[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS AND THE U.S. MARSHALS
SERVICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 26, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-17
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
29-793 WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan,
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
JIM JORDAN, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho ERIC SWALWELL, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TED LIEU, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
RON DeSANTIS, Florida PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
KEN BUCK, Colorado BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MATT GAETZ, Florida
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Chairman
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman
JIM SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama TED LIEU, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
C O N T E N T S
----------
APRIL 26, 2017
OPENING STATEMENTS
PAGE
The Honorable Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations;
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 1
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Michigan, Ranking Member,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 3
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 5
WITNESSES
Dr. Thomas Kane, Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
Oral Statement............................................... 7
The Mr. David Harlow, Acting Director and Deputy Director, U.S.
Marshals Service
Oral Statement............................................... 8
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS AND THE U.S. MARSHALS
SERVICE
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trey Gowdy
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gowdy, Gohmert, Goodlatte, Chabot,
Poe, Ratcliffe, Roby, Johnson of Louisiana, Jackson Lee,
Conyers, Deutch, Bass, Richmond, Lieu, and Raskin.
Staff Present: Margaret Barr, Counsel; Jason Cervenak,
Counsel; Scott Johnson, Clerk; Joe Graupensperger, Minority
Counsel; Veronica Eligan, Minority Professional Staff Member;
Mauri Gray, Minority Crime Detailee; and Regina Milledge-Brown,
Minority Crime Detailee.
Mr. Gowdy. Good morning. The committee will come to order.
I first want to apologize to everyone, the witnesses, the
guests, my colleagues, for being late. We had a House Intel
Committee meeting that I needed to be at. So I apologize.
This is a hearing of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
Homeland Security, and Investigations. We are pleased to have
our two witnesses. I will recognize myself for an opening
statement, and then my friend from Michigan.
Thank you, everyone, again, for being here. This is the
third in a series of hearings to examine the Justice Department
and its component agencies as we work to create a justice
system that is respected by all and worthy of respect from all.
So I want to thank our witnesses again, specifically Thomas
Kane, the acting director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and
David Harlow, the acting director of the U.S. Marshals Service,
for appearing before the committee today.
Respect for and adherence to the rule of law is the thread
that holds the tapestry of this country together. The law is
the most unifying and equalizing force we have, and the best
way to respect the law is to enforce it. We are here today to
examine two of our law enforcement agencies: the Federal Bureau
of Prisons and the United States Marshals Service. The men and
women of the BOP and Marshals Service have committed their
careers to public service, justice, and the rule of law.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons' mission is to protect
society by confining offenders in the controlled environments
of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe,
humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure. Inside the
prisons, the BOP programs provide work and other self-
improvement opportunities to assist inmates in becoming law-
abiding citizens. While we seem to be more familiar with the
former, we often fail to recognize the efforts the BOP makes to
reduce rates of recidivism and encourage inmates in their
transition back into society.
The reality is most of the women in the BOP and the various
State departments of corrections will reenter society at some
point. Many of these women and men will reenter society with
either restitution due to victims or other familial and
societal obligations, which require a job. Jobs require
education, training, and life skills. Through education
programs, inmates have the opportunity to take vocational and
occupational training classes, literacy classes, parenting
classes, wellness education, and language classes.
The BOP also provides a full range of mental health
treatment, through psychologists and psychiatrists. Through
their religious programs, chaplains facilitate religious
worship and sacred, scriptural studies across all faith lines.
As advances have occurred in substance treatment programs, the
BOP's drug abuse treatment strategy has grown and changed,
focusing more on effective, evidence-based practices. These
programs have reduced relapse, criminality, recidivism, and
inmate misconduct, while improving relationships, health and
mental health conditions, levels of education, and, therefore,
employment upon return to the community.
These programs are crucial to providing inmates the
opportunities to readapt into their community environment
during the final portion of their imprisonment. Overall, these
programs result in enormous safety and economic benefit to the
public.
The United States Marshals Service, our Nation's oldest law
enforcement agency, has been the enforcement arm of the Federal
courts and has protected the Federal judicial process since
1789. Just last week, I was with colleagues and friends in Fort
Smith, Arkansas, where plans are taking hold to build a museum
to honor the women and men of the United States Marshals
Service for their countless and historic contributions to the
betterment of our country.
Whether serving Federal-level arrest warrants, protecting
officers of the court, or protecting Americans through the
Witness Protection Program, our U.S. Marshals' mission is to
enforce Federal laws and provide support to virtually all
elements of the Federal justice system. To execute their
mission, they organize themselves into five decision units:
Judicial and Courthouse Security, Fugitive Apprehension,
Prisoner Security and Transportation, Protection of Witnesses,
and Tactical Operations.
By providing protection for Federal judges, court
officials, witnesses, jurors, visiting public, and prisoners,
the U.S. Marshals quite literally safeguard our judicial
process every day. They provide assistance to State and local
law enforcement by tracking down fugitives, recovering abducted
children, identifying and locating sex offenders, just to name
a few of their many responsibilities.
As we examine the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the U.S.
Marshals Service during our hearing today, it is important we
not only recognize the critical role these agencies play in our
criminal justice system, but also the sacrifices made by the
women and men on the staff of the BOP and the Marshals Service.
Their sacrifice, unfortunately, sometimes goes unrecognized,
but it should be highlighted.
It is because of the BOP and the Marshals Service our
communities remain safe and protected from criminals. And it is
because of these agencies that justice is and can be carried
out.
The work they do is incredibly dangerous, interacting with
inmates, offenders, criminals who are often a threat, both to
themselves and everyone around them. Some inmates are dangerous
and disruptive and present extreme security risk to both our
prisons and our Nation. For example, prisons constantly face
the danger of contraband security threats, including
cellphones, illicit drugs, and drones. Every day, BOP employees
walk into potentially volatile situations. There are examples
of prisoners coordinating with individuals outside the walls of
prisons, which result in serious injury or even death of BOP
employees.
All of our law enforcement agencies hold a special place in
the hearts of former prosecutors. And there are many former
prosecutors on the Judiciary Committee. But for those of us
that are former prosecutors, to the extent we have a heart
left, law enforcement does have a special place in our hearts.
The head of the South Carolina Department of Corrections is
a man named Brian Stirling. I tell Brian every single time I
see him that he has the hardest job in all of the justice
system. The only time he makes the news is if there is an
escape or if an employee of the Department of Corrections is
injured or if an inmate is injured. You do not make the news
for anything other than bad things. It is an impossibly hard
job. I am sure that it is true at the BOP level, as well.
So I want to say thank you for the important job that the
BOP does, enforcing the sentences that are imposed for crimes
that they did not legislate or sentences imposed by judges, but
yet, we ask you to carry out the sentences and do it safely for
the workers of the BOP, the public, and the inmates. In
addition, we ask you to prepare, for reentry into society,
folks that have, in the past, proven unwilling or incapable of
conforming to societal norms.
So we are going to explore these issues and others today.
And I will look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we
can improve the safety of the officers and the efficiency of
both the BOP and the United States Marshals Service.
Again, I want to thank you for coming today. Thank you for
your careers. And on behalf of all of us, make sure the women
and men that work with your agencies know how grateful we are
to them. And with that, I would recognize my friend from
Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. I join you in
welcoming our distinguished witnesses to this hearing, which is
an important one.
As the Crime Subcommittee continues its oversight of the
components of the Department of Justice that advance the
Department's law enforcement mission, the Bureau of Prisons and
the Marshals Service both play very important roles in this
regard.
