    [House Hearing, 108 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       PRISON RAPE REDUCTION ACT OF 2003

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
                             AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 1707

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 29, 2003

                                   __________

                                 Serial No. 36

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary

                                     ______

    86-706              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2003
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
    HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois              JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
    LAMAR SMITH, Texas                   RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
    WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee        ZOE LOFGREN, California
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama              MAXINE WATERS, California
    JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana          MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
    MARK GREEN, Wisconsin                WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
    RIC KELLER, Florida                  ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
    MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania        TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
    MIKE PENCE, Indiana                  ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
    STEVE KING, Iowa
    JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
    TOM FEENEY, Florida
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

                 Philip G. Kiko, Chief of Staff-General Counsel
                   Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
                                     ------

            Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

                     HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

    TOM FEENEY, Florida                  ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
    BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    MARK GREEN, Wisconsin                MAXINE WATERS, California
    RIC KELLER, Florida                  MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
    MIKE PENCE, Indiana
    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

                          Jay Apperson, Chief Counsel

                            Sean McLaughlin, Counsel

                            Elizabeth Sokul, Counsel

                              Katy Crooks, Counsel

                    Patricia DeMarco, Full Committee Counsel

                         Bobby Vassar, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                 APRIL 29, 2003

                               OPENING STATEMENT

                                                                       Page
    The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress From the
      State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime,
      Terrorism, and Homeland Security...............................     1
    The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress From
      the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
      Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................     2
    The Honorable Frank R. Wolf, a Representative in Congress From
      the State of Virginia..........................................     6

                                   WITNESSES

    Ms. Tracy A. Henke, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
      Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice
      Oral Testimony.................................................    11
      Prepared Statement.............................................    14
    Mr. Ashbel T. (A.T.) Wall, II, Director, Department of
      Corrections, State of Rhode Island
      Oral Testimony.................................................    16
      Prepared Statement.............................................    18
    Mr. Charles J. Kehoe, President, American Correctional
      Association
      Oral Testimony.................................................    21
      Prepared Statement.............................................    24
    Mr. Frank A. Hall, Director, The Eagle Group
      Oral Testimony.................................................    27
      Prepared Statement.............................................    30

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Letter from Prison Fellowship Ministries (PFM) with coalition
      signatures.....................................................     4
    Prepared statement of the Honorable Frank R. Wolf, a
      Representative in Congress From the State of Virginia..........     8
    Prepared statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
      Representative in Congress From the State of Texas.............    37
    Letter from Charles W. Colson, Chairman, and Mark Early,
      President, Prison Fellowship Ministries (PFM)..................    42
    Prepared statement of Pat Nolan, President, Justice Fellowship...    44
    Letter from Glenn Goord, Commissioner, Department of Correctional
      Services, State of New York....................................    45
    Letter from Robert Stalder, Secretary, Department of Public
      Safety and Corrections, State of Louisiana.....................    47

                                    APPENDIX
                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    Prepared statement of Michael J. Horowitz, Senior Fellow, Hudson
      Institute......................................................    51
    Letter from Harold W. Clarke, Director, Department of
      Correctional Services, State of Nebraska, with attachments.....    53
    Letter from Cindy Struckman-Johnson, Ph.D., in response to letter
      from Harold W. Clarke, with attachments........................   115
    Letter from Joseph D. Lehman, Secretary, Department of Corrects,
      State of Washington............................................   141
    Letter from Reginald A. Wilkinson, Ed.D., President, Association
      of State Correctional Administrators and Director, Ohio
      Department of Rehabilitation and Correction....................   144
    Letter from Alida V. Merlo, Ph.D., Professor, Indiana University
      of Pennsylvania................................................   147
    Letter from Martin D. Schwartz, Ph.D., Presidential Research
      Scholar, Professor of Sociology, Ohio University...............   149
    Letter from Leanne Fiftal Alarid, Ph.D., Associate Professor and
      Progam Coordinator, Criminal Justice and Criminology,
      University of Missouri-Kansas City.............................   151

                       PRISON RAPE REDUCTION ACT OF 2003

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003

                      House of Representatives,
                      Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
                                  and Homeland Security
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:02 p.m., in
    Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard Coble
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Mr. Coble. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The
    Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
    Security will come to order.
        This hearing is to examine the issue of sexual assault
    within Federal, State, and local correctional institutions and
    actions that are to be taken to address the issue.
        Correctional institutions must deal with many issues that
    are unique to the population they house. H.R. 1707, the
    ``Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003,'' which has been
    introduced by my friends, Mr. Wolf and Mr. Scott, is intended
    to make prevention of sexual assault within correctional
    facilities a priority for Federal, State, and local
    institutions and require the development of national standards
    for detection, prevention, reduction and punishment of these
    incidents.
        There were over two million individuals incarcerated in
    this country by the end of 2001. Although most correctional
    facilities have procedures in place to protect inmates against
    violence from other inmates while they are incarcerated, often
    these procedures are inadequate. We know violence occurs, but
    there is very little data regarding the number of violent
    incidences that occur in correctional facilities, and even less
    data on the incidence of sexual assaults.
        Estimates from different experts put the incidence of
    sexual assaults of inmates as high as 13 percent. However, many
    argue that these studies are not accurate and, in fact, the
    incidence is much lower. Regardless of percentages, it is
    difficult to--it is generally agreed that these incidents have
    real consequences for the physical, emotional and psychological
    well-being of the prisoners who may one day be released back
    into society.
        This legislation would require Federal, State and local
    governments to work with the Federal Bureau of Justice
    Statistics to study the number and effects of incidents of
    sexual assault in correctional facilities and hopefully provide
    accurate data for the first time on the actual number of
    incidents. It would also mandate that the State and local
    governments adopt and maintain compliance with the national
    standards developed by the Attorney General to be eligible for
    increases in grant funding.
        For institutions that comply with the Federal Government
    standards and requests for information, this legislation would
    increase of amount of all grant funding a State or local
    government receives by 10 percent at the expense of those
    States who do not comply with such requests or adopt such
    standards. Additionally, because this legislation requires that
    the grant funds designated must aggregate a minimum of one
    billion, affecting approximately one-third of all grants at the
    Office of Justice Programs, many different grants for many
    entities may be affected.
        I am grateful to Mr. Wolf, author of the legislation, and
    the other witnesses appearing here today, because I think this
    is a problem that must be addressed. I want to assure Mr. Wolf
    and Mr. Scott that our Subcommittee staff is prepared to work
    in earnest with you and your staffs to address the concerns our
    witnesses have raised in their testimony to craft a workable
    and meaningful solution to this problem, which the gentleman's
    bill has aptly highlighted.
        I am now pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman
    from Virginia, the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing on the Prison Rape Reduction Act.
        Of over two million people incarcerated today, it is
    estimated that one in ten, or roughly 200,000, have been raped.
    A 1996 study of Nebraska prisoners reflected 22 percent had
    been raped or pressured and intimidated into sexual activity
    against their will. A 2001 report by the Human Rights Watch
    documented ``shockingly high rates of sexual abuse in U.S.
    prisons.'' The research indicates that those subjected to
    sexual abuse in prisons are not abused just once but, on the
    average, nine more times during their incarceration. Youths in
    adult prisons are five times more likely to be raped than
    adults.
        The effects of prison rape are devastating. The rape is
    recognized as a contributing factor to prison homicide,
    violence against staff, and institutional riots. Not only does
    it cause severe physical and psychological trauma to victims,
    it increases the transmission of HIV/AIDS, other sexually
    transmitted diseases, tuberculosis and hepatitis B and C, all
    of which exist at very high rates within U.S. prisons and
    jails.
        Society pays dearly for ignoring prison rape. It makes
    victimized inmates more likely to commit crimes when they are
    released, thus negating Federal programs designed to reduce the
    incidence of crime. Inmates, often nonviolent, first-time
    offenders, come out of prison rape experiences severely
    traumatized and leave prison not only more likely to commit
    crimes, but far more likely to commit violent crimes than when
    they entered.
        The high incidence of rape within prison also leads to
    increased transmission of HIV, hepatitis and other diseases
    outside of prison, which in turn imposes threats and costs to
    all of society.
        The Supreme Court held, in Farmer v. Brennan, that
    deliberate indifference to the risk of prison rape violates the
    8th and 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. While
    conditions may be restrictive and even harsh, prison and jail
    officials must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety
    of inmates.
        Mr. Chairman, this bill requires prison accreditation
    organizations to examine prison rape prevention practices as a
    critical component of their accreditation reviews. The
    legislation has been carefully drawn to ensure comprehensive
    study and reporting of prison rape and reverse the perverse
    prison administration incentives that often make it exceedingly
    difficult for prison officials to engage in priority efforts to
    abate prison rape.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask at this point unanimous consent to
    enter into the record a letter on the letterhead of Prison
    Fellowship Ministries, which includes the signatures of 35
    organizations, diverse organizations such as the Religion
    Action Center on Reform Judaism, the Christian Coalition, the
    NAACP, the National Council of LaRaza, and many others. I ask
    unanimous consent that this be entered into the record.
        Mr. Coble. Without objection.
        [The material referred to follows:]

        Mr. Scott. In the end, and perhaps more importantly, the
    effort to combat prison rape is a moral imperative. Prison rape
    is nothing short of torture, the infliction of severe emotional
    and physical pain as punishment and coercion. Long after bodies
    have healed, the emotional trauma, shame and stigma of brutal
    and repeated prison rapes lasts and embitters the individual.
    Thus, prison rape not only derails justice; it destroys human
    dignity.
        We can do better than this as a society, and this bill
    ensures that we do. This is long overdue and I appreciate your
    willingness, Mr. Chairman, to move this matter further at this
    time.
        I would also like to thank my colleague, Frank Wolf from
    Virginia, Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State
    Appropriations Subcommittee, and chief sponsor of the bill, for
    his leadership and diligence in moving this matter forward.
        I would also like to thank Michael Horowitz and Vinnie
    Sharaldi, leaders of an amazing coalition supporting this bill,
    for their vision, leadership and dedication.
        I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for working with this
    coalition to move this bill forward.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
        Let me think aloud a minute, Frank, before I recognize you.
    Several weeks ago I met with the former Director of the Federal
    Bureau of Prisons, who has since retired. I told her that this
    issue very much concerns me. She, in fact, responded to me that
    she felt pretty good in the Federal system, that they have a
    pretty good handle on it, she said, that can detect prisoners
    who may well be vulnerable to these sort of inhumane attacks. I
    felt pretty good after having talked with her. I still know
    it's a problem.
        Another feature that bothers me--and I haven't even talked
    to Mr. Scott or Mr. Sensenbrenner about it--is the overcrowding
    conditions in prisons, and the two may well go hand in hand.
    There may be a corollary. But the overcrowding conditions in
    Federal and State prisons, folks, is a time bomb ticking,
    particularly in State and local prisons.
        I don't know, Frank, whether you plan to touch on that or
    not, but that's just food for thought, two matters that have
    plagued and troubled me for some time, and 50 State
    legislatures and perhaps the Congress may have to address the
    overcrowding which may well at least assuage some of the
    problems involving assaults.
        Mr. Wolf, we're delighted to have you with us, the
    gentleman from the 10th District of Virginia. Mr. Scott and I
    usually adhere to the 5-minute rule inflexibly, but we will cut
    you a little slack, since you are a Virginia fellow and a
    friend of Mr. Scott. It's good to have you with us, Frank.
        Mr. Wolf. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having the
    hearings, and I thank my colleague, Bobby Scott, for his
    support and effort and being a champion.
        I think what Mr. Scott said, of this being a moral
    imperative, is exactly what it is. I will be brief, and then
    I'm going to read something and then leave.
        A study in Nebraska found that 22 percent of prisoners in
    that State were forced to have sex against their will while in
    prison--forced. Think of your son, or think of your cousin, or
    think of your brother, or think of your next door neighbor,
    thing of somebody like that. Experts say that approximately 13
    percent--and it's true, probably not as much in Federal prisons
    as in State prisons, and quite frankly, the Congress ought to
    look at this whole issue of sentencing guidelines, because we
    are forcing people into prison many times who ought not really
    be in prison. These numbers indicate the prison system has a
    problem.
        This bill would address the problem in five ways: First,
    this legislation would allow officials to gather for the Bureau
    of Justice Statistics information about the extent of the
    problem of prison rape. There is probably not a lot of
    disagreement as to percentages. If it's 12, that's still high.
    If it's 22, that's absolutely high. If it's 1 percent, it's too
    high. Prison officials and policymakers must know, though, how
    pervasive prison rape is in our jails.
        Secondly, the bill would make prison officials accountable
    for rape through a public review process. This is so private,
    there's nothing public, and therefore they can almost ignore it
    like it's not a problem. Prison officials must understand that
    what happens in prison to inmates matters. Containing prisoners
    behind four walls is not sufficient. They must be protected
    from violent rapes.
        Third, a crediting agency would be required to examine the
    issue of prison rape when reviewing prisons. This will make
    prison officials further accountable for what happens in their
    prisons.
        Fourth, a commission will be established to study the
    problems of prison rape and recommend national standards to
    address the problem.
        Finally, there would be modest grant programs to provide
    funds for innovative ways to launch prison rape prevention and
    prosecution programs.
        It is important to mention that this bill deals with prison
    rape in ways that respect the States' rights. There are many
    awful stories, and I will close my testimony with paraphrasing.
    I would urge all of you to read this--and I will get copies for
    the Subcommittee. You will not be able to go through this
    because it will literally make you sick. But I will paraphrase
    one of the letters given, ``No Escape: Male Rape in U.S.
    Prisons'', the Human Rights Watch.
        This individual says, ``I've been sentenced for a DUI
    offense, my third one. When I came to prison, I had no idea
    what to expect. Certainly none of this. I'm a tall male, who
    unfortunately has a small amount of feminine characteristics.
    And very shy. These characteristics have gotten me raped so
    many times I have had no more feelings physically. I have been
    raped at one time by seven men. I've had knives at my head and
    throat. I have fought and been beat so hard that I didn't even
    think I would see straight again.''
        ``One time when I refused to enter a cell, I was brutally
    attacked by staff and taken to segregation, though I had only
    wanted to prevent the same and worse by not being locked up
    with my cell mate.''
        ``There is no supervision after lockdown. I was given a
    conduct report. I explained to the hearing officer what the
    issue was. He told me off the record, he suggested that I find
    a man I would or could willingly have sex with to prevent these
    things from happening. I requested protective custody, only to
    be denied. It is not available here.''
        He also said there was no where to turn, no where to turn,
    no where to run, and it was best for me to just accept things.
        He ends by saying, ``I probably have AIDS now. I have great
    difficulty raising food to my mouth from shaking after
    nightmares . . .'' and he goes on. A.H. in Indiana.
        The other one is, when we had a hearing over on the Senate
    side--and I'll end with this statement. A mother of a young
    child, 16 years old in Texas, who was repeatedly raped in
    prison, when her son reported the rapes, the prison officials
    he was told, ``rape happens every day. Learn to deal with it.
    It's no big deal.'' This 16-year-old, after repeatedly being
    abused and left to suffer by prison officials, hung himself.
    Why was he in prison? For setting a dumpster on fire.
        This is a moral imperative. Mr. Scott is exactly right.
    This legislation cannot be delayed. The Justice Department is
    now on board, but they drug their heels on this. Each and every
    day, someone will be raped in a prison somewhere. In fact, each
    and every day many will be raped. We will get, the Members of
    this Committee, these stories, and after you read about five or
    six of them, you'll be sickened about what takes place. DUI,
    and now look what takes place.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you for these hearings. I appreciate
    the willingness of you to move them. I want to reiterate the
    list of people that Mr. Scott said, from the Salvation Army to
    the NAACP, to Chuck Colson, who has forgotten more about this
    issue than anyone probably knows, the Southern Baptist
    Convention, the Religious Action Center for Reform and Judaism,
    and many others who are for this. So, with your good work and
    moving this quickly, I think we can really make a difference in
    wiping out this--I won't even call it a problem--this terrible
    thing that takes place in prisons.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf follows:]

