I would say for this discussion that there are no differences, but we do not have specific programs specifically targeted for the female inmate population, which this would be consistent with all of corrections, not just within the federal system, but i would definitely take your question back to have discussions internally with the bureau to include my colleagues and if theres something that is being done or if you are aware of something specifically for the female inmate population relative to the cbt programs we provide. My understanding, as a general proposistion, women are in prison for drug crimes and not Violent Crimes. That is a very different profile than a dangerous felon in our system. I would ask that you take into consideration those kinds of factors as well as i think there may be some programs that will better enable women to reintegrate when they are released and would work for men. I believe that there are some states who recognize those kinds of factors and plan their programs in a way that reflects that kind of understanding. I think it is very important because as more and more women, who tend to still be the caregivers for their families, are incarcerated, that has a lot of ramifications to their families, their children, reentry, all of that. And i have recently put together a Wardens Advisory Group to look at what we have done historically and focus on those types of concerns your youre raising to make sure that if there are any a best practices were things we are moving in that direction to ensure that there is a balance on both sides. So the female inmates within our care are receiving appropriate attention and care relative to the issues you have raised. Because my oppressor and is generally there have been fewer programs for women and the prison system, and i understand your responsibilities on the federal side. Thank you very much. Thank you, senator. Thank you, mr. Samuels. We appreciate you being here today. We appreciate your support for a joint legislative executive efforts Going Forward that the bruner of our prisons will continue to show. We would continue to call on you for information and on your staff expertise and we look forward to that relationship as we proceed. Youre excused from the committee. We thank you for your testimony, and i will call up the second panel. I welcome our panel. Professor delisi is from iowa. The Ranking Member represents iowa and has asked that the professor testifies first so they can hear their constituents testimony first. We will go out of the usual and order and begin with the professor. Let me first ask of the witnesses and to affirm the testimony given before the committee will be the whole truth . Thank you, and please be seated. The professor is a professor and coordinator of criminal justice studies with the center for the study of violence at iowa state university. He is the editor in chief of a journal and has received a fellow award from the capital of the academy of criminal , and would yous like to make any further recognition of the professor . You said it all, but i do say welcome to you. Please proceed and then we go to the director and down the line. Thank you for this opportunity. Although reducing the costs of the o. P. Is important, the policy recommendations neglect the antisociology of criminal defenders and recidivism that would result from a large scale release. The majority of the testimony attests to the antisociology behavior risks noted by the model federal prisoner with estimates of additional crimes that could result from the policy recommendations. The report posits the notion drug offenders are somewhat innocuous and their behavior is limited to drug sales and use. Criminal offenders and all criminal offenders tend to be versatile in their offending behaviors. A person sentenced for drug crimes is also likely that property crimes, Violent Crimes, nuisance crimes, traffic violations, and assorted violations in the criminal justice system. A discussion of drug offenders should also be understood that next week they are likely to the property offenders. Recent Research Using a variety of samples indicated that drug use is one of the prime drivers of overall criminal activity. Analytic Research Indicates drug offenders offending rates is three or four times of those who do not have drug problems, and their behavior goes far beyond drug offending. Regarding safety, current law permits judges to wait mandatory minimums agencies for person with no criminal history. The policy is adequate to avoid inadequate confinement of low risk offenders. The entire paradigm demonstrate s continuity and antisocial behavior from childhood to adulthood. 25 of the offenders are gang members. Prison is an important interruption of their criminal careers, but the preponderance of offenders will continue to commit offenses upon release. Releasing these types of offenders could likely produce more crime. Research has shown a one prisoner reduction in the population is associated with a 15. 