[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 19, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-50
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-847 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
LAMAR SMITH, Texas Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio JUDY CHU, California
TED POE, Texas TED DEUTCH, Florida
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
MARK AMODEI, Nevada SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho JOE GARCIA, Florida
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
JASON T. SMITH, Missouri
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama Virginia
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JUDY CHU, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
Caroline Lynch, Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
SEPTEMBER 19, 2013
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations................................................. 1
The Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations................................................. 2
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 4
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 11
WITNESS
The Honorable Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Director, Federal Bureau
of Prisons
Oral Testimony................................................. 12
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary..................... 5
Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary..................... 30
Material submitted by the Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland
Security, and Investigations................................... 50
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Charles E.
Samuels, Jr., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons.............. 114
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2013
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
Homeland Security, and Investigations
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Sensenbrenner, Goodlatte, Bachus,
Franks, Scott, Conyers, and Bass.
Staff present: (Majority) Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian
& General Counsel; Robert Parmiter, Counsel; Alicia Church,
Clerk; and (Minority) Ashley McDonald, Counsel.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Subcommittee will come to order.
And without objection, the Chair will be authorized to
declare recesses of the Subcommittee at any point.
The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
Since the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the
Bureau of Prisons has experienced exponential growth in its
prison population. Today the BOP houses 219,196 inmates in 119
institutions across the country and currently accounts for a
quarter of the Justice Department's operating budget. If you
add the offenders in the custody of the Marshals Service, which
is responsible for pretrial and pre-sentencing detainees, the
Department spends a full third of its budget housing prisoners.
The dramatic growth in the BOP's population over the last 3
decades is of concern to Members on both sides of the aisle. It
has led to extremely high crowding rates in BOP facilities.
Today the BOP is operating at 39 percent above capacity across
the board. The crowding problem is particularly acute in high
security facilities which house some of the most dangerous
inmates in the Federal system. High security facilities are
experiencing a crowding rate of 55 percent. To increase
available bed space, wardens have resorted to extreme measures
like triple and quadruple bunking or converting common space
such as the television room into temporary housing space. As a
result, inmates may experience crowded bathroom and food
service facilities and more limited opportunities for
recreational, vocational, and educational programming, all of
which can contribute to inmate misconduct.
It is clear that Congress and the Administration need to
closely look at the problems associated with the BOP's
population growth because there is no indication that the tide
of Federal inmates is ebbing. On the contrary, GAO estimates
that by 2020, BOP may be responsible for housing nearly a
quarter of a million inmates eating up more and more taxpayer
dollars. Clearly, this is an unsustainable trajectory.
While we all agree that there is a problem, it is less
clear what the solution should be. Some in Congress and the
Administration have suggested the answer is to give the inmates
additional good time credits for not engaging in bad behavior
while incarcerated. I am concerned, however, that Congress
simply cannot solve the problem by letting the inmates out
early. We need to take a hard look at the increasing
incarceration costs that the BOP faces regardless of an
increasing prison population. We need to address the issue of
inmate and prison guard safety as exemplified by the murder of
Correctional Officer Eric Williams at USP Canaan in
Pennsylvania earlier this year. And we need to identify proven
cost-effective programs to reduce recidivism and overcrowding.
Today's hearing will examine the Bureau of Prisons' policy
surrounding all these issues and identify systemic problems
that need to be corrected. I hope to learn more about the
issues surrounding the cost to construct and operate BOP
facilities and deliver health care to an aging population and
rehabilitative programming to those inmates who will benefit
and to support and maintain a professional, dedicated staff. I
look forward to hearing from the director on all these
important topics today.
And it is now my pleasure to recognize for his opening
statement the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for calling
the hearing today.
I welcome Director Samuels to the hearing.
This hearing comes at a very important time. Today the
number of Federal prisoners has grown from 25,000 in 1980 to
almost a quarter of a million now. Imprisoning this many people
is expensive. The average annual cost for an inmate for low
security is about $25,000; high security, over $30,000 per
year. Even if we go through with the sequester, the Bureau of
Prisons is actually receiving over $6 billion for this fiscal
year.
The Federal prisons are overcrowded. The Bureau is
currently operating at 39 percent its rated capacity with 55
percent crowding at high security facilities. Overcrowding at
these levels threatens the safety both of inmates and
correctional officers and undermines the ability of the Bureau
to provide programming for inmates.
Now, the main drivers of prison growth are front-end
decisions about how long someone goes to prison. Obviously, the
Bureau cannot control that. But mandatory minimums have a lot
to do with that, as well as simple-minded slogans like ``three
strikes and you are out,'' ``the failed war on drugs,'' all of
which lead to the fact that the United States locks up a higher
portion of its population than any country on earth, about five
times the international average.
I applaud the Attorney General's recent announcement about
reforms within the Department of Justice, but we need to do a
lot more if we are going to extend this expansive growth. The
Bureau cannot control what we send them or how long, but the
General Accountability Office has identified several programs
that the BOP can make better use of on its own without
congressional action to reduce overcrowding. These include
fully utilizing the residential drug abuse program. The GAO
found that only 19 percent of inmates who successfully
completed the program in 2009 to 2011 received the maximum
reduction available under the Bureau policy, and the average
sentence reduction was only 8 months. If inmates had received
the full 12-month reduction in those years, the Bureau would
have saved over $100 million.