      Prepared Statement of the Honorable Frank Wolf, a Representative in
                      Congress From the State of Virginia

        Thank you, Chairman Coble, for providing me with the opportunity to
    speak before the subcommittee on a matter which impacts the national
    prison system and our communities--prison rape.
        I also thank the subcommittee's ranking member, my Virginia
    colleague Bobby Scott, for introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act of
    2003 with me. Representative Scott has been a champion of this
    legislation. I value his partnership on this bill.
        The Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003 addresses the growing and
    tragic problem of prison rape. In a 1996 study, an estimated 22 percent
    of prisoners in Nebraska were pressured or forced to have sex against
    their will while in prison. Experts have estimated that approximately
    13 percent of inmates in the United States have been victims of a
    sexual assault. Part of the problem with addressing the issue of prison
    rape is that there is insufficient data and research into this problem
    which experts claim is growing. This legislation would establish a
    program to collect prison rape statistics and data in the Department of
    Justice, providing prison officials and policymakers with a clearer
    idea of how pervasive the horrific problem of prison rape has become.
        Victims of prison rape often suffer severe psychological trauma,
    and are sometimes infected with HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and other
    diseases. Treatment for these infectious diseases costs federal, state,
    and local jurisdictions additional dollars in administering their
    prison systems. Prison rape not only costs its victims their health and
    dignity, society also pays a price. When we turn a blind eye to prison
    rape, we say that we do not care that prisoners are treated inhumanely.
    That is a position which portrays national and local leaders as callous
    and uncaring.
        This legislation would establish a National Prison Rape Reduction
    Commission which would conduct hearings on prison rape and would issue
    a final report. This commission is vital to provide national standards
    to reduce prison rape. Such a commission would send the message that we
    as a society will not accept prison rape.
        Mr. Chairman, prison rape is not an abstract or theoretical
    problem. It has a human face.
        There are thousands of tragic stories from victims about prison
    rape. I have attached to my remarks several stories of the toll prison
    rape too often takes on its victims.
        The Congress can act to make sure that these vile and violent acts
    are reduced. The legislation before you today takes concrete steps
    toward doing just that. I believe in being tough on crime. But this has
    nothing to do with being tough on crime. It has everything to do with
    human dignity and ending deliberate indifference toward prison rape,
    maintaining order in prisons, and reducing social and economic costs to
    a society left to deal with physically and psychologically damaged
    former inmates.
        Allow me to end my statement with the story of a mother who
    testified on Capitol Hill last year. Her 16-year-old son was repeatedly
    raped in a Texas prison. When the son reported the rapes to prison
    officials, he was told ``(rape) happens everyday, learn to deal with
    it. It is no big deal.'' This 16-year-old, after being repeatedly
    abused and left to suffer by prison officials, hung himself.
        Why was he in prison?
        For setting a dumpster on fire.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I respectfully urge
    you to move this bill and make sure that no mother ever has to live
    with such a haunting story for the rest of her life.
        I thank you for allowing me to speak before you today.
                                     ______

             Excerpts from Inmates Testimony to Human Rights Watch
    Stories from No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons, Human Rights Watch,
                                     2001.

    New inmates are often treated like property by older and more violent
    inmates. An inmate in New York writes . . .

        When a man finally gets his victim, he protects him from everyone
    else, buys him anything, the victim washes his clothes, his cell etc.
    In return the entire prison knows that this guy has a ``BITCH'' or
    ``girl.'' Now I've seen this happen many times. The response from the
    guards is ``the strong survive,'' ``who cares,'' or they join in the
    teasing and tormenting. But someone who is not ``protected'' has other
    problems. I've seen inmates attacked by two or three men at a time and
    forced to the floor, while three men hold him down the fourth rapes
    him. I've known two men who have hung themselves after this.

    An inmate from Arkansas . . .

        I had no choice but to submit to being Inmate B's prison wife. Out
    of fear for my life, I submitted to sex, and performing other duties as
    a woman, such as making his bed. In all reality, I was his slave, as
    the Officials of the Arkansas Department of Corrections under the
    'color of law' did absolutly nothing.

    An inmate from Minnesota writes . . .

        Most of the prisoners who rape are spending 5 to life. And are a
    part of a gang. They look for a smaller weaker individual. And make
    that person into a homosexual then sell him to other inmates of gangs.
    Anywhere from a pack of cigarettes to 2 cartons. . . . No one cares
    about you or anyone else. If they show kindness or are trying to be
    helpful, it is only because they want something. And if they are
    offering you protection you can guarantee that their going to seek
    sexual favors. . . . When an inmate comes in for the first time and
    doesn't know anyone. The clicks and gangs. Watch him like Wolves
    readying there attacks. They see if he spends time alone, who he eats
    with. Its like the Wild Kingdom. Then they start playing with him,
    Checking the new guy out. (They call him fresh meat.)

    An inmate who was put in jail for a DUI offense . . .

        I've been sentenced for a D.U.I offense. When I first came to
    prison, I had no idea what to expect. Certainly none of this. I'm a
    tall white male, who unfortunatly has a small amount of feminine
    characteristics. And very shy. These characteristics have got me raped
    so many times I have no more feelings physically. I have been raped by
    up to 5 black men and two white men at a time. I've had knifes at my
    head and throat. I had fought and been beat so hard that I didn't ever
    think I'd see straight again. One time when I refused to enter a cell,
    I was brutally attacked by staff and taken to segregation though I had
    only wanted to prevent the same and worse by not locking up with my
    cell mate. There is no supervision after lockdown. I was given a
    conduct report. I explained to the hearing officer what the issue was.
    He told me that off the record, He suggests I find a man I would/could
    willingly have sex with to prevent those things from happening. I've
    requested protective custody only to be denied. It is not available
    here. He also said there was no where to run to, and it would be best
    for me to accept things . . . I probably have AIDS now. I have great
    difficulty raising food to my mouth from shaking after nightmares or
    thinking to hard on all of this . . . I've laid down without physical
    fight to be sodomized. To prevent so much damage in struggles, ripping
    and tearing. Though in not fighting it caused my heart and spirit to be
    raped as well. Something I don't know if I'll ever forgive myself for.

    One Florida inmate, serving less than one year in prison . . .

        I was raped in prison from Feb 1991 through Nov 1991. From that it
    left me H.I.V. positive.

        Mr. Coble. I'll pledge to you and Mr. Scott publicly that I
    will do all I can to help move this along, Frank. We thank you
    for being with us.
        Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Coble. We will invite our panelists to come forward.
    I'm going to read some background. I think you all in the
    audience need to know some of the credentials that these
    panelists bring to the table.
        Our first witness today is Miss Tracy Henke, Principal
    Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice
    Programs in the United States Department of Justice. Miss Henke
    was designated to serve by Attorney General Ashcroft in June
    2001. Her position requires her to advise and assist the
    Assistant Attorney General to carry out all policy,
    programmatic, legal and managerial matters.
        Prior to joining the Justice Department, Miss Henke worked
    in the Senate for Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri as a
    senior policy advisor, and for Senator Jack Danforth. Miss
    Henke received her degree in political science from the
    University of Missouri at Columbia.
        Our next witness, Mr. A.T. Wall, is Director of the
    Department of Corrections for the State of Rhode Island. He
    will be representing the Association of State Correctional
    Administrators and the Council of State Governments.
        Mr. Wall was awarded a bachelor of arts degree and juris
    doctorate from Yale University. He has a distinguished career
    in corrections, beginning his career in corrections in 1976 as
    a probation officer. He subsequently served as Assistant
    District Attorney in Manhattan, NY, and as a principal policy
    analyst to the Governor of Rhode Island for issues related to
    criminal, juvenile justice, corrections, child welfare, and
    mental health and retardation. From 1987 to 1991, Mr. Wall
    served as Assistant Director for Policy and Development in the
    Rhode Island Department of Corrections.
        In 1991, he became second in command in the Department as
    Assistant Director of Administration, and in 2000 Mr. Wall was
    appointed Director of the Department of Corrections, which
    supervises over 3,600 pretrial and sentenced inmates in eight
    institutions and 27,000 offenders in probation, parole and
    community confinement. He also currently serves as chair of the
    program and training committee for the Association of State
    Correctional Administrators and is a member of the Board of
    Directors for the Council of State Governments.
        Our third witness is Mr. Charles Kehoe, President of the
    American Correctional Association. Mr. Kehoe received a
    bachelor of arts in psychology and sociology from Lewis
    University, and a masters degree in social work from the
    University of Illinois at Chicago.
        He began his career as a social worker for the State of
    Illinois, first counseling delinquent youth, and then working
    in child protective services. Mr. Kehoe moved to Baltimore to
    become Deputy Director of Juvenile Services for the State of
    Maryland. In 1989, he became Director of the Department of
    Youth and Family for the State of Virginia. Most recently, Mr.
    Kehoe served as a consultant for juvenile and criminal justice
    correctional facilities for a number of organizations,
    including his current position as Vice President for Business
    Development, New Century, which provides technical assistance
    to adult and juvenile facilities.
        Our final witness is Mr. Frank Hall, Director of the Eagle
    Group. Mr. Hall received his bachelor of arts from the
    University of North Carolina and a masters degree in public
    administration from Syracuse University's Maxwell School of
    Public Affairs.
        Mr. Hall currently serves as a consultant on issues of
    public safety and new technologies. He has also served as
    Director of Special Projects for a private corrections company,
    providing services to both adult and juvenile offenders in the
    United States, Puerto Rico, and Great Britain.
        Prior to that, Mr. Hall served as Commissioner of six State
    and local corrections departments, including Director of
    Juvenile Justice in New York, and most recently Commissioner of
    Corrections in Philadelphia.
        It's good to have you all with us. I apologize for the
    lengthy introduction, but I think these panelists bring
    impressive credentials to the table and I felt that you all
    should know that.
        We have written statements from each of you. I ask
    unanimous consent to submit into the record their entirety. As
    I said earlier, folks, Mr. Scott and I are sort of inflexible
    about red lights shining into your faces. We will not
    ``keelhaul'' you, however. But when you see the red light
    appear, that's a warning that your time is up.
        Why don't we start with you, Miss Henke.

        STATEMENT OF TRACY A. HENKE, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
     ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT
                               OF JUSTICE

        Ms. Henke. I will do my best, and I might speak fast, sir.
        Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott, my name is Tracy Henke,
    and as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the
    Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs, it is a
    pleasure to be here today to discuss H.R. 1707, the ``Prison
    Rape Reduction Act of 2003.''
        Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1707 focuses attention on the problem of
    sexual assaults, including rape and sodomy, that exists within
    the Nation's prisons and jails. Congressman Wolf and
    Congressman Scott have been diligent in their efforts to
    advance the discussions on prison rape, and have shown clear
    leadership by introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act. The
    Department of Justice is pleased to participate in this
    hearing.
        As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department
    supports the principles of this legislation. At the Department,
    we want to ensure that Federal prisons address, work to
    prevent, and punish those that commit any type of sexual
    assault in prison, and we want to encourage our colleagues who
    manage State and local prisons to do the same. We are committed
    to reaching a consensus which would comprehensively address and
    support efforts for preventing, prosecuting, and punishing
    sexual assault and rape within the Nation's prisons and jails.
    By working with all interested parties, we are confident that
    an agreement can be reached.
        The Department has worked with the sponsors and supporters
    of this legislation to provide technical assistance and
    information prior to its introduction. The Department remains
    committed to an ongoing dialogue that we believe will result in
    an effective and enforceable approach in the near future.
        Mr. Chairman, as the Principal Deputy for the Office of
    Justice Programs, or OJP, it is important to discuss the impact
    that H.R. 1707 will have on OJP's formula grant programs which
    directly support State and local law enforcement and public
    safety activities. This is the issue which will be the focus of
    my comments.
        As background, it is important to state that the Department
    has been working on the issue of prison rape for over 2 years.
    In the spring of 2001, the Department initiated the Prison Rape
    Working Group, which worked with supporters of the legislation
    and with organizations such as the American Correctional
    Association, or ACA. The Department drafted a framework for the
    new standards and worked with the ACA to have them adopted. The
    new standards are now in effect. The Department believes that,
    collectively, these new standards will assist in the prevention
    of prison rape and the effective handling of rape and sexual
    assaults that occurs in prisons and jails.
        Without doubt, the Department's current efforts to address
    prison rape and sexual assault will be enhanced by the $13
    million provided by the Congress in the Department's fiscal
    year 2003 appropriations act. Utilizing these funds, the
    Department will conduct research and statistical analysis on
    victims and victimization in correctional environments.
        As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Justice
    Department is supportive of the principles of the legislation.
    However, some ambiguity and concern remains. We look forward to
    working with the sponsors and supporters of the legislation to
    craft a workable solution that achieves our common goal of
    preventing, prosecuting, and punishing sexual assault and rape
    in our Nation's correctional facilities.
        Specifically, one of the concerns that exists for OJP is
    the effect the incentive provisions of the legislation would
    have on existing grant programs, as well as the practical
    implementation of the necessary augmentation that would be
    required to underlying formulas.
        As you are aware, under sections 8 and 11, States that
    adopt national standards would receive up to a 10 percent
    increase in their share of funding under any Federal formula
    grant program designated by the Attorney General as having a
    relationship to the failure to abate prison rape. This increase
    in funding would be achieved by reducing the shares of those
    States which do not comply. Programs that could potentially be
    impacted include the Byrne Formula, the Local Law Enforcement
    Block Grant, the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for
    Prisoners, the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants,
    and Grants to Combat Violence Against Women.
        As an example, let's look at sections 8 and 11 and the
    impact on the Byrne Formula as it relates to--let's use five
    States. California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas are
    in compliance with provisions of section 8, hypothetically.
    These States would each receive a 10 percent increase over
    their allocation. The total increase for these five States for
    fiscal year 2003, if the bill were enacted, currently would
    amount to $15.6 million. This represents a $15.6 million
    reduction in funds available to remaining States and
    territories. Under this hypothetical, Mr. Chairman, your State
    of North Carolina would lose $694,000. Congressman Scott's,
    Congressman Goodlatte's and Congressman Forbes' Commonwealth of
    Virginia would lost $607,000.
        These numbers reflect a 10 percent augmentation in the
    formula, but the legislation provides for substantially greater
    augmentation which could result in larger changes to the
    underlying formulas.
        This hypothetical focuses only on the Byrne Formula Program
    and doesn't take into account potential reductions in other
    formula programs that the Office of Justice Programs
    administers or elsewhere within the Federal Government. The
    $497 million of the Byrne Program represents less than half,
    less than half of the minimum required to be designated by the
    Attorney General.
        The proposed formula augmentations would reduce funding for
    State and local law enforcement, including first responders
    such as local police and sheriffs departments, for State
    prisons and local jails, potentially for substance abuse
    programs, and efforts to protect children from sexual
    exploitation and kidnapping.
        I know my time is up, but real quickly, sir, another
    concern to the Department is that the Department believes that
    the integrity of the statistical collection and analysis by the
    Bureau of Justice Statistics be preserved. The legislation
    currently requires BJS not only to collect but also to analyze
    data and produce reports on that analysis in a very short
    timeframe. We recognize the need for quick access to this
    information, but it must be balanced by providing BJS the
    opportunity to accurately and sufficiently analyze the data
    collected.
        Finally, the law authorizing BJS prohibits BJS from
    gathering data for any use other than statistical or research
    purposes. By requiring BJS to identify facilities ``where the
    incidence of prison rape is significantly avoidable,'' the
    legislation calls for BJS to make judgments about what level of
    prison rape is ``significantly avoidable''. This responsibility
    goes beyond BJS' authorized statistical role.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time afforded and I look
    forward to any questions that you or Congressman Scott might
    have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Henke follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Tracy A. Henke

        Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott, members of the subcommittee, my
    name is Tracy Henke, and as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
    for the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs, it is a
    pleasure to be here today to discuss H.R. 1707, the ``Prison Rape
    Reduction Act of 2003.''
        Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1707 focuses attention on the problem of sexual
    assault, including rape and sodomy, that exists within the nation's
    prisons and jails. Congressman Wolf and Congressman Scott have been
    diligent in their efforts to advance the discussions on prison rape and
    have shown clear leadership by introducing the ``Prison Rape Reduction
    Act.'' The Department of Justice is pleased to participate in this
    hearing.
        As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department supports the
    principles of this legislation. At the Department we want to ensure
    that Federal prisons address, work to prevent, and punish those that
    commit any type of sexual assault in prison, and we want to encourage
    our colleagues who manage state and local prisons to do the same. We
    are committed to reaching a consensus which would comprehensively
    address and support efforts for preventing, prosecuting, and punishing
    sexual assault and rape within the nation's prisons and jails. By
    working with all interested parties we are confident that an agreement
    can be reached.
        The Department has worked with the sponsors and supporters of this
    legislation to provide technical assistance and information prior to
    its introduction. In addition, the Department has provided information
    regarding concerns with the proposed language of the legislation. The
    Department remains committed to an ongoing dialogue that we believe
    will result in an effective and enforceable legislative product in the
    near future.
        Mr. Chairman, as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
    for the Office of Justice Programs, it is important to discuss the
    impact H.R. 1707 will have on OJP's formula grant programs which
    directly support State and local law enforcement and public safety
    activities. This issue will be the focus of my comments.
        As background, it is important to state that the Department has
    been working on the issue of prison rape for over two years. In the
    spring of 2001, the Department initiated the Prison Rape Working Group
    which worked with supporters of the legislation and with organizations
    such as the American Correctional Association (ACA). The Department
    approached the ACA and requested that they consider adopting national
    standards to deal with prison rape. At the ACA's request, the
    Department drafted a framework for the new standards and worked with
    the ACA to have them adopted. The new standards have been adopted and
    are now in effect. Some of the new standards are: 1) providing
    mandatory training courses to corrections staff in handling rape and
    sexual assault in both adult and juvenile facilities; 2) written
    policies and procedures addressing the handling of potential offenders,
    as well as intervention and treatment; 3) written policies and
    procedures requiring documented investigations of assaults and threats;
    4) written policies and procedures which ensure that sexual contact
    between prison staff and inmates is prohibited and subject to
    administrative and criminal sanctions; and 5) ensuring that victims of
    sexual assault are referred to an appropriate treatment facility,
    receive appropriate mental evaluation and counseling, and if necessary,
    are referred for long-term follow-up care. The Department believes
    that, collectively, these new standards will assist in the prevention
    of prison rape and the effective handling of rape and sexual assault
    that occurs in prisons and jails.
        Without doubt, the Department's current efforts to address prison
    rape and sexual assault will be enhanced by the $13 million provided by
    the Congress in the Department's Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations act.
    Utilizing these funds, the Department will conduct research and
    statistical analysis on victims and victimization in correctional
    environments.
        Specifically, OJP's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has
    developed plans to conduct a statistical analysis on sexual assault
    victims and victimization that measures the prevalence of that
    victimization. OJP's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) will be
    sponsoring research focusing on sexual assault offenders and offenses
    in prisons and jails. This research will provide BJS with information
    it will need to adjust their prevalence estimates to account for
    outside factors influencing the incidence of sexual assault in
    correctional environments. Working collaboratively, BJS and NIJ will
    empanel a group of recognized subject matter experts from the research
    and practitioner communities to assist both agencies in defining the
    various characteristics and factors involved in sexual assault in ways
    that will allow their objective measurement. We need solid research so
    that we can determine what steps will be most effective to root this
    horrible problem out of our prisons and jails.
        As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department is
    supportive of the principles of the legislation; however, ambiguity and
    concern over just a few provisions still exist. For instance, we
    believe that there are better ways to address compliance issues
    associated with the abatement of prison rape than adjustments to
    formula grant programs as they are proposed in the current bill. We
    look forward to working with the sponsors and supporters of the
    legislation to craft a workable solution that achieves our common goal
    of preventing, prosecuting, and punishing sexual assault and rape in
    our nation's correctional facilities.
        Specifically, one of the concerns that exists for OJP is the effect
    the incentive provisions of the legislation would have on existing
    grant programs as well as the practical implementation of the necessary
    augmentation that would be required to underlying formulas.
        As you are aware, under Sections 8 and 11, States that adopt
    national standards would receive up to a ten percent increase in their
    share of funding under any Federal formula grant program designated by
    the Attorney General as having a relationship to the failure to abate
    prison rape. This increase in funding would be achieved by reducing the
    shares of those States which do not comply. We have already tentatively
    identified twenty formula programs administered just by the Office of
    Justice Programs which could be impacted by these provisions. These
    programs include the Byrne Formula Grant Program, the Local Law
    Enforcement Block Grant Program, the Residential Substance Abuse
    Treatment for State Prisoners Grant Program, the Juvenile
    Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program, and Grants to Combat
    Violence Against Women.
        As an example, consider the impact of Sections 8 and 11 on State
    allocations under the Byrne Formula Grant Program. As you know, under
    the Byrne Program, the Office of Justice Programs, through its
    component, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, makes awards directly to
    States. These funds are used by States and also sub-awarded by States
    to local governments. Byrne funds can be used by States and localities
    for a broad array of public safety activities including funding police
    and sheriff departments, correctional facilities, court systems, and
    drug enforcement efforts. In Fiscal Year 2003, Congress appropriated
    approximately $497 million in Byrne Formula funds. Assuming that H.R.
    1707 was enacted into law as it is currently written, let's look, as a
    hypothetical, at five States: if California, Florida, Illinois, New
    York, and Texas were in compliance with the provisions of Section 8,
    these States, under the incentive provisions of Sections 8 and 11,
    would each receive a ten percent increase over their allocation. The
    total increase for these five States would amount to $15.6 million, or
    three percent of the entire Fiscal Year 2003 appropriation. This also
    represents a $15.6 million reduction in funds available to the
    remaining States and territories. Under this hypothetical Mr. Chairman,
    your State of North Carolina would lose $694,000; Congressman Scott's,
    Congressman Goodlatte's, and Congressman Forbes' Commonwealth of
    Virginia would lose $607,000; Congressman Chabot's State of Ohio would
    lose $952,000; Congressman Green's State of Wisconsin would lose
    $454,000; Congressman Pence's State of Indiana would lose $513,000; and
    Congressman Meehan's State of Massachusetts would lose $536,000. These
    numbers reflect a ten percent augmentation in the formula, but the
    legislation provides for substantially greater augmentation which would
    obviously result in larger changes to the underlying formulas and to
    the amounts each State would be entitled to.
        Mr. Chairman, this hypothetical focuses only on the Byrne Formula
    Program, and does not take into account potential reductions in the
    other nineteen formula programs the Office of Justice Programs
    administers or any other formula grant program throughout the Federal
    government. The $497 million of the Byrne Program represents less than
    half of the minimum total Federal funds that the Attorney General must
    identify under Section 11 for formula augmentation. Ultimately, the
    actual reduction in funds that States could see would be substantially
    more than just the Byrne program.
        The proposed formula augmentations would reduce funding for State
    and local law enforcement, including first responders such as local
    police and sheriffs departments, for State prisons and local jails,
    local narcotics task forces, shelters for battered and sexually abused
    women, substance abuse programs, efforts to protect children from
    sexual exploitation and kidnaping, and for numerous other State and
    local efforts. We must remain cognizant of the financial demands on
    State and local governments and the effects that unexpected changes in
    the availability of formula funds would have.
        The language of the legislation would present difficulties for the
    Department in implementation because of ambiguities in allocating the
    incentive funds. For instance, consider the example of both the State
    of North Carolina and the City of Raleigh being eligible for incentive
    awards. If the Byrne program is identified as a relevant program, OJP
    can easily increase North Carolina's share of Byrne funds because the
    formula funds are awarded directly to States. However, OJP does not
    award Byrne funds directly to units of local governments. States are
    responsible for making decisions on how to subaward Byrne funds to
    local governments. It is unclear how OJP could increase Raleigh's share
    of Byrne funds.
        It is also important to note another concern the Department has
    related to the statistical collection and analysis required by the
    legislation. It is of the utmost importance to the Department that the
    integrity of the statistical collection and analysis be preserved. The
    legislation currently requires BJS not only to collect, but also to
    analyze data and produce reports on that analysis in a very short time.
    We recognize the need for quick access to this information, but it must
    be balanced by providing BJS the opportunity to analyze accurately and
    sufficiently the data collected.
        Finally, the law authorizing BJS prohibits BJS from gathering data
    for any use other than statistical or research purposes. By requiring
    BJS to identify facilities ``where the incidence of prison rape is
    significantly avoidable,'' the legislation calls for BJS to make
    judgments about what level of prison rape is ``significantly
    avoidable.'' This responsibility goes beyond BJS' authorized
    statistical role.
        Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department shares your interest in
    reaching consensus upon an effective and enforceable approach to the
    problem of prison rape. I personally commit to working with the
    Committee, the sponsors, and supporters of this legislation to achieve
    our shared goal of effective prevention, prosecution, and punishment of
    prison rape. Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
    subcommittee today. I would be happy to answer any question the members
    of the subcommittee might have.

        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Miss Henke.
        I said Mr. Scott and I were inflexible. I'm going to
    violate that now. We gave you 6 minutes, so I'll give the rest
    of you six as well, if you need it.
        Mr. Wall.

       STATEMENT OF ASHBEL T. WALL, II, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
         CORRECTIONS, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; ON BEHALF OF THE
       ASSOCIATION OF STATE CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, AND THE
                      COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

        Mr. Wall. Thank you, Chairman Coble, Representative Scott,
    Representative Jackson Lee, I am A.T. Wall. I'm the Director of
    the Rhode Island Department of Corrections and I'm here on
    behalf of the Council of State Governments, which represents
    all elected and appointed State officials, and also the
    Association of State Correctional Administrators, the
    professional association for the 50 Directors of Corrections
    and the Administrators of Nation's largest jail systems.
        We appreciate very much the bipartisan concern regarding
    sexual assault in correctional facilities. After all,
    protecting inmates and staff, as well as the public safety, are
    at the core of our correctional mission, a mission I have
    upheld since I began in this profession some 29 years ago.
        We in corrections know that sexual assault occurs. We
    support the objectives of this bill. We want to prevent prison
    rape, assess the extent to which it occurs, respond swiftly and
    effectively, and we recognize this bill represents a moderate
    approach to dealing with the issue. We also recognize that, as
    corrections officials, we are accountable for the operations of
    our systems, including the implementation of the initiatives
    that come about as a result of this legislation.
        There is some provisions that we, as directors of
    corrections, believe would impede as opposed to assisting the
    efforts to reduce prisoner rape. We are also concerned that the
    bill not allocate significant resources to combat prison rape
    while overlooking another major issue in corrections that has
    widespread implications for the public safety.
        Some particular changes that we would like to propose to
    the bill: first, national statistics. The Department of Justice
    is assigned to do a statistical report. We have two concerns.
    One is definitional issues, what constitutes rape in a
    correctional context. Sorting out consensual sex in a prison
    context can be complicated. The bill is silent as to whether
    sexual assault includes staff-on-inmate sexual assault, as well
    as inmate-on-inmate sexual assault.
        We are also concerned that the bill draw on a wide variety
    of data sources beyond simply looking at self reports and
    inmate surveys. So we would recommend that the bill direct the
    Department of Justice to seek guidance from an advisory group
    in working out definitions and survey techniques, the group to
    include not only corrections administrators but prosecutors,
    police, victim advocates and former inmates.
        Second, the review panel. The review panel is charged with
    holding public hearings, and administrators who are from the
    random sample selected by BJS and whose rates of sexual assault
    exceed the median will be brought forward to testify why their
    facilities have high rates. The concern that we have is that
    the panel should be charged with developing an approach to
    analyzing the data by interviewing the victims, administrators
    from a random sample of selected facilities surveyed and not
    simply rely on the public hearing approach but, rather, take a
    broader approach if the goal is to understand the context and
    causes of the issue.
        Third, the national standards. We would like to assure that
    an accrediting organization such as ACA, that have done much
    work in this area, are consulted as part of the reviewing of
    the standards.
        Fourth, the incentives to testify and comply. Those have
    been covered by Miss Henke. We're concerned that, in fact, as
    written, the language of the bill, which is intended to reward
    jurisdictions that are taking serious steps to combat sexual
    assault in prison and holding accountable those other systems,
    won't achieve those objectives for some of the reasons that
    Miss Henke identified.
        We applaud the commitment to helping us protect inmates. We
    are also deeply concerned that a Federal initiative not ignore
    an emerging crisis in our field that has major implications for
    the safety of staff, inmates, and the general public.
        As you well know--in fact, Chairman Coble, you alluded to
    it to some degree in your introductory remarks--nearly
    unprecedented fiscal problems are prompting governors to look
    at dramatic cuts to corrections' budgets. There are three ways
    to cut correctional budgets. One is to eliminate programs. The
    fact of the matter is, they're already thread-bear. There is
    not a lot of money to be gained that way.
        The second is in operations, looking at staffing and
    security and making cuts there. The problem with that, of
    course, is that will compromise the safety of inmates as well
    as staff and, frankly, it will compromise the very objectives
    that H.R. 1707 seeks to achieve.
        The third way to get a handle on correctional costs is by
    managing correctional populations differently, limiting the
    rates of growth, taking a look at the sheer numbers of people
    who are incarcerated in facilities. In managing growth in
    corrections, we are engaging in high-stakes decisions as we
    look at who's in there, how long they should stay, how well
    prepared they are for release, who should be supervised in the
    community as opposed to in custody, and how they should be
    supervised. Those are very important decisions and the risk is
    that they're going to be made without resources to determine
    that they are informed decisions. Right now, there is the risk
    that they will be made nearly blind, that States will be
    playing Russian roulette with major public safety implications.
        What we are looking for is legislation to address this
    acute need for immediate targeted technical assistance in
    managing correctional costs without compromising public safety.
    We don't want to simply release hundreds of inmates as has been
    done in other jurisdictions. We need data, we need expertise,
    we need forms of technical assistance, such as the center that
    is established and DOJ would provide.
        So thank you for giving us the opportunity to present
    specific, practical changes that will help correctional
    administrators combat rape. We hope that modifying the
    legislation will help us considerably to protect staff and
    inmates and ensure that deep cuts don't jeopardize the safety
    of the public as we look at correctional issues. We look
    forward to working with a truly impressive coalition that is
    organized so that we can incorporate our recommendations into
    the bill.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wall follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Ashbel T. Wall, II