1 index crime increase per year. Releasing 1 of the Current Population would result in approximately 32,850 additional crimes. An independent study by other researchers arrived at the estimate that one prisoner reduction increases crime by 17 offenses per year. Thus to use the same example, releasing one percent of the Current Population would result in 37,230 additional offenses. The safety valve one recognition of the urban Institute Proposal to release 2000 offenders based on these estimates would produce a range of 30,000 to 34,000 additional index crimes. In terms of safety valve , the proposal 2 runs the creation to apply beyond drug offenders with minimal criminal histories, armed career criminals, and Identity Theft offenders. The release of these matters could the disastrous to Public Safety. Regarding expanded incentivize programming estimates, using the same data, proposal to potentially release 36,000 inmates over the next 10 years will produce an estimated 540,000 to 612,000 new index crimes. The report contains no mention of the various conditions relating to criminal propensity of federal offenders. Y isprevalence of psychopath h one of the most pernicious conditions and one of the most robust predictors of recidivism. The release would includes the release of hundreds of thousands of clinically psychopathic offenders. Another important construct is sexual sadism. Even after decades of confinement, offenders who are sexually sadistic pose a significant risk to the community as exemplified by a current inmate who was sentenced to death in 2003 after serving approximately 1 4 century for prior convictions. These conditions are not limited to homicide offenders and sex offenders, but found in offenders convicted of other crimes. We were trying to keep our testimony to five minutes per witness. If you could sum up. A final point and i have some questions in the testimony your testimony will be in the record. Leahyan lee he stated the problem is one that congress created. I would also add that corollary benefit of that legislation was the reduction of crime by increased use of confinement. Thank you very much, professor. Let me now introduce john wetzel, the director of corrections of the state of pennsylvania, but the nomenclature is different in its own name. He is the secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of corrections. He oversees all functions relating to the Pennsylvania Department of corrections operations, budgeting, personnel, and training. He began his corrections career in 1989 at an officer at a county correctional facility. He served as an officer, treatment counselor, supervisor, Training Academy director, and as warden of the Franklin County jail. He is a member of the American Correctional Association and the American Jail Association and a past president of the Pennsylvania County Corrections Association and had very nice things to say as we said hello at the beginning. Please proceed. Thank you very much, thanks for the opportunity to talk about pennsylvania and the experience we have had in addressing many of the same problems you all face in the federal system. Specifically, when governor tom corbett was elected, he was the attorney general. Before that he was a federal prosecutor. He has a unique perspective. He has had a firsthand view of the corrections system, and what he saw the 24 years before we took over was an average growth of 1500 inmates a month. We took over nearly three years ago, we have 51,000 inmates, and that was a consistent growth over republican and democratic administrations. The one charge he gave me when we took over was not to reduce population, not to reduce spending, although both of those things are a priority. The main priority was to improve outcomes and improve our Correction System and take the give that we need to get a better return on our investment for what we are spending in corrections. How do we do that . We applied for and received grants to go to the justices reinvestment process, and went through a process that was aide that was data driven. The governor was a hard sell. It takes the perspective of many folks on the panel in that we are very concerned, the bottom line for us is always going to be crime rate and Public Safety. So the process had to be data driven. We gather data through this process, and the most important part of this process is that it was a process that was participatory, the head stakeholders as part of the group that looked at the policy options. We looked at what the drivers were, and identify policy options looking nationally and internationally at policy options that seemed to work for other jurisdictions. We build consensus, a key part of the process, where we had the aclu and the conservative ink conservative think tankers sitting there having discussions and coming to agreement on how we can Better Outcomes. Some of the focus needs to be on what the root cause of the crime is. It is easy in this field to paint with broad brushes and say we do not want to open the back door and let a bunch of people run out because that will have a negative effect on Public Safety. What we agree with is what we want out of the justices is when somebody becomes criminally involved, and they come out the back end of our system, what we want them to be is less likely to become criminally involved again. We can all agree with that. Theres enough research out there that tells us that when we make good decisions from the front end of the system who needs to be incarcerated, and more