It is particularly important that we closely examine the
administration of the Bureau of Prisons at this time. You see,
the Federal prison population increased by almost 800 percent,
800 percent, between the years 1980 and 2013 before a modest
decline kicked in over the past few years. The Bureau of
Prisons' budget accounts for approximately 25 percent of the
Justice Department's total spending, so clearly, we must
reexamine the policies that have led to this explosion.
The greatest contributor to this growth, which constitutes
a crisis in over-incarceration, is the proliferation of
mandatory minimum sentences, which unjustly impose sentences
without regard to the facts of each case and, as we have seen
with the prisons' budget, waste taxpayers' dollars.
And so I am heartened that there is a bipartisan
recognition growing about the need to reexamine these policies.
And I hope that we will continue that effort today in the
Judiciary Committee.
Of course, we must also continue our effort to enact prison
reforms at the Federal level, with the goal of expanding the
availability and types of programs that prisoners participate
in and that will reduce the possibility of recidivism. With
regard to the Bureau of Prisons' operation, I fully recognize
the challenges in appropriately housing such a large prison
population. But we must do better in several regards.
Over the years, the inspector general, the IG, has pointed
out deficiencies with respect to the provision of health care
in the Federal prisons, at one time noting that these problems
were so serious, we could consider them constitutional
violations. Such problems are particularly troubling at private
prisons, which I am no fan of. Last year, The Nation magazine
published an article detailing serious and disturbing instances
of poor health care at private prisons contracted by the Bureau
of Prisons. We must not allow these problems to continue, and
we are going to follow this issue closely after these hearings.
With respect to private prisons, generally, the inspector
general has noted how poorly they compare to Bureau of Prison-
run facilities across an array of factors. We must end our
reliance on these for-profit, contract prisons. They are being
counterproductive.
It is also important today that we examine the role of the
U.S. Marshals Service and its administration. That agency has a
broad mission, ranging from protecting our Federal courts and
judges, holding post-arrest detainees, administering the
Witness Security Program, and apprehending fugitives. In recent
years, there have been questions about the use of the Witness
Security Program's inclusion in handling of individuals who had
been involved in terrorism. We need to evaluate how the agency
has responded to such concerns raised by the inspector general.
And with regard to the apprehension of fugitives, we need
to examine Marshals Service's use of cell-site simulators, also
known as Stingray devices, in light of the Department's
guidelines on these devices. Advancements in such technology
have the potential of making law enforcement more effective,
but we must still abide by the requirements of the Fourth
Amendment to our Constitution.
So I thank the acting director of both agencies for being
with us today. We look forward to your testimony and to our
evaluation and discussion of these issues. I thank the
chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Michigan yields back. The
chair will now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the
chairman of the full committee, Mr. Goodlatte.
Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,
Acting Director Kane and Acting Director Harlow. I thank you
both for your service, and I am happy you are here with us
today. And I also want to thank Chairman Gowdy for holding this
third in a series of hearings, examining the various components
of the Department of Justice.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is tasked with protecting
society by confining offenders in the controlled environments
of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe,
humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that
provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist
offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. It is the duty of
the Bureau of Prisons to not just warehouse Federal inmates,
but to assist those inmates in becoming law-abiding citizens.
We all have an interest in that since, as we all know, the
vast majority of Federal inmates will someday be released. It
is for this reason that I am deeply concerned about the
precipitous drop in the number of inmates employed in proven
reentry programs, such as the Federal Prison Industries
program.
Last year, FPI only employed 10,896 inmates. This reflects
a reduction of more than \2/3\ in the percentage of eligible
inmates working in the FPI program: from 25 percent in 2000 to
less than 8 percent in 2016.
The steep decline in this program has a deleterious impact
on both prison operations and inmate recidivism. First,
correctional workers' representatives cite this decline as a
significant contributor to the increase in inmate-on-officer
assaults the Bureau of Prisons has experienced in recent years.
Second, inmates who work in Federal Prison Industries are
24 percent less likely to reoffend upon release from prison
than non-FPI inmates and 14-percent more likely to be gainfully
employed post-incarceration.
We must ensure that participation in FPI is maximized to
the fullest extent possible to protect the hardworking men and
women of the Bureau of Prisons. I look forward to working with
you, Director Kane, to ensure that this happens.
I am also pleased to welcome Acting Director Harlow to
discuss the United States Marshals Service, the oldest law
enforcement agency in the United States. Since its creation in
the Judiciary Act of 1789, the U.S. Marshals Service has been
tasked with protecting the Federal judiciary. Today, it
continues this mission and has taken on a variety of other
duties, including fugitive operations, Witness Security, and
Tactical Operations.
The Marshals Service provides critical assistance to State
and local law enforcement agencies in apprehending dangerous
fugitives. In 2016 alone, the U.S. Marshals Service arrested
over 80,000 fugitives who were evading justice in both State
and Federal judicial systems. Each day, deputy U.S. Marshals
voluntarily expose themselves to great danger in pursuing
violent criminals, often with little recognition. I would like
to assure the men and women of the Marshals Service that their
work is critical and appreciated.
Executing the assorted duties assumed by the Marshals
Service requires a great deal of manpower, coordination,
training, and proper equipment and facilities. Today, we will
discuss areas where the Marshals Service is experiencing
challenges. I know the agency is looking for changes in its
hiring capabilities, and I would like to hear the problem you
presently encounter with the current framework.
With Congress' oversight responsibilities, we must also
address times when agencies have not been able to meet all
expectations placed upon them, so we can assure such mistakes
are not repeated.
Yesterday, the Department of Justice inspector general
released a report finding the Marshals Service had not provided
sufficient oversight of a contracted company that operated
Leavenworth Detention Center. This led to problems such as
triple-bunking of prisoners and understaffing of the prison. I
would like to hear what protocols the Marshals Service has in
assuring proper oversight of contracted companies and what, if
any, steps the Marshals Service has taken to avoid such
problems in the future.
Acting Director Kane and Acting Director Harlow, I thank
you again for being here and for your continued service. And I
look forward to your testimony regarding the challenges facing
both of your agencies. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Virginia yields back. We have
a very distinguished couple of witnesses today. I want to begin
by swearing you in before I introduce you.
If you would please stand and raise your right hand. Do you
swear the testimony you are about to give is the whole truth
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Let the record reflect the witnesses have answered in the
affirmative. You may be seated.
I will introduce you en banc and then recognize you
individually for your 5-minute opening. I will tell you that
your full body of your opening is available to the members, and
I am sure that they will read it assiduously. So you are free
to summarize that in 5 minutes if you would like to do so.
Our first witness is Dr. Thomas Kane. He is the acting
director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Our other witness is
Mr. David Harlow, who is the acting director of the United
States Marshals Service. Those are the two shortest bios I have
ever read. So thank you for that. Dr. Kane, you are recognized.
STATEMENTS OF THOMAS KANE, ACTING DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
PRISONS; AND DAVID HARLOW, ACTING DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE
STATEMENT OF THOMAS KANE
Mr. Kane. [inaudible] hopefully and Ranking Member Conyers.
And it is great to be here this morning. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the mission
and operation of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
I am honored to speak today on behalf of the nearly 40,000
Bureau staff, who are law enforcement professionals who support
the agency's public safety mission and our core values of
respect, integrity, and correctional excellence. These
dedicated public servants are on the job 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week, and operating Federal prisons that are safe, cost-
effective, and humane.