        Good afternoon. Thank you Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott
    for inviting me to testify regarding H.R. 1707, The Prison Rape
    Reduction Act of 2003.
        My name is Ashbel T. Wall, and I am the Director of Corrections for
    the State of Rhode Island. Our corrections system is unified, meaning
    it includes both prisons and jails. Our average daily population is
    3,500 inmates, housed in 8 institutions, and we receive about 17,000
    commitments a year.
        I am testifying today on behalf of the Council of State Governments
    (CSG) and the (ASCA) Association of State Correctional Administrators.
    CSG is a membership association serving all elected and appointed and
    state government officials; ASCA represents the 50 state corrections
    directors and the administrators of the largest jails systems.
        Our organizations appreciate very much the bipartisan concern among
    members in Congress about sexual assault in corrections facilities.
    Protecting staff and inmates alike, in addition to maintaining
    community safety, is the core of our mission.
        We know sexual assault occurs in prisons and jails, including our
    facilities in Rhode Island. We also know this is an issue that has been
    difficult to measure in our state, as well as nationally, let alone to
    compare rates among states and counties.
        For these reasons, we support most of the objectives of H.R. 1707:
    we want to prevent prisoner rape; we want to assess the extent to which
    it occurs in our systems; and we want to respond swiftly and
    effectively when inmates are sexually assaulted.
        We appreciate efforts to date by sponsors of the bill to
    incorporate in H.R. 1707 many changes that the corrections community
    recommended to earlier versions of this bill. There are, however, still
    some provisions remaining in H.R. 1707 that would impede--rather than
    assist--corrections administrators' efforts to reduce sexual assault of
    inmates and end it altogether. We also are concerned that the bill
    allocates significant resources to combat prisoner rape while
    overlooking those issues in corrections that represent the greatest
    risk to the public in general.
        My testimony will explain the concerns elected officials and
    policymakers serving Republican and Democratic governors alike have
    about the bill. I will also suggest changes to particular provisions in
    the bill that we believe would improve the legislation and make it
    state-friendly without compromising its purpose.

                       1. NATIONAL PRISON RAPE STATISTICS

    Recommendation:  Provide additional guidance to the authors of the
            study to ensure it reflects an accurate, comprehensive
            assessment of inmate sexual assault.
        Like the supporters of the bill, we think a report prepared by the
    Department of Justice that assesses the extent to which prisoner rape
    occurs in prisons and jails across the country would be useful. The
    study, as it is currently described in H.R. 1707, however, would
    unlikely yield such a document.
        The legislation overlooks important considerations that will need
    to be made in developing and designing the study. First, the bill does
    not sufficiently define what constitutes rape in a correctional
    facility. Sorting out what is and is not consensual sex in a prison is
    a complicated matter. Second, H.R. 1707 does not explicitly state
    whether the study should capture information about staff-on-inmate
    sexual assault, which, itself, is a complex issue. There is no such
    thing as consensual sex between staff and an inmate; by statutes, such
    incidents are a crime in nearly every state. The bill drafters need to
    state explicitly whether these data should be included in the study.
    Third, the legislation minimizes the importance of drawing upon data
    sources other than inmate surveys only.
        We recommend the bill instruct DOJ to seek guidance regarding each
    of the above issues from an advisory group that would include
    corrections administrators, prosecutors, police chiefs, victim
    advocates, and former inmates. That way, we can be confident that the
    BJS study reflects an accurate and comprehensive assessment of prisoner
    rape in correctional facilities.

                         2. REVIEW PANEL ON PRISON RAPE

    Recommendation:  Request testimony or input from administrators who
            represent a random selection of institutions
        Like the supporters of H.R. 1707, we think it would be useful for
    the Review Panel to hear from (and question) corrections administrators
    with varying rates of sexual assault in their facilities; such
    testimony should help to inform the annual report that DOJ issues.
    Instead of generating a constructive exchange, however, the hearing
    process that H.R. 1707 currently proposes would polarize discussion.
        According to the legislation, corrections administrators summoned
    to testify would represent facilities that appear to have high rates of
    sexual assault. In fact, these corrections administrators would
    represent only those facilities with a high rate of sexual assault
    among the small group of institutions randomly selected for the survey.
    Consequently, corrections directors would likely devote much of their
    testimony to an explanation of why their participation in the hearing
    inaccurately suggests that they operate the most dangerous institutions
    in the country.
        For these reasons, we recommend that the panel be charged with
    developing an approach to analyzing the data captured through the study
    and interviewing various experts and victims and administrators from a
    random selection of facilities surveyed ensures that hearings will be
    constructive and useful.

                             3. NATIONAL STANDARDS

    Recommendation:  Require the Commission to consult accrediting
            organizations that currently have standards (or are in the
            process of developing such standards) on sexual assault
        The members and staff of accrediting organizations such as the
    American Correctional Association have spent time and resources
    preparing standards that address issues relating to sexual assault and
    the conditions of a facility or system that facilitate sexual assault.
    Nevertheless, the bill does not ensure that these accrediting
    organizations will be consulted on the development of the Commission's
    standards--or even recognize that these organizations already have, or
    are in the process of revising or developing, such standards. The
    National Prison Rape Reduction Commission (which is distinct from the
    Panel that the bill also establishes) should be directed to consult
    accrediting organizations that currently have standards on sexual
    assault, and to review existing standards and standards under
    development, before making its final report.

         4. INCENTIVES TO TESTIFY AND COMPLY WITH COMMISSION STANDARDS

    Recommendation:  Limit the instances in which jurisdictions would be
            eligible for an increase and narrow the definition of the
            ``source of funds for increases'' from which the 10 percent
            reward will be drawn
        We appreciate that the supporters of the bill would like to reward
    corrections administrators who adopt the standards developed by the
    National Commission. We also recognize that the members of Congress
    want to see administrators of systems with seemingly high rates of
    prisoner rape held accountable. Two examples illustrate, however,
    however, that, as currently written, the bill would achieve neither of
    these objectives effectively.
        First, the bill provides an increase in federal grant funding to
    jurisdictions represented at the hearing convened by the National
    Review Panel. Because representatives of those jurisdictions that have
    seemingly high rates of prisoner rape are asked to testify, the bill
    appears to reward systems that do not necessarily merit an increase.
    Furthermore, funds for this increase would be drawn from ``any [entity]
    not entitled to increases under this act.'' Accordingly, it is
    conceivable that a jurisdiction would lose federal funding only because
    it had the ``misfortune'' of not being included in the random sample.
        Second, the universe of DOJ grants that a jurisdiction could see
    reduced includes funding support for a broad spectrum of issue-areas,
    such as victim compensation and community policing, which are
    completely beyond the scope of correctional administrators' authority.
    As a result, the state and local government officials who would be held
    accountable for reducing prisoner rape would be those who are powerless
    to ensure compliance with the standards imposed by the legislation.

                     5. THE EMERGING CRISIS IN CORRECTIONS

    Recommendation:  Make available limited, immediate, assistance,
            including peer-to-peer technical assistance, to jurisdictions
            seeking to cut corrections costs without compromising the
            safety of inmates, staff, or the public in general.
        While we applaud Congress' commitment to helping us protect
    inmates, we are deeply concerned that this federal initiative ignores
    an emerging crisis in corrections that has major implications for
    inmates and for the safety of staff and the general public. Nearly
    unprecedented fiscal problems are prompting governors and legislatures
    to recommend dramatic cuts to corrections budgets. Corrections
    administrators trying to find such savings have three options. First,
    we could reduce spending on institutional security, but that would
    compromise the safety of inmates (not to mention staff)--which is
    precisely what H.R. 1707 intends to increase. Second, we could cut
    programming expenses. But prison and jail-based services are already
    threadbare. They offer little or no potential for savings. And, given
    that nearly every inmate will return to the community, further gutting
    of these programs will impact public safety adversely.
        Really, the only way savings of the scale that governors and
    legislatures are looking for from our agencies can be achieved only by
    managing our prison population differently. In some states, that may
    mean limiting the rate of the system's growth. Accordingly, state
    officials must soon make high-stakes decisions about their prison
    population--who is in there, how long they should stay, how they are
    prepared for release, and how they are supervised in the community. Yet
    policymakers are without the resources to ensure their decisions are
    informed ones. As a result, with budgetary pressures in the states as
    acute as they are, state and local government officials will need to
    make nearly blind decisions--Russian Roulette with major public safety
    implications.
        If Congress is to pass any legislation that addresses the safety of
    inmates, the accountability of corrections administrators, and the
    efficiency and effectiveness of federal expenditures through existing
    programs (as H.R. 1707 does), it needs to address state and local
    government officials' acute need for immediate, targeted, peer-to-peer
    assistance that would assist them manage corrections costs effectively
    without compromising public safety. We are aware of states, such as
    Kentucky, that in recent months, have responded to extraordinary fiscal
    pressures by releasing hundreds of offenders from prison, some of whom
    subsequently committed high-profile crimes, generating a firestorm of
    public criticism. There are other very recent developments in states
    that we all hope to avoid: in California, legislators who voted for a
    bill making certain felons eligible for release, later asked the
    governor later to veto the legislation because they realized that it
    could be applied to some serious and violent offenders. These are
    experiences that other states could avert if they had the benefit of
    data, expertise, other forms of technical assistance, and information
    about what has worked in other jurisdictions across the country.

                                   CONCLUSION

        As this testimony reflects, we believe there are some specific,
    very practical changes that can be made to this legislation that would
    help corrections administrators across the country combat prisoner
    rape. More importantly, modifying the legislation as we have suggested
    would help us considerably with our efforts to protect staff and
    inmates alike and ensure that deep cuts imposed on corrections agencies
    do not jeopardize the safety of the general public. We look forward to
    working with members of the Committee, your staff, and the impressive
    coalition of organizations supporting the bill to incorporate these
    recommendations in the bill. Thank you.

        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Wall.
        Mr. Kehoe.

               STATEMENT OF CHARLES J. KEHOE, PRESIDENT,
                   AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Kehoe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Charles Kehoe,
    President of the American Correctional Association. I wish to
    thank you and Ranking Member Scott for inviting us here today
    to discuss H.R. 1707, the ``Prison Rape Reduction Act.''
        I would like to begin by commending the work of
    Representative Frank Wolf and Representative Bobby Scott on
    this issue. As a long-time Virginian, I have long admired their
    dedicated service to the Commonwealth and to our Nation.
        I am here today to represent the American Correctional
    Association. ACA was founded in 1870 and is the Nation's only
    professional association representing all facets of
    corrections. It has nearly 19,000 members in all 50 States and
    more than 40 foreign countries. We promote broad-based public
    policies on crime and corrections, develop professional
    standards, administer a national accreditation program, and
    provide educational programs for corrections professionals at
    all levels. In short, we are a multi-disciplinary organization
    of corrections professionals.
        In his remarks introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act of
    2003, Representative Wolf said prison rape has nothing to do
    with being tough on crime; it has to do with making our
    communities safer, reducing recidivism, and controlling the
    spread of communicable diseases. I agree completely with
    Congressman Wolf. In fact, those are central tenants of the
    American Correctional Association, and we wholeheartedly
    support the efforts of Mr. Wolf and Mr. Scott, as well as all
    others involved in their quest to reduce the incidence of
    prison rape.
        The ACA supports the objectives of H.R. 1707. We believe
    that there should be a zero tolerance standard for the
    incidence of prison rape. We believe that prison officials
    should make the prevention of prison rape a priority. We want
    to ensure that prison officials are accountable for what goes
    on within their institutions. We thank the bill's sponsors for
    incorporating into H.R. 1707 many changes that the corrections
    profession recommended in earlier versions of the legislation.
    However, there remain a few provisions of H.R. 1707 about which
    we retain some reservations and would like to see clarified.
        The strength of the ACA is in the fact that we are the only
    organization that accredits total correctional facility
    operations, including health care. We have in excess of 1,600
    facilities and programs that are involved in the process.
        Our profession has, within the past 3 years, adopted newer
    and more meaningful performance-based standards, standards that
    better define the value of what we do and how we do it.
        The ACA Standards Committee, in January of 2003, finalized
    the adoption of several specific standards that address sexual
    misconduct and prison rape. First, we revise the intake
    screening procedures that would require inmates to be
    specifically identified who are vulnerable or have tendencies
    to act out sexually aggressive behavior.
        It would also require that investigations be conducted and
    documented whenever there is an assault or threat of a sexual
    assault. And it would require that offenders identified who
    have histories of sexual assaultive behavior are assessed by
    mental health or other professionals as such.
        Those with a history of assaultive behavior would be
    identified, monitored and counseled.
        Lastly, the standards would require that offenders at risk
    for victimization are identified, monitored and counseled.
        H.R. 1707 would establish the National Prison Rape
    Reduction Commission, established to study prison rape, report
    findings to Congress, and propose national standards for
    prevention. However, there is no guarantee that those,
    including the ACA, who have unique experience in the
    development and implementation of standards, will be consulted
    in the course of the Commission's work.
        We would like to see a requirement that the Commission
    consult entities involved in accreditation in the development
    of national standards for the reduction of prison rape.
        H.R. 1707 also calls for States to seek re-accreditation
    every 2 years. We have found it to be more economical and more
    efficient to have a 3-year accreditation process and would so
    recommend that for your consideration.
        H.R. 1707 creates a Review Panel on Prison Rape to hear
    from correctional administrators whose departments are
    experiencing high rates of prison rape. The goals of the panel
    are no different than those of ACA accreditation--to ensure
    that corrections is open and accountable for the implementation
    of standards to prevent prison rape.
        The legislation establishes this panel with three
    individuals. However, the legislation provides little guidance
    for this panel. We believe the panel should be structured in
    such a way to ensure that the panel promotes a dialogue which
    allows for a true understanding of the incidence of prison rape
    and which aids in the study and determination of the true
    impact of prison rape.
        We, therefore, recommend that a majority of the members of
    the Review Panel on Prison Rape be drawn from the law
    enforcement community and have expertise in the operation of
    correctional facilities.
        H.R. 1707 also calls for a study of the incidence of prison
    rape. However, it overlooks an important fact that needs to be
    taken into account. First, the legislation as drafted does not
    adequately identify what constitutes rape in a correctional
    facility. Issues surrounding consensual sex are not addressed,
    and further defining what is meant by prison rape is necessary.
        Secondly, the legislation does not specifically address
    whether prison rape would address staff-on-inmate sexual
    assault, as Director Wall mentioned earlier. Thus, we would
    recommend that the Department of Justice, in the development of
    a study relating to the incidence of prison rape, consult
    correctional administrators, prosecutors, victim advocates,
    former inmates and others who have direct institutional
    knowledge, in addition to the self-reporting by inmates.
        As you well know, State and local correctional agencies
    across the country are grappling with shrinking budgets. In
    this environment, the efforts of the supporters of the bill to
    reward correctional administrators for their efforts in meeting
    the requirements of this bill are commendable. We appreciate
    the extent to which the sponsors of H.R. 1707 have gone to
    ensure that this bill does not place unfunded mandates upon the
    States.
        Specifically, we appreciate the inclusion of language that
    says ``significant additional costs compared to the costs
    presently expended by Federal, State, and local prison
    authorities'' should be imposed. However, we believe that this
    term needs to be further defined. Thus, we recommend that the
    legislation be revised to define what, if any, further costs
    the implementation of national standards can place upon States
    and localities without providing Federal funding for the
    implementation of the standards.
        I'm going to skip ahead. Actually, I think I'm out of time.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, could he just read the
    recommendations? Since you have a couple of sentences on each
    one, if you can just read the recommendations, I would
    appreciate it.
        Mr. Kehoe. All right.
        We have recommendations relating to the manner in which
    funding will be distributed to States under the legislation,
    and reservations relating to the designation of programs for
    which funding for the implementation of this legislation be
    drawn. The current writing provides for an increase in Federal
    grant funding to jurisdictions represented at the hearings
    convened by the Panel. The legislation calls for these
    jurisdictions to be selected by among those included in a
    random sample of jurisdictions. Thus, those jurisdictions that
    are not a part of the random sample used to determine the
    incidence of prison rape would be ineligible for funding under
    the provisions of this legislation. In effect, this approach
    effectively rewards jurisdictions that appear to have a high
    incidence of rape, while reducing the funding available to
    jurisdictions that are not a part of the random sample.
        To simplify, if all 50 States are in compliance with the
    provisions of H.R. 1707, it would reward the 10 States that are
    chosen from the sample and at the same time 50 other States
    would not be so designated. Under the legislation, the 10
    States chosen may be eligible for a 10 percent increase in
    funding from certain formula grant programs. Does this does
    mean that the 40 States not chosen at random are not eligible
    for an increase and could actually see decreased Federal
    assistance?
        Funding for the implementation of H.R. 1707 is to come from
    the existing universe of formula grant programs, most of which
    are completely beyond the scope of correctional administrators'
    authority. In addition, relatively few DOJ grant programs are
    designated to provide aid exclusively to corrections. thus,
    other elements of State and local law enforcement could see
    reduced funding as a result of this legislation.
        I must ask whether the funding from victims' assistance
    programs, community policing or drug treatment programs could
    be used to fund the implementation of this act. Even more
    alarming is that as the legislation is currently written, the
    term ``formula grant programs'' could go beyond DOJ programs
    that impact law enforcement and corrections. Given the billion
    dollar minimum included in the legislation, it is likely that
    you would have to go outside of the Department of Justice
    programs. Thus, the Attorney General----
        Mr. Coble. Mr. Kehoe, why don't you suspend.
        Mr. Kehoe. All right, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kehoe follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Charles J. Kehoe

        Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am Charles Kehoe,
    President of the American Correctional Association. I wish to thank
    Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott for inviting me here today to
    discuss H.R. 1707, the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003.
        I would like to begin today by commending the work of
    Representative Frank Wolf and Representative Bobby Scott on this issue.
    As a former Director of the Virginia Department of Youth and Family
    Services, and a long-time citizen of Virginia, I have long admired
    their dedicated service to the Commonwealth.
        I am here today to represent the American Correctional Association
    (ACA). ACA was founded in 1870 and is the nation's only professional
    association representing all facets of corrections. ACA has nearly
    19,000 individuals members from all 50 states and more than 40
    countries. We promote broad-based public policies on crime and
    corrections, develop professional standards, administer a national
    accreditation program and provide educational programs for corrections
    officials at all levels. In short, we are a multi-disciplinary
    organization of professionals representing all facets of corrections
    and criminal justice, including federal, state, and military
    correctional facilities and prisons, county jails and detention
    centers, probation/parole agencies, and community corrections/halfway
    houses. ACA members bring a broad base of expertise that no other
    organization in the world can offer to the field.
        For more than 130 years, ACA has been the driving force in
    establishing national and international correctional policies. ACA is
    recognized as a worldwide leader on correctional policy and standards.
    Our standards pertain to both adult and juvenile corrections, and
    include guidelines designed to assist states and other agencies in
    their efforts to implement correctional policy and procedure, which
    provide safe, secure, and humane facilities for staff and offenders
    alike.
        In his remarks introducing the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003,
    Representative Wolf said ``prison rape has nothing to do with being
    tough on crime; it has to do with making our communities safer,
    reducing recidivism, and controlling the spread of communicable
    diseases.'' I agree completely with Congressman Wolf. In fact, those
    are central tenants of the American Correctional Association, and we
    whole-heartedly support the efforts of Mr. Wolf and Mr. Scott as well
    as all others involved in their quest to reduce the incidence of prison
    rape.
        The American Correctional Association supports the objectives of
    H.R.1707. We believe that there should be a zero-tolerance standard for
    the incidence of prison rape. We believe that prison officials should
    make the prevention of prison rape a priority. We want to ensure that
    prison officials are accountable for what goes on within their
    institutions. We thank the bill's sponsors for incorporating into H.R.
    1707 many changes that the corrections profession recommended to
    earlier versions of the legislation. However, there remain a few
    provisions of H.R. 1707 about which we retain some reservations or
    which we would like to see clarified.
        The strength of the American Correctional Association is in the
    fact that we are the only organization that accredits total
    correctional facility operations, including health care programs. We
    have in excess of 1,600 facilities and programs that are involved in
    the accreditation process, including prisons and jails, boot camps,
    correctional industries, electronic monitoring, training academies, and
    community-based programs, for both adults and juveniles. We currently
    have accredited facilities or programs in 46 of the 50 states. Florida,
    Louisiana, New York, Ohio and Tennessee have accredited 100% of their
    correctional programs. And, approximately 95 percent of the Federal
    Bureau of Prisons' facilities are also accredited.
        Our profession has, within the past three years, adopted newer and
    more meaningful Performance-based Standards--standards that better
    define the value of what we do, how we do it, why we do it and how
    successful we are through outcome measures. It is through the
    implementation of these measures that ACA has positioned itself to more
    closely collaborate with all elements within the criminal justice
    system to address specific issues facing the correctional profession,
    including those we are here to discuss today in relationship to the
    Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003.
        ACA's Standards Committee, in January 2003, finalized the adoption
    of several specific standards that are intended to significantly impact
    sexual misconduct and prison rape. Working closely within and outside
    the corrections profession, the Standards Committee adopted standards:

            I. to revise the intake screening requirements for all
            offenders to specifically identify those who are vulnerable or
            have tendencies to act out with sexually aggressive behavior;

            II. to require that an investigation be conducted and
            documented whenever an assault or threat of assault is
            reported;

            III. to require that offenders identified with history of
            sexually assaultive behavior are assessed by mental health or
            other qualified professionals. Those with history of sexual
            assaultive behavior are identified, monitored and counseled;
            and,

            IV. to require that offenders at risk for victimization are
            identified, monitored and counseled.

        H.R. 1707 would establish the National Prison Rape Reduction
    Commission, established to study prison rape, report its findings to
    Congress and propose national standards for the prevention of prison
    rape to the Attorney General. However, there is no guarantee that
    those, including the ACA, who have unique expertise and experience in
    the development and implementation of standards for correctional
    programs will be consulted in the course of the Commission's work. We
    would like to see a requirement that the National Prison Rape Reduction
    Commission consult entities involved in accreditation in the
    development of national standards for the reduction of prison rape.
        H.R. 1707 calls for states to seek reaccreditation every two years.
    However, ACA's current accreditation program has established a three-
    year cycle for the accreditation of correctional programs and we have
    found this time frame to be cost-effective and to provide adequate
    feedback relating to the state of operations within correctional
    facilities and programs. We believe that requiring states to seek
    accreditation every two years would result in a substantial increase in
    the costs associated with accreditation. Therefore, we recommend that
    the accreditation of correctional programs under any National Prison
    Rape Reduction Commission standard occur every three years.
        Openness and accountability are important qualities in the
    administration of correctional systems. In fact, in ACA's accreditation
    process, which I discussed, we actively seek the input of those both
    inside and outside of the profession. We hold public hearings and we
    invite diverse groups representing a wide variety of interests to
    provide comments on our proposed standards. We want to ensure that the
    public has confidence that corrections departments are doing their job
    to the best of their abilities and that departments of corrections
    conform to the highest guidelines of our profession.
        H.R. 1707 creates a Review Panel on Prison Rape to hear from
    correctional administrators whose departments are experiencing high
    rates of prison rape. The goals of the panel are no different from
    those of the ACA accreditation process--to ensure that corrections is
    open and accountable for the implementation of standards to prevent
    prison rape. The legislation establishes that the panel consists of
    three individuals with knowledge or expertise of the issues to be
    studied by the panel. However, the legislation provides little guidance
    for this panel. We believe that this panel should be structured in a
    way to ensure that the panel promotes a dialogue which allows for a
    true understanding of the incidence of prison rape and which aids in
    the study determining the true impact of prison rape.
        We recommend that a majority of the members of the Review Panel on
    Prison Rape be drawn from the law enforcement community and have
    expertise in the operation of correctional facilities. This would help
    to ensure that the panel does not promote confrontation but rather
    builds a dialogue allowing for a true understanding of the problems
    those testifying face.
        H.R. 1707 calls for a study of the incidence of prison rape;
    however, it overlooks important factors that need to be taken into
    account in the development and implementation of the study. First, the
    legislation, as drafted, does not adequately identify what constitutes
    rape in a correctional facility. Issues surrounding consensual sex are
    not addressed, and further defining what is meant by prison rape is
    necessary. Secondly, the legislation does not specify whether prison
    rape would include staff-on-inmate sexual assault. While there is no
    such thing as consensual sex between correctional employees and
    inmates, incidents of staff and inmate sex constitutes a crime in
    nearly every jurisdiction. Finally, the legislation places a great
    emphasis on prisoner surveys for determining the incidence of prison
    rape. However, in all surveys, not just those on issues as complex as
    prison rape, individuals tend to over-report the incidence. Thus, we
    recommend that the Department of Justice, in the development of a study
    relating to the incidence of prison rape, consult correctional
    administrators, prosecutors, victim advocates, former inmates and
    others with direct institutional knowledge in the development of the
    study.
        As you well know, state and local correctional agencies across the
    country are grappling with shrinking budgets and an expanding mandate.
    In this environment, the efforts of the supporters of the bill to
    reward correctional administrators for their efforts in meeting the
    requirements of this bill are commendable. We appreciate the extent to
    which the sponsors of H.R. 1707 have gone to ensure that this bill does
    not place unfunded mandates upon the states. Specifically, we
    appreciate the inclusion of language in H.R. 1707 preventing the
    adoption of measures that would impose ``significant additional costs
    compared to the costs presently expended by Federal, State, and local
    prison authorities.'' However, we believe that this term needs to be
    further defined. Thus, we recommend that the legislation be revised to
    define what, if any, further costs the implementation of national
    standards can place upon states and localities without providing
    federal funding for the implementation of such standards.
        Furthermore, we have reservations relating to the manner in which
    funding will be distributed to states under this legislation and
    reservations relating to the designation of programs from which funding
    for the implementation of this legislation will be drawn. Currently,
    H.R. 1707 provides for an increase in federal grant funding to
    jurisdictions represented at hearings convened by the Review Panel on
    Prison Rape. The legislation calls for these jurisdictions to be
    selected from among those included in a random sample of jurisdictions.
    Thus, those jurisdictions that are not a part of the random sample used
    to determine the incidence of prison rape are ineligible for funding
    under this provision of the legislation. In effect, this approach
    effectively rewards those jurisdictions that appear to have a high
    incidence of prison rape while reducing the funding available for those
    jurisdictions that were not part of the random sample.
        To simplify this concept, let's assume that all fifty states are in
    compliance with the provisions of this legislation. Under the
    provisions of H.R.1707, ten states are chosen at random to participate
    in the sample. This means that forty states are not chosen. Under the
    legislation, the ten states chosen may be eligible for a ten percent
    increase in funding from certain ``formula grant programs.'' Does this
    mean that the forty states not chosen at random are not eligible for an
    increase and could actually see decreased federal assistance?
        Furthermore, funding for the implementation of H.R. 1707 is to come
    from the existing universe of ``formula grant programs,'' most which
    are completely beyond the scope of correctional administrators'
    authority. In addition, relatively few current DoJ grant programs are
    designed to provide aid exclusively to corrections. Thus, other
    elements of state and local law enforcement could see reduced funding
    as a result of this legislation. I must ask whether funding from
    victim's assistance programs, community policing or drug treatment
    programs should be used to fund the implementation of this act. Even
    more alarming is that as the legislation is currently written, the term
    ``formula grant programs'' goes beyond DoJ programs that impact law
    enforcement and corrections. Given that the $1 billion minimum included
    in the legislation, it is likely that you would have to go outside of
    DoJ programs. Thus, the Attorney General could identify highway funds,
    education funds, HUD funds--in theory, any federal formula grant
    program, could be tapped into under the provisions of this legislation.
        Thus, we recommend that the reward structure for the implementation
    of H.R. 1707 be restructured in a manner that ensures that states do
    not in any manner see a reduction in funding from any formula grant
    program as a result of this legislation. Furthermore, the funding
    mechanism of this legislation should be restructured to ensure that the
    funding of the Prison Rape Reduction Act does not impact federal
    programs of which corrections is not the primary beneficiary.
        States across the nation are experiencing extraordinary fiscal
    crises that are prompting governors and legislatures to recommend
    dramatic cuts to all areas of state government. Correctional
    departments have not been immune to these cuts, and, in fact, have been
    among the hardest hit. While corrections appreciates the attention that
    the issue of prison rape has received from the United States Congress,
    we can not help but draw your attention to the larger issues currently
    facing our profession. Thus, the American Correctional Association
    joins the Council of State Government and the Association of State
    Correctional Administrators in recommending that this legislation be
    adapted to address state and local government officials' acute need for
    immediate, targeted, peer-to-peer assistance that would assist in the
    management of corrections in a cost-effective manner without impacting
    the safety of correctional employees, inmates, or the community.
        The primary mission of correctional departments across this country
    is to protect the public. Our mission also includes assisting in the
    prevention and control of delinquency and crime. Prison rape is a crime
    and we will continue to do our duty to prevent it.
        Mr. Wolf was absolutely correct when he said that the issue of
    prison rape is not about being tough on crime. Prison rape is an issue
    centered upon the human rights and the human dignity of those within
    our nation's prisons and jails. Yet, if we are truly concerned with the
    human rights and human dignity of offenders, we must, as a society,
    ensure that all citizens receive access to health care, access to
    education, and access to a living wage. This investment will go much
    farther to making our communities safer, to reducing recidivism, and to
    controlling the spread of communicable diseases than anything else that
    we can do.
        Prison rape is caused by larger, societal problems. It is a symptom
    of a disease and not the disease itself. And, ultimately, the
    prevention of criminal and delinquent behavior depends on the will of
    the individual and the constructive qualities of society and its basic
    entities: family, community, school, religion, and government. Without
    a significant investment in research and in the development of our
    communities, we will not be successful in achieving the admirable goals
    of making our communities safer, reducing recidivism and controlling
    the spread of communicable disease both inside and beyond our
    correctional systems.
        The corrections profession applauds the leadership of
    Representatives Wolf and Scott on this issue. And, we feel that if
    implemented properly, this legislation will have an impact on prison
    rape. We hope that it will be cost effective. We hope that it will make
    are communities safer. We hope that it will reduce recidivism. And we
    hope that it will reduce the spread of communicable disease. ACA looks
    forward to working with you on this noble pursuit. And, again, I wish
    to thank you all for inviting me here today.