specifically what the root cause of the crime is, so violent offenders among murderers, rapists are different, and we cannot paint with the same brush as someone who the root cause of the crime is addiction. It does not matter how long we lock an addict up. We got policy options that were legislative, and in six months, that passed unanimously in the house and senate, which was miraculous in pennsylvania, and we came up with policy options. What those options resulted in was under our 2 1 2 years we have average a decline of 70 inmates a year out of 51,000. You look at a consistent inmate growth per year, eliminated that. We have been able to close a couple of prisons and get more people into programming, and that has been the key. Our policy options started at the front end, identified groups who were not appropriate ever come to a state prison. Then we looked at funding risk based sentencing, so the commission in pennsylvania is building a sentencing tool so the judge has risk information, not just a presentence investigation, but risk what is the risk for this offender, and that factored into the sentencing. We looked within the department of corrections, which had areas that were not doing good. Waiting lists for programs, how can we better deliver programs, and part of that was making sure we are only putting people in the programs. In the back end of our system we put a lot of focus on. The community criticisms, we put Community Corrections system, we put 110 million in it. We saw 95 of those programs were not effective. We restructured the programs and we decided to put a performance measure on the contract, so the contractors are paid based on their ability to impact recidivism. This process was a good process, and at the same time, our crime rate went down. The crime rate in pennsylvania continues to go down. Thank you. That is a terrific story. Thank you very much. The next witness is representative john tilley, who represents the eighth district of kentucky in the kentucky general assembly. He has served in that assembly since january 2007, and he is the chair of the House Judiciary Committee where he has been the chair since 2009. In that role he worked with other state leaders to form a bipartisan, multibranch task force with the goal of enhancing Public Safety, controlling correction costs, and decreasing recidivism. He is currently the vice chair of the National Conference of state legislatures committee on justice and the judiciary. He was a prosecutor, prior to turning the legislature, serving for six years as christian countys assistant attorney, and were delighted hes here today. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. We had a similar story as pennsylvanias. I can say with confidence as well as a former prosecutor, members, that we can have it all , in one sense. We can have better Public Safety at less cost with less crime and less recidivism. I will tell you it was no honor when the future will trust in their project made us the poster child for prison growth in 2008. They released a report called one in 100, which did for the which stood for the proposition that one in 100 adults in this country were behind bars. In kentucky that rate was one in 92. As an aside, in the country, there are one in 31 adults under some form of correctional control. It is a stunningly high. I think it should hit all of us. In the decade ending doesnt think about the growth rate was almost quadrupled the national average. We were at 45 of the rest of the country. To put that even in greater context, let me tell you that we comprise up to 5 of the worlds population, but we house 25 of the worlds visitors. Worlds prisoners. Kentucky was the epicenter of prison growth for the country. Did all that translate come all that record spending and record incarceration translate into better Public Safety, less crime, less recidivism . In kentucky, it did not. All that spending amounted to very little. Recidivism remained above the national average. Our crime rate had always been relatively flat. The crime rate has been dropping for some time, but we only enjoyed about 1 3 of that job. Of that drop. We were about 6 of the previous decade. The rest of the country was 19 . We remained flat as well, and our sister state to the south, tennessee, their crime rate up again, we are one of the safer states in the country and now they remain one of the more high crime states and their prison growth is exploding. In response we have formed a multibranch Bipartisan Task force, a small task force, seven members. We received support from the business community, the retail federation, and the Kentucky Chamber of commerce. We received support from all manner of stakeholders in this effort. What we found was this that our prison growth rate was being driven not by crime, but by the number of arrests, in court cases, drug offenses, rising incarceration rates for technical parole violators, and a low level offenders were driving this population. In kentucky they were far more likely to go to prison than any state. We found that to be a 57 to 41 number there. In a bipartisan way, a bill passed in the house and in the senate. The goal is better Public Safety, less cost, getting smarter on crime. I do not have time to tell you about that, but let