In addition, the Bureau excluded by policy entire
categories of inmates from participating in the program. For
example, inmates whose Federal sentencing guideline was
increased because a weapon was possessed are excluded from
participation. Even more money could be saved if all
statutorily eligible prisoners were allowed to participate.
Second, the GAO found that the Bureau was not fully
utilizing the pre-release community corrections. The Second
Chance Act of 2007 doubled the amount of time from 6 to 12
months that an inmate could serve in pre-release community
corrections at the end of the sentence. However, the GAO found
that in practice inmates serve an average of less than 4 months
in community corrections. By just increasing home confinement
by 3 months, the BOP could save over $100 million a year.
These are actions that the BOP could take now to reduce
overcrowding and save hundreds of millions of dollars.
In addition, there are reforms that we in Congress should
pass to reduce overcrowding. The first and easiest thing we
could do is to clarify how a good time credit is calculated.
According to the U.S. Code, prisoners may currently earn 54
days of good time credit to be applied at the end of each year,
but based on the way the Bureau calculates the good time,
prisoners are actually only credited with 47 days each year or
portion of a year for the sentence imposed. My colleague from
Michigan, the Ranking Member of the Committee, and I have
introduced H.R. 2371, the ``Prisoner Incentive Act of 2013,'' a
legislative fix for that calculation problem. If BOP changed
its policy, it could save about $40 million a year just through
that alone.
Second, my colleague from Utah, Representative Chaffetz,
and I, along with 12 other cosponsors from both sides of the
aisle, have introduced H.R. 2656, the ``Public Safety
Enhancement Act of 2013.'' This would implement a post-
sentencing risk and needs assessment to match inmates with
evidence-based correctional programs. Inmates can earn credits
for participating in the programs, credits for time each month
toward eligibility for an alternative custody arrangement such
as a halfway house or home confinement or ankle bracelet
monitoring.
I hope the bill and the hearing today ignites a
conversation on broader issues today: reducing overcrowding,
reducing the amount of time spent in prison, reducing
recidivism, and reducing costs.
I am also interested in hearing an update from the director
on the Federal Prison Industries. FPI operates at no cost to
the taxpayer, is entirely self-sufficient, never received
appropriated money from Congress. CBO estimates by eliminating
FPI and replacing it with other inmate training programs would
cost about $500 million over 10 years. Research shows that
inmates in the FPI program are 24 percent less likely to
recidivate than similar inmates not in the FPI program. But
despite this, we in Congress are curtailing the FPI program.
Finally, I would like to hear from the director on many
other important issues, such as the BOP's plans for prison
construction, what effect the sequestration is having on
operations, what educational programs are currently available
in the prisons, and how a program might be expanded, and the
use of solitary confinement, as well as inmate access to health
care.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much.
The Ranking Member of the full Committee, the gentleman
from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner.
I want to start off by quoting Michelle Alexander, who
recently released a new book called ``The New Jim Crow.'' And
here is the quotation. Drug offenses alone account for two-
thirds of the rise in the Federal inmate population and more
than half the rise in State prisoners between 1985 and 2000.
Approximately a half million people are in prison or jail for a
drug offense today compared to an estimated 41,000 in 1980, in
other words, an increase of 1,100 percent. Nothing has
contributed more to the systematic mass incarceration of people
of color in the United States than the war on drugs.
And so this becomes a very important hearing for that
reason alone and also additionally because we incarcerate more
people proportionately than any other Nation on the planet. And
it is in that spirit that we approach this very important
hearing.
And I would like to focus on what the Inspector General of
the Department of Justice said when he testified earlier this
year before the Committee. Even as the Bureau of Prisons
receives an ever-increasing share of the Department's scarce
resources, conditions in the Federal prison system continue to
decline. And so when you add that to sequestration, we see that
we are in a very difficult situation.
This Committee can help people understand the dilemma and
some of the solutions that we are posing to relieve the stress
of overcrowding and the continued reduction of the scarce
resources of the Bureau of Prisons.
And with that, I will submit the rest of my statement into
the record.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, it will be included.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]
__________
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Chair of the full Committee, the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
holding this hearing, and I am very pleased to be here today on
the issue of oversight of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
When I became Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in
January of this year, I said that this Committee would play an
active role in advancing an agenda to restore economic
prosperity and fiscal responsibility to America. And I know
that you and the Ranking Member share that goal. This hearing
is part of that agenda.
The Department of Justice currently spends a third of its
budget housing prisoners, and the Bureau of Prisons population
continues to grow, consuming even more taxpayer dollars every
year. Given our current fiscal climate, it is our
responsibility to ensure that every dollar spent is put to the
wisest use.
The growth in the Bureau of Prisons population has also led
to increased overcrowding in Federal prisons. As Chairman
Sensenbrenner mentioned, earlier this year Correctional Officer
Eric Williams was tragically murdered by inmates while
performing routine lockdown duties. According to reports,
Officer Williams was assigned to oversee a unit of
approximately 130 inmates on his own with only keys, handcuffs,
and a radio to protect himself. In response to Officer
Williams' tragic death, the Bureau of Prisons approved the use
of pepper spray by correctional officers for all of the
Department's high security prisons. This is a positive step
following a horrible tragedy.