        Mr. Coble. Let's get to Mr. Hall, and then we can come
    back. Since just Bobby and I are here, we probably will have
    two rounds of questioning.
        Mr. Hall.

                 STATEMENT OF FRANK A. HALL, DIRECTOR,
                            THE EAGLE GROUP

        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, my name is Frank Hall. I am
    currently a consultant in Washington, D.C. I spent 35 years in
    the corrections business, starting my career, Mr. Chairman, in
    your home State of North Carolina, where I spent 6 years and
    learned a great deal from a lot of very bright and capable
    people who were very committed to developing a humane and
    effective corrections department.
        I have had an opportunity to run three State correctional
    systems over the last 35 years, two large local corrections
    systems, as well as a juvenile justice system in the State of
    New York. I am gratified by the comments of my colleagues, Mr.
    Wall and Mr. Kehoe, who seem to be very supportive of the
    intent of this legislation and seem to be very supportive of
    the direction in which we're trying to move. I commend the
    leadership of Representative Wolf and Representative Scott. I
    think they've done a remarkable job focusing on an issue that I
    think too often we have avoided and tends to sort of be in the
    recesses of our institutions.
        We don't tend to talk about this issue. There has been
    almost a reluctance to talk about this issue throughout our
    history. But I think it's a major problem. It is not only a
    problem of public safety and safety in our institutions for
    both staff and inmates, but I think it is, very frankly, a
    public safety issue and a public health issue.
        But I'm gratified by the comments, because I think these
    two people represent what is best in the corrections
    profession. There are a lot of very fine people working in this
    business that would like to solve this problem and would like
    to be able to come before this Committee or any other Committee
    in Congress and say this problem has been solved, thanks to
    your efforts and thanks to your help.
        I think there are several concerns that have been raised
    about the direction of the bill, most of which seem to address
    issues of funding and resource allocation, compliance issues.
    To me, these are relatively solvable problems. Congress deals
    with these problems almost every day, and I'm confident that
    these problems can be resolved.
        But the reality of it is, you know, this problem of prison
    rape affects people today. Probably in the last 20 years, a
    million prisoners have been raped in the United States of
    America. I think that's unacceptable to all of us, not just in
    the corrections business but for every Member of Congress and
    every person in the United States.
        Unfortunately, in spite of efforts to accredit our
    facilities in this country, a still relatively small percentage
    of correctional institutions are accredited. The fact of it is
    we operate thousands of jails in this country, police lockups,
    and there are 630,000 people alone in the local jail system.
    Just 2 years ago, if you counted the number of admissions and
    discharges from the local jails and the prisons, we're talking
    about 10 million people. Many people in the jail system haven't
    even been found guilty of a crime. So it's a major issue and it
    affects people, it affects the public health.
        I think it requires Federal action for a very simple
    reason: we haven't done it at the State level. I've been at the
    State and local level all my life, but we haven't yet solved
    this problem. In spite of mass resources and money and support,
    we still haven't resolved this issue. In spite of much progress
    in the corrections business, we still haven't resolved this
    issue.
        The other reality is--and I think it's one we have to
    face--most prison staff are not adequately trained to prevent,
    to report, to treat and to deal with the issue. This bill
    provides some training, it provides opportunities for people to
    get resources to help deal with some of these issues. So we're
    not where we need to be, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Committee.
        The bill doesn't attempt to solve all the world's problems,
    but it does attempt to do some very basic things. It sets up a
    program to gather the data, which we desperately need--we have
    so little real data that it's an embarrassment that we don't
    know more about the issue, that we don't have better data on
    this issue--and Allen Beck is here from the Bureau of Justice
    Statistics, who I think is probably one of the best in the
    business. I'm sure his people, with support from Congress, can
    find out and get us much more information than we currently
    have.
        The other program would provide technical assistance and a
    clearinghouse to help resolve some of these issues, and then
    there's a program that the Attorney General would have which
    would enable him to make grants up to a million dollars to
    States and localities who are trying to grapple with the
    problem.
        So there is an honest effort to put some resources in this
    program to draw attention to it, to establish standards over a
    period of 2 years, and then I think recognizing that we have a
    long ways to go, Mr. Chairman.
        I think what we've also said is that it's not that
    complicated. It's true that we have to work out some issues
    around formula grants; it's true we have to work out some
    issues around compliance. But basically, what the act is
    requiring is really relatively simple, and as a former
    corrections administrator in several States, and in local
    governments, as well as in the juvenile system, I would not
    find it impossible to carry this out, even with existing budget
    constraints within which we all operate today. I mean, there's
    always been a budget crisis as long as I've been in
    corrections, Mr. Chairman. It didn't take this recession or
    this economic downturn that we're having to create an economic
    crisis in the correctional system.
        We're only asking that correctional administrators
    cooperate with the surveys and other efforts to measure
    accurately the prevalence of prison rape in our existing
    institutions, and be prepared to explain, in a public forum, if
    an institution or system is far above the established norm.
    It's an issue of accountability. What gets measured, Mr.
    Chairman, is what gets done.
        After years of hearings, discussion and debate, where all
    the fine people you see here today, and others, would have a
    chance to agree on a set of standards, and a set of standards
    that do not require substantial new State and local resources.
    And while we may debate the means of ensuring compliance, it is
    imperative that we, at a minimum, take these three steps.
        If the Congress decides to act, then all of you will have
    the satisfaction of knowing your actions have enabled all of us
    to taken a historical step forward. As Members of this
    Committee can readily see, the Prison Rape Reduction Act is
    comprehensive and designed to shed light on dark, violent
    places. However, even more importantly, it provides prison and
    jail staffs with ideas, resources and performance
    accountability, all urgently needed if we are to lower the
    level of violence that exists today.
        Passage of this legislation would be an historic step in
    establishing our commitment to real public safety. In this
    great country, we sentence people to prison as punishment and
    to protect our fellow citizens. We do not, and must no longer,
    sentence them to be raped, murdered or exposed to dangerous
    diseases. Those of us who have worked in our correctional
    institutions, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, we
    applaud your efforts, your concern, and your humanity.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Frank A. Hall

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Sub-committee on Crime, Terrorism and
    Homeland Security, it is an honor and a privilege to appear before you
    today. I am here to express my gratitude for your leadership in
    reducing violence in our correctional institutions and to express my
    support for the Prison Rape Reduction Act. I am also honored to be here
    with two of my colleagues, Reggie Wilkinson and Chuck Kehoe. I have
    known these two professionals for many years and they represent the
    best of the fine women and men working in our jails, prisons, and
    juvenile facilities throughout the country.
        I have worked in the correction profession for more than thirty-
    five years in a broad range of positions. I have served as director,
    commissioner, or chief executive officer of the State corrections
    systems of Massachusetts, Maryland, and Oregon, the jail systems of
    Philadelphia and Santa Clara County, California and the New York
    juvenile justice system. To me, prison rape is much more than an
    academic issue. Prison rape impacts on human beings and on every jail,
    prison, and juvenile facility in America. It is an issue of violence
    and public health.
        At the end of this century, over two million persons were
    incarcerated in our Federal and State prisons and more than 630
    thousand were locked up in local jails. In 1999, there were more than
    ten million admissions to and discharges from these institutions.
    Although the research is limited-another part of the problem which
    would be remedied by the legislation- experts have conservatively
    estimated that at least 13 percent of inmates in the United States have
    been sexually assaulted while under our supervision. Many of these
    individuals have suffered repeated assaults. The total number inmates
    who have been sexually assaulted in the past twenty years could easily
    exceed one million.
        America's jails and prisons house more mentally ill individuals
    than all the Nation's psychiatric hospitals combined and experienced
    correctional professionals know that inmates with mental illness are at
    increased risk of sexual assault. Young first offenders are also
    vulnerable and those placed in adult rather than juvenile facilities
    are five times more likely to be assaulted.
        HIV and AIDS have become an increasingly major health problem in
    corrections. More than 25,000 inmates in Federal and State prisons are
    infected. In 2001, more than six percent of all deaths in these
    institutions were attributable to these life-threatening illnesses.
    Infection rates for other sexually transmitted diseases, tuberculosis,
    and hepatitis B and C are also far greater for prisoners than the
    American population as a whole. Prison rape is often a death sentence
    for the victim.
        Prison rape is nothing less than brutalizing violence and an act of
    rape or threat of rape in an institution increases the level of
    homicide and other violence against inmates and staff. Victims suffer
    severe physical and psychological effects that hinder their ability to
    re-integrate into the community and maintain stable employment after
    release. The result is higher recidivism, more homeless or at best
    individuals requiring some form of government assistance.
        Unfortunately, most prison and jail staff are not adequately
    trained or prepared to prevent, report, or treat inmate sexual
    assaults. As a result, prison rape often goes unreported and victims
    often receive inadequate treatment if they receive treatment at all.
        The Prison Rape Reduction Act is an historic bi-partisan effort to
    mobilize our efforts to combat a problem that, as we have seen, impacts
    far beyond the walls of the country's jails and prisons. The law would
    establish a zero tolerance of rape in United States prisons and would
    make its prevention a top priority. National standards for the
    detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment will be established.
    Long needed data on the incidence of prison rape will become available
    which will improve the management and administration of our
    correctional institutions. It will increase the accountability of
    prison officials who fail to detect, prevent, reduce, and punish rape
    and increase the visibility of officials who are innovative and
    effective. The proposed legislation is designed to help jurisdictions
    that seek to create a safer environment.
        The Prison Rape Reduction Act establishes three programs in the
    Department of Justice-the Statistics Program, the Prevention and
    Prosecution Program, and the Grant Program.
        The first of these, the Statistics Program, would conduct annual
    studies of a significant sample of Federal, State, and county jails and
    prisons on the in the incidence and prevalence of rape. The program
    would then conduct an annual review of the performance of these systems
    where the incidence of rape greatly exceeds the national average.
        The Prevention and Prosecution Program will serve as a
    clearinghouse for the provision of information and assistance to those
    authorities responsible for the prevention, investigation, and
    punishment of rape. This program would also provide training and
    assistance to Federal, State, and local prison officials.
        The third and last leg of this tripod would be the Grant Program,
    which authorizes the Attorney General to make annual grants (up to $40
    million each year) to State, and local programs that enhance the
    prevention and punishment of prison rape.
        In addition to the programs described above, the new legislation
    would establish a National Prison Rape Reduction Commission which would
    conduct comprehensive hearing and examine all penalogical, economic,
    physical, mental, medical and social issues related to prison rape in
    America. At the conclusion of its review the Commission will issue a
    comprehensive report on the subject, including a recommended set of
    national standards to reduce and eliminate prison rape.
        The standards will address practices for the investigation and
    elimination of prison rape including the training of correctional
    officers; sexually transmitted disease prevention; identifying,
    protecting, screening, isolating, and punishing vulnerable and
    potentially offending inmates; and other related issues. The Commission
    will be required to limit its proposals to those that do not impose
    substantial additional costs on States and local governments. The
    Commission's recommended national standards will be independently
    reviewed by the Attorney General who may modify them before publishing
    them for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.
        Once the standards become final, they will be immediately
    applicable to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. States then may adopt the
    standards by statute and those that do will receive increased funds for
    two years from certain Federal grant programs. States will continue to
    receive increased funds thereafter if they receive certification from
    an accreditation agency that they are in compliance with the standards.
        The Act further requires that all prison accreditation
    organizations to examine prison rape prevention practices as a critical
    component of their accreditation reviews including, when and where
    adopted, the national standards promulgated pursuant to the Act.
    Failure to do so would make such organization ineligible for the
    receipt of any Federal funds.
        The problem today, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, is
    that our focus has been on building institutions not on what goes on
    inside. As administrators we are held accountable for the visible-
    escapes and riots. These are the issues that result in blue ribbon
    commissions, legislative hearings, and the firing of wardens and
    commissioners and all too often line staff who shoulder the daily
    burden of keeping our facilities safe. The legislation before this
    committee requires a different level of accountability and it will
    change the reality for those living and working in the system. As the
    old adage states: ``What gets measured, get done.''
        Ladies and Gentlemen of this committee, we are not asking too much
    of my corrections colleagues, we are only asking them to take these
    three modest actions:

              Cooperate with the surveys and other efforts to
            measure accurately the prevalence of prison rape in our
            existing institutions.

              Be prepared to explain in a public forum if an
            institution or system is far above the established norm.

              And after years of hearings, discussion, and debate,
            agree to set of standards that do not require substantial new
            State and local resources.

        While we may debate the means of ensuring compliance, it is
    imperative that we, at a minimum, take these three steps. If the
    Congress decides to act, then all of you will have the satisfaction of
    knowing your actions have enabled all of us to take an historical step
    forward.
        As members of this committee can readily see, the Prison Rape
    Reduction Act is comprehensive and designed to shed light on dark
    violent places. However, even more importantly it provides prison and
    jail staffs with ideas, resources, and performance accountability-all
    urgently needed if we to lower the level of violence that exists today.
    Passage of this legislation would be an historic step in establishing
    our commitment to real public safety. In this great county we sentence
    people to prison as punishment and to protect our fellow citizens. We
    do not and must no longer sentence them to be raped, murdered, or
    exposed to dangerous disease.
        Those of us who have worked in our correctional institutions
    applaud your concern and your humanity.
        Thank You.

