-due fines, the lack of a bank account, just to name a few. But more importantly, we work with each client on the underlying cause of their problems, which is typically an addiction or a psychological problem. Each person is assigned to a case manager who they meet with daily. We have in-house meetings on NA, GED classes, one-on-one counseling, anger management classes, healthcare, and financial planning courses, among others. The key thing that makes us different from other organizations is that we run a staffing business within Georgia Works! We contract directly with 30 to 40 businesses around Atlanta for their labor, and over 100 of our men every day go to work for these employers while they are living at our facility. The staffing business is a way for employers to try out our employee in a low-risk way. Now, most of the people in our program end up getting full- time offers from the private employers that are customers of our staffing businesses. So, while a man is in our program, at Georgia Works!, he is learning how to be a valuable employee at a private business, he is eliminating the obstacles that might prevent him from being employed, and he is working on his addiction or other problem that is the root cause of his issues. He is also making money through his own work. It is not a handout. We have a mandatory savings program, so when they leave they usually have between $2000 to $3000, which is enough to put a security deposit down on an apartment. We are funded completely by private sources, including me. We take no government funding of any kind. I take no salary or any expenses, and our staffing business basically funds the cost of running the entire program. There are several things that I have learned since I founded Georgia Works! that I want to talk about specifically. First, there is no shortage of jobs. According to websites, today in Georgia there are about 30,000 full-time jobs available. And there is a labor crisis in some sectors, including construction, food and beverage, commercial truck driving, auto repair, et cetera. These sectors simply cannot find the labor to fill their needs. Secondly, the people in our program range from poorly educated to very smart. We have people who stopped school in the junior high, and we have other people in our program with PhD's. So, we do not need just low-skill jobs or high-tech jobs, but we need the whole menu of jobs that fit each person. Number three, individuals do not really need to be highly trained to get a job with pretty good career prospects. Most of the men leave our program and begin full-time work around $13 to $15 without any training at all. Number four, the biggest problem--and this is what we work on the most--is bad habits, not a lack of intelligence or poor schooling. The scarce commodity is the individual, regardless of their past, who works hard, takes direction well, has good habits, and will stay on the job past the first few paychecks. Many formerly incarcerated returning citizens and former homeless people are terrific employees. We have had many employers tell us that past drug dealers are their most entrepreneurial and creative and personable employees, and they move up pretty quickly. So that is my commercial for people to hire people who are ex-offenders. Now, Georgia Tech did a study on our program and found that our program saved $6 to $11 for every dollar invested in our program, and we can get a person from walking in the door to self-sufficiency and a taxpayer for about $2,500, and it costs the State of Georgia about $20,000 to incarcerate him. Where state and Federal Government can help the most, at the specific level down at helping men, are in a couple of ways. The first is to stop taking driver's licenses away for anything other than poor driving. We still have a whole lot of states that take people's driver's licenses or suspend them for drug offenses, failure to pay child support, and for other reasons. It is really a prerequisite to get a job now to have a driver's license. Secondly, wage garnishments, particularly in the area of past-due child support, are really crippling poor men and ex- offenders. A man with a low hourly wage simply cannot afford to support himself with significant wage garnishments. And then lastly, promote programs like ours that will help people ready for work, change their habits, and eliminate barriers. Now, on the state level I am working with the Georgia Justice Project, the Department of Community Supervision, the Georgia Department of Corrections and other organizations to come up with some specific policy recommendations, and it is my honor to be here today, and I thank you for focusing on this on the Federal level. Thank you. Chairman Gowdy. Yes, sir. Thank you. Your Honor? [Prepared statement of Mr. McGahan follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, JR. Judge Williams. Chairman Gowdy and Congressman Connolly, as well as my friend, Congressman Cummings, I wish you the best as you recover from your illness. Let me preface my remarks by thanking everyone on this committee for allowing me this opportunity to present just a few comments. I served for 20 years on the Federal bench as a trial judge, and prior to that I was the twice-elected prosecutor for a fairly large jurisdiction in Maryland called Prince George's County. I now am a share of the Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. Center for Education, Justice and Ethics, and my passion, of course, is criminal justice. I have three simple points that I wish to focus on. One that I think will help reduce recidivism and also address criminal justice reform is the need to review and for a better use of discretion. This is an area that really has not been addressed that much. All of us who are lawyers know, and prosecutors in particular understand that discretion is the hallmark of criminal justice. Discretion is administered and exercised by police officers, judicial officers, prosecutors, even grand juries and petty jurors, medical examiners, correctional officials, probation and parole officers, and executives through granting pardons, clemency, and commuting sentences, just to name a few. Discretion commences and continues with decisions such as who to investigate, whether to arrest, what charges to file, who gets bond, who is to be released, whether a minor is to be charged as an adult, whether the family car should be forfeited for drugs found in a car driven by a minor, what plea bargaining is offered, and other decisions by judges and others exercising discretion. Justice often varies depending on the nature of discretion employed and exercised. For me, the issue comes down to whether or should we and how can we attain reasonable uniformity, consistency, fairness, and how we can curb or employ better standards for the exercise of discretion. Every point of the criminal justice system where discretion is used should be carefully reviewed, data collected, and policies implemented to make sure there is consistency and that a meaningful effort is being made to address racial profiling, selective enforcement, and the disproportionate impact of the criminal justice system on minorities. We hope that the Justice Department and Congress can take the lead in this area to establish a model for the states to follow. The second point is the need to review mandatory minimum penalties. I know there has been a lot said there. The debate surrounding mandatory minimum sentences remains. While there are plausible arguments that repeated drug traffickers and those running criminal organizations and enterprises, and certainly some violent offenders and white collar and identity fraud crimes, certainly they warrant stiff and substantial sentences in order to deter, protect the community, and limit recidivism. However, studies have revealed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, the Career Offender Statutes and enhancement penalty statutes unfortunately too often single out low-level drug offenders and disproportionately affect racial minorities. The final issue that needs to be addressed, in my view, is to review and address the collateral consequences and discriminatory practices and barriers imposed upon returning citizens and those with records. The bottom line for me is, again, we need to cut back on recidivism; that is, to make sure that persons with records and those returning have a successful reentry and are not reincarcerated. Clearly, there are circumstances where collateral consequences are appropriate. For example, it cannot be reasonably disputed that those convicted of child abuse or elderly offenses must be carefully screened and limited. Moreover, financial institutions must be alerted of potential employees having convictions of embezzlement. But I do believe that there are a number of situations where collateral consequences can be eased. My general view is that reducing recidivism can be best achieved by removing some of the discriminatory and unreasonable practices which prevent or limit access to health care, housing, education, and employment. Of course, there are a number of questions that can be raised, and some of those questions would be this: Do those returning to the community require more extensive or shorter periods of supervised release, or is it necessary in every instance for a convicted person who is applying for some type of vocational license, to get a Pell Grant, or for admission to an institution of higher learning, or must they be required to disclose a 20-year-old conviction that has very little relevance and relationship to the specific request? So those are my three points, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Gowdy. Thank you, Your Honor. I will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia for his questioning, Mr. Hice. Mr. Hice. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just also take the opportunity--I think it is appropriate to say congratulations on your role in leading this committee. We sincerely look forward to working with you as this committee moves forward. And to each of our witnesses, let me say thank you, and also to the previous panel as well, for the work that each of you are doing. We are very much appreciative. Mr. Stirling, you mentioned briefly in your testimony some of the things that South Carolina is doing and the diversion options for less serious drug offenses, and I am very proud in Georgia, Mr. McGahan, what is happening there with the accountability courts where really, instead of going to jail, people have the opportunity to prevent even starting the cycle of recidivism as they get involved in a two-year-long, court- supervised program that is evidence-based, a treatment program, involved in community service. They get jobs, all these types of things. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if any of my colleagues have had the opportunity to be a part of one of the graduation ceremonies of these courts, the accountability courts, but I have gone and, I will tell you, it took everything I had just to fight back the tears watching how these individuals had, over the previous two years, experienced life change as they saw, many of them for the very first time, community support where they themselves had their dignity raised as they got jobs and they broke the cycle of what many of their families had perhaps for generations. So, Mr. Stirling, I want to come back to you and, if we can, go fairly briefly. Do you have any idea how many people who are currently, percentage-wise, how many prisoners will be released at some point? Mr. Stirling. Well, most of them will be released. I know in under five years or roughly five years, it is 85 percent, and then it kind of goes down from there. But over 30 years, it is .27 percent. Five to 10 years is about 10 percent. Five and under, it is 85 percent. Mr. Hice. So say 10 years, probably 90 percent are going to be out. Is that fair to say estimate-wise? Mr. Stirling. Ninety-five percent. Mr. Hice. Okay, 95 percent. All right. So, here is the issue we are dealing with: these folks are going to be out. Mr. Stirling. Yes, sir. Mr. Hice. So the question then becomes what happens with them when they are out? And from what I have been able to find, well over 60 percent of prisoners who are released are re- arrested within two years. In states where there are the accountability courts, that number drops from 60 percent down to 25 percent. I know in Georgia we are well below even that rate for those that are a part of the accountability courts. So, Mr. Stirling, can you just briefly discuss some of the diversion options that are taking place in South Carolina? Mr. Stirling. Sure. We have drug courts, which are amazing to watch. We have veterans courts. We have--Judge McCullough in Richmond County has started mental health courts. As I said 17 percent of those incarcerated in South Carolina are diagnosed with a mental health issue, and sometimes for these folks getting treatment, getting hooked up with the proper medication and medical professionals really can change their lives and we will never see them again. Incarcerating someone costs around $20,000 a year in South Carolina, which is one of the lowest in the nation, and by getting these treatments and having them become taxpaying citizens, we will never see them again. Mr. Hice. That is amazing. Mr. McGahan, what you all are doing with finding jobs and so forth, has it been difficult to find companies that will take these individuals? Mr. McGahan. Well, there are obstacles, certainly. Some are just not good fits, but then there are others who have a crisis and just need work. As you know, in Georgia there are a lot of distribution centers, and our men go work there, property management companies. We have people who work in recycling, nighttime work. So because there is such a big need now for labor, not to mention the construction, the food and beverage, the hospitality industries, we are able to use salesmen to help them overcome their objections, their initial objections, to get opportunities for our guys. Mr. Hice. Well, I just again want to say thank you for all. I wish we had time just to hit on a lot of questions. I am sure many more will come. But, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this hearing, and I yield back. Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly. Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair. Last month Senator Rand Paul wrote an op-ed entitled, ``Sessions' Sentencing Plan Would Ruin Lives'' in response to the Attorney General's instruction directing prosecutors to pursue ``the most substantial guideline sentencing, including mandatory minimum sentences, for non-violent drug crimes.'' Pastor Jahwar, does that policy make sense from your experience, to go back to what had characterized sentencing prior to the 2013, 2012 period? Pastor Jahwar. Mr. Connolly, no. I think that is a bad policy, personally, because I have seen so many young people who I know who were victims of their own environment, and then they did some victimization. But to go back would say to us that rehabilitation is not possible, that this is a warehousing institution. As Mr. Stirling said, what do you want? Would you rather have young people, older people, whomever, to come out of a prison somewhat rehabilitated, or would you rather have them just locked down until they have done enough time where it becomes punitive? Mr. Connolly. Mr. Stirling, listening to your testimony on the data, which was pretty impressive what you are describing in terms of the recidivism rate going down in South Carolina, I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I assume from your testimony that you would kind of agree with Pastor Jahwar and what he just said. Mr. Stirling. I do think we are seeing success in the programs with, as I said, some of the things that we have done on the state level, which may or may not translate to the Federal level. We have seen success in the diversion programs, but we have also seen a lot of success in the other programs that we have at the Department of Corrections. One of the things I did not mention is the Youthful Offender Program, where they are assigned a mentor. The numbers are one mentor, one social worker or youthful offender officer to about 25 people, and they are testing them for drugs, they are making sure they are working, they are making sure they are getting their education, and they are holding them accountable. We have had people that said I do not want to do that, I would rather just go to prison, and they do go to prison, but we do use graduated responses. That program, at 50 percent to 22 percent, is amazingly successful and is saving a lot of tax dollars. Mr. Connolly. You know, I remember doing a tour of our county jail in my county when I was chairman of the county, and I asked our sheriff, you know, how many people here are just sort of hard-core, no hope, versus something bad happened to them or they made a bad judgment or they hung around with the wrong crowd? And he said overwhelmingly the latter. There's the hard core, but most people can be rehabilitated with the right measures. And the other irony, I think, is jails often serve as a massive substitute for mental health treatment and substance abuse treatment because we do not have the services in the community, and it puts a huge burden on people like yourself and your colleagues to provide services that one wishes were provided through a different kind of safety net. Judge Williams, from 2013 to 2016, the number of Federal prisoners dropped by more than 10 percent, and mandatory minimum sentences were used at the Federal level 30 percent less than they had heretofore. What is your view about mandatory minimum sentences in terms of the discretion given to people like yourself and your former colleagues on the bench? Judge Williams. Certainly, and I think I speak for a significant number of Federal judges who did not like the idea of having been stripped of their authority to consider a number of factors when sentencing people. What mandatory minimum sentences have done effectively--and, of course, I am a former prosecutor, so I certainly enjoyed that power, but the authority and the power really vests in prosecutors under mandatory minimum sentences, and they have the right to charge within the mandatory statute or not charge if someone would cooperate or give substantial assistance or what have you. So I was very happy when some cases and also the sentencing commission began to restore some of the discretion that Federal judges had for certain types of offenses, and I think that resulted in less sentences being imposed on a number of defendants. Mr. Connolly. One can understand why mandatory minimum sentences came up, but is it not true that the problem is it is, on its face, discriminatory? That is how it works, the results are discriminatory even if the intent is not. Judge Williams. Well, certainly the impact does have a disparate impact on minorities, but also mandatory minimum sentences have an unreasonable result sometimes. You may have seen an article that appeared in the Washington Post a couple of weeks ago involving myself and an inmate who I had given life in prison. I had to do it because of his young brushes with the law years ago. I looked at all of the cases. There were eight or nine defendants. This guy had less involvement. I did not want to give him the maximum sentence, but I had to because, again, his record made him a career offender. So sometimes you have just an unreasonable result that takes place when you have these things. Fortunately in his case, President Obama did commute his sentence, and after serving 12 or 13 years, he is now out. Mr. Connolly. Yes, although that is sort of a last resort. We wish the law could be more flexible. My time is up, although, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to deny Mr. McGahan an opportunity to comment if he was getting ready to comment. Mr. McGahan. I deal with people coming out of prison who want to get their lives back, who want to work, and many have been involved in drug crimes, non-violent crimes, or in some other non-violent felony, and they are terrific people, almost without exception, or they would not walk through our door. These are people who made mistakes, were caught up with the wrong crowd. It is too expensive for us to put these people in a prison when there are other, better alternatives to handle these folks. Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar. Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you talk about recidivism and issues facing the criminal justice system, I wanted to take a few moments today to discuss the impact of programs like the veteran treatment courts on recidivism rates. Veteran treatment courts promote sobriety and recovery through coordinated local partnerships among community correction agencies, drug treatment providers, the judiciary, and other important community support groups. Veteran treatment courts have been extremely successful in my district. The veteran treatment court in Lake Havasu City and Kingman, Arizona have strong records of effective service to the veterans they serve. In Mojave County these programs have been leaders in best practices, innovative approaches to engaging stakeholders, building support coalitions, and expanding access to effective treatments. Our veterans need focused treatment and a helping hand, and these courts provide such an avenue. The alternative is often jail, and I am very proud that one of my own staff has been instrumental in Arizona, Sean Johnson, for getting these up and running. So, Mr. Stirling, I have a question for you. Does South Carolina implement any type of veteran treatment courts? Mr. Stirling. We do. We have veteran treatment courts. Ten percent of our inmates, our prisoners, are self-identified as veterans. One of the things we have done recently is down by Charleston and McDougall Correction, we have a veterans dorm, where I figure they have given a lot for this country and maybe because of their service or something that happened or something they saw they ended up being incarcerated. So we have designed a program, a wrap-around program that just started I think back in January where the dorm is run by veterans and we have veteran volunteers, and we try to get these people--it is a pre-release dorm--to services and connected with other veterans when they leave so they will not come back. Mr. Gosar. So it is still pretty early in that program. Mr. Stirling. It is. Yes, sir. Mr. Gosar. Well, I have to tell you, the application that we have seen in Arizona is incredible. You see a broken person start that process, and you see their eyes light up, getting back to peers that they want to respect and be respected for. Mr. McGahan, your program helps getting homeless and incarcerated men back on their feet. What percentage would you say are veterans? Mr. McGahan. About 10 percent, sir. Mr. Gosar. Do you find that they have more specific needs than others in your program? Mr. McGahan. They do. They have unique challenges and sometimes require more mental health and counseling than other people in our program. Mr. Gosar. So one of the things we found in Arizona is that a comprehensive approach is needed to getting veterans back on their feet. They need access to housing, access to jobs, and the ability to stay away from those bad habits. Do you see similar issues that those who work with you in your program? Mr. McGahan. We do, and it does take a holistic, comprehensive approach. Many veterans have been through some very difficult situations, and they have not addressed them adequately, and that is what leads them to our program. Mr. Gosar. It seems like these treatment courts really work because of working with your peers. They identify and respond so much differently than you see anybody else. It is like they are letting their buddy down from the military, and there is something there. Can you explain a little bit more, too? Mr. McGahan. I completely agree. I think putting veterans with other veterans helps them. So if you have one in need and we have two or three that are more senior and who have been in the military, to help a person talk about their problems, to address them. One of the things that I have found is that many men are programmed to not talk about their feelings or the things that they have been experiencing, and to get them over that hurdle. And then once they do that and articulate their problems, then things tend to get better from there. Mr. Gosar. In your opinion, what is the primary factor that keeps individuals from going back to criminal activity? Mr. McGahan. I think bad habits, and that includes drug habits and work habits. So if we can address--if there is an underlying psychological issue that we have just been speaking about, and then we have a drug addiction on top of that, we have to address both those issues. And then if we address those issues and we then get them in a job and get them working, they tend not to go back to their old ways. Mr. Gosar. And I think that is the benefit of these treatment courts. They give that positive influence and support on a timely basis, repetitively, in the military fashion. Thank you very much for all that you do. We certainly appreciate it. It is a great hearing. Thank you. Chairman Gowdy. Dr. Gosar yields back. The gentle lady from the District of Columbia is recognized. Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of the witnesses. I have learned from them all. I also want to offer my congratulations to Chairman Gowdy, and I want to thank him for his first hearing which focuses on an issue where there have been earnest efforts on both sides. I think, Mr. Chairman, beginning with criminal justice reform in a hearing indicates the tone you are setting for this committee, recognizing that, as Mr. Connolly's remarks indicate, there will be circumstances where we must disagree, but it seems to me that this was an important precedent about how to start a new chairmanship on a committee such as this, and I thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would also ask that a letter written by the ranking member, Mr. Cummings, and Mr. Issa requesting that you place H.R. 1905, the Fair Chance Act, on the agenda for the committee's next markup. That, of course, is the bill that says that only at an appropriate point in the hiring process may an applicant be asked about his criminal history record. Perhaps the most important issue for someone coming out of prison is the challenges he faced in finding employment, and the discouragement he faces in that regard. Of course, he will find many barriers. Some of those are to be expected. But I was interested to note that 18 states and more than 150 cities, including my own, have adopted the so-called Ban the Box idea I just spoke of a minute ago so that employers can consider the record of any applicant, but it simply delays asking about that record. Many of us have heard really poignant stories about someone who has been out of jail for 10 or 20 or even more years but must put, if he is truthful, that he has once been incarcerated. Ten, 20, 30 years of exemplary behavior may not matter if the first thing the employer reads is of a record. Now, I recognize that some of you are from states that have not adopted Ban the Box, but I am very impressed at the number of so-called Red States that have. I asked my staff to find them for me. Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee. Now, of course, Judge Williams has adopted Ban the Box. I am not asking the others of you to take a position on what your state should do, but I am asking you whether or not you think Ban the Box legislation has been useful, or otherwise to explain to me why apparently, regardless of where the state has stood on other matters, it seems to be in line with other states that are far more liberal than it is on Ban the Box. I would be very interested in Mr. Stirling, Pastor Jahwar, and Mr. McGahan on that question. Would it be useful to consider Ban the Box in your state? Mr. Stirling. Governor Haley and Cheryl Stanton actually had a summit with a bunch of businesses, and we asked them to look at and hire people who were incarcerated. I do understand why some companies--and it is a frustration of mine when I go to companies and say will you hire these folks, and they say we do not, and I say just give them a chance because they are going to work hard. But I do understand why some companies cannot, for various reasons, if they work with financial services. So a blanket policy of banning the box, I think you would get people down a path and then they would find out that there was a record or there was a reason not to hire that person. So I think this is something that we encourage in South Carolina companies, just to look at hiring second-chance employees, and that is my role as a Department of Corrections director, to go out and find those. Those ladies sitting behind me, that is their role and their staff's role, to find that. Ms. Norton. I am glad you mentioned that there are some instances where you would not want to have such a person hired. But after you find out, Mr. Stirling, about the record, you can still refuse to hire. So there is no such thing as once you find it out and you do not hire, even though it has been 30 or 40 years ago I am still requiring you to hire, and the notion that you raise is very important about what your conviction was in. Mr. Chairman, if I may just hear the answers of the other two gentlemen, because I recognize I am over time. Pastor Jahwar? Pastor Jahwar. Yes. In Texas, we have been dealing with that, and what we have found is that that legislation would help us even if we had to modify it somewhat, because I do recognize what Mr. Stirling was saying. But what we see more than that is that there are not enough tools to protect those who have reformed, that there is a reformation process, but the punitive process goes beyond them reforming. So a friend of mine would say that a full heart needs a full stomach and busy hands or they will return to the other behavior. So what I have always pushed from my local and state government is to figure out ways to eliminate the barriers, and that would be another tool. As many tools as we can have in our toolbox for me is important because that is where we are. We are at a state of emergency where those who are truly trying to do right are prevented by things that they have done in the past. Ms. Norton. Mr. McGahan? Mr. McGahan. In Georgia, Georgia has banned the box for state jobs, which is an executive order, and for occupational licenses. But Georgia Works! is based upon banning the entire application. We say to employers just let us show up with five or six guys, regardless of their past, see if you like them, let them get to work there, and they inevitably like them after a few months. So we put all the paperwork aside, say try out our men, and this is a pitch for our employment agency, you will like our guys, and then these guys will get hired full-time jobs, and then the application comes after they have started working there on a temporary basis. So I am for banning the box, I am for banning the application and eliminating the barriers to employment. Ms. Norton. That sounds very innovative. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gowdy. The gentle lady yields back. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie. Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not an attorney or a lawyer or a judge, but I was in county government. It was county judge executive, sort of the county executive. My impressions of criminal justice reform were informed by my experience there as county executive where the jail was the biggest expense in the county and it does not create any revenue, and you see situations there that just do not make any sense, like a Gulf War veteran who is serving one year. We house state inmates as well in the county, in jail. The state pays to keep them there. A Gulf War veteran, decorated, serving a year for non-child support. Now, that is despicable, not to support your children, right? But how does that improve the situation? Now this man is a felon with a one-year sentence, virtually unemployable. Mr. McGahan, can you speak to that? Mr. McGahan. Well, that is crazy, right? I mean, we have a guy who has not paid his child support, so he is put in jail, which he then further cannot pay his child support, which goes back to one of the points I wanted to make, which is, first of all, a Gulf War veteran has been through a lot, probably has an underlying issue which needs dealing with, probably has a substance abuse issue as he tries to self-medicate on top of that. So we need to get to the core problem to help that person so he can then get employment and then pay his past-due child support. So, that is the first point. The second one is past-due child support is onerous on low- earning humans, people, returning citizens. It is preventing them from getting payroll jobs. It is incenting them to do under-the-table work. It is incenting them to do criminal activity, because for a small portion of folks, they just cannot afford to pay for themselves because of these issues, these wage garnishments. Of course, we want people to pay--absent fathers, we want them to pay for their children, there is no question about it. But there is a portion which get behind, and then it becomes too big of a mountain for them to climb on their own, and we just have to--and we are incenting behavior that we do not want. The general problem is we have all these employers who have open jobs, and we have all these people who want to work at them, and we have these barriers in-between. We have to knock those barriers down. Mr. Massie. Ms. Norton sort of covered this, but what role does expungement play? Mr. McGahan. Well, we have had some success with some folks to go back and get past-due child support eliminated, and we have thought a lot about this. For people who have younger children, we have had some success in getting it reduced, or the payments reduced, not the total amounts reduced, because we want those fathers to pay. But for some people who are 60 and their kids are long gone, they are grandparents, we are talking about mountains of past-due child support ---- Mr. Massie. Well, let me just be clear, and I want to move on to another topic. I am not advocating non-support here. I am just saying sometimes we do things that compound the problem and cause the children never to receive any support if we cause the father to be unemployable. I want to move on very quickly. I am the lead Republican sponsor on a bill with Congressman Bobby Scott called the Justice Safety Valve Act, which would give judges more discretion in applying the sentencing. In other words, discretion to override the mandatory minimums across the board. It occurs to me listening to you, Judge Williams, that there is already sort of a safety valve in there that my colleagues here do not understand. It seems like every two or three months we pass another bill with a mandatory minimum in it, but they do not understand that the prosecutor has discretion as well and may choose not to prosecute that particular crime because that mandatory minimum is in there. So by putting a mandatory minimum in there, is it possible that sometimes we cause certain crimes not to get prosecuted? They might choose another one if they did not think the mandatory minimum was appropriate. Can you speak to that, Judge Williams? Judge Williams. Yes. That is why I mentioned that all points of the system where discretion is utilized, these should be reviewed. Certainly, the safety valve is one mechanism to undercut some of the harshness associated with mandatory minimum sentences. But in addition to that, I would just like to see an equalization of the discretion and the authority, both for prosecutors as well as for judges. You are right, Congressman, prosecutors have a way to get around even the safety valve by charging or making some other decisions on prosecution that, again, would lessen that impact. So I would just like to see, again, a review of all of that legislation, all of those policies, so there can be more of an equal distribution so that judges can take into consideration a few more factors to make sure that the appropriate sentences are handed down. Mr. Massie. Just in closing here, I just want to say one other crazy thing I saw at the county jail, state jail level. It is public perception. They feel good when they see inmates picking up trash on the side of the road. What they do not realize is they are not learning a vocation that is going to be transferrable back into society. So even though that may score points with the public officials to have the inmates out there picking up trash, we might be doing society a better favor to teach them or to have them do tasks where there are employable skills that are being picked up. Pastor, did you want to say something to that? Pastor Jahwar. Yes, sir. I think you are hitting on a vital point, that the skill set that a person needs is not just what they can do with busy work but what they can do to further their societal advantage. What I tell some of these young men is that your characteristic has a marked advantage in the neighborhood that you are living in, but we need to help you transform your character. But they have skill sets that are beyond being at the bottom rung. One of the things I say to investors is do not ask these young men and young ladies how to be workers. Ask them do they want to grow up to be an employer, what is the best way not to have the minimum qualification, because they do not have a lack of understanding, a lack of brilliance. A lot of times it is the lack of environmental support to get them where they are going. So, I totally agree with you. Mr. Massie. Thank you. I see my time has expired. Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Kentucky yields back. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, is recognized. Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get into the questioning, let me compliment you for holding this hearing, for inviting this great witness panel, as well as the two previous witnesses. All of them have given voice to the circumstances, and they have also stressed access to opportunity. So I appreciate this hearing, and also to the ranking member. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, more than half of all state prison inmates are reincarcerated within three years of release. About two-thirds of the estimated 600,000 new incarcerations annually are people who have failed on probation or parole. A 2012 report from the Council of State Governments Justice Center also found 53 percent of state prisoners and 46 percent of Federal prisoners in the year prior to their arrest met the DSM-IV criteria for substance dependence or abuse. Judge Williams, in your experience, can untreated substance abuse disorders contribute to individuals failing to meet the requirements of their probation or parole? Judge Williams. Yes. In the Federal system we call it supervised release. But let me say this, Congressman. I absolutely agree with you, the failure to provide adequate mental treatment and counseling while incarcerated, and even when they are released, contributes in a mighty way to recidivism. I headed the task force in Maryland studying that issue, and there was a lot of testimony from stakeholders and people who had been out saying that there is a lot of stress and buildup of mental anxiety associated with people incarcerated, and they did not think that enough was being done in the prison to address that issue so that they could handle their release once they came out. So I agree with you. Mr. Clay. Thank you. And let me ask Mr. Stirling, do prisons and jails face challenges in effectively treating inmates suffering from substance abuse disorders? Mr. Stirling. Yes, sir. When I took over, I took over on October 1st, 2013, in January of that year Circuit Court Judge Baxley in South Carolina issued a 46-page order of how the mentally ill were being treated at the Department of Corrections. It was a decade-old lawsuit by P&A, and one of the first things I did was I wrote a letter to P&A and I said please sit down with me as a practicing attorney. I knew the benefit of mediation. So we sat down. We had a retired judge mediate it, and we settled that matter in January. But treating folks with mental health issues while incarcerated is extremely difficult. It is extremely difficult to find a vacancy rate for mental health professionals. We have one psychiatrist, and when St. Peter meets her, she is going straight into heaven because she has been on call for almost a decade. We are doing what we can with what we have, but hiring people--South Carolina does not have a lot of mental health professionals, and on another committee we are working on that. But treating people that are incarcerated with mental health issues and getting the proper staffing is very difficult. On top of that, a lot of corrections facilities across the country, mainly in the southeastern states, have high rates of vacancies for their officers. So if you have officer vacancy rates, you have lockdowns, which exacerbates the problem. They cannot get treatment, they cannot get into group. We are in the early stages of trying to fix that, but it makes it very, very difficult to treat these folks. One last thing, and I know your time is quick. One thing we are doing is we partner with our drug agency. A lot of people who are addicted to opioids are starting to come into our prisons. So we are starting a program in August where we are going to give them a pill, and then we are going to give them shots on the way out that will be an opioid blocker, and we are doing this with about 10, and we are going to follow them for a time to see how they do. If it is successful, we will expand that program. Mr. Clay. So the opioid epidemic is affecting recidivism rates. Mr. Stirling. Well, it is so new to South Carolina. I would say drug addiction does affect, but opioids are starting to come into the state. It is not as much as some other states, but we are starting to see it, and I am trying to get ahead of it. It is not like some of the other states, like West Virginia and like that. Mr. Clay. Mr. McGahan, are you seeing this? Mr. McGahan. Not in inner-city Atlanta, no. We are still dealing with alcohol, marijuana, and crack. Mr. Clay. I see. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I yield back. Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Missouri yields back. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Walker, is recognized. Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being here on your very first day as chairman. I appreciate also your work in partnering with us and Senator Tim Scott and working with chancellors throughout the historically black colleges and universities, and even talking about some of these issues with those wonderful people. Let me first commend Pastor Jahwar for honoring your son. As a former pastor and pastor's son, I respect that. I am sure it is reciprocal in many cases, or at least eventually got there if you are like most pastor's kids. But I do appreciate that. I appreciate your calling. I appreciate what you are trying to do here. I think it is incredibly important. There is a lot of talk in this area these days, and I have often thought how much of that actually comes or is able to formulate into some kind of substance where we are seeing results. We are always talking about awareness, and it is good in some ways, but how do we translate that to the action steps? I have often thought that in many cases this has to start with relationships, and I am not talking about pandering stuff or knowing the talking points. I am talking about getting involved in these communities and showing up, sitting in the back row sometimes even when you are not the featured speaker, to be able to engage. We have done some work over the years in the inner cities in places like Cleveland and New York and Baltimore, and I will never forget, certainly not anytime soon, the gentleman we were working with and his family there in Cleveland when we said what is it that we can bring, and he said if you will bring hope, he said bring hope. And I see many times that we have lost the hope, and these young men and women, sometimes they have never seen hope before. And I wonder, with all the great policies and programs, we cannot just force a template in different communities and societies without adding hope in the relationship component to that. And I challenge myself, and I am grateful for the different people that are here today because I heard a little bit of that element in all of that. My question today for you, Pastor, and maybe some others, is when it comes to education, how crucial of a role does education play in this process when it comes to the reentry component? Pastor Jahwar. Well, thank you. I believe that education's role is important in this sense. I believe it goes back to what you said initially. It is relational education. It is not just what they learn, it is what they retain, and they retain it from mentors and coaches. I had a man who had 1,000 years. He had a 1,000-year sentence for a crime he did not commit, Harold Hill. He got released. He said to me, he said, man, the strong rule the weak, but the wise rule them all. He was a very thin man, and he said when I came into prison I had to figure out what it is I could learn, not who it is I could intimidate. And when he came out of prison, his whole platform was how do I become educated enough to show these other young men that they do not have to do what I did, they do not have to go through what I went through. So I believe education in its purest form, a high school diploma, is absolutely necessary. But there is a relevant education that comes through relationship that teaches one and reaches one, and as a pastor I have said it is a discipleship. It is how do you disciple that person through an environment that is known to destroy you. Mr. Walker. Yes. It has to be a genuine investment instead of just something out of a book, in my opinion here. I may have the other guys weigh in, but I want to get to something else, something that is not in the notes that I want to talk about just for a second. We are always talking about educating these men and women who are reentering society. What I do not hear talked about sometimes is educating those who are working with these individuals, and let me give you an example. Recently I had a pastors breakfast there in North Carolina, representing 50 or 60 pastors there, and I just boldly asked them, I said how many times in the last six months have you used the terminology ``second chance'' or just criminal justice in general? I had two raise their hands. So when we talk about education, it is important that we find that skill set to reenter society, but how important is it for those who are community and society leaders when we are talking about these policies when it comes to the education of those providing it? I want to start with Mr. McGahan, and also the pastor can weigh back in as well. Mr. McGahan. Sir, I think it is very important. I think just having this hearing is incredible because it makes people realize, first of all, that we have a big problem of many people that are coming, reentering society from prison; and secondly that we should welcome those folks with open arms back to our communities once they have paid their price. People make mistakes and they can change and they can move on from there, and I think that is an important thing for all of us to talk about. Pastor Jahwar. And you made a statement about those who serve. The most profound thing that I found is those who are serving normally are the most tired, the most frustrated and agitated with the population, and it is normally because they are behind the curve. So they are learning, and their learning is from bad experience. So, absolutely, we need to do as much training, opening people's minds up to a different way because there is one idea, and if that one idea is not producing-- normally we would just double down on that idea regardless of whether it is producing results or not. Mr. Walker. Thank you, Pastor. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from North Carolina yields back. I will tell my colleagues they are expecting votes around 4 o'clock. So if we assiduously adhere to the 5 minutes, we maybe can get everybody in before we go vote. With that, my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch. Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your congratulations to you on your new appointment. It will be good to be working with you. I do have a matter of some interest on just procedural aspects of the work of this committee before I ask our panelists some questions. It has been a matter of longstanding constitutional precedent that Congress, and specifically this committee, is empowered to investigate matters within its jurisdiction to see that the laws are faithfully executed, and I think it is beyond argument that foreign interference with a democratic election is an appropriate, if not compelling, area of inquiry for this committee. Also, given the history of congressional inquiry, from the struggle for civil rights to the Vietnam War and to the Nixon impeachment, the current refusal of this committee to take up the reports of our intelligence agencies, including the NSA, CIA, and FBI, who all report with high confidence that our elections were hacked, I think our refusal to investigate is not only disappointing but perhaps shameful. I, however, remain hopeful that with your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and with Ranking Member Cummings' leadership as well, that we can look back and at some point take up this issue of foreign interference with democratic elections within this committee. If there is any issue out there that is beyond Democrat, beyond Republican, beyond Independent, it is whether or not we enjoy full integrity in our electoral process here in the United States. I think that is important to all Americans, and I hope at some point we can do it in a non-political way. Forget about the last election. Mr. Trump won. But we are going to have another election, and we want to make sure that we are able to protect the integrity and the results of that upcoming election. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, we all have an intense interest in the legitimacy of that outcome. Turning now to our panelists, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your wisdom in selecting this group. They have been absolutely fantastic today. I have had a chance to meet with a lot of my prison officials. And, Mr. Stirling, my warm regards to your family in my district. In my district and across the State of Massachusetts, I would say on average 80 to 90 percent of my inmates are dually addicted, so alcohol and drug addiction, and that is high. I realize that is high. I know what the national numbers are, but it is high. We are struggling. We are struggling in Massachusetts with how to deal with OxyContin and all these opioids. I hear some great things in Georgia and in South Carolina. I am just wondering--so, suboxone, buprenorphine, vivitrol--what are you using to try to help your folks so that when they come out, they at least have--and this is a big thing, not ``at least''-- they have that drug addiction under control, because that really, I think, dictates their resistance to recidivism. That really gets them squared away so that the drug courts, which I was a big supporter of when I was in the state legislature, and I still am--we have veterans courts as well, that you are doing as well. But we really have to get the drug issue, we have to get them clean and in a good place so we can work on the other problems, and I just want to hear about your own experience in South Carolina and in Georgia, if I could. Mr. Stirling. For some folks who have drug addictions, that is why drug courts are so good. Chairman Gowdy knows this, but the prisons have drugs in them. You can get what you want in prison because of contraband. Everybody probably at this table knows this. Everybody who has ever been in a prison knows that. So not sending some of these folks to prison is a better way, and sending them to treatment. In South Carolina, because of costs, we give them five days of medicine and a 30-day prescription. What we are doing in South Carolina is we are hooking them up with services as they go out the door. The best thing we can do, to answer your question, is have a job with benefits, mental health benefits, health care, things of that nature. Short of that, though, what we do with SC Thrive is, if they are a veteran, we hook them up with the Veterans Administration. If they have other things that we can hook them up with, we do. This new program--and I am not a pharmacist or a doctor, but naproxen I think is the name of it, the shot that we are doing. The pill that you take every day, you can forget. So we are going to give them a pill, see their reaction, and then we are going to give them a shot out the door, and then our drug agency is going to work with them and follow them and give them a shot every six months. And from what I am told--and we did have some resistance internally--we made the decision that we were going to do it because a lot of people did not like long- acting injectables. So we are going to follow these people and if it works, we are going to keep on doing it. Again, hooking them up with free clinics, things of that nature, trying to find the medication that they need. But the biggest thing is a job with benefits and a future and, as the Congressman from North Carolina said, hope and a connection with family, and positive reinforcement while they are out. Maybe it is not good to go back into your neighborhood of maybe Charlestown or maybe South--maybe you should move to a different area, because where you are, the influences are not good and you are going to slide back into that. Maybe move across the country, things of that nature. So we try to set them up for success and not set them up for failure. And if I might, just real quick, one of the things I did when I first took over is I went to see how we release people from our prison near the University of South Carolina. We dropped them off in a van, and I saw what happened there. Some of the folks were dropped off in their prison tans without the prison stripe, so now we have clothes closets. No one leaves with prison tans anymore. We had to hire a law enforcement officer because the drug dealers and some of the women of the night were there to get these people and put their hooks back into them. So we had to hire the Sheriff's Department to be there to run those folks off. They did not have a chance when they got off that bus. We also, lastly, if you are picked up by a family member, you get to leave on the first day possible. If you are not, you are going to take the bus, you are going to put yourself back in that environment, we have you wait a couple of days. Well, everybody is getting picked up by a family member. Some things we were doing were not making sense, and we are trying to look at it, use evidence-based practices to get them to the right treatment. Again, a job with benefits is the best thing that they can have. Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your courtesy. I appreciate it. Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Massachusetts yields back. The gentleman from Tennessee, Judge Duncan, is recognized. Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for picking this topic to hold your first hearing because I think it is very important. I am sorry I had a big group of constituents and also had an opportunity to speak on the floor on a bill that I was interested in. I was a judge for seven-and-a-half years before I came to Congress trying criminal cases in Tennessee, and I have never forgotten the first day I was judge Gary Telic, who was the main probation counselor for 16 counties in East Tennessee, he told me, he said 98 percent of the defendants and felony cases came from broken homes. Well, it was not exactly accurate. What was more accurate was--and I do not believe it was 98 percent, but I went through over 10,000 cases in the seven-and-a-half years I was there because, as most of you know, 98 or 99 percent of the people plead guilty and apply for probation. So every single day for seven-and-a-half years, I read over and over and over and over again, defendant's father left home when defendant was 2 and never returned, defendant's father left home to get a pack of cigarettes and never came back. Well, it makes an impression on you. And I can tell you I remember several years ago when I was still in Congress, one Friday afternoon I missed the direct flight out of National Airport and I had to drive to Dulles Airport one Friday afternoon, and the 3:00 national news came on. There had been a school shooting by some 14-year-old boy or something, and they had the national head of the YMCA on the radio, and he said children are being neglected in this country like never before. And I thought, boy, how sad it was to say something like that. But somehow or another, we have got to get out that, especially young boys cannot raise themselves. I read that 80 or 85 percent of the babies that are being born in some of our biggest cities are born out of wedlock. I know that drugs and alcohol are involved in most of these cases, but they all seem to be secondary to that father-absent household. I think I could go to any 4th grade class or 6th grade class in an elementary school in this country, and if I found out the family situation of these kids, I could tell you which ones were most likely to get into trouble. And every time I read about one of these boys pursuing one of these mass shootings in someplace, like in Connecticut or this one I mentioned, which I think was in Oregon, or all over, you read about those kids and they come from dysfunctional families. So I think we need to do all kinds of things. I think we need to get more males teaching in the elementary schools, because so many boys are growing up without a good male role model. I would like to see more boys get into Boy Scouts. This is a national crisis, and it is the root of our crime problem, in my opinion. It seems to me there are just a lot of things that we need to do. I started when I was judge a program called--I called it Court Counselors, and I got the churches involved, and I got them to do it on a volunteer basis. I said most of these young men, they have almost never sat down with a family to have supper. I said if you just have once a month, or more often if you can do it, but at least once a month, have them to your house to have supper with the family. It is really sad what I am seeing. And then we need to separate these non-violent people away from the violent people in these prisons. But I am supporting some of these efforts on some of these criminal justice reform bills, and I sure hope we can move on that. I just wanted to say a few things like that, Mr. Chairman. I will work with you any way that I can on this because it is a subject of great interest to me. Chairman Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. Not only is it a great subject of interest, you are also an expert in the field and we appreciate your perspective. The gentle lady from Michigan, Ms. Lawrence, is recognized. Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, join my colleagues in congratulating you in your position of leadership and look forward to working with you. I have consistently said that in America, I still believe in the American Dream, that ladder to success. That first wrung is education. If you do not educate a child, how can you expect them to climb the ladder of success or opportunities in America? If you do that, you are limiting that child's success, and prison, unfortunately, is one of the limited choices they have. A 2013 RAM report stated that inmates who participate in correctional educational programs, correctional programs, have a 43 percent lower odds of reentering prison than those who do not. So, Judge Williams, have you seen efforts to educate prisoners increase proportionately to the massive growth in the prison population? Have you seen an impact? Judge Williams. Let me say I certainly agree with you that education is the key, and also dysfunctional families that the Congressman talked about. Certainly all of that contributes to criminal activity and behavior. But I want to go back to something that you said. The failure to have access to appropriate education is the key. Ms. Lawrence. Yes. Judge Williams. There are a number of youngsters in schools who are not being taught properly. They have lost interest, and sometimes the school system is responsible for what results in them getting involved in criminal behavior later. Now, in terms of the prison, in my state, of course, not enough across the years has been given by way of funding for enough programs to educate and prepare inmates for the new types of jobs that are out here in the world. So that is something that has to be a focus, and I certainly agree with you that education is the key, and training. Ms. Lawrence. Well, I just want to take a few minutes to compliment the governor that, sitting right here in this chair, I have not had very good things to say, but my governor in Michigan has taken skill trades, which he and I partner on, and he has started a virtual welding program in prison. If you are eligible for a non-violent probation from prison--and there are job offers being offered to the prisoner before they even leave. Can you think of the opportunity of a person who has been incarcerated that is guaranteed a job, that has a skill, that you know for a lifetime will be able to work? Those type of programs are game changers, and we need to step up. Mr. Chairman, I am telling you, we can make a difference in America with stopping this industry of private prisons, because the only way that they are profitable, they have to fill the cells. But if we get into the proactive mode of finding ways to stop it, we can make a difference. I have one question for Mr. Stirling. In your written testimony you indicated that under the Second Chance initiative Northwestern College was selected as a pilot site where Pell Grants would be available to offenders. Can you explain how it works, and is it working, and what are the benefits of that, and have we expanded beyond the pilot? Mr. Stirling. Sure. So, we have not expanded beyond the pilot because it is fairly new. What we did is we picked a character dorm where the offenders live amongst themselves. They are held accountable by themselves. Just recently I received an email from Sandy sitting behind me that 10 of the folks that are in that program were either on the Dean's List or the President's List. Ms. Lawrence. Wow. Mr. Stirling. So, that is great. If I can briefly go back, in South Carolina we are teaching welding. Somebody just donated forklifts because warehousing is big in South Carolina. So they are going to learn and get their certification in forklifts, brick mason, things of that nature, plumbing. We teach and do all that stuff for people that are leaving and people that are there so we know when they leave they will be prepared. As a plumber, they will make twice as much as a lawyer would make by the hour. Ms. Lawrence. Exactly. This is where we need to move as a country. If we say you are going to do your time and pay for the crime that you commit, we should be committed to ensuring that this person does not return. If they commit the crime, yes, they should return. But how can you expect someone who knows how to be a criminal--they have proven it because they have been arrested and tried. They know how to commit crime. But if you really say the correctional system is to reform and to release a person back into society that will not be a prisoner anymore, then we have some responsibility. I yield back my time, and thank you, thank you for having this hearing. Chairman Gowdy. Yes, ma'am. The gentle lady yields back. I will now recognize the gentle lady from New York. I would tell my friend from New York, I think they are going to call votes in a couple of minutes. I am going to try to get my friend from Florida and my friend from the Virgin Islands in before I go so they can all go and I will be late for votes and not you all. So, with that, you are recognized. Ms. Maloney. First of all, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations on your appointment. And to the panelists, I have been listening in the back room and listening here too, and many of you bring a lot of experience on an incredibly important issue. Judge Williams, you recently chaired a working group convened by the Republican governor of Maryland, Larry Hogan, to examine the collateral consequences of imprisonment and criminal convictions. The working group issued its final report in December, and according to the report, and I quote, ``The American Bar Association's National Inventory of the Collateral Consequences of Convictions has cataloged more than 38,000 collateral consequences of criminal convictions, which include denial from public housing and public assistance, deportation, disenfranchisement, licensing or employment restrictions in a variety of occupations.'' Judge Williams, can you discuss how collateral consequences affect returning citizens' ability to provide for themselves and their families? Judge Williams. Certainly there have been a lot of studies around the country on the collateral consequences affecting persons returning back to the community. But there are a number of barriers imposed on individuals who are returning such as, again, trying to get licenses and other vocations to get involved in. In my state, my report focused on people who were embalmers and people who were pest controllers who needed to disclose their record in order to get a license, so that has been a problem. Of course, there has been discrimination against persons trying to get adequate housing. They have not been able to get Pell Grants, and there are a number of employers around who are simply afraid of hiring a person for fear of litigation and other kinds of things against them. We can certainly talk about voting rights. They have also been denied civil rights associated with that. So there are a host of collateral consequences imposed on people with records, and my position has always been that we can promote less recidivism if we come up with programs that are going to assist persons to make an adequate transition back to the community. Ms. Maloney. You have done this work on these current blanket bans. Would waiting 10, 20, even 30 years from the time of conviction, or even of release, to apply for a professional license or permit be long enough to make an ex-offender eligible for employment in these categories? Judge Williams. What is the question? Ms. Maloney. They have these blanket bans where they ban them ---- Judge Williams. Yes. Those are permanent. Ms. Maloney. They are absolutely permanent. Judge Williams. Absolutely ---- Ms. Maloney. So you could be out 30 years and be a good person and have a record of good work, and you still are blanket banned. Judge Williams. Absolutely, and the good news is that our state, of course, we think we are progressive, but this task force has dealt with that and encouraged the General Assembly, the state General Assembly to look at those blanket bans and permanent disallowance to see if they can do something about that. But that is one of our recommendations that came out of that task force report. Ms. Maloney. Yes, that is an important one. Now, could you also talk about the rights restoration certificates? Explain how these work and how can they help ex- offenders stay out of prison. Judge Williams. Yes. One of our recommendations was to have a group and an entity assess the progress that returning citizens are making. Once our organization or our entity or this department issues a certification that they are making progress, that the likelihood of them perpetrating another crime is excellent, then they get the issuance of a certificate which will be in the hands of employers and that would probably likely cause them to hire them. Ms. Maloney. Well, I think all of your testimony, your ideas are good ones. I think we should look at them. I know that this was a top concern of Ranking Member Cummings. I just talked to him on the phone and he was so interested to hear what is happening in the committee, but also President Obama did a lot of work and studies on prison reform, and I want to thank you for what you are doing. I think it is tremendously important. We have to help people, once they get out, stay out, and you certainly cannot help them if you are banning them from all types of employment. What was your recommendation on voting? I mean, they take away the voting rights, too. Were you recommending that people be able to vote? Judge Williams. Well, we had not addressed that yet. That is in, hopefully, a Phase II. Ms. Maloney. That is Phase II. Okay. My time has expired. Judge Williams. This was mostly vocational and occupational licensing. Ms. Maloney. Okay. Well, my time has expired. Thank you. Chairman Gowdy. The gentle lady from New York yields back. WE have a prosecutor and a former police chief left. You all are used to working together. I will let you continue to work together, and you can apportion time however you want. I am going to go last. I think they are about to call votes. Ms. Plaskett, I think you are technically up first, but you all can do what you want with the time. Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. I will be very mindful of the time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, witnesses, for being here. In 2013, former Attorney General Holder issued a memo to Federal prosecutors urging them to ensure that our most severe mandatory minimum penalties are reserved for serious high-level of violent drug traffickers. The Holder Memo, as it was called, was guidance that in cases involving applicable Title 21 gave prosecutors discretion to make a, quote, ``individualized assessment and fairly represent the defendant's criminal conduct.'' Judge Williams, I am so glad to have you here. What improvements did Attorney General Holder's charging policy make in the criminal justice system? Judge Williams. Certainly once that edict came down, the Federal prosecutors in my jurisdiction had a little more authority to offer pleas that did not involve mandatory minimum sentences. So everyone essentially was pleased with that. I do not have any statistics before me, but I know that the severity of penalties and the long sentences were decreased with that edict. Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. On May 10th of this year, Attorney General Sessions rescinded that policy and issued a memorandum that directed all Federal prosecutors to charge and pursue, quote, ``the most serious offenses that carry the most substantial guideline sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences.'' Judge Williams, in your experience, why is charging the most serious offense not always the most effective way to deter crime? Judge Williams. Yes. Again, I think that is misguided and is just not appropriate in every case to direct prosecutors to charge the most serious offenses. Again, every case is different, and there ought to be an easing of that philosophy, and I just disagree with whatever that edict is. Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. You know, I as well have been a prosecutor at a local level in the Bronx District Attorney's Office in New York City, and then at main Justice, working at the Justice Department, and it is my belief that this memo sends a chilling effect on our justice system both at a prosecutor's level, to make prosecutors go after the most serious charge, but also sends a message to policing as well in terms of criminals and how police are going to be handling the individuals that they encounter on the street and what the message is from the highest level of law enforcement. I talked with our chairman quite often about the fact that being a prosecutor was, to me, one of the most wonderful jobs that I had. It was a dream of mine. I come from a long line of law enforcement officers. My grandfather, my father were police officers, uncles, and I had to leave that job because I got tired of every day looking across the courtroom and seeing what looked like myself, seeing my sons, in essence, every day, and having to issue some of the most harsh charges on the people that I now represent, people that look like myself, people with names like John and Russ and Edmond, names that families have given their sons because they believe in them, names that I have given my own sons. I have four sons, and every day things like this from Jeff Sessions is really an indictment against my own sons, and I take that as a charge against them and those who look like them that says to scoop them up and put them away, and that is the way we are going to deal with individuals who look like that. I am really grateful that we are having this discussion. I am thankful that my colleagues across the aisle were willing to listen, to come up with solutions, not just for what happens in prison but before that. It is not just criminals that are scooped up. Many of us who have young black men as children, we give them--and I am going to use this term--they are going to get their Negro wake-up call, because as much education as they have, whatever they look like, as much middle-class as their families look like, they can be scooped up by the police just because of what they look like, and it has happened to all of us at one point or another. So I yield back the balance of my time, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to have these discussions. Chairman Gowdy. The gentle lady from the Virgin Islands yields back. The gentle lady from Florida is recognized. Ms. Demmings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations to you. And thank you to all of our witnesses, and thank you for the outstanding work that you are doing. I spent 30 years in law enforcement, and I will be one of the first to say that the criminal justice system, like other systems, definitely needs to be improved. But I also know from my own personal experiences that many times we ask the criminal justice system to do too much. We ask prisons and jails and even law enforcement to deal with issues that they were never designed to deal with, even though there are an array of issues that fall in that category. Mental health is certainly one of them. The Urban Institute did a study and found that 45 percent of Federal prisoners, 64 percent of jail inmates, and 56 percent of state prisoners have mental health problems. There was a sheriff of Marion County, Indiana, who raised the issue during a meeting with President Trump recently, and he said this, and I quote: ``There are people with mental illness who, for lack of a better term, are warehoused in our jails across America because we do not have the facilities necessary to take care of them.'' That is a sad statement. We also know that studies show that ex-offenders who are homeless are seven times more likely to re-offend. The bipartisan 21st Century CURES Act enabled during the last Congress reauthorized the Adult and Juvenile Collaboration Program and authorized $50 million annually through Fiscal Year 2021. The Act also expanded authorized activities under this program, including allowing grants to be used to provide a broad array of services to incarcerated individuals, including crisis response. However, this program has not been funded at authorized levels in recent years, and President Trump's budget continues that trend by requesting only $10 million for this program. Judge Williams, I would like to start with you. I know we have talked about a lot of things and you may have already talked about it, but what are some of the ramifications that you see as it pertains to recidivism and other issues when programs like this or funding like this is cut that so help to uplift those who have been incarcerated? And anybody else that would like to respond as well. Thank you. Judge Williams. I will just start off by saying cutting these programs is certainly not helpful for the entire idea of reducing massive incarceration. There are just a number of different factors that you have to take into consideration, the poverty, the family dysfunction, lack of access to appropriate education, and even the environment. All of those things need to be addressed, and I think proper funding would certainly help. I want to say one other thing. We all are getting concerned about the increased indictment of law enforcement officers around the country right now, and that is a real problem for persons like myself who have been prosecutors because in arguing to juries, we want to make sure we have people with integrity, and that lack of credibility is becoming a problem. So it is going to invest itself in the criminal justice system. That is a problem also that we really have not addressed adequately. Ms. Demmings. Thank you. Any others? Mr. Stirling. One thing I would like to talk about that we use through the Department of Justice is training our officers CIT, crisis intervention, how to deescalate a situation. When the mental health case came out and we started training officers, I think we have, I am going to guess, around 200 to 300 officers who can then take over a situation, even if they are not the highest ranking officer, and they know how to interact. It is a 40-hour class. We put a placard on them, and they are the folks who come in and help deescalate a situation. In the first weekend we talked an offender out of swallowing a razor blade. The officer went home safe, and that offender went and got mental health treatment and is alive today. That would have been a great cost to the state, and that officer could have been imperiled. So the CIT training is great. I have not read the budget, so I do not know about that, but this was a program that was offered to us, and we took advantage of it. Ms. Demmings. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman Gowdy. The gentle lady from Florida yields back. The Chair will now recognize himself. Bryan, I have told you on countless occasions you have the hardest job in all of law enforcement in South Carolina, and you do it so well. One thing I am so happy about today is you and your co-panelists are getting credit for trying to solve very, very difficult challenges. You also were a prosecutor in a former life, and it strikes me--you tell me if I am wrong--it is tough to get a conviction, especially a jury trial, beyond a reasonable doubt. Twelve folks, hard to get them to agree. So what happens sometimes is you will take a plea to probation because it is so much easier to revoke probation in front of a judge later on. You get the same result. You go to the Department of Corrections. You just get to bypass the difficulty of a jury trial. How do you see most of the probation revocations coming in to the SEDOC, and what can we do at that stage to kind of limit the in-flow into your facilities? Mr. Stirling. Sure. So, one of the things that came from the legislation, the sentencing reform oversight, was how people were revoked, and that is one of the reasons that, number one, we are not sending as many people to prison, but we are also not revoking for technical violations. I spoke with Jerry Adger, who used to be my Inspector General of the police force. He was a former SLED agent, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, and during his testimony last year he said we would go tell someone they had to pay their fees or you are going to jail, and if they could not pay their fees, guess what? We were furthering criminal activity, because they would go find the money another way. So we work with them and find ways to work out the fees that they have to pay, and sometimes if we have to waive the fees so we do not send someone back to prison, that is what we do. But they try to do everything they can to avoid sending folks back to prison. With our youthful offender program, the one that used to be 50 percent recidivism, now it is 22 percent, we have graduated responses. We can put an ankle bracelet on. We can do more checks. We can say you cannot go to this area. We can say you have to get a job, or we can bring them back for a time and then they leave, and we are seeing the success of that also. Chairman Gowdy. Something was touched upon, I think it was Mark Walker from North Carolina, which is the perception of the broader public of criminal justice reform in general. I do not think you and I are going to be accused of being soft on crime, and we talk about it, given what we did in previous lives. But there is a perception, and sometimes, because we live in a culture that is kind of dominated by episodes, you can have 90 percent of the people successfully part of a program, but that one episode where there is a recidivist or another crime committed tends to impact public perception. So what would you say to our fellow South Carolinians as a former prosecutor who is not soft on crime how not to be swayed by episodes of failure but to go ahead and pursue both the diversion programs on the front end--I am sure you had a tough time explaining to the victims of crime why someone was out on bond, particularly if they had a bunch of charges pending. So what would you say to the broader public about why it is still worth pursuing diversion programs, reentry programs, criminal justice reform, despite the fact that we are going to have episodic failures? Mr. Stirling. Well, as a grandson and a great-grandson of a police officer, and as a victim of a crime by someone who was out on bond and had been convicted before who broke into my house, I too understand being a victim, but it is balancing. In South Carolina, a very fiscally conservative state, saving those tax dollars and seeing the recidivism rate go down, not spending the $20,000 a year, and also the public safety--our crime rate is down, and I think it is because of what we are doing. I think it is also because of employment, 4.1 percent employment. It is a magic bullet. When someone is working and participating in society, as they are doing in Georgia and other states, I think that works. Education. Tenth grade is the average education level of folks that come to the Department of Corrections. So getting an education, and maybe it is not college. Maybe it is a technical school, and you can start a job, and you can start a business, and you can grow it from there. I just had my air conditioner replaced. I know how much an AC repairman makes. I mean, it is a substantial living. Chairman Gowdy. This is my last question, and then we will go to the gentleman from Wisconsin. There has been some discussion with, I know, Senator Booker, Senator Johnson from the great State of Wisconsin. It is bipartisan, what some people refer to as Ban the Box. There is, Judge--I think you will appreciate this--there is a body of research that it actually, at least in one study, had a disparate effect on the very group that we are seeking to help. And even if that one study is an anomaly, I am a little bit concerned that some of the Ban the Box legislation does not have relief for negligent hiring. That is still a civil cause of action that you can pursue against someone for negligent hiring if they fail to ask. So it is not really a question as much as particularly, Your Honor, you are an academic now, in addition to being a jurist. If any of the four of you have ideas on how to both solve that negligent hiring aspect and also deal with that one study out there that says that it really has a disparate impact on communities of color despite the fact that that is the opposite intent from what the legislation is, well-intentioned but still hurting the cause is not good. Yes, sir? Mr. Stirling. I can give you a quick question. We have a need for truck drivers in South Carolina, and I have had conversations with many truck drivers and many folks that were defense attorneys in the insurance industry, and one of the things that will come into court is if you are driving a truck and you hit someone, your record is going to be used against you. I have had conversations with legislators saying if it was not a driving charge and it did not affect, why should that come in as evidence in court? But I understand why insurance companies and businesses would have a concern. So that is not a Ban the Box, but it is an example of problems. We are still going forward and are going to train on that because there are companies that are willing to hire, but they will probably have to pay higher premiums because that will come into a court case, which is not really fair. Chairman Gowdy. You are right, it will. Judge Williams. Mr. Chairman, briefly, that is a real issue that you raise, the whole question of personal liability that the companies have, and I think the state legislatures are going to have to move to immunize those particular companies that reach out and employ returning citizens. They have to give them the leverage to do that. And also, we need to come up