But Congress and the Justice Department must also ensure
that the BOP can safely and properly house Federal inmates.
Both branches of Government should also strive to deliver
programs to inmates that are proven to reduce recidivism. The
simple fact is that over 90 percent of Federal inmates will be
released from prison back into society and will be our
neighbors and coworkers. We can work to ensure that, upon their
release, these individuals are able to become productive
taxpayers rather than more efficient criminals.
There is a strong support from Members of Congress on both
sides of the Capitol for current BOP programs that are proven
to reduce recidivism. For example, inmates who participate in
BOP's well known program, the Residential Drug Abuse Program,
are significantly less likely to recidivate and less likely to
relapse to drug use than non-participants. However, this
program is currently experiencing long waiting lines. I look
forward to hearing from the director about how that can be
addressed and whether the Bureau of Prisons has similar
recidivism-reducing programs in development.
Another program that has proven to reduce inmate recidivism
is Federal Prison Industries, or FPI. FPI provides
opportunities for training and work experience in textile and
other forms of manufacturing to Federal inmates. However, the
FPI has been severely restricted by Congress in recent years.
In 1988, FPI employed 33 percent of the Federal inmate
population. It currently employs less than 10 percent of the
population, which has forced the Bureau of Prisons to close or
downsize some 50 factories.
While I support FPI's mission, I also believe FPI must
think creatively to avoid undue competition with American
businesses. For example, FPI is currently running a
repatriation pilot program involving a few different products
from places like China and South America. This is a positive
start.
I look forward to hearing from Director Samuels today about
the steps the Judiciary Committee can take to address these and
other important issues in the area of prison management and
recidivism reduction. It is also my hope that this Committee
and the Bureau of Prisons can work on new and innovative ways
to address the Bureau of Prisons crowding and budget issues,
protect its employees, and provide valuable training to inmates
in a manner that does not create undue competition with
American companies.
Again, I thank the Chairman and yield back.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members' opening
statements will be placed in the record at this point.
It is the procedure in this Committee to swear in
witnesses. So, Mr. Samuels, could you please stand and raise
your right hand?
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Let the record show the witness answered
in the affirmative.
Charles E. Samuels, Jr. was appointed Director of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons on December 21, 2011. He is
responsible for oversight and management of all Bureau of
Prisons institutions and for the safety and security of inmates
under the agency's jurisdiction. He began working for the
Bureau in 1988 as a correctional officer and served in many
capacities rising through the ranks from case manager up to
warden and eventually was named Senior Deputy Assistant
Director of the Correctional Programs Division, or CPD for
short.
In 2011, Mr. Samuels was selected as Assistant Director of
CPD where he oversaw all inmate management program functions,
including intelligence and counterterrorism initiatives,
security and emergency planning, inmate transportation, case
management, mental health and religious services, and community
corrections.
He received his bachelor of arts degree from the University
of Alabama and graduated from the Harvard University Executive
Education Program for Senior Managers in Government.
Mr. Samuels, without objection, we will include your
written testimony into the record at this point. We would ask
that you would summarize it in 5 minutes. You know what the
green light, the yellow light, and most importantly, the red
light in front of you means. So please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., DIRECTOR,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Mr. Samuels. Good morning, Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman
Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Conyers, Ranking Member Scott,
and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before
you today to discuss the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
I cannot begin without acknowledging that this past
February, the Bureau suffered tragic losses with the murders of
two of our staff. Officer Eric Williams from the United States
Penitentiary in Canaan, Pennsylvania was stabbed to death by an
inmate. Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati was shot and killed while
driving home from the Metropolitan Detention Center in
Guaynabo, Puerto Rico. We will always honor the memories of
these two law enforcement officers, and their loss underscores
the dangers that Bureau staff face on a daily basis.
I know we all share a commitment to our Nation's criminal
justice system. We are proud of the role we play in supporting
the Department of Justice's public safety efforts, but we
understand that incarceration is only one aspect of our overall
mission. I am sure you share my concerns about the increasing
costs associated with operating the Nation's largest
correctional system. Those costs make up one-quarter of the DOJ
budget. We are optimistic the Attorney General's Smart on Crime
initiative will reduce the Federal population in the years
ahead, although the extent of the impact is hard to predict at
this time.
The Bureau of Prisons is responsible for the incarceration
of over 219,000 inmates. Our prisons are crowded, averaging 36
percent more inmates than they were designed to house. We are
most concerned about the 53 percent crowding at high security
facilities and 45 percent crowding at our medium security
facilities.
I am extremely grateful for the support Congress recently
provided to activate new facilities in Berlin, New Hampshire;
Hazelton, West Virginia; Yazoo, Mississippi; and Aliceville,
Alabama. When fully activated, these facilities with assist
with the reduced crowding rates by almost 4 percent.
Reentry is a critical component of public safety. Our
approach in the Bureau of Prisons is that reentry begins on the
first day of incarceration. Preparation for release includes
treatment, education, job skill training, and more that takes
place throughout the inmate's term.