me tell you and i want to stick to my time, focus our most extensive prison beds on the most serious offenders, find alternatives for the nonviolent drug offenders, which we done, and use those savings to expand treatment opportunities and supervision opportunities for a number of our lowlevel offenders who are driving that population. We have strengthened probation and parole. We have seen a stunning result from pretrial alone with not having to detain so many low level misdemeanors. It has increased our Public Safety rate. They show up to court at a greater rate even though they are not being housed. Counties are saving millions. We have modernized our drug code which is been a focus today from a number of voices. We have deferred prosecution, a possibility which must be prosecutor approved for low level drug offenses. These are prosecutordriven things. Not one felony has been reclassified to a misdemeanor in our negotiations to come up with a way to approach this. We reinvested the savings which have been in the millions into increased drug treatment. I will get to how much we have in that in a minute. Let me tell you we have achieved remarkable results. We now have fewer prisoners at lower cost. One benchmark, a few months ago, we were at 3500 less out of a total of 20,000. We were supposed to be 24,000. As the secretary said, we are below that average him and about 3500 fewer. We have less recidivism for the first time in a decade. We have dropped five percentage points. We have a 500 increase in drug abuse capacity, drug treatment capacity. Chairman, member of the committee, we have a lot of work ahead of us. We invite you to learn more. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being here, and it is a remarkable success story. Our next witness is nancy levine, the director of the Justice Policy center at the urban institute where she oversees a portfolio of projects related to crime and Public Safety. Prior, she was the founding director of the Crime Mapping Research Center at the National Institute of justice. She has written on a variety of subjects, including Crime Prevention and the spatial analysis of crime. Doctor, welcome. Thank you, mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here. I represent the urban institute. We are nonprofit, non partisan research organization. We do not engage in advocacy. Rather, our mission is to bring facts and data and research to bear on present topics like the one we are here to discuss today. It is in that spirit that about a year ago we set out to chronicle the drivers of the federal prison population and its growth over time and to project the impact of various policies that were on the table to reverse that growth. Much in the way that we heard in the models of the states in pennsylvania and kentucky, a similar justice reinvestment model of identifying drivers of growth. We also looked at the degree of overcrowding. Members have already documented that. The overcrowding is tremendous. It is a great risk to the safety of both staff and inmates. More importantly, from the research we have done, looking at the impact of programs designed to prevent recidivism, the crowding in the federal system creates tremendous challenges for delivering for programs and treatment that is so necessary to support successful reintegration of federal offenders will when they of federal offenders when they exit prison. What we know from our own research that weve conducted to development of the what works in reentry clearinghouse, the research on the types of programs, and what we learned is there are programs that work. There are many programs that work across a whole host of types of reentry interventions. From Substance Abuse treatment to employment, education programs, vocational programs, Mental Health treatment, programs to support family visitation, and each one of those categories we have identified one, if not several, of impactful programs that Research Says worked. Within the federal bureau of prisons, a program has been researched and found to be effective, as has prison industries. There is a lot of opportunities to provide programming and help support Public Safety, but those are limited by the crowded prison environment in the federal system as well as limited resources with which to dedicate to offer such programs. There are Many Solutions on the table. The solutions were not developed by the urban institute. They were developed by various congressional staffers in partnership with members, and include legislative proposals that are sponsored by members of this committee. What we set out to do was to analyze how these different proposals would yield impact on both the prison population and on cost. When we looked at those projections, we were very conservative in our estimates. We were conservative in that we were fiscally conservative. We chose to use the marginal cost of prison rather than the average cost. I can explain more about the importance of that later. We thought it was best to be conservative, so some of the estimates are actually lower than others who were trying to project the impact of these various policies. Similarly, and importantly, our estimates were conservative with regard to how we perceive them being enacted on the ground. And we firmly