The Bureau plays a critical role in the Federal criminal
justice system. Incarceration of criminals is a valuable crime-
reduction strategy and an important law enforcement tool that
holds individuals responsible for their actions and deters
others from committing similar crimes.
Our staff ensure that Federal inmates are accounted for at
all times, are treated humanely, and are returned to their
communities better prepared to be law-abiding citizens.
In addition to our 122 Federal prisons at our four security
levels, we have several administrative facilities. We also have
contracts with 11 secure, privately-operated prisons and a
network of privately-operated, residential reentry centers. Our
total inmate population, currently, is 188,722 and continues to
decline from the high-water mark of 219,580 in fiscal year
2013.
The President and the Attorney General have a strong
commitment to our Nation's public safety, and we understand
this may lead to growth in the Federal inmate population. We
are prepared to work closely with the Department to ensure that
sufficient capacity is available to address any projected
increase, while maintaining our commitment to safety and
security.
Many inmates come to prison with limited job skills and
experience, education deficits, substance abuse disorders, and
mental health problems. Federal prisons provide opportunities
for inmates to work, develop discipline and structure, and
address these problems, thereby enhancing safety for our staff
and our communities.
The Bureau continues to face challenges in its prison
operations. Terrorist inmates and those with ties to drug
cartels and organized crime present grave risks to our
operations and to public safety. Gangs create significant
disruptions and dangers to staff and inmates alike through
their attempts to continue their criminal operations.
Introduction of contraband, such as illicit narcotics,
including synthetic drugs and cellphones, is a perpetual
problem. And drones are an increasing threat used to introduce
this contraband into prisons and for other means.
Health care costs continue to rise as we manage increasing
numbers of older inmates, many of whom have complex medical
problems. At the same time, recruitment and retention of
qualified medical professionals in our prisons is hampered by
lower Federal pay in benefits than are offered by the private
sector.
We look forward to continuing to support the law
enforcement efforts of the Department of Justice and the
administration.
Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, who is not with
us as yet, excuse me, and members of the committee, this
concludes my formal statement. I appreciate the opportunity to
provide the committee with my formal statement and would be
happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Dr. Kane.
Mr. Harlow.
STATEMENT OF DAVID HARLOW
Mr. Harlow. Good morning, Chairman Gowdy, Chairman
Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, members of the Judiciary
Committee. I am privileged to be the Acting Director of the
United States ----
Mr. Gowdy. If you will push that button. Some of my older
colleagues need to be able to hear you.
Mr. Harlow. Sorry, sir. I am privileged to be the Acting
Director of the United States Marshals Service. I appreciate
the opportunity to appear before you today. I will keep my
statement short, so that I can share two narratives with you
before answering your questions.
The first relates to how humble I am to be working with the
men and women of the United States Marshals Service. As the
world's premiere fugitive hunters, we conduct some of the most
dangerous work in law enforcement. That was brought home in the
most painful way on November the 18th when a group of deputy
U.S. Marshals and task force officers in Georgia surrounded a
mobile home containing a fugitive who was wanted for the
attempted murder of police officers in South Carolina. A few
minutes later, Pat Carothers, a 26-year Marshals Service
veteran, had made the ultimate sacrifice, killed by the
fugitive who had been lying in wait with a gun behind the
bedroom door.
Pat left behind his beautiful wife and five children, three
of whom are U.S. Naval Academy graduates or current students.
To those of us who knew him, and several of your staff members
met Pat last year when they visited our task force, he was the
epitome of a selfless professional. It has been my privilege to
be associated with Pat and the many men and women like him
throughout my 34-year Marshals Service career. They walk into
harm's way every day, making communities across our Nation
safer.
The second highlight involves this committee and shows how
our stakeholders and Congress can help us accomplish our
missions. As part of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking
Act, this committee helped give the U.S. Marshals Service the
authority to assist State and local officers and other Federal
agencies in locating and recovering critically missing
children. Previously, we could not help our State and local
partners, who were coming to us and asking for help, to locate
and find missing children, who we knew were in critical danger,
but we did not have a warrant for someone's arrest.
Thanks to Chairman Gowdy, who introduced it, and Chairman
Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers, who helped get it across
the finish line; in May of 2015, we obtained critically missing
child authority.
I am pleased to report to this committee today that, as a
direct result of that new authority, the U.S. Marshals Service
has already recovered 102 endangered children, who, previously,
we would have not been able to help.
Let me give you one example. Earlier this year, a 16-year-
old girl in Alabama did not return home from school. Security
cameras captured the child getting into a vehicle. Upon
investigation, it was determined that the child was being
prostituted and being beaten by her abductor and had been taken
to another State. Our Fugitive Task Force quickly found the
girl, and we had the memorable pleasure of telling the girl's
father that their daughter was safe.
These are just two examples of the extraordinary work that
we do every day. There are many others in the areas of judicial
security, the Asset Forfeiture program, Prisoner Operations,
Witness Security, Tactical Operations, and all the other the
Marshals Service mission areas.
Thank you for your continued support. It is greatly
appreciated by all of us in the U.S. Marshals Service. I look
forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Harlow. The chair will now
recognize Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. I thank the chairman for yielding. I have been
a member of this committee a little over 20 years now. And this
is for Dr. Kane; I want to talk to you about the Prison
Industries program. And the full committee chairman, Mr.
Goodlatte, mentioned it in his opening statement, but I wanted
to go into it a little bit more.
And prior to getting here over 20 years ago, as a member of
Cincinnati City Council and as a county commissioner, I had
worked very closely with local law enforcement, particularly
the sheriff, Si Leis, back in Hamilton County back in those
days, finding ways to put jail inmates to work doing various
things around the community. They had taken something from the
community, and it was an opportunity for them to give something
back.
So I have been active with the Prison Industries program
here for many years now and had worked very closely with my
Democratic colleague, Bobby Scott, in the challenges that we
faced over the years. One of the challenges was that there was
an argument that there is some competition with folks in the
private sector. For example, I think one of the things we made
here were desks, in the Prison Industries. And some of them
went to Federal Government office buildings and things.
And so some of the folks in the office industry and Pete
Hoekstra, who was the one that we generally battled with, and
he had been in that industry. And I see some of your folks
smiling back there because they remember these days. But we
used to battle about that.
And I happen to be the chairman now of the House Small
Business Committee, so I kind of look at it from both sides.
And I think what we have to do is have a balance here. These
folks that are imprisoned in Federal prisons around the
country, and it is the same thing at the State and local level,
but these folks, most of them, are going to get out someday.
And so if they can get a skill that they can, then, put into
use in the private sector someday, that is an advantage that
reduces recidivism. And I am not saying anything that you,
obviously, do not already know.
But I have the same concerns that the chairman mentioned in
his opening statement that, back in 2000, 25 percent of those
eligible for the program in the Federal prisons were
participating, and as of 2016, just 16 years later, it is down
to 8 percent. That concerns me greatly. And I would like to see
what we can do to improve those numbers and have more folks
that we are incarcerating at taxpayer expense in Federal
prisons, how we cannot work more effectively to get those folks
skills.
It occupies them in the prison, so they are, perhaps, less
dangerous to the guards. They have got something occupying
their minds that is productive, rather than scheming against
other inmates or against the guards.
So, in any event, I rambled on for a while here. Could you
address that, Dr. Kane?