Over the past 20 years, there has been a significant
evolution and expansion of our inmate reentry programming. My
goal as director is to ensure that every institution provides
cognitive behavioral therapy programs for the inmates, a
treatment approach that has proven effective to improve reentry
outcomes.
Several of our most significant programs have been proven
to reduce recidivism. Federal Prison Industries, or FPI, is one
of our most important programs. FPI participants are 24 percent
less likely to recidivate than non-participating inmates. While
FPI reached as many as 33 percent of inmates in the past, it
currently only employs about 8 percent of the inmates. This
decline is due to various provisions in Department of Defense
authorization bills and appropriations bills that have weakened
FPI's standing in the procurement process. We were recently
given new authorities to seek repatriated work for FPI, and we
are working diligently to maximize these opportunities.
We agree with many experts that inmates must be triaged to
assess risk and to determine appropriate programming to reduce
such risk. High risk offenders are our first priority for
treatment as they pose the greatest public safety risk when
released from our custody. We continue to provide effective,
evidence-based, cost-efficient treatment programs to address
the needs of the inmate population. We have recently begun to
enhance the tools we use to assess risk and to construct
appropriate treatment plans.
The safety of the staff, inmates, and the public are our
highest priorities. I have made several recent changes to
Bureau operations that will help us enhance safety and
security. Let me highlight some of these recent advances.
We expanded the availability of pepper spray for our staff
to use in emergency situations at all high security prisons,
detention centers, and jails. We are developing plans to add an
additional correctional officer to each high security housing
unit for evening and weekend shifts using our existing
resources. We have made significant advances in reviewing and
reducing our use of restrictive housing, and we are expanding
residential drug abuse programming by adding 18 new programs to
bring our total to 81.
Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Sensenbrenner, this
concludes my formal statement. Again, I thank you, Mr. Conyers,
Mr. Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee, for your continued
support. The mission of the Bureau of Prisons is challenging.
By maintaining high levels of security and ensuring inmates are
actively participating in evidence-based reentry programs, we
serve and protect society.
I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Samuels follows:]
__________
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Samuels.
The Chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Samuels, we heard an awful lot about the percentage of
inmates that are in prison for drug offenses. What percentage
of those inmates in there for drug offenses are there for
possession offenses?
Mr. Samuels. Approximately 50 percent of the inmates
incarcerated in the Bureau are incarcerated for drug
trafficking offenses.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. You are talking about trafficking rather
than possession?
Mr. Samuels. Total number.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Total number. I am trying to
differentiate between those who are there for possession and
those that are there for trafficking. Do you have that
information?
Mr. Samuels. I would have to obtain that information and
provide it to you for the record.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much.
The second question is what percentage of the inmates are
either repeat or violent offenders.
Mr. Samuels. Within our population, when you look at the
individuals who have been released after serving time in the
Bureau, 80 percent of the inmates who are released do not
return to the Federal prison system within a 3-year period.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. And what percentage of the inmates are
violent offenders?
Mr. Samuels. Five percent of the inmates incarcerated
within the Bureau of Prisons are there for violent offenses.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Now I want to go back to my first
question. You say that 80 percent of the people who are
released are not convicted and re-sentenced within a 3-year of
period of time. What percentage of those that are in prison are
repeat offenders? That is the other side of that coin. I am
talking about in the Federal prisons.
Mr. Samuels. I will need to provide that for the record.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. What percentage are immigration
offenders?
Mr. Samuels. Eleven percent.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. And do you have a breakdown of what the
immigration offenders are actually in prison for? Is it an
immigration offense or is it an offense that is criminal in
nature but is committed by someone who also could be convicted
of an immigration offense?
Mr. Samuels. I have the total number for the percentage,
but I would have to gather the information to break it down
into the specifics that you are requesting.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much.
I yield back the balance of my time. I recognize the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me follow through on one of the questions that the
Chairman just asked. You said 80 percent do not return to the
Federal prison. Do you track whether or not they return to a
State prison?
Mr. Samuels. When you look at the overall recidivism rate
for the Bureau of Prisons, that number is 40 percent.
Mr. Scott. Forty percent----
Mr. Samuels. Forty percent recidivate. So the total would
be 60 percent----
Mr. Scott. Do not come back. Okay. So 80 percent do not
come back to the Federal prison, but only 60 percent do not
come back. Forty percent actually go to either State or
Federal.
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Scott. We know from studies that solitary confinement
causes a deterioration of mental health and actually increases
recidivism. Is there any evidence that use of solitary
confinement serves any useful purpose?
Mr. Samuels. Our practice for solitary confinement, which
we are actually in the process of having an external evaluation
done--the National Institute of Corrections has entered into a
cooperative agreement. We are having corrections professionals
come in to assess our practices and our policies.
Mr. Scott. Are you also studying the use of solitary
confinement with juveniles?
Mr. Samuels. Could you repeat, sir?
Mr. Scott. Use of solitary confinement for juveniles. Is
that part of the evaluation?
Mr. Samuels. No, sir.
Mr. Scott. Do you subject juveniles to solitary
confinement?
Mr. Samuels. No, sir.
Mr. Scott. The Prison Rape Elimination Act audit. You are
undergoing an audit now, as I understand it. Is that right?
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Scott. What is the current status of those audits?