believe that judges will adjust extreme will exercise extreme caution in discerning who should benefit from these programs, and most of these look at risk levels, something that was critical in the work that states have done, Risk Assessments being very important in determining who really needs to be in prison and who could be subject to Early Release policies. For that reason, also, our estimates may be lower in terms of additional cost savings than you might hear from other people. At any rate, you know from our report that we have set a whole that we assess a whole host of different policy changes. We know reducing mandatory minimums and giving judges discretion to deviate from mandatory minimums could save literally billions of dollars. We know current time credits for Program Participation can not only relieve crowding in the short run, but also provides incentives for inmates to take part in programs that are in the interest of Public Safety. We have heard examples from the states and not just those represented here, but we know of others, texas, new york, and that have engaged in sweeping reforms and have a verdict growth through reducing their populations. I think this is a moment of tremendous opportunity, and i thank you for your leadership on it. We hope is the moment of tremendous opportunity. I thank the urban institute for that. We now welcome the former assistant attorney general where he oversaw all activities relating to initiative such as projectsafe neighborhoods. Prior to his service, he taught 30 years at the university of massachusetts amherst, and he is welcome here today. Please proceed. Thank you. In their draft report, the urban institute, observes that federal population has escalated to over 219,000 today. It observes this growth has come at great expense to taxpayers and other fiscal priorities. I cannot agree more with this report on the problems of fiscal austerity confronting Public Safety budgets. I believe we need to be very careful not to oversimplify the tradeoffs in Public Safety that we need to consider in order to make good decisions and as a result may offer Cost Shifting instead of true cost savings. The more comprehensive view would cast the issue differently. We need to reduce not the cost of incarceration, or indeed the criminal justice system, but rather the total social cost of crime, including not only expenditures on Public Safety, but also the cost of victimization. As we seek to do this, the allocation of funds among components of the system should be guided by their demonstrated effectiveness in reducing crime, not their absolute or relative size compared other components of the system. It is all too tempting to look ,o the correctional system state and federal, as a piggy bank him or as a source of savings. Cbs aired a segment last sunday morning entitled the cost of a nations incarceration. The implication of the program was that the United States incarcerates too many people at too high a cost. How large and costly is the prison population . According to the bureau of u. S. Justice statistics, 1,598,780 adults were incarcerated in u. S. Federal and state prisons and county jails at the end of 2011, a decrease of over 2010. The prison rate has declined since 2007 when there were 506 persons in prison per 100,000 u. S. Residents. The rate in 2011 was comparable to the rate last observed in 2005, which was 492 persons for 100,000 population. Given that population and a recent calculated average per inmate cost of incarceration at 31,286, we could estimate the total cost of incarceration nationwide in 2011 as 50. 2 billion. Surely a large sum, but is it disproportionate in relative terms . In order to understand that we have to bring into the calculation, what did we get in return for that 50. 2 billion . As some have testified previously and noted, and some of the members of the committee have noted, according to the fbis uniform crime report, between 1960 and 1992, the number of Violent Crimes in the United States increased nearly sevenfold from a 288,000 to more than 1. 9 million. The Violent Crime rate increased nearly fivefold, but then the crime rate began to decrease. It decreased for nearly a decade and plateaued until two years ago, when it started to pick up. Scholars who have looked at this decline and tried to give a reason for it has noted that incarceration and increased incarceration in the United States played a very large role in this particular decline. What we got for our 50. 