Mr. Kane. Absolutely, Mr. Chabot. Thank you so much. Thank
you for your support of Federal Prison Industries over the
years. And we are greatly appreciative of Chairman Goodlatte's
very focused attention on the issue continuing to this day, as
I know you are.
The high-water mark of 25 percent was largely reached at a
time when the Federal Government was spending more money as a
whole on things, including the Defense Department, our biggest
customer.
With the changes in budgets over the last 10 to 12 years at
the Federal level, some of the demand for the products Prison
Industries has made historically have been reduced. But in
addition to that, in 2016, we took a very focused look at our
deficiencies in producing those products that we sell to the
Federal Government and did major restructuring. We closed or
consolidated underutilized factories that also contributed, to
some extent, to the reduction in the overall training
opportunities for inmates in Federal Prison Industries.
And so, now, we have put the existing Federal Prison
Industries on a sustainable path. We had actually lost revenue
over about a 7-year period. For the first time in 8 years, we
had a very positive year as a result of that restructuring with
not only the consolidations and closings. but also streamlining
of staff, especially management. And again, we feel we are on a
very strong path of sustainability.
We are now turning our attention to the utilization of the
authorities granted us by Congress in recent years, especially
the opportunity to repatriate or reshore the opportunity to
produce products that we can now offer to private sector. And
so we have done some of that. We are employing roughly 800
inmates in those kinds of initiatives, but we need to do much
more. That enables us to grow training opportunities for
inmates without, in any way, competing with U.S. citizens who
are working in similar areas here in the United States.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, could I ask for 1
additional minute? I thank the gentleman.
You probably will not have time to answer the question, but
there were two other issues I was going to raise. I have to
chair the Small Business Committee at 11:00, so I will not have
a chance, in case they went into a second round.
But just quickly, it is my understanding that one of the
big problems that prisons are facing nowadays, both at the
Federal and local level, as well, is cellphones getting
smuggled in and criminal activity that goes on as a result of
that and other, again, schemes that sometimes prey on the
public and various things. I know there are some technologies
that are coming forward that you can block these things to
basically make them ineffective.
Mr. Kane. Yes.
Mr. Chabot. We have had some folks in our office talking
about that.
And the other area that I was going to raise was the
unacceptably high levels of prison rape that has been
occurring. And I know it has been an ongoing problem. But
again, those were a couple issues that I would like you to
think about. And I will probably follow up in another forum at
another time if I can.
Mr. Kane. We would greatly appreciate it. Thank you, Mr.
Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back. The chair will now
recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of
the full committee, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, this is a very disturbing hearing for me because
we know that there is a lot of inadequate health care,
misdiagnosing, and sometimes no care at all. And we know that
the private prisons are run for-profit, which means the lower
their costs are by rendering inferior services, they are able
to make more profit. And that is what they are: a for-profit
business.
Now, I have some questions about private prisons, and I
would like to explore any reluctances that you have about this,
Dr. Kane.
Mr. Kane. Thank you, Ranking Member Conyers. It is my
pleasure to address the question. There are times when prison
may have challenges with health care. Certainly, private
prisons do, as well as government-operated prisons. But with
respect to the operation of private contract prisons working
for the Federal Government, they are holding, as you know, sir,
Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons inmates, individuals
in our custody, the custody of the Federal Government. It is
our responsibility to ensure that these contract operations or
prisons are meeting the essential needs of the prisoners,
certainly to include health care.
And so when we learn that there are issues or problems with
a private contract prison, we have onsite staff who are
observing the operations every day. If an individual who has a
health issue is acutely ill and needs more intensive care than
can be provided at a contract prison, they are moved back to a
Bureau of Prisons facility or to a hospital.
If a contractor providing private prison desk were to have
a systematic problem, we would take deductions for that from
payments to them. If that problem were to persist, we would use
cure notices specifying what needed to be done to change their
operations. And if they were to fail after being put on such
notice, we could cancel that contract if need be.
And so we provide ongoing oversight, even every day, with
staff onsite. In addition, we send in subject matter experts to
provide reviews and audits on a regular basis. One of the
recommendations of the IG was to add another medical subject
matter expert to those review teams, and we are doing that.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you. Is there any updating of this
process going on, or where do we go from here? What does the
future look like?
Mr. Kane. With respect to private prisons in general, sir,
do you mean? Or with respect to health care?
Mr. Conyers. Well, let's take both of them while we are at
it.
Mr. Kane. Okay. Absolutely, sir. With respect to health
care, we really appreciate the recommendations of the IG. We
agreed with them, and we are pursuing the implementation of
each of those. With respect to the operation of private prisons
in support of the Bureau of Prisons, we always, first, attempt
to maximize the utilization of the capacity that the Bureau of
Prisons has in its own facilities.
To the extent that we need to complement the capacity of
the Bureau of Prisons to manage the Federal inmate population
involving the private sector, we do that as needed. And
historically, we have done that at the lowest security level,
housing criminal aliens at private sector institutions.
Given Attorney General Sessions' strong focus on a priority
for the investigation and prosecution of immigration offenses,
we do expect an increase in additional immigration offenders
over the weeks and months ahead. We will monitor those
population trends very closely, and to the extent that
increases in immigration offenders, at the lowest security
level, occur, we will both, first, as I mentioned earlier,
maximize the use of Federal Bureau of Prisons institutions at
the lowest security level and, to the extent needed, contract
for additional capacity from the private sector to help manage
those low security immigration offenders.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you. Let me ask the other question to
Director Harlow.
What has the United States Marshals Service done to ensure
that known or suspected terrorists, participating in the
Witness Security Program, do not pose national security risks
to our country and its citizens?
Mr. Harlow. Thank you, Ranking Member, for that question.
We took the audit that occurred a couple of years ago with OIG
and with our partners in the Office of Enforcement Operations
very seriously and did an audit of all of the cases of our
client in the program and made sure that we had tabs on people
that give us concern. We have enhanced our protocols to make
sure that we regularly monitor those folks. And of course, we
are working with the department to try to limit the number of
people with those concerns who come in the program in the first
place.
Mr. Conyers. Have you had any embarrassing moments? Has
this program failed occasionally?
Mr. Harlow. Not, sir, since the review from a couple of
years ago. I think our new protocols are steadfast, and they
are appropriate.
Mr. Conyers. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back. The chair will now
recognize the gentlelady from Alabama, Mrs. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your
witnesses for being here today. We appreciate your testimony.
I just, on a personal note, have never had the opportunity
to thank the United States Marshals Service for what you do.
When I was a little girl, we were under the protection of the
Marshals Service for a time in our lives. And we really
appreciated the dedication and service with the protection of
our family during a time that could seem very scary to a 13-
year-old girl. So thank you for that.
You are tasked with tracking and apprehending the most
dangerous, violent, and evasive criminals in the country. What
steps are you taking to ensure that United States Marshals have
the equipment and training necessary to keep them safe in
executing their duties?
We have heard, specifically, that you may currently face
challenges procuring effective personnel protective equipment,
like body armor and trauma kits. And we have heard that some of
that equipment may be out of warranty, as well. So if you could
answer that question, that would be great, to help provide us
with information.
Mr. Harlow. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. As
I mentioned before, the duty of apprehending violent fugitives
is probably the most dangerous in law enforcement. And
unfortunately for us, in 2011, we lost nine officers, seven
task force officers and two deputy U.S. Marshals.
We immediately started a top-to-bottom review of all our
policies, our procedures, our equipment, our training, our
organizational structure, to look and see what we could do and
what gaps would be there to make our people safer.