Mr. Samuels. We recently underwent the first pre-audit for
the corrections systems for the entire United States at our
facility at FCI Gilmer. The audit was completed toward the
latter part of August. And I have not received the official
report, but I am looking forward to reviewing the information.
Mr. Scott. We have received reports that there have been a
lot of complaints about youths at Lewisburg. Are you familiar
with these complaints?
Mr. Samuels. Complaints regarding USP Lewisburg?
Mr. Scott. Inhumane treatment of young people, use of
shackles, deplorable conditions, solitary confinement, guards
promoting cage fighting, other kinds of reports. Can you review
the reports of complaints at Lewisburg and provide us with your
response?
Mr. Samuels. Yes, sir.
Mr. Scott. Could you comment on the use of compassionate
release? Are you familiar with the process in that?
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Scott. The Inspector General made some recommendations.
What is the status of the Bureau's response to the Inspector
General report?
Mr. Samuels. The Bureau--the compassionate program for the
Bureau, also referred to as reduction in sentence--we have
embraced all of the recommendations from the Inspector General.
The program now has expanded the use of compassionate release,
and I have to this date approved approximately 42 individuals
to be released under compassionate release. We have also taken
the position to ensure that there is transparency for the
entire process. When individuals make a request at the
institution level, we are monitoring all the requests to ensure
that for any denials, that we have appropriate justification to
include those that are being approved.
Mr. Scott. You mentioned 42. The prior year how many were
processed?
Mr. Samuels. 39 were approved by me.
Mr. Scott. Could you say a word about what you are doing to
reduce the cost of telephone calls from Federal prisons?
Mr. Samuels. Yes. Recently the FCC--they have addressed
issues relative to telephone calls not only for the Bureau of
Prisons but State corrections as well. The Bureau of Prisons--
for years we have had a very low rate, which our rate has not
increased in the amount of years we have had it. Right now, for
direct calls domestically within the country, we have a rate of
23 cents per minute. We are waiting on the final ruling
regarding the issue to determine where we go from there with
any of the caps that have been determined by the FCC for the
Bureau of Prisons, to include the States.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Samuels, everyone seems to agree that the Bureau of
Prisons crowding is a problem. Some people here are saying we
need to let people out of prison to fix it. However, certainly
there are offenders we can all agree should not be released
early. Correct?
Mr. Samuels. I did not hear the question.
Mr. Goodlatte. That is a question. Do you agree that there
are prisoners who should not be released early?
Mr. Samuels. Yes. With our population having approximately
219,000 inmates, I would state that for certain individuals,
depending on their offense history and various areas when you
look at risk factors----
Mr. Goodlatte. So people with having a history of violence?
Mr. Samuels. It depends on the circumstances on how they
are being evaluated.
Mr. Goodlatte. What about sex offenders who are more likely
to recidivate than anyone else?
Mr. Samuels. We would have to assess the risk factors for
each individual. And the reason I make this statement, with the
recent initiative with our compassionate release efforts, if an
individual falls within that category and they are submitting a
request, we would have to evaluate all of the issues to make--
--
Mr. Goodlatte. But you would be less likely to release
somebody with a history of violence.
Mr. Samuels. If there is a potential threat to the public
based on the evaluation.
Mr. Goodlatte. And sex offenders?
Mr. Samuels. Same. If there are significant concerns
regarding any----
Mr. Goodlatte. And gang members?
Mr. Samuels. The same evaluation would occur.
Mr. Goodlatte. Your testimony says 75 percent of medium
security and 90 percent of high security inmates have a history
of violence. Additionally, you testified that one in four high
security inmates are gang affiliated. Surely they would not be
eligible for early release.
Mr. Samuels. They would be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis, and if there is any likelihood that the individual would
have the potential to re-offend, they would not be recommended
for any type of release.
Mr. Goodlatte. So which inmates are we mostly talking about
here? Are we talking about low security offenders, white-collar
offenders, drug offenders?
Mr. Samuels. Mr. Chairman, all inmates will be reviewed and
assessed and the expansion of the compassion release program
looks at medical and non-medical cases. So if an individual has
been diagnosed with a terminal illness and they are subjected
to have a life expectancy of less than 18 months, we would look
at the individual, review all of the factors to include their
potential risk to re-offend. And based on that assessment, a
determination would be made whether to approve or deny the
request.
And for the individuals who fall in the category where they
are not able to take care of themselves, to provide self-care,
and these are individuals who have a progressive illness or
they have been subjected to an injury where they are either 100
percent bed-ridden and/or cannot maintain the basic self-care
for more than 50 percent of their time, then we would evaluate
and look at all the circumstances, to include individuals who
are the primary caregiver for dependents if there is a
situation due to extraordinary or compelling circumstances that
we should evaluate. So each individual would be assessed on
their own individual issues in these.
Mr. Goodlatte. Do you envision that people with a history
of violence or sex offenders who have a high recidivism rate or
gang members would be likely to be primary caregivers?
Mr. Samuels. If we are able to determine, based on their
lack of participation in programs within the Bureau and no
efforts on their part and with our validated risk assessment
that we have been using for the past 30 years to assess the
factors associated with misconduct----
Mr. Goodlatte. I want to get in one more question, so let
move on since my time is running out.