        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and I thank the panelists.
    As I said, Mr. Scott and I are the only ones here and we'll
    have two rounds of questioning.
        Mr. Hall, I'm sure that probably one of the reasons why
    there is very limited statistics available is probably fear of
    retribution, I would suspect--Is that correct, that being one
    reason?
        Mr. Hall. I think that's one of the reasons, Mr. Chairman,
    yes. I think the other is that--and this almost goes--it is
    difficult to articulate, but I think there's been a reluctance
    on the part of all of us in the business to really talk about
    this issue and be frank about it.
        Mr. Coble. Yeah.
        Mr. Hall. I think that's part of the problem also.
        Mr. Coble. In your testimony you indicate that most prison
    and jail staff are inadequately trained or prepared to prevent,
    treat or report. What sort of training or preparation would you
    suggest?
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I think you made a comment earlier
    about the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I think the Federal Bureau
    has provided a lot of leadership in this area. I think, if you
    look at the Federal regulations and policies, they very
    specifically deal with this issue. That is not true in many of
    the States; it's not true in some of the juvenile systems in
    this country; and it's certainly not true in many of the local
    jails.
        I think the training that would be provided under this is a
    relatively small grant, only five million dollars to the
    National Institute of Corrections. It could go a long way,
    since it's practically increasing the National Institute of
    Corrections' budget by 50 percent. So it could go a long ways
    to training staff, developing protocols--you have to have a
    protocol. In a corrections system, you have to have policy. But
    in training people in the policy, then giving them real tools
    to actually do the work that has to be done and the ability to
    investigate these things and protect the people that report.
    Because it's dangerous to report, Mr. Chairman, very dangerous.
    No one wants to report being raped if they're going to get
    killed within 24 hours after making the report.
        Mr. Coble. Miss Henke, your testimony indicates that there
    could be as many as 20 Federal formula grant programs at the
    Office of Justice Programs affected by the increases/reductions
    under this legislation.
        What criteria will be used to choose which programs are
    affected?
        Ms. Henke. Sir, the underlying legislation specifically
    says programs that are related to the failure to abate prison
    rape. That is the guidance that would be provided in the
    legislation.
        Specific criteria that would be used by the Attorney
    General to select the programs within OJP, others within the
    Department of Justice, or other programs throughout the
    Administration, is undetermined at this time.
        Mr. Coble. Mr. Kehoe, what are the benefits--Let me put a
    two part question to you.
        What are the benefits to a State or institution of
    accreditation, (a), and (b), why do some States or institutions
    choose not to be accredited?
        Mr. Kehoe. Mr. Chairman, the benefits of accreditation are
    that it provides a State and a facility a program with an
    outside independent assessment of that facility's strengths and
    weaknesses. It also helps to measure their compliance with
    attainable goals, and it implements in the implementation
    requirement for state-of-the-art policies to be achieved
    through the accreditation process.
        In some cases, it has actually aided in the defense in
    lawsuits. Federal courts have sometimes lifted their
    involvement with States because States have come into
    compliance with standards and accreditation. It also raises
    staff morale and professionalism because of the standards that
    specifically address training and qualifications.
        I would say probably that the most important thing is that
    it helps you develop a road map for daily operations. That's
    the thing that we see most often, that you have a consistent
    way of managing these facilities from day to day.
        I would say probably that, more often than not, what causes
    States, I think you asked, not to become involved----
        Mr. Coble. Yes.
        Mr. Kehoe.--is probably a lack of understanding and
    knowledge, and certainly the cost factor for some States is, to
    some extent, a deterrent. They just simply don't know whether
    they have the money and the resources to do that. But I would
    say those would be the two major issues.
        Mr. Coble. I have a question for Mr. Wall, but I will wait
    until the second round. Mr. Scott.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think what we have heard is general support for the
    legislation, if we can work out the details. So let me ask you
    all a couple of questions.
        Mr. Kehoe, what portion of prisons today are, in fact,
    accredited?
        Mr. Kehoe. About 10 percent of the adult corrections in the
    country are--actually, it's more than that. In the U.S., about
    30 percent of adult prisons and jails are accredited, and about
    10 percent of the juvenile programs are accredited. There's
    about 1,600 facilities in numbers.
        Mr. Scott. Both you and Mr. Wall have suggested that we
    make sure that we contact those who do the accreditation. Does
    anybody else, other than ACA, do accreditations?
        Mr. Kehoe. Yes. The National Commission on Correctional
    Health Care does accreditation specific to health care, but
    doesn't go into the operations and beyond the health care.
        Mr. Scott. So if we wanted to contact a group that did
    accreditations, it would be ACA?
        Mr. Kehoe. Yes.
        Mr. Scott. I don't remember which one it was, but somebody
    mentioned the composition of the panel. Other than corrections
    officials, who else ought to be on the panel?
        Mr. Kehoe. Certainly I would think, Mr. Scott, people with
    law enforcement background, who have some experience in
    investigative skills, who have experience in dealing with
    sexual assaults in a free society would also bring a lot of
    strength to that composition as well.
        Mr. Scott. Does somebody else want to respond to either of
    those questions?
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Scott, I would also urge that, if such a
    panel be appointed, that it also include some folks that
    represent the people that have come through the system. You
    know, we haven't heard from those folks today. But those
    stories are compelling. I know these people personally, many of
    them, and they're absolutely true. We have to have people on a
    panel like that who represent some other points of view.
        I would like to think that those of us in corrections are
    smart and sensitive and thoughtful about these issues, but it's
    important to have other people there with us I think.
        Mr. Scott. You're talking about a broad cross-section. The
    problems we have with that is the way we have them appointed,
    three by this person, two by that person, one by this person,
    so that you don't get to appoint a group. You have to appoint
    one and that's it. Then you look and see what you've got.
    That's how we generally do it. We might have to tinker with
    that to make sure that, when all is said and done, we have a
    cross-section of the various disciplines.
        Mr. Wall?
        Mr. Wall. Yes, Representative Scott, if I may. There are
    really three components here, as I understand it. One is the
    BJS component, the second is this review panel to take the BJS
    statistics and help to present a profile of who the victims
    are, who the perpetrators are, and what the context is. The
    third is the commission that will promulgate standards for
    States to adhere to.
        I had suggested that, with regard to the first prong, the
    BJS study, that there be an advisory group that would be
    broadly representative, that would help with definitional
    questions and identifying the appropriate ways to gather
    information. That would absolutely include victims' advocates
    as well as former inmates, as well as corrections
    professionals, law enforcement personnel and prosecutors.
        Mr. Scott. You mentioned definitional questions. Several
    have indicated a question about the definition of rape,
    including whether or not staff-in-inmate rapes would be
    included.
        Are there places that have already dealt with that question
    that we could find a definition?
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Scott, I would suggest, even if
    you look at the state of current law on sexual assaults, it
    pretty well covers it. When you're in a correctional facility,
    the mere threat of an assault in itself is a criminal act for
    all intents and purposes. When someone is threatened with rape
    or threatened with some sexual act, and if they don't cooperate
    they're going to be killed or maimed or whatever, I think the
    law pretty much covers most of these issues.
        Ms. Henke. Sir, just one more thing, if I may. Congress did
    provide $13 million to the Office of Justice Programs in the
    fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill for the Bureau of Justice
    Statistics and the National Institute of Justice. Both of these
    entities, working collaboratively, are prepared to empanel a
    group of experts, practitioners, researchers, et cetera,
    individuals from the field that can address these issues. So
    the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Institute of
    Justice can get a head start on identifying some of these
    issues.
        Mr. Wall. And, Representative Scott, with regard to the
    issue of staff on inmate sexual assault, that is a crime, a
    violation of the criminal code in 48 of the 50 States at the
    present time. Consent is not a defense in those instances. The
    mere fact of sexual misconduct between a staff member and an
    inmate is defined as a felony.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Bobby.
        Mr. Wall, I don't think this has been touched on. We talk
    frequently and consistently about the lack of statistical data.
    How important, Mr. Wall, is it to reducing the incidence of
    sexual assault to obtain accurate statistics?
        Mr. Wall. I think that it is very important to obtain
    accurate statistics, and that's why, Chairman Coble, I have
    recommended that there be an advisory group put together to
    assist the Bureau of Justice Statistics in assembling that data
    and also that it draw on a variety of surveys.
        Let me give you an example of one of the challenges that
    can be presented here. It is conceivable that a State which has
    good supervision, close supervision by staff, and good
    reporting mechanisms, could show up as having a high incidence
    of sexual assault on inmates, because in my experience over the
    years, if inmates have reason to believe that they will be
    believed and protected, they will report misconduct, whether it
    be by staff or other inmates. If inmates do not think they will
    be believed or protected, they will remain silent. That's why
    the issue of collecting data and collecting accurate data is
    going to be a very important and challenging piece.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with what Mr.
    Wall has said. I think one of the reasons we've heard less
    about this issue over the years is because people have remained
    silent. I think many people who have been assaulted remain
    silent.
        I think the interest of Congress and the interest of the
    Federal Government in this problem I think will change that
    silence. I think it will have a very positive impact.
        Mr. Coble. I hope so.
        Miss Henke, pardon my raspy voice. I have already
    apologized to others. I know this sounds terrible.
        Miss Henke, are the standards that have been adopted by the
    ACA also the standards that are required by the Federal
    correctional facilities?
        Mr. Henke. Sir, to my knowledge, the Federal Bureau of
    Prisons has had their own standards in place since about 1997.
    However, the Bureau of Prisons also works to adopt the
    standards identified and used by the ACA.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you.
        Mr. Scott.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. Wall, you indicated there may be some things we're
    overlooking. What were you referring to?
        Mr. Wall. My concern is this, Representative Scott, that
    there is another emerging crisis in the corrections field that
    has to do with the fact that our systems continue to grow but
    that we are facing nearly unprecedented fiscal constraints.
        In the late 1980's and 1990's, the philosophy really was to
    build more prisons and staff them up. We are now some 10-plus
    years, 10 to 15 years later from the beginning, from the onset
    of that philosophical approach, the coffers are exhausted,
    governors and legislators are not willing to spend additional
    capital monies, are not willing to continue to staff up and
    operate expensive correctional institutions, but our numbers
    have not abated. As a result, governors are forced to consider
    how to manage the population and whether the populations of
    correctional facilities can be allowed to continue to grow,
    notwithstanding the fiscal constraints. In virtually every
    jurisdiction, steps are underway and serious discussion is
    occurring about how to deal with that problem.
        My point would be that this is an occasion where the States
    really could benefit from targeted, technical assistance, so
    that we don't make those decisions unwisely and in
    contravention of the public safety. I would argue, as Mr. Hall
    has, that just as sexual assault in prisons can be looked at as
    a threat to public safety, through public health and through
    the consequences of people behaving on the street who have been
    abused that way, we also, of course, care deeply about the
    public safety associated with releasing inmates who might
    otherwise be incarcerated and want to be sure that those
    decisions are made soundly and wisely. We would appreciate the
    Federal Government's assistance in providing us with the means
    to do that.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Several questions have been raised about the funding
    formula. Does anyone have any concern, or are we confident that
    there is common ground that we can solve this? Let me ask that
    of Miss Henke.
        Ms. Henke. Sir, it is the Department of Justice's hope that
    yes, there is common ground. In discussions with individuals at
    the table, as well as other supporters of the legislation, it
    is the Department's hope that this issue can be addressed and
    that common ground exists for us to build from.
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Hall?
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Scott, all the members of the coalition that
    support this legislation left their agenda at the door and are
    focused on this issue and this issue alone. I am relatively
    certain, as long as there is some form of compliance in the
    legislation, that some formula and some understanding can be
    worked out.
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Wall and Mr. Kehoe, do you have any concern
    that we might not be able to find a common ground to get past
    the funding questions?
        Mr. Kehoe. Mr. Scott, I think we are in agreement with the
    Department of Justice on what has been said so far. People
    working collectively toward a unified cause, with a goal in
    mind, can achieve anything. I think we would be supportive of
    that.
        Our greatest concern is that we not end up in a situation
    where no good deed goes unpunished.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        I guess a final question. A couple of people have used the
    phrase ``integrity'' in conjunction with the numbers that we
    get. What can we do to ensure--I think Mr. Wall kind of touched
    on this a little bit--that the numbers we get as a result of
    the surveys are accurate?
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Scott, I think that with Mr. Beck's
    involvement from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the
    involvement of a lot of people that understand how to gather
    this data in a way that protects the people that give up the
    information, I'm convinced we can get the data. I mean, there
    are ways of doing these studies. I may be looking at people
    that have already been released, that are already off parole,
    that we have to look at some of those folks. But I think
    there's ways of gathering this data without compromising it,
    and I'm convinced that can be done. I think people are smart
    enough to figure that one out.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Miss Henke?
        Ms. Henke. Sir, if I may, once again under the $13 million
    that was provided in the BJS appropriations bill, the Bureau of
    Justice Statistics is prepared--we have worked over the past
    month, maybe 2 months, to develop a proposal that we have
    discussed with many individuals. What the Bureau of Justice
    Statistics is going to do is they're going to pilot something
    they call the Audio Computer Assisted Self-Interviewing
    technique--it's called the Audio CASI, is what we call it--to
    improve the reliability of numbers.
        One of the things the expert statisticians at the Bureau of
    Justice Statistics have said is currently there are pretty much
    two ways to gather the numbers: you provide a survey and let
    them fill it out whenever they fill it out, and turn it in
    whenever they turn it in; or there is a personal interview.
        Personal interviews often sometimes subdues what an
    individual will discuss. By using this audio computer system,
    one, it's a more controlled environment, and two, it is not a
    person that you're sitting there talking with. So the Bureau of
    Justice Statistics, at OJP, is going to be moving forward on
    that technique to pilot it relatively quickly.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Scott, one other comment.
        I think, quite frankly, based on the studies that have been
    done, and the information that we currently have, it is still
    my opinion that we have underestimated the full extent of the
    problem.
        Mr. Coble. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Does the gentlelady from Texas have questions?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
        Mr. Coble. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
    submit my opening statement into the record.
        Mr. Coble. Without objection.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

           Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
               Representative in Congress From the State of Texas

        I would like to thank Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott for
    convening this very important hearing today to hear testimony and
    discuss H.R. 1707, the ``Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003.''
        This important bill will help to bring an end to the deplorable
    rapes, molestations, and sexual assaults that occur in our prisons.
        The negative impacts of prison rapes go beyond the physical trauma
    of the attack itself. The victims suffer psychological trauma,
    emotional scarring, shame, the stigma of being victimized, and the
    destruction of their dignity.
        H.R. 1707 is a moderate bill that seeks to address the scourge of
    prison rapes. The bill does not infringe on state and local governments
    role in administering their correctional institutions. Likewise the
    bill does not impose mandates on correctional facilities without
    providing funding.
        A critically important element of the bill is empowering the
    Department of Justice to conduct extensive research so that we can have
    a better understanding of the scope and character of the prison rape
    problem. The DOJ's research will also enable us to educate and train
    correctional facility officers to prevent prison rapes, to investigate
    and punish those responsible for the attacks, and to establish a
    funding system does not conflict with state funding initiatives.
        By eliminating or significantly reducing prison rapes we will also
    benefit the general public. The psychological trauma of a prison rape
    has the potential to turn a person who was a non-violent offender when
    first incarcerated, into a violent offender when the person is
    released. Prison rape also increases the probability that prisoner
    rehabilitation efforts will be ineffective. Eliminating prison rapes
    will also reduce the incidence of infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS and
    hepatitis.
        As the Chair of the Children's Caucus, I am particularly troubled
    by the impact that prison rapes have on minors who have been
    incarcerated. Imprisoned youths are five times more likely to be raped
    or sexually abused than incarcerated adults. Furthermore, the
    psychological trauma of a rape is far more serious to a child.
        We must do everything in our power to eliminate prison rapes. It is
    far too common for prison officials and members of the public to ignore
    the crimes that occur in our prisons, and the problems facing our
    prisoners. To neglect our prisoners is a violation of the Constitution.
    The Supreme Court ruled in Farmer v. Brennan, that deliberate,
    indifference to prison rape violates the 8th Amendment's cruel and
    unusual punishment provisions.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, and I look forward
    to hearing the testimony of our distinguished witnesses to learn about
    how to eliminate prison rapes.