We came up with a wonderful series of training programs to
make sure that everybody in the Marshals Service who does this
type of work has the best training they can possibly have and
has it often. And we have actually reprogrammed a lot of
resources to make sure that occurs for deputy marshals every
day.
In relation to equipment, we did identify that we needed to
make sure our people were equipped properly. And I can tell you
I am not aware of any expired equipment that we have right now.
It is a challenge. We do have to refocus parts of our budget.
But there is no higher priority to me than making sure that our
deputy marshals have the best equipment. And as long as I am
here, they will not have an expired vest or an expired shield.
So we do face a challenge. We do have to reprogram other
resources, but nothing more important than the protective
equipment for our deputy U.S. Marshals.
Mrs. Roby. Well, I hope if there ever are specific
deficiencies that you will certainly make sure that we are
aware of that.
Mr. Harlow. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Roby. So again, thank you for what your folks do.
Dr. Kane, last Congress' committee, and I was not on the
committee at the time, considered legislation authored by our
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz,
that would provide incentives to inmates to participate in
recidivism reduction programs. What programs are currently
being used by you guys to curb recidivism, and what are most
successful? Have you seen success?
Mr. Kane. Yes. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. We have
seen very significant success as a result of the participation
in a variety of programs, most essentially education, job
training, substance abuse treatment or avoidance of those
problems, and Prison Industries and vocational training. And
so, yeah, there are a wide variety of other programs that we
use that fall under a broader umbrella, typically referred to
as cognitive behavioral therapy, that get at the issues of
everyday thinking and decisionmaking that has obviously then
become a habitual problem for many of the individuals, or
virtually all of the individuals, incarcerated who have made
pro-criminal decisions.
And so we try to address all of them, the sort of skills
that the chairman referred to that are life skills, in addition
to the fundamental skills of education, employment, substance
abuse avoidance, that individuals need before they go back to
the community in order to remain law-abiding. So we do a wide
variety of those things.
Our incredible professionals in the Bureau of Prisons do
very complex work of that sort and very dangerous work. And we
could not be prouder of what they do. Thank you.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you both again for the jobs that you do.
And we appreciate you being before the committee today. And I
yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentlelady from Alabama yields back. The
chair will now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Lieu.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Harlow, for
your service. I have great respect for the U.S. Marshals
Service. But what I would like to ask about today is your use
of the Stingray device, also known as a cell-site simulator,
that captures information from people's cellphones. I believe
there were a number of both Democrats and Republicans who
believe our surveillance state has gotten out of control and
that there has been way too much spying on Americans.
In late 2014, The Wall Street Journal wrote an article on
your Service's use of these devices. So I have some questions,
both historically, as well as current practice. From about 2007
to 2014, did you have to use a warrant before you all used the
Stingray device?
Mr. Harlow. Thank you for that question, Congressman. We
used a court order. We would traditionally get an order from
the court, not necessarily a search warrant, prior to 2014 and
the change in the policy from the Department of Justice.
Mr. Lieu. Historically, did you ever use the Stingray
device without a court order?
Mr. Harlow. No, sir. Our personnel adamantly do not use a
Stingray device without a court order.
Mr. Lieu. And then there was a change in Department of
Justice policy. About when did that happen?
Mr. Harlow. About 2014 and 2015, there was a great deal of
discussions. I think the policy may have actually changed in
2015. It might have bled over into 2016. But it immediately
went to a search warrant every time we deploy that equipment.
Mr. Lieu. And that is still the current policy?
Mr. Harlow. Yes, sir, it is the current policy.
Mr. Lieu. And what kind of information do you acquire from
the Stingray?
Mr. Harlow. Sir, our authority is related to apprehending
and locating a violent fugitive. So when we utilize those
devices, we are trying to locate a phone that we believe is on
the person of the person we are looking for. So essentially the
information is location-only of that particular device.
We do utilize it in the most egregious cases. As was
pointed out, we arrest about 100,000 people a year. We use
these devices on less than 3 percent of the fugitives we
arrest. So we use it very sparingly. It is a last-resort tool
that we use for the most violent offenders.
Mr. Lieu. All right. Can the device be configured to
acquire cellphone data: emails, text messages, voice
conversations?
Mr. Harlow. Not our devices, sir. I do not believe so. I do
not believe our devices have that capability.
Mr. Lieu. What do you do with other people that are other
captured when you have deployed a Stingray and their cellphone
locations? What happens to that information?
Mr. Harlow. It is disposed of, sir.
Mr. Lieu. At the time that you get it?
Mr. Harlow. Yes.
Mr. Lieu. All right. Thank you. I appreciate those answers.
Mr. Harlow. Thank you.
Mr. Lieu. I have some questions for Dr. Kane. Thank you, as
well, for your service.
I, along with other members of Congress, wrote a letter to
the Federal Bureau of Prisons about recidivism. And we noted
that there were these programs known as Arts in Corrections
programs that, historically, have done a good job of reducing
recidivism. And we were asking about how those programs were
working in the Federal Bureau of Prisons and if we could
increase those programs.
And the Bureau wrote a letter back to us, and it was dated
March of 2016. And the Bureau agreed. And it said that the
Bureau recognizes the value of the Arts in Corrections program
to deliver effective rehabilitation. And then it stated that
the Bureau was presently evaluating opportunities to enhance
your art program offerings and explore potential opportunities
to partner with community organizations.
I know there are many organizations, one of which is, for
example, Actors' Gang, that, in California, they have gone in
and done tremendous work in California institutions. I just
want to see if there has been any movement on the Arts in
Corrections piece of your rehabilitation program.
Mr. Kane. We fully support a wide variety of productive
activities among prisoners that may not fall under the umbrella
of more traditional, recidivism-reducing programs, such as
involvement in the arts. But when you go into any of our
institutions, for example, you will see the sort of paintings
that prisoners do in their free time after work and after their
involvement in education and other programs. And they are very
talented individuals.
And the U.S. Probation Service reinforces with us often
that those sorts of personal activities are very important for
engaging the individual in using their free time effectively
once they are back in the community. So we want to reinforce
those sort of life skills-related opportunities.
Mr. Lieu. And let me just conclude with this question: do
you mind providing this committee and office with an update
about the Arts in Corrections programs?
Mr. Kane. We would be happy to do that, sir.
Mr. Lieu. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back. The chair will now
recognize the gentleman from Texas, former United States
attorney, Mr. Ratcliffe.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank
you both for taking the time to be here today to come and
inform us about the issues and concerns that relate to your
respective agencies.
Dr. Kane, when I was the U.S. attorney for the Eastern
District of Texas, my jurisdiction included the Beaumont
Federal Correction Complex, which, as you know, includes the
Beaumont maximum security USP, as well as the medium- and low-
security FCI facilities there.
During my tenure, back in November of 2007, there was an
incident there, where two of the correctional officers at the
USP were escorting inmates Mark Snarr and Edgar Garcia to their
cells. Snarr and Garcia were able to slip their restraints and,
using prison-made shanks, repeatedly stabbed the correctional
officers, then took the officers' keys and used that to get
into the cell of an inmate, Gabriel Rhone. Mr. Rhone was
stabbed 50 times and died. Fortunately, both correctional
officers survived. Snarr and Garcia, by the way, were
prosecuted by my office for capital murder charges and were
sentenced to death.