What challenges does the Bureau of Prisons face in
developing new programs that would help reduce recidivism? We
have heard the RDAP and FPI have both proven to reduce
recidivism. If Congress were to require the Bureau to implement
additional recidivism-reducing programs to bring down its
population, what challenges would you face?
Mr. Samuels. The challenges the Bureau would face with this
initiative, which we have been developing cognitive behavior
therapy programs similar to what we offer with the residential
drug abuse program by taking various elements to establish
these types of programs, we have been doing. We have created
programs in our high security facilities, which we refer to as
the Challenge Program. We have established a program that we
call Resolve for female inmates who have been exposed to
traumatic incidents within their life. We have a staged
program, sexual offender programs. So we are in the process of
doing.
Our biggest challenge is with the growth of the population.
When you look at the inmate-to-staff ratio, all of the staff
who work within the Bureau of Prisons are considered
correctional workers, but to maintain the immediate concern of
safety and security to protect staff, inmates, and the public,
sometimes we have to pull these staff to provide coverage. When
we are put in a situation to maintain at the highest level the
safety and security, the staff who are assigned the duties to
carry out these treatment programs are pulled away from those
duties because they are carrying out the efforts of the
correctional worker duties. So as long as our population is
maintained at an acceptable level, we are able to continue to
provide the necessary programs to give us those reductions
which overall with the recidivism reduction efforts helps us.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We welcome you here, Director Samuels. And this is for me
the beginning of what I hope is a continuing and fruitful
relationship because the prisons are so important in terms of
whether they have any beneficial influence on the inmates and
the procedures going on. I know that sequestration and budget
cuts have made it very difficult. But I think that your
philosophy and experience combine to give you a very good
platform for advocating.
And I wanted to start off with the Aliceville site for
women in which I note that 11 of our colleagues in the Senate
have written you about asking about these changes of
eliminating the women's site and sending them to very long
distances away, which we think might be counterproductive.
Mr. Samuels. Thank you.
The issue relative to the potential mission change for FCI
Danbury--I am still working with my staff to finalize the
outcome of how we are going to proceed with the issues that
have been raised by the 11 Senators which you made reference
to. And at some point in the near future, we will be providing
what we are trying to do.
But I think it is very, very important that everyone
understands and knows that I firmly believe in trying to keep
the inmates as close to their residences for all of the
concerns and issues associated with making sure that they can
have family visits and definitely for the individuals who have
children, the children of incarcerated parents having access to
their parents. We will continue to do everything possible
within the resources that we have to make all of those efforts
be something that is meaningful and doable to the best of our
abilities.
Mr. Conyers. Well, I would like to get a copy, if it is
appropriate, of the response that you send the 11 Members of
the Senate in this regard because I agree with what you are
saying.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, when Mr. Conyers gets
that copy, it will be included in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner.
Now, let's turn to what I consider a not so pleasant
subject of contracting with private prisons in the Federal
system. I am not a supporter of that policy. And I understand
that maybe as much as 11 percent of our inmates are in such
facilities now. Is this necessary and cannot be avoided? Or is
there some way that we can minimize and lower this number? You
know, we have solitary confinement and segregated housing, and
all of these things. When you combine that with private
prisons, I do not think it helps things at all. What do you say
to that?
Mr. Samuels. Congressman Conyers, with our population being
at 219,000, we actually have 179,000 inmates in Bureau
facilities. Approximately 42,000 of those inmates are in some
form of private prisons, which that number is about 30,000, and
the remaining number, or 12,000, in our residential release
centers. When you look at the crowding for the Bureau of
Prisons in our agency-wide crowding of about 36 percent, we
would be placed in an extreme difficult situation to absorb
those 30,000 inmates into the existing beds. Our rate of
capacity for the 179,000 inmates I mentioned--we only have
126,000 beds. So we do not have the capacity to absorb the
inmates who are in the private facilities.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Conyers. Just let me get a yes or no from him on this.
Do you support limiting the amount of private prisons to the
maximum extent possible?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Yes or no.
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus.
Mr. Bachus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Samuels, I think a lot of the problems that the Bureau
of Prisons is experiencing is a failure of the Congress to
respond to reforming our sentencing laws.
I do not know whether most Members of Congress realize that
we have--China I think has four times as many people as the
United States. Yet, there are fewer people in prison in China
than in the United States, and we consider China as somewhat of
a repressive regime.
We all, I think, know, if you have even paid scant
attention, that our number of Black prisoners--almost 50
percent of our prison population is Black. And if you go back
to 1980, first of all, that was not the case. Since that time,
our violent crime rate in the country has decreased to a third
of what it was in 1980, but the number of Black prisoners
numerically and as a percentage of our total prison population
has virtually exploded. And you can take about probably half of
that because of the discrepancies between crack and cocaine.
I saw this article in the Economist that came about 1 month
ago. It said that one of the most repressive regimes in the
world and racist regimes was South Africa during apartheid.
Yet, our incarceration of Blacks between the ages of 20 and 34
is almost four times that of South Africa during apartheid. So
we talk about the conditions under apartheid in South Africa
and how unfair it was for the Black population. Yet, our
incarceration rate is actually 3.6 times as much for Blacks
between the ages of 20 and 34. Now, that is not something that
you have caused. It is not something that I have caused, but it
is something that I think we have a responsibility to respond
to.