2 billion investment was a decrease in crime that its the value its value is underestimated because it does not include psychiatric cost of 180 billion per year. I leave it to you to judge whether a 50 billion investment will get you 180 billion return is a good idea or not. This is not meant to suggest that nothing can be done to you with the current fiscal problems affecting the criminal justice system, in federal prison system, but rather to counsel caution in dealing with sweeping claims of cheap and highly effective alternatives to federal incarceration. We need to do four things. First, we need to understand unique characteristics of the federal prison system, and they are quite different from the state prison systems. Second, we need to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions meant to reduce recidivism. Third, we need to make use of the literature on predicting criminality and also identifying markers of its onset, and finally, we need to hold tenaciously to our actions to reduce the total social cost of crime to the merely practice of shifting them to others. Thank you, dr. Sedgwick. Let me start with secretary wetzel. You are an observer from the outside of the federal bureau of prisons. Corrections is your lifelong profession. You have been very successful in pennsylvania, and you are showing not only bipartisanship, but unanimity, and then success in the reform effort. What would you take out a out of pennsylvanias experience and apply as lessons that would be helpful for the federal bureau of prisons . Are there critical differences that we need to acknowledge . What are they . Are there similarities . What are they . What are the successes that you would apply to the federal colleagues . From the process standpoint, we were able to have people check their r or d at the door and become part of the process, and we set a goal and acknowledged goal and put all the partisan stuff aside. That is the first and foremost. Understand we all want the same thing, with outcomes. And then i think really understanding the dynamics of the population. Certainly, the federal population is arguably different from the state operation, but it is very important to accurately identify and build consensus and what group we are comfortable doing with in another manner. And then specifically, as we split these different groups out, then look at how we likely to get the best outcome. You are not going to bat a thousand on this, but where are we going to get the best outcome on this. We had consensus that we were not getting outcomes from our approach. Business as usual was not acceptable, and nobody can make the argument that we were happy with return on investment we were getting for corrections. By the same token, we certainly did not want to open up the back door and have an increase in crime because we are trying to do what is expedient. That was not the approach at all. I think if you focus on how we are likely to reduce crime, and we did not necessarily focus on the dollars. We focused the focused on how we were going to get Better Outcomes, and a byproduct of that is a reduction of population. It was a natural byproduct then the goal was to if you take that approach and not say our goal is reduce spending by x amount, but to get Better Outcomes and identify folks that we can deal with in a different manner, that is the best way to move forward. When you talk about identifying folks, what are the sorts of categories you looking out . Looking at . Age, gender, drug history, length of term what are some of the group should pick of the opposition and to improve the focus and out did you define those . We did not talk about violent versus nonviolent. As many people pointed out, by the time someone came to the corrections, he had an average of eight arrests. Nobody gets walked up for jaywalking in harrisburg. That is not why theyre there. We do not put the figures on that. We put the focus on actuarial risk. Lets look at actuarial risk tools that allow us to predict future crimes and future recidivism. And to try to make to the extent possible good individual decisions and give judges the tools that they have all the information to make those individual decisions. You were dialing into the presentence report for judges . Yes. Under the rendell administration, they passed this sentencing tool that was opposed bethat was supposed to developed by the sentencing commission. It was not funded. Through our initiative we were able to find that so we can give judges actuarial information at sentencing. Where did you get the actuarial information . We had information, and the commission is a group who is in charge of taking that and developing a tool getting information out of the tracking information on your own intimates, essentially . The sentencing commission, the courts, the different agencies, pulled all those together, get the information together, put together a tool, tested it, and then roll it out across the state. Ok, thanks. Thank you. Can you pick out what kentucky has done, any particularly successful elements that you would commend to us as areas of focus . There are number of measures on the front end and back end that are translatable to the federal system. Im no expert on the federal bureau, but we are talking about folks i will tell you that it seems to me that being a former prosecutor i saw a number of cases proceeding and moving along to conviction, and it seems were doing more of the same kind of work than one might imagine. For those that do not achieve parole, we release them into a controlled environment prior to the expiration of their sentence. As experts tell us, if you catch that offender in the First Six Months of reef every entry, you can achieve a more successful reentry. That is significant. Taxpayers and constituents deserve our best effort to make sure the offender does not reoffend. There are a number of things we can do. We found, some much what theyre ng in hawaii, your experiences the same. You get a smaller reaction if it tooccurring more certain violations. One