But unfortunately, this was not a one-off incident. And it
has been a recurring problem for correctional officers who are
vulnerable to attacks from inmates with homemade weapons. I
know, in some cases, the ratio is as many as 150 inmates per
correctional officer. So I guess I want your perspective on
what BOP has been doing, because I know that the sort of spike
with respect to this violence has continued, but what BOP has
been able to do to try and break out of it and if there is
anything that we need to be doing here in Congress to get out
of this particular cycle.
Mr. Kane. Thank you, Congressman Ratcliffe. I remember
those incidents very well. And we responded immediately by,
first, reinforcing the training that involves the activities
that those staff members were undertaking, just to ensure that
everybody is on top of their game. Number two, we have worked
directly with our union, and effectively with our union, on a
number of safety initiatives to protect staff, to include the
issuance of OC gas for staff to use to defend themselves if
they are attacked in that sort of way. We have issued slash-
and stab-resistant vests to staff at high-security and medium-
security institutions, jail units, medical centers, et cetera,
to protect them from, again, those sorts of attacks.
And we will continue. We have added an additional
correctional officer to every high-security living unit on
evenings and weekends when, as you alluded to, where an
individual might otherwise be supervising 130 very dangerous
individuals. We have cut that ratio in half by doing that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I am very glad to hear that. And of
course, if there is anything we can do to support the safety of
your correctional officers here, please let us know.
There is a lot of public talk about the threat of radical,
Islamist terrorists, but not so much public attention or focus
on Islamic radicalization that is taking place in our Federal
prisons. In talking with some of my former colleagues who are
still at the Department of Justice and still prosecuting these
national security cases, it has been expressed to me that there
has been some recurring difficulty in getting BOP's assistance
and approval in cases where cooperators would be used to
electronically record or surveil target inmates. Are you aware
that that is a problem or agree that that is an issue, and has
that been raised to your level?
Mr. Kane. It has not been raised to my level. I know we are
often involved in investigations collaborating with U.S.
attorney's offices, the FBI, other investigatory staff,
including the Marshals. And so we want to be able to support
the effective investigatory and arrest and prosecutorial work
of our partners. So I will look into that matter as soon as I
return to the office. I am aware of no such concerns, but I
appreciate you bringing it to my attention, Mr. Ratcliffe.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I appreciate you looking into that.
Mr. Kane. Thank you.
Mr. Ratcliffe. My time has expired. Director Harlow, I wish
I had more time. I would just say that, from my experience at
the Department of Justice, I benefited greatly from the work of
the United States Marshals Service.
The brave men and women in the Marshals Service are, as
you, I think, said in your opening statement, the premiere
fugitive hunters in our community right now. And so, from my
perspective, it is both a vitally important and, frankly, a
historically well-run Federal agency. So let me just ask you to
thank all of the deputy U.S. Marshals and the brave men and
women that support them in this very critical mission. And I
yield back.
Mr. Harlow. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Texas yields back. The chair
will recognize his friend from Florida, Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, I am extremely concerned with recent reports
describing the horrific conditions and loss of life during the
interstate transportation of prisoners by private companies.
These private prisoner transport companies are moving people
throughout our country. The people being moved are prisoners
currently serving sentences in prison, but also people who are
accused of breaking the law but have not yet even been tried or
convicted.
In a recent New York Times article, an incident was
described involving the transport of Kevin Eli from Virginia to
Florida to face a 9-year shoplifting charge. During the
transport, Mr. Eli complained on numerous occasions of pain;
however, these complaints were ignored by the guards. And on
March 7th, 2017, Mr. Eli died in the transport vehicle. The New
York Times article also described in detail the terrible
conditions experienced by the numerous other prisoners in the
van. Some of the people were transported in the vehicle on a
trip that lasted for 2 weeks.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit The New
York Times article from March 23rd, 2017, entitled, ``Death on
a Prison Bus: Extradition Companies' Safety Improvements Lag'',
for the record.
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you. Yet this was not the only tragedy
involving the interstate transport of prisoners by private
companies. The Times article stated there have been 24 people
killed or seriously injured in more than 50 crashes involving
private prison transports, and approximately 60 prisoners have
escaped, and 14 alleged sexual assaults have occurred on the
transports.
In 2000, Congress passed and the President signed into law
Jenna's Act. This law establishes minimum standards for the
transportation of prisoners and people accused of crime by a
private transport company. The standards were enacted to
protect the prisoners being transported by private companies,
to protect the guards involved in transporting the prisoners,
and to ensure the safety of the surrounding communities through
which private prisoner transport vans travel.
The law provides the Department of Justice with the
authority to investigate and to pursue legal action for any
violations of the law. But since the enactment of Jenna's Act,
the Department of Justice has pursued one case, in 2013, that
resulted in the settlement with Extradition Transport of
America.
Since last year, I have raised these concerns on numerous
occasions. I raised these concerns first with former Attorney
General Lynch during a full committee oversight hearing on July
12th, 2016. I submitted follow-up questions for the record,
asking if DOJ had investigated several prisoner deaths that
occurred in transports since 2012.
On April 12th of this year, I sent a letter to the Attorney
General, urging the Department of Justice to use its authority
under Jenna's Act to investigate and take appropriate action
against a private prisoner transport operated by Prisoner
Transportation Services. This is the company described in The
New York Times article involving the death of Kevin Eli. And
last week, I sent a letter to you, Chairman Gowdy, and the full
committee Chairman Goodlatte, requesting a hearing on the
issue.
Chairman Gowdy, the subcommittee has jurisdiction over this
issue, as this was the House subcommittee that originally
considered Jenna's Act when it made its way through the 106th
Congress. And I hope that we can work together on this
important issue and work on any legislative fixes necessary to
ensure that Jenna's Act is enforced.
For our witnesses today, I would like to know whether you
make arrangements with private prisoner transport companies to
move prisoners to different facilities.
Dr. Kane.
Mr. Kane. Thank you, Congressman Deutch. I will start. We
do have arrangements with the private prison contractors with
whom we do have contracts. Those are three corporations at the
moment.
Mr. Deutch. What are the three, Dr. Kane, please?
Mr. Kane. It is GEO; CoreCivic, formerly CCA; and
Management and Training Corporation, MTC.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you.
Mr. Kane. Each of them is required, by contract, to provide
transportation for the Federal inmates in their charge if that
is within a 400-mile radius of the facility. If it is beyond
400 miles, the Bureau of Prisons does so. And if they are
longer trips, we will work with the U.S. Marshals and JPATS
transportation center to use airlift. Back to their
responsibilities, we require, in those contracts, that they
adhere to the same standards and policies and training for
staff that we utilize.
Mr. Deutch. I appreciate the training. What happens when
problems arise? What happens when there are reports like the
ones The New York Times and other papers have documented?
Mr. Kane. We have oversight staff on-scene at each of these
locations, each prison, Bureau of Prisons staff. Their
responsibility is, each and every day, to oversee those
operations, including to observe transportation operations. So
they are looking for routine problems, as well as anything that
is more sensational, as you have described.
Mr. Deutch. And I will wrap up quickly, Mr. Chairman; I
appreciate it. Just two final questions. In providing that
oversight, when there is information like this that arises, do
they conduct reports? Have they conducted reports? And if so,
can you make those reports available to us? That is my first
question.
Mr. Kane. Yes, if there are any such incidents, those staff
would be recording and reporting them. And I am not aware of
any. As soon as I am back in the office, we will follow up on
this issue and report to you.
Mr. Deutch. I appreciate it. But the issues that were
reported in this last article, that transportation company was
not one of the ones that you mentioned. Do these private prison
companies subcontract out to other private transport companies?