        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me applaud, first of all, the Chairman
    for holding this hearing, and applaud both the Ranking Member
    of this Subcommittee for his initiative in this legislation,
    along with Congressman Wolf.
        Just for the record--and I know that these numbers have
    already been stated, but I guess it provides a chilling effect
    of this hearing to indicate that about two million inmates in
    the United States today--approximately two-thirds in Federal
    and State prisons and one-third in local jails--that of these
    two million inmates, it is conservatively estimated that one in
    ten has been raped, over or more than 200,000 inmates, and as I
    was listening to the testimony, there may be even more.
        According to a 1996 study, 22 percent of prisoners in
    Nebraska have been either pressured or forced to engage in
    sexual activity against their will while incarcerated, and a
    2001 report by the Human Rights Watch documented shockingly
    high rates of sexual abuse in U.S. prisons.
        The interesting thing, of course, is that, because of the
    age of majority, we have youngsters as young as 17 in adult
    prisons who may be victimized in this category. I am told by my
    interaction, my sad interaction with victims of sexual abuse,
    that it is a tragically life-changing experience.
        Then I would finally note that by increasing the
    transmission of HIV/AIDS and other sexually-transmitted
    diseases, tuberculosis and hepatitis B and C, all of which
    exist at a very high rate within U.S. prisons and jails, prison
    rape has serious health consequences. So I know that all of you
    are facing a very high and critical question and this
    legislation is very important.
        I would like to ask Miss Henke, right at this very moment,
    even without this legislation, knowing that this crisis or very
    severe problem exists, what are the Federal prisons doing, the
    Federal Bureau of Prisons doing, right as we speak to address
    this issue?
        Ms. Henke. Congresswoman, I can tell you a little bit about
    what they're doing, because I'm with the Office of Justice
    Programs and not with the Bureau of Prisons. But what I can
    tell you, as the Chairman stated early on, is that it has been
    noted that the Federal system has been working on this issue.
    The Bureau of Prisons has had policy in place since 1997, to my
    knowledge.
        In addition to that, they work to adopt the same standards
    that ACA adopts for State and local prisons. So yes, the
    Federal system has had a policy and practice in place since at
    least 1997.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Kehoe--and she is not with the Federal
    Bureau of Prisons, and I'm going to find out later why they're
    not present. But in any event, Mr. Kehoe, can you assess
    whether there's been any work that has been legitimate and
    substantial on this question, beyond obviously the movement of
    this legislation, which I think will be of great help, but what
    has been done and what has been noted about this crisis so that
    something could be done, even in the interim of passing this
    legislation?
        Mr. Kehoe. Let me ask a question. Are you specifically
    speaking to the Bureau or globally, corrections-wise?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Why don't you speak both specifically and
    generally. If you have more information generally, I'll accept
    that.
        Mr. Kehoe. Okay. I don't have specific information about
    the Bureau, other than to say that 95 percent of the Bureau's
    programs are involved in our accreditation process. To that
    extent, there are standards that address issues of assault.
        Most recently, in January of this year, the ACA standards
    committee passed four standards that specifically address the
    issue of sexual assault in institutions. They begin with the
    classification and intake process, to identify those
    perpetrators who may be the aggressor, and those who may be
    victims of possible sexual assault.
        The second issue addresses the need for prompt
    investigation when a threat or an assault actually happens, and
    the culmination of that investigation.
        The third and fourth standards really deal with the profile
    of an aggressive perpetrator, a sexually aggressive offender in
    prison, streamlining that person into the right program so that
    they get the appropriate level of custody as well as treatment.
        The last standard deals with those that might be considered
    potential victims in institutions, identifying them and
    properly--having standards that properly classify them so
    they're not put in harm's way.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. So you have been using standards to assess
    whether or not there have been any fix in the particular
    institutions that you've been dealing with, standards,
    reporting, et cetera?
        Mr. Kehoe. The standards that we have addressed
    specifically to sexual assault were just passed this past
    January, so there really hasn't been a period of time yet to
    collect any meaningful data of that.
        Mr. Hall. Representative Lee, could I make one comment on
    that?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
        Mr. Hall. The accreditation process that was instituted by
    the American Correctional Association is a very positive
    process, and I think it's been of enormous help in corrections.
        But as I pointed out earlier, the problem is there is just
    so few institutions that are accredited. When you get into the
    issues of local jails as well as juvenile correctional
    facilities, then you have a major problem area.
        Unfortunately, as good as the process is, and even though
    these standards were adopted rather late in the process, the
    reality of it is most institutions don't go through an
    accreditation process. It's not like your school system or your
    colleges and universities. You can run your prison without
    accreditation. It's not like where if you have a college that
    doesn't get accredited, they'll probably end up closing their
    doors. That is certainly not true in this business.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, is there a second round?
        Mr. Coble. No, just this.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. May I have an additional minute?
        Mr. Coble. One additional minute.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate the response that you gave. I
    want to get the one representative State unfunded mandates, but
    I would like to know, one, what you're doing in your State, but
    more importantly, how this legislation will be helpful to you.
    I think I heard the funding issue, if you want to repeat that
    again, but how would it relate in terms of helping you be
    successful in the cure of this crisis and the very bad actions
    that are going on?
        Mr. Wall. Certainly, Representative Jackson Lee, there are
    a number of ways in which this legislation would be of use to
    jurisdictions that are seeking to prevent the incidence of
    sexual assault in prison, to deal with the aftermath, and to
    prosecute as a result.
        One is that the legislation includes a clearinghouse. As
    you know, corrections is, by and large, a State and local
    function, and that means we are sometimes in isolation from one
    another, a point I was making in regard to the issue of
    managing correctional populations, and there is a real benefit
    to having access to information about best practices that are
    occurring in other States. That's one way.
        Another way in which I would be helpful is that there are
    demonstration programs provided in the legislation, and at
    least in my experience over the years, when those succeed, they
    have a real effect on the profession and become the touchstone
    for changes in practice across the field. So that's still
    another way.
        Third--and I think this is very important--the fact is that
    I speak from my own 29 years in corrections, and I speak on
    behalf of all the directors of corrections. We do know that
    sexual assault occurs in our prisons; we abhor it. It is
    difficult for us to measure it, and we would appreciate some
    opportunity for the kind of analysis that this legislation
    affords, identifying the characteristics of likely
    perpetrators, of likely victims, and also the situations,
    context, locations in the institution, times of day, that these
    things take place, so that we have data and tools to use in
    attacking the problem.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Coble. Thanks you, Miss Jackson Lee.
        We thank the witnesses for your testimony. The Subcommittee
    very much appreciates your contribution.
        This concludes the legislative hearing on H.R. 1707. Do you
    have one more thing, Bobby?
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to
    enter into the record letters from the Prison Fellowship
    Ministry, signed by Charles Colson and Mark Early, and from the
    Justice Fellowship from a statement by Pat Nolan, President of
    Justice Fellowship.
        Mr. Coble. Without objection.
        [The material referred to follows:]

                        Prepared Statement of Pat Nolan
        ``The opposite of compassion is not hatred, it's indifference''.
    These words were written by a prisoner who was severely beaten after
    refusing demands for sex from another inmate.
        While often the subject of jokes on late-night TV, prison rape is
    no laughing matter. It has terrible consequences, not just for the
    inmates who are brutalized, but for our communities as well. The rate
    of HIV in prisons today is ten times higher than in the general
    population. Every rape in prison can turn a sentence for a non-violent
    crime into a death sentence.
        Prison rape leads to other types of death, also. Rodney Hulin set a
    dumpster on fire in his neighborhood. Despite being only sixteen years
    old, he was sentenced to eight years in an adult prison where he was
    repeatedly beaten and raped. Despite his pleas for help, no one in
    authority intervened to help him; he was told to fend for himself.
    Depressed and unwilling to face the remainder of his sentence at the
    mercy of sexual predators, Rodney committed suicide. Similar suicides
    have occurred in jails and prisons across the United States.
        Experts estimate that at least one in ten inmates is raped in
    prison. Because 95 percent of prisoners will eventually be released
    back into our communities, the horrors that occur inside prison have
    consequences for the rest of us, too.
        Some who suffer through brutal rapes become predators themselves,
    both in prison and after their release, subjecting other innocent
    victims to the same degradation that they experienced. Or they vent
    their rage in other acts of violence, often racially motivated. One
    example is the tragic story of James Byrd, the African-American who was
    picked up by three white supremacists, beaten, chained to the back of
    their pickup truck and dragged for three miles to his death. One of his
    assailants was John William King, a burglar who had recently been
    released after serving a three year sentence in one of Texas' toughest
    prisons.
        When John arrived at the prison, a group of white supremacists
    reportedly conspired with the guards to place John in the ``black''
    section of the prison. At just 140 pounds, John was unable to defend
    himself against a group of African American prisoners who repeatedly
    gang-raped him. This was exactly what the white power gang wanted.
    Filled with hatred, John was easily recruited into their group for
    protection. Over the remainder of his sentence, they filled John's head
    full of hatred for blacks. When he was released, John King unleashed
    that pent-up hatred on James Byrd. The gang-rapes he endured in prison
    are no excuse for his murder of James Byrd, but they certainly help us
    understand what could lead him to hate so much.
        As troubling as the incidence of rape is, equally disturbing is the
    attitude of many government officials who are indifferent to it. When
    asked about prison rape, Massachusetts Department of Correction
    spokesman Anthony Carnevales said, ``Well, that's prison . . . I don't
    know what to tell you.'' In that offhand remark, he was expressing what
    many feel in their hearts but are loathe to admit--``they deserve it.''
        But they don't deserve it. Regardless of the crimes they have
    committed, no offender's sentence includes being raped while in the
    custody of government. By its very nature, imprisonment means a loss of
    control over the circumstances in which inmates live. They cannot
    choose their ``neighbors'' i.e. their cellmates, nor arm themselves,
    nor take other steps to protect themselves. Because the government has
    total control over where and how inmates live, it is their
    responsibility to make sure they aren't harmed while in custody.
        That is why Justice Fellowship strongly supports HR 1707, the
    Prison Rape Reduction Act, which would establish standards for
    investigating and eliminating rape, and hold the states accountable if
    they fail to do so.
        Winston Churchill said that the manner in which a society treats
    criminals ``is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of
    any country.'' It is important that Congress deal with the scandal of
    prison rape, for in doing so, you will lead our nation in meeting
    Churchill's test of a civilized society.

        Mr. Coble. Without objection, I would like to introduce
    into the record as well correspondence from Mr. Glenn Goord,
    the Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services for New
    York, and the Department of Public Safety Corrections from
    Louisiana, Mr. Richard Stalder, as secretary.
        [The material referred to follows:]

        Mr. Coble. This concludes the legislative hearing on H.R.
    1707, the ``Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003.'' The record
    will remain open for 1 week.
        Thank you for your cooperation. The Subcommittee stands
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:21 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

                   Prepared Statement of Michael J. Horowitz
        Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott and Members of the Subcommittee:

        I submit this statement in the hope that it will be of value to the
    Subcommittee in its consideration of H.R. 1707, the Wolf-Scott-
    Sessions-Kennedy Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003. Having been
    involved from the start with the extraordinary right-left, bipartisan
    coalition engaged in the effort to enact it, I hope that the following
    comments will shed light on the context and character of the effort and
    the bill.
        The first and most critical fact about the bill is its modest,
    moderate and federalism-friendly nature. The coalition supporting the
    bill, whose strong letter of support of April 18, 2003 is attached to
    this statement, has steadfastly resisted calls to deal with massive and
    epidemic prison rape through major federal spending initiatives, major
    federal spending mandates, significant amendments of existing laws or
    expansions of the right to bring lawsuits in the courts. The coalition
    is therefore pleased that H.R. 1707, which has the committed, indeed
    passionate support of such groups as the NAACP and Focus on the Family;
    La Raza and the Salvation Army; Prison Fellowship and Human Rights
    Watch; the Southern Baptist Convention and the Union of American Hebrew
    Congregations; the National Association of Evangelicals, the
    Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., the American Probation and Parole
    Association, Physicians for Human Rights, the Christian Coalition and
    Amnesty International, U.S.A. only calls for limited but strategic
    steps to be taken.
        Insofar as penal systems are concerned, H.R. 1707 only calls for
    three simple reform steps--all of them highly moderate in light of the
    fact that:

              Between 10 and 15% of the nation's two million
            prisoners are now estimated to be victims of sexual assault
            each year and, when victimized, to be repetitively assaulted--a
            violent outcome that, by far, hits first-time offenders,
            juveniles and the mentally handicapped hardest of all.

              Today's systematic indifference to prison rape not
            only represents grievous and unacceptable penal and social
            policy; Congressional action is further in order because the
            Supreme Court's Farmer v. Brennan decision makes deliberate
            indifference to prison rape a direct violation of the 8th
            Amendment of the Constitution.

        The three actions called for by H.R. 1707 are these:

              Penal systems are called upon to cooperate with
            annual Justice Department prison surveys of prison rape;

              Heads of prison systems whose incidence of prison
            rape is found by the Justice surveys to exceed the national
            norm by 30% or more are called upon to publicly explain and
            defend their prison rape abatement policies; and

              Prison systems are called upon to comply with rape
            abatement standards established after years of study by a
            National Commission and by the Attorney General, and after full
            notice and comment rulemaking--under circumstances where the
            standards cannot impose significant spending mandates.

        H.R. 1707 seeks to enforce the three above reforms through limited
    adjustments in formula entitlements for federal grant programs whose
    purposes are most undermined by the failure to abate prison rape. I
    know that there has been discussion over this means of achieving
    compliance with H.R. 1707's three reforms, and believe that careful
    scrutiny of this approach will establish its moderate and non-intrusive
    character. Whatever one's views of H.R. 1707's grant formula adjustment
    approach, however, it is fair to say that the coalition's singular
    determination is that jurisdictions should not be free to ignore the
    three reforms, or be unaffected if they do so.
        Thus, the coalition's position may be summarized as follows:

              That meaningful mechanisms should be established to
            ensure that prison systems can be surveyed to determine the
            incidence of prison rape;

              That the heads of systems where the incidence of rape
            significantly exceeds national norms should publicly defend
            their rape abatement practices; and

              That prison systems should comply with carefully
            established, no-spending-mandate rape abatement practices.

        As long as these three, limited objectives are achieved, Mr.
    Chairman, I believe that Congress will enact historic legislation that
    will be a credit to it, to our Constitution and to the decency of the
    American people.
                 Letter from Harold W. Clarke, with attachments

             Letter from Cindy Struckman-Johnson, with attachments

                          Letter from Joseph D. Lehman

                       Letter from Reginald A. Wilkinson

                           Letter from Alida V. Merlo

                         Letter from Martin D. Schwartz

                        Letter from Leanne Fiftal Alarid