thing on the front end, and unexpected success we have had with lowlevel offenders and particular misdemeanors that were filling our county jails. I think it is translatable. We are using science and Risk Assessment to figure out who presents the most risk and who can be released or who needs to stay in. Tool that is the court used system has chosen it. We have a unified pretrial system. It is state run, state driven. We can do that. What we have seen is an increased Public Safety rate. They are showing up to court at a greater rate. We are saving our counties millions. That is translatable. Thelso preserves presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That is in our bill, to detain and offender. That is important as well. I remember going around rhode island with a map that showed left people went when they the Correctional Institution and went back into the community. I think we did it by zip code. Some zip codes reentry had no impact. No one returned to those communities. Other communities were receiving an avalanche of people coming out of the prison system. Reentry, did about what it means to the surrounding community, particularly the ones heavily impacted by high returns from the prison population . We talked about Community Supervision. Community corrections doesnt play quite as well for the ear. You want to direct the offender closer to their community. You want to help them really integrate. When you modify behavior in ones setting and they returned to their home, they returned to the behavior without certain controls and behavior modification strategies in place. We focused on that. We have that kind of Community Supervision in place throughout our bill. Were trying to redirect some of the savings to those communities so we are not having to find new dollars to pay for this increase. It is clearly less expensive. We have several minimum conditions. Ofhave over those 10 those minimum conditions. It is less expensive and more effective than what it costs in kentucky. Off from theat far numbers that have been thrown out here today. When you have state savings and a decrease in recidivism, buy in ass begin to well. We are at about 109 of capacity. The challenge becomes the s with who you put in a cell together. Overall numberhe of misconducts would skyrocket, but i would guess the severity and some of the incell violence we got better at at our practices. The second area that gets impacted by crowding would be segregation. Crowding,ly, without segregationouble cells. You have to find somewhere to put somebody. You make decisions in putting people together that you would rather not have to make. It is your experience it is your experience that higher overcrowding has a tendency to increased violence and risk within the population. Absolutely. At a minimum, it would require additional cost. Yes. Any suggestions you would highlight that you think would have particular effect for the bureau of prisons . As i already stated, the proposals in our report arent the urban institutes proposals. What we set out to do is to project the impact of these various proposals on populations and costs. Which ones would you highlight for us . I will highlight any number of them that you are interested in. The ones represented in the smarter sentencing act, for example, reduces mandatory minimums in three ways. It cuts the mandatory minimums for certain types of drug offenders virtually in half. That alone, we predict, could reduce overcrowding by 20 in 10 years and save over 2 billion. It also reduces mandatory minimums by extending the safety valve to criminal history 2 categories. That gives for judicial discretion to deviate from mandatory minimums. As i referenced in my formal statement, there is a lot of restrictions to our projections. We dont assume that this means that everybody with a criminal history category 2 is going to be subject to reduced sentences. Theres a lot of judicial discretion involved. Our own assumptions assume that a lot of offenders will not be subject to that because of their risk levels and their criminal history. Regardless, we find that alone would reduce overcrowding by 46 in 10 years. It would save 544 million. And there is retroactivity which would save tremendous volume, to the tune of 229 million. Even that reflects a conservative effort on our part. We assumed 10 of those who could be subject to the crack retroactivity in the fair sentencing act proposal would not because they pose too high a risk to society based on their inprison behavior. Thank you very much. As i understand your testimony, if i could restate it in a single sentence, it would be that you are warning us against either sweeping or overbroad measures that might create a Public Safety cost outside the prison system that more than offset any savings within the prison system, but you accept that if this is done in the right way, the smart way, there is opportunity here to both improve Public Safety and lower corrections cost . I think you summarized it beautifully. One of the bugaboos that i have is that we very often talk about these complex issues and treat offenders either as generic, like they are all the same, or we treat them as dichotomous and say there are the violent ones and the nonviolent ones. And if you