Mr. Kane. No, with an exception with CoreCivic, formerly
CCA. They have a subsidiary that does transportation. I do not
recall the name offhand. It is part of their corporate
structure.
Mr. Deutch. I am just trying to understand, for the next
hearing, to make sure that we have the right folks here to
address this issue, who is entering into the contracts with
these private transport companies in order to transport these
prisoners?
Mr. Kane. Well, as I mentioned, the Federal Bureau of
Prisons contracts with the companies that manage the prisons,
and they, in turn, provide those transportation services. So in
effect, I am not a contracting expert, but I think that our
contracts cover, they specify, that they are to provide the
transportation. And they do.
Mr. Deutch. Okay. Do you know, Mr. Harlow? I am just trying
to understand how these other companies play a role.
Mr. Harlow. Sir, thank you. We utilize some of the major
prison operators like the Bureau of Prisons has mentioned. And
they provide transportation service to and from our court
service every day as part of a daily rate. I mean, usually it
is a small, less-than-50-mile transportation agreement. In
terms of the nationwide contracts, I would assume it is mostly
State and local governments that are contracting to cut down on
the cost of extraditions.
Mr. Deutch. Does that make sense, Dr. Kane?
Mr. Kane. It does.
Mr. Deutch. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I do hope that we can have
a hearing focus on Jenna's Act and private prisoner
transportation companies. And I know that Chairman Goodlatte
has been interested in this issue, as well. It is just not
acceptable in this country that furniture is treated with more
care when delivering it across State lines than human beings in
our justice system. And I hope that we will have an opportunity
to pursue that directly in another hearing. And I appreciate
it. I am sorry that I went over. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Florida yields back. The
Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe.
Mr. Poe. I thank the chairman. Dr. Kane, I have just a few
questions. How many people are in Federal prisons today? How
many inmates? Give me a number.
Mr. Kane. It is about 159,000, sir, in Federal prisons.
Mr. Poe. That is right; that is all I am talking about. Of
that 159,000, how many are foreign nationals?
Mr. Kane. Twenty-two percent.
Mr. Poe. How many of that 22 percent, after they are
convicted, are awaiting deportation? Do you know?
Mr. Kane. Those are ICE determinations.
Mr. Poe. Do you know, is the question.
Mr. Kane. I do not know because those determinations
oftentimes are not made until just months before the individual
is going to be released.
Mr. Poe. Do you know how many of the 22 percent today are
awaiting deportation?
Mr. Kane. Not exactly. But historical trends will tell us
it is the vast majority of them; if not, it is virtually all.
Mr. Poe. All right. So most of them. Virtually all. Twenty-
two percent of the people in American prisons are foreign
nationals. Most of them are awaiting deportation. Is that a
fair statement?
Mr. Kane. Yes, I think it is.
Mr. Poe. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Kane. And I would say----
Mr. Poe. Thank you. I will reclaim my time.
Mr. Harlow, I want to make some comments similar to Mr.
Ratcliffe's about the Marshals Service. I was a judge in Texas
forever. And before that, I was a prosecutor, like the chairman
and many others, Mr. Ratcliffe, and had Marshals testify in my
courtroom. I have worked with them back in the old days in
prosecution.
And you mentioned in your testimony that, because of the
JVTA, and as you know, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking
Act was a bipartisan bill. We had 11 bills in the house. Myself
and Carolyn Maloney sponsored one of those. Ms. Bass and others
had a bunch of bills that came together, passed in the House
overwhelmingly, almost by unanimous vote. Same in the Senate,
bringing America's awareness to the plight of trafficked
females, primarily young girls.
Part of that bill turns some responsibility over to the
Marshals Service to rescue those kidnapped victims who are
going to be trafficked. What would you estimate, from the time
a young female is captured, kidnapped, and then put into
trafficking, does the system need to find that female? How many
days, would you estimate, before it is a difficult case?
Mr. Harlow. Thank you, Congressman. Sorry, I do not know
the exact answer to that. But my experience in law enforcement
tells me that the first 24 to 36 hours are critical. That is
why we pursue it so heavily, to get the missing child
authority, because we know we have those skills to help hunt
people, and we can hunt good people as easily as we can hunt
bad people. And so it is very quickly.
Mr. Poe. And that is part of the JVTA legislation, is to
help get the Marshals Service to help rescue these child
victims and keep them out, get them out of the scourge of
slavery in the United States. I want to commend the Service for
rescuing those 102 girls. Their lives are better because of it,
and the country is better of it, and I commend you for that.
Just keep it up.
Go capture some of the outlaws, bring them to court, let
Lawyer Gowdy prosecute them, and we will also rescue those
girls and make the country safer for at least 102. So I commend
you for that.
I want to ask you, though, what can we do, Congress, to
make your job better and more efficient in that? The rescue of
child victims and the capture of the outlaws: what can we do on
that issue of trafficking?
Mr. Harlow. Well, sir, I feel a little sheepish because,
like all other people that come before you, we struggle
spreading our resources across----
Mr. Poe. You need some more money.
Mr. Harlow. We struggle, sir, to fulfill our job. And as
you know, we have many things tugging at our sleeves: our
responsibilities with the courts, our responsibilities with the
Witness Program. And so more resources would help. We could do
more with more.
Mr. Poe. All right. Money. What else?
Mr. Harlow. Quite frankly, sir, the accepted hiring
legislation that I have, one of the things I wanted to talk
about today. It would give us the ability to hire people more
nimbly, faster, get them on board, and actually utilize them on
the street.
Mr. Poe. All right. So you want more people, and you want
more money. Do you have a special unit assigned to trafficking
victims?
Mr. Harlow. Sir, we have the National Sex Offender
Targeting Center, which was a unit set up when we got sex
offender authority back in 2006. What we actually do is take
those folks off of their sex offender missions, and they work
in conjunction with the National Center for Missing & Exploited
Children and use those resources to help track these missing
children.
Mr. Poe. And last comment or question: You also use State
and local law enforcement to help you in this endeavor to
rescue victims and capture the bad guys?
Mr. Harlow. Absolutely, Congressman. We still form a posse
before we go out. And our State and local law enforcement
partners are a big part of that.
Mr. Poe. I like that word, posse. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Gowdy. Judge Poe yields back. The chair will now
recognize Ms. Bass for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to raise a couple
of issues, and one issue is in regard to pregnant inmates and
the shackling of pregnant inmates. And it is my understanding
that it is not BOP's policy.
Mr. Kane. That is correct.
Ms. Bass. And we did legislation to reinforce that. But
what I wanted to ask you was, what steps do you use to enforce
it, to make sure that it does not happen, since, anecdotally,
we still hear about it? And I do not know if it is training or
memos or what.
Mr. Kane. It is absolutely training. We think that training
has been accomplished. But it is reinforced, and very strong
adherence to principles of individuals performing in accordance
with policy. And if they are not performing their job in
accordance with policy, they are considered to require some
sort of redress administratively. And staff, colleagues, who
would work with them would feel a strong propulsion to report a
failure.
Ms. Bass. Do you have any idea of what percentage of women
are pregnant in BOP's custody at any given time?
Mr. Kane. I do not offhand. It would be a very small
number. But I do not. And those are individuals who would have
come to us pregnant.
Ms. Bass. Yes, we hope.
Mr. Kane. Yes.
Ms. Bass. That would be pretty bad. I wanted to ask you
also a question about compassionate release. And what is the
BOP doing to increase the use of compassionate release?