There are two pieces of legislation in the Senate right
now. Both of them are bipartisan. One is the Justice Safety
Valve Act by Senators Leahy and Paul, one of the liberal
Members and one of the conservative Members. Another one is the
Smarter Sentencing Act of 2013 by Mr. Leahy, Durbin, and Mike
Lee of Utah. Mike Lee is one of the most conservative Members
of the Senate.
Mr. Scott. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Bachus. Yes, I will.
Mr. Scott. There is an identical bill in this Subcommittee.
Mr. Bachus. You know, and I did not know that.
Mr. Scott. And we will be calling on you to cosponsor the
bill.
Mr. Bachus. In fact, I plan to do that because I have
looked at this just this week and talked to two different
Senators. We had a long conversation.
It just amazes me. Let me give another statistic that is
hard to believe. Our prison population in 1940 was 24,000. In
1950, it was approximately 24,000. In 1960, it was
approximately 25,000. In 1970, it was back around 24,000. Where
am I? 1970? In 1980, it was about where it was in 1940. From
1980 to 2013, it has gone to over 200,000. And as I said, our
violent crime rate is a third of what it was in 1940. In the
history of our country, we are sentencing people to longer
sentences than we ever have. 2008 is when we hit that mark.
So we talk about hanging people in the wild west and
intolerance of crime in the late 1700's and the early 1800's.
But when we send somebody to prison in the last 10 years, we
send them for longer than we ever have in the country. So it is
a national disgrace.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Well, I first want to thank the gentleman for
your comments. I really appreciate that and look forward to
working with you on those issues.
I wanted to ask you a few questions, Mr. Samuels. One is do
you know the percentage of inmates who have a history of child
welfare, have been in the child welfare system?
Mr. Samuels. I do not have that information.
Ms. Bass. I would like to follow up with you about that.
Okay?
And then also I wanted to talk to you about--I mean, all of
us are concerned about the numbers of prisoners that we have in
the Federal system and how do we go about reducing those
numbers. And given that the drug laws are changing around the
country, particularly marijuana, I know you said that 50
percent, I believe, of inmates are there for drug-related
offenses, but you did not distinguish between possession and
trafficking. So I would like if you can follow up on that.
Because if you come from California, for example, and you have
a marijuana possession or Colorado, States where they have now
either legalized it completely for recreation use or
decriminalized it down to medical marijuana, which in
California it is really legal, should we not look at that in
terms of people who are languishing in prison for possession
but the laws have been changed?
Mr. Samuels. I will respond by stating what the Attorney
General's initiative with the Smart on Crime initiative is and
particularly with the low level drug offenses not tied to gangs
or large scale drug organizations and/or to cartels, that for
those types of offenses, depending on how the charging
procedures are going to be assessed, that potentially, I mean,
it could have some impact on the Bureau's population because
when you look at the number with 50 percent of our population
being individuals who are involved in some drug offense, I
mean, it is pretty significant. As Congressman Bachus stated,
our population overall, when you go to the 1940's, we were at
24,000, and in 1980, our population was 26,400. Our staffing at
that time was 10,000. We had 10,000 staff. So you go from 1980
to 2013, that is an 832 percent increase.
Ms. Bass. Right, and we know that is because of drug laws
that are now being reconsidered. So if we are reconsidering the
drug laws, we should be reconsidering the people that are
people that are incarcerated.
So in that regard, also in terms of the powder to crack and
the change in law that happened before I got here but I was so
excited that Members on this Committee got that done, what
about those inmates? Because isn't there supposed to be an
evaluation of people who are incarcerated when that changed? So
do you know the numbers in terms of people that have been
released because the law was changed? Because I thought it
could be reconsidered. Couldn't it, Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. There is a Sixth Circuit case where there was a
three-judge panel that ruled that it could be applied
retroactively. That has been appealed en banc. And the first
thing that happens when you go en banc is to vacate the three-
judge panel decision. So there is really nothing pending in
that decision right now.
Ms. Bass. I see.
And then I believe that you said that there are no
juveniles that are in solitary confinement. I really wanted to
ask you about that because I know in my State and I know in
other States we reduced the age in which a juvenile could be
tried as an adult. And I am sure they did that in other States
too. But then the problem we got into in California was that
there was no place to put them and then they were put in
solitary. So I really wanted to ask you again. Are you sure
there are no juveniles that are in--maybe they were not----
Mr. Samuels. To my knowledge, we do not have any juveniles
who are in restrictive housing. The number is very, very small
for the number of juveniles that we have within the Bureau. So
I would double check. I will take this back and I will come
back to confirm whether or not that is an absolute. But to my
knowledge, we do not.
Ms. Bass. Okay.
And then also I believe in February of this year, the
Bureau of Prisons was going to undertake a third party audit
for the use of solitary confinement in general. And I wanted to
know if you could give me a status of that audit.
Mr. Samuels. Yes. The National Institute of Corrections--
they have awarded a cooperative agreement to correctional
professionals to come in to look at the Bureau of Prisons, our
policies and our procedures. Within the last year, since I
testified regarding this issue before Chairman Durbin, at that
time, the Bureau of Prisons had 13,700 inmates in some form of
restrictive housing. I have now been able to reduce that number
from 13,700 to approximately 9,800. So we have had a 25 percent
reduction.