with some other incentives to give to employers to make sure that they will be receptive to hiring people with records. But that is a real issue that has to be addressed. Chairman Gowdy. Yes, sir. The gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? Because I raised this issue initially. I wonder if this disparate effect is because, while you do not know about the record, but the person has applied, so you know the race. So the reason for the disparate effect or the failure to hire may really be race and not the record of the ---- Chairman Gowdy. That is exactly what that study indicated, but it has a negative impact on one of the very groups that you would be seeking to help. So again, under the heading ``well intentioned,'' but this study may be an outlier. It may not be accurate. The judge is now an academic, it there may be five studies that debunk that one study. I do not want us to go down a road, if there is a way to fix that, without having unintended negative consequences. But the lady from the District of Columbia is right, it was race related, and that is what the study found. The gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Grothman. Before I ask a question, I would just like to make a statement. There was a comment made earlier today kind of pooh-poohing or saying it is no big deal on non-violent drug crimes. In my district I have a heroin problem. Part of that heroin problem is fueled, I believe, by prosecutors and judges in a county south of mine, Malaki County, who apparently think that if someone is caught selling heroin, it is not that big a deal. I think in this country every year thousands of people are dying of opioid abuse, and there are a variety of things that can be done to prevent it, but one of the things that I think is encouraging it is people who put this idea out that selling of drugs is a victimless or harmless crime. Thousands of people are dying of this harmless crime, and I strongly disagree with my colleague who kind of implied that if you put somebody in prison for trying to sell heroin, it is no big deal. It is a big deal. A lot of people are dying because of that. Now, Mr. McGahan--am I pronouncing that right? Mr. McGahan. Yes, sir, pretty good. Mr. Grothman. You brought up something before that I sometimes think is interesting. You mentioned the degree to which people almost do not work because of the size of garnishes for child support. Is that true? Mr. McGahan. Yes, sir. Mr. Grothman. There is something in the past, about 20 years ago, around here called the Bradley Amendment, I think about 20 years ago, that in essence said that even if child support is assessed wrongly, once it is assessed, you cannot undo it. Are you familiar with that? Mr. McGahan. I am not familiar with that amendment. No, sir. Mr. Grothman. Okay. Well, in any event, you are conscious of the fact that sometimes child support gets so--the debt is so great that ---- Mr. McGahan. Insurmountable. Mr. Grothman. Yes, insurmountable. You get to the point where it puts a strong disincentive to work legally. I guess I will put it that way. Mr. McGahan. No question about it. People come in and they cannot work in payroll jobs, so they have to work in under-the- table jobs or they have to engage in illegal activity. Mr. Grothman. Good. I wish you would follow up on that somewhere and maybe you can educate some people around here. Next question I have, you are always looking at the cause of crime, and I know a lot has been written about, or at least people keep track of race and imply that that might be a factor in incarceration or a factor in whatever. But I wondered, as far as family background is concerned, do we have any studies related to that that any of you folks are keeping track of? Mr. Stirling, do you keep track of that in the South Carolina Department of Corrections? Mr. Stirling. We do not, but one thing that was mentioned when Mr. Duncan came in was the need for a parent. One of the reasons I think we are seeing such success with our youthful offender program is these youthful offender officers, it is a 1-to-20 ratio. They get to know these folks that are under their supervision, and they are there to help them, but they are also there to keep them accountable. They do not want to disappoint--they become mentors, and I think they become mentors for life because a lot of folks who end up in prison just do not have a positive role model, and these folks that are giving their time and their life, because it is not just a 9-to-5 job. They are doing it on weekends, they are doing it at night, middle of the night. It is such a good program that some of the families now come to our officers and say my mother needs help with this, where can she go? Mr. Grothman. Okay. I will look at it both ways for you, Mr. Stirling, and maybe suggest in the future you do keep track of these statistics because they might be illuminating, and for whatever reason, political correctness or otherwise, I know in Wisconsin we did not keep track of this stuff either. But you might want to maybe just for one prison keep track of it so we find things out. I am not only talking here about the parental background of the people but, say, people who are convicted of a crime, say at age 25, at age 30. Do you compare, say, for men, the percentage of men who are committing crimes who are, say, married with children and those that are single or are not connected with their children? Mr. Stirling. We do. I do not have those in front of me, but I know we do a very comprehensive review and interview when people come in to try to find everything out about them when they do come in, education and things of that nature. Mr. Grothman. Why don't you get back to us? Because I am under the impression that a benefit of families is not only for the children but sometimes for the parents, and I have a feeling that if you check--I have no idea, I have never seen this study--that you go through all the people in your prison system and for an age group 30 to 35 or whatever, compare men who are married with children compared to men that either have no children or are unconnected with their children and see what sort of statistics you can drum up there. Can you do that for us? Mr. Stirling. Yes, sir. Mr. Grothman. That is going to take a lot of work. Mr. Stirling. That is fine, sir. Mr. Grothman. It will be cutting edge. Thanks much. Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Alabama has made a Herculean effort to come. I just heard the buzzer. I think we have time, given the fact that you are so interested in this issue and made such a great effort to get here. We will recognize the gentleman from Alabama, and then we will break. Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I had to leave. We have this whole issue of the budget going on. It is fairly important. A couple of things, Mr. McGahan. What are some of the major obstacles that the states impose on you to helping individuals who are exiting prison to find work? Mr. McGahan. When a person gets out of prison, a couple of things. First of all, for some folks, they do not have their driver's licenses, and they will get state-issued I.D.s. When a person goes in and tries to get a job, they have to give their I.D., and it says Jackson State Prison, and they immediately do not get the job. So having an identification or a driver's license that has nothing to do--that shows their background, that is an impediment to work. I think the second thing that we can do is we can raise the level of garnishments that poor people who have past-due child support, that is a huge barrier for them to get a job. So if we can eliminate that barrier, they will get work. And then the last thing that was mentioned before, the biggest thing that makes families stay together is when a man has a job. If a man has a job, we find that almost immediately that family, he gets involved in his child's life, he will get reconciled with the mother, and when he does not have a job and is living a destructive lifestyle, he is rightfully oftentimes pushed away from that child. So having employment while eliminating the barriers, changing his habits, and then getting a job will fix almost every problem. Mr. Palmer. When you talk about eliminating the barrier of child support and the garnishments and issues like that, that is a delicate balance that you are trying to do there where the state, I think, could be helpful to make sure that an appropriate amount of support is being provided to his dependent family members, but also not disincentivizing the individual from getting a job or seeking employment where he is basically paid a cash wage that is not subject to garnishment. Do you see that pretty much across the board nationwide? Is that a bigger problem in certain places than others? Mr. McGahan. I think it is a national problem. When I talk to my colleagues from other states, almost everyone will say one of the biggest problems that men face to get employment is eliminating wage garnishments. The problem is not that they do not owe the money, and we do not want to incent them to walk away from their responsibilities, but it is a question of balance of when they kick in. Having the ability to keep more dollars that they earn and to pay their own way, the ability to pay their own rent will go a long way to getting him into an employer, getting a career going, be valued in the workplace. We are putting work, we are valuing work over everything else, and that will reconcile the family. But right now I think the garnishments kick in too low, and that creates a barrier for him to seek employment. Mr. Palmer. Let me suggest that--and this might be of interest to all of you--that during the Bush Administration, Dr. Horn, Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, oversaw a program called the National Fatherhood Initiative where that was the very focus, to try to reconnect these men with their families, and it was very successful. I think that is something that might be useful to revisit at the state level as well as the Federal level, Mr. Chairman. One last point. One of the things that--I ran a think tank in Alabama, and one of the things that we were seeing is that about 60 to 68 percent of the inmates were high school dropouts regardless of race or gender. As has been pointed out, about 90-something percent of them are eligible for parole. Alabama has a prison crowding problem. We do not want to just release those back into prison. Have you given much thought to utilizing the Internet to allow these inmates to earn a high school diploma? Or if they have graduated high school, to earn an Associate or technical degree so that when they get out of prison, they have employable skills? Network them with businesses where it does not matter that that box is checked, and with a support group that helps them be reintegrated into society. Mr. McGahan. Yes, there are businesses that do that, and I think that is a tremendous idea. The one other piece is the habits of the person. So we have to eliminate the barriers, we have to get them skills, and then we have to change their habits, increase reliability for the employer, get them to show up at work on time, make sure they do not have an addiction, and if we can do those three things, then we will have a reliable person to continue on with their lives. Mr. Palmer. Thank you for allowing me to ask questions, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Alabama for making the effort to come back despite a very hectic day. I want to end by thanking the four of you for your collegiality toward one another and toward the members of the committee, your comity, with a ``T'', toward one another, and the committee. I also want to thank Cory and Tim, the panel before you, for coming. I hope you can tell from the member interaction that it is an issue that, while we may not agree on every facet of it, people are interested in it. We value your perspective and, frankly, we have benefitted from it today. So, thank you. If there is no further business, without objection, the committee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] APPENDIX ---------- Material Submitted for the Hearing Record [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]