Mr. Kane. Compassionate release, we are working hard----
Ms. Bass. Well, how do you define it, actually?
Mr. Kane. I am sorry?
Ms. Bass. How do you define it?
Mr. Kane. It is defined in several categories, as modified
in policy over the last 6 or 7 years. But the primary
categories in which individuals are recommended or referred or
refer themselves are individuals who are terminally ill,
seriously, significantly debilitated as a result of a medical
condition; they are not terminally ill, but they really cannot
perform well the activities of daily living. I mean, such
things as bathing oneself or brushing one's teeth or even
eating one's food. They are confined to wheelchairs or to beds,
even though, once again, they are not terminally ill.
There are other categories that involve elderly offenders
who have served either a minimum or 10 years or the larger of
10 years or 75 percent of their sentence. And the last category
is a group of individuals who have a responsibility in the
community to children and whose primary caregiver in the
community, caregiver for the children, is either disabled,
incapacitated, or deceased. And we have actually never had a
request for that last category.
Ms. Bass. Okay. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Harlow. And
this is about Witness Protection Program. And given the rise in
human trafficking throughout the U.S., particularly targeting
vulnerable and at-risk children, I wanted to know if you had a
sense of how many young people might be involved, who are
victims of sex trafficking. What special protections are
provided for them? Do they have access to Witness Protection?
Mr. Harlow. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question.
Generally our Witness Protection Program involves organized
crime or large drug organizations. I am not aware,
Congresswoman, of anybody in our program who has been a victim
of such things.
Ms. Bass. You know, and I say that because one of the
things that is very difficult is to get the young women to
testify against the pimp. And so maybe there should be some
thought about that, in terms of protecting them.
Mr. Harlow. Yes, Congresswoman, I understand.
Ms. Bass. So before my time runs out, I just wanted to take
a minute to publicly thank Dr. Kane for helping me with a
constituent issue that we worked through in moving an inmate. I
was very appreciative for the responsiveness of your department
and the fact that you stuck with it until we were able to get
it done. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kane. My pleasure, Congresswoman. Thank you.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair is going to inquire as to whether it is his turn.
I will recognize myself. I like to go last, so I can have a
sense of what may be left to ask. So let me start with the most
important part.
Mr. Harlow, if you would, on behalf of all of us, extend
our sympathies or gratitude to the family of the deputy who was
killed in Georgia. I took note of the fact that I think he was
seeking a fugitive for someone who had been accused of a crime
in South Carolina. So if you would tell the family how grateful
we are and extend our sympathies to them, and also to the
Marshals that I used to work with in Greenville. I am not going
to call all their names, but there is a guy named Johnny Bonn.
I think he goes by Johnson now because he is a supervisor now,
so he needs a better name than Johnny. But I will always know
him as Johnny Bonn. They were fantastic to me. If you would let
them know how grateful I am.
Mr. Harlow. Yes, Chairman. Absolutely.
Mr. Gowdy. Let me ask this on the Bureau of Prisons piece.
I have always been curious how you incent people to act
properly. Both as a parent, I have been interested in how to
incent people properly, but even more so in your case. What do
you find works in terms of conforming a population that is
where it is, necessarily, because they have not conformed? How
do you incent good behavior in the Bureau of Prisons? How do
you manage the population for the safety of your officers?
Mr. Kane. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a great
question. As I mentioned earlier, our staff are amazingly
dedicated law enforcement professionals, who do complicated,
complex, and dangerous work. And you have hit on both.
Individuals come to us who are very difficult to interact with
at times, may be threatening and potentially violent at times.
But at the same time, you also, in your opening statement,
highlighted one of the major responsibilities we have; it is
not only the effective incarceration as ordered by the court as
a deterrent, but also enabling people to obtain skills that
they need, so that, when they do return to our communities,
they are not tempted to go back to crime, and they can live a
successful, law-abiding life.
And that latter part is part of the complicated side. And
we train all staff to communicate well with prisoners, even if
they are confrontational, recalcitrant, or cooperative, on a
day-to-day basis to take every opportunity to encourage and
reinforce involvement in activities or programs that help these
people get ready to go back to our communities and remain
crime-free.
And a lot of that is not only the job skills and the
education needed to perform well in the work environment. As I
mentioned earlier, for some, it is substance abuse avoidance.
But for virtually all, even the so-called low-risk offenders
who have been convicted by the courts and sentenced to a term
of incarceration, they have made major decisional errors in
doing pro-criminal activities. So they may have a shallow
criminal history, they may have an extensive criminal history,
but they need to change that thinking.
And some of that is approached more formally through the
kinds of criminal-thinking training that I mentioned earlier,
done typically by psychologists in groups. But some of it is
also part of the this daily interaction between a correctional
officer and the inmates they supervise. A counselor, a case
manager, a secretary, everybody, the doctors and nurses, they
are all trained to be law enforcement professionals and to
obtain and practice and use these communication skills that
identify issues the prisoner needs to address and encourage
them to get on it and focus on it and to do it in a way that
the individual receives the guidance well and will work with
it.
So I am so happy you asked the question. These prisons are
really, as you know, as a former prosecutor, small communities.
Literally everything that goes on in any community happens in
prison, including crime. And so, you know, there is even the
jail within the prison for the individuals who threaten the
safety of others while they are there. And it is the Special
Housing Unit. But all that is done, from education to job
training, basically, to reshaping thinking to pro-social
thinking, has to be done while these people are with us. And
our staff do an amazing job.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, there are several of us on the committee
that have kind of bound together over the past couple of years
under the general heading of criminal justice reform. And
something that I always find helpful is data, reliable data. So
if I were interested in kind of a snapshot of who is in the BOP
for mandatory minimum sentences, statutory mandatory minimum
sentences, the age of the folks that are serving mandatory
minimum sentences, the criminal history, the role in the
offense, would you be the proper person to go through for the
statistics, or would that be the Sentencing Commission?
Mr. Kane. It is the Sentencing Commission.
Mr. Gowdy. Okay.
Mr. Kane. We do work closely with them on data-related
requests. But that would be their data.
Mr. Gowdy. All right. So if Mr. Richmond and I wanted to
embark to kind of identify who has been impacted by mandatory
minimums, it is the Sentencing Commission and not BOP where we
should direct our inquiries.
Mr. Kane. That is correct. We are happy to help you any way
we can with data.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I think data is useful. You know, I do not
hear it from my colleagues in Congress, but from time to time,
I will hear it on television: the people that are in Federal
prison for simple possession of marijuana. And I swear I have
no idea who they are; I do not know how you wind up in Federal
prison for simple possession of marijuana unless it is on an
Indian reservation or in a Federal park. But sometimes,
statistics kind of undercut the mythologies that are out there
in terms of who is in the BOP. And with respect to mandatory
minimums, I am really interested in the criminal history, the
age, the role in the offense. So we will go to them.
Last question, because I am out of time. You may not want
to answer this question publicly. And if you do not want to
answer it publicly, that is fine. You can get back to me
privately. But I am always curious. I will start with the
Marshals. Is there something that is assigned to your
jurisdiction that you think is more properly assigned to
another Federal law enforcement agency, or is there something
you think you could be doing but is not currently in your
jurisdiction?
Mr. Harlow. Thank you, Congressman, Chairman. The first
answer, I cannot think of anything off the top of my head that
I have now that I think should be assigned someplace else. I
would like to have a further conversation