Ms. Bass. Excellent. And when will the audit be done?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Franks.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Samuels, thank you for being here.
You know, sometimes it is important for those of us on this
Committee just to get a sense of the general population ratios.
Your testimony says 11 percent of inmates in the Bureau of
Prisons' custody are there for immigration offenses, and that
is over 24,000 of your 219,000 inmates. And you also testified
that 26 percent of your inmates, nearly 57,000 inmates, are
non-U.S. citizens.
What do you mean by ``immigration offenses''? And could we
get some kind of a breakdown of what those immigration
offenders are actually in the prison for?
Mr. Samuels. Congressman, earlier that question was
presented. I would need to come back for the record to provide
the specifics to give the breakdown. This is just a general
number that captures the entire population.
Mr. Franks. Okay. Well, I know that a lot is said about
drug-related offenses. And of course, you have got pure drug
offenses. But I understand that the drug-related offenses is
quite high, that most prisoners are in prison on a drug-related
offense as opposed to someone just there on a drug possession
offense. What percentage are there on a drug-related offense?
Mr. Samuels. Again, for the record, I would need to come
back with the specific details.
Mr. Franks. All right.
What do you think as Director of Prisons would be the
number one thing this Committee could do to reduce the prison
population without endangering the public?
Mr. Samuels. Could you repeat, sir?
Mr. Franks. Yes, sir. What do you think would be the most
important reform that we could make as a Committee to try to
help you reduce the prison population without endangering the
public? What is the number one incongruity here? Where are we
going wrong?
Mr. Samuels. I think for the Bureau, which our biggest
concern is--we obviously are operating under the guidance of
the Department and for the laws that we have to enforce with
our mission. We do not control the number of individuals who
are prosecuted, nor do we control the sentence length. The
biggest driver of cost in the Bureau of Prisons and the
challenges that we face are the significant numbers. The
inmate-to-staff ratio right now is 4.8 to 1. When you look at
the largest State systems, the inmate-to-staff ratio is 3 to 1.
And when you break that out and you look at the specifics of
the correctional officers, that number is 10 to 1. And when you
look at the States specifically, you are looking at about 5 to
1.
If everyone could imagine in our system, because staff are
considered correctional workers, all staff, it equates to
having a teacher who is responsible for providing the education
and also the teacher is responsible for providing the security
in the classroom. In many other State systems, they have a
correctional officer and a teacher in the classroom.
So we have to work with then trying to augment to have a
balance and maintaining safety and security in our
institutions. So if we are able to somehow find a way with the
Smart on Crime initiatives and a lot of the other bills that
are being introduced to reduce the population without
jeopardizing the safety and security----
Mr. Franks. Well, that is my question. I am wondering what
would you suggest would be a good strategy to accomplish that.
Mr. Samuels. I think a good strategy for us right now would
be individuals embracing the Smart on Crime initiatives where
when you are looking at the low level, you know, drug offenses
where individuals are not attached to a significant large-scale
drug operation and/or cartels, that if those numbers start to
be reduced, it would eventually have some impact on the Bureau
of Prisons. Now, we would not see any immediate impact. This
would be based on, I think, the eventual outcome of reducing
the population in the years to come.
Mr. Franks. As far as violent crimes, aren't a lot of the
violent crimes that your prisoners are incarcerated for--aren't
they also drug-related? A significant percentage?
Mr. Samuels. In most cases.
Mr. Franks. Yes, in most cases. So, I mean, I guess that is
the concern, you know, as to how to protect the public.
And so last question. If you were here to ask this
Committee any one thing that you thought would be good for this
country, given your position, given your particular
responsibility, what would that be?
Mr. Samuels. The one thing that I would ask this Committee
is to consider the men and women who are very dedicated who go
in and risk their lives every single day for the American
public. They are working under very challenging circumstances,
not to say that the Bureau of Prisons is any more important
than any other Government agency, but with the continued
growth, which is unsustainable, it puts staff at risk. It puts
the public at risk, as well as the inmate population. There has
to be an effort to find a solution to reduce the population.
Mr. Franks. I thank you, sir, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
I want to thank you, Mr. Samuels, for testifying today. We
will include your responses that you promised into the record.
And before adjourning the hearing, I recognize the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for a number of unanimous
consent requests on documents.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent
that the following documents be entered into the record: one
from the ACLU; the other, the GAO report on ways to end the
waste of millions on unnecessary over-incarceration; a letter
from several organizations, the Drug Policy Alliance, Families
Against Mandatory Minimums, the Leadership Conference on Civil
and Human Rights, the National African American Drug Policy
Coalition, Open Society Policy Center, Sentencing Project of
the United Methodist Church Board of Church and Society, and a
separate letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all of the records
referred to by the gentleman from Virginia will be included in
the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
ATTACHMENT A
__________
__________
__________
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members will have
5 legislative days to submit additional written questions for
the witness or additional materials for the record.
And without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Charles E. Samuels,
Jr., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The Committee had not received a response to these questions at
the time this hearing record was finalized and submitted for printing
on April 2, 2014.