know the research on, for example, career criminals and criminals with a history specialization, there is a subset of the offender population that are purely property offenders and never commit a violent offense. But among violent offenders, they have a mix of property offenses and violent offenses in their history, as professor delisi mentioned. We need to be much more granular and much more careful about this. Let me ask representative tilley and secretary wetzel. Are you comfortable that the tools you have used meet those concerns . Yes. So, its doable . I would concur. Very good. I ask unanimous consent, which i will achieve since i am the last one here [laughter] that two articles be added to the record. One is a New York Times article or opinion piece, for lesser crimes rethinking life behind bars. The other is by our corrections director. The record of this hearing will remain open for one additional week for any further questions or testimony that anybody wishes to offer. Let me once again thank each of the witnesses for coming and lending your expertise and, in the case of chairman tilley and secretary wetzel, youre very long and wellearned personal experience in this area. I think that what youve done politically to make these changes happening your home states is very impressive. Im sorry you missed by one in getting unanimity the way pennsylvania did. Unanimity by all but one vote is pretty darned impressive. Obviously a lot of careful work went into the kind of product that could both be unanimous and impactful. You can do unanimous all day long if you end up with no results, but doing something that really makes change and getting the kind of Political Support at home that makes it unanimous in the legislature is a very significant achievement. Im delighted you both had the opportunity and the ability to come here today. I thank you very much for being here, all the witnesses. It was extremely helpful. To the urban institute, we look forward to continuing to working with you. Thank you for the report. With that, we are adjourned. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] on this veterans day, washington journal is devoting its pro program to issues important to veterans. Talks about the divide between citizens and military. Caroroll. , ward then, discussion on the issue facing veterans including the backloglog the vas for health aide. Washington journal is live every day at 7 00 a. M. Here on cspan. In observance of veterans day, president obama and the first lady will visit the Arlington National cemetery. Expecteddent is also to deliver remarks. You can watch the ceremony live at 11 00 a. M. Eastern, here on cspan. I have spending a lot of time dealing with the fcc. Important that the agency make decisions and make decisions in a timely fashion. There is nothing worse for investment, innovation, job creation, all of the things that thanfrom investment businesses not knowing what the rules are. Chairman wheeler is right. With a slowmoving agency like this, that deliberates for end, it even years o creates uncertainty. Businesses need certainty to invest. ,f there is one thing we need we need investment. Gustin on the challenges ahead for tom wheeler. Mrs. Kennedy is known as a style icon. Admiration of her fashion sense. Put a lot of she thought into her wardrobe when she was representing the country. She would think about what colors would mean something to the country she was about to visit. Visits to canada, she chose this of respect a gesture to the canadian maple leaf. I admire the thought you put into her wardrobe. First lady, jacqueline 9 00dy, tonight, live at p. M. On cspan and cspan3. Withming up next, q and a Greg Easterbrook, talking about the role of football in todays society. At 7 00 a. M. , washington journal is live with your calls and the days latest news. This week on q and a, journalists, columnists Greg Easterbrook discusses his new book. Gregg easterbrook, why did you decide to name your latest book the king of sports . The book is about football, the good and bad of football. It has both. It is the king of sports, the most important, popular, most exciting game in the most important country in the world. Americas game use to be baseball and baseball is still a very entertaining sport. But football, now, is the king of sports what gave you the idea to do this book . What connection does it have with politics . I have kind of a quirky paid hobby for 15 years. I have written a weekly football column for espn, also for the nfl. Publishers have asked me to write a book about football and i was flattered, but i thought, what could i add . There have been plenty of good books about teams and coaches and players. I realize the book that had not been written was a book assessing the role of football in american society. Young boys, teaching them how to be men, a lot of positives, public enthusiasm. There are a lot of negatives. Corrupting effect on education, public subsidies and so on. I wanted to weigh the two, and seek an answer to the question, is football fundamentally good or bad for us . Secondarily, how should it be reformed, which is what it became about. Alter the book, i noticed to get some strong personal opinions. I want to read one. This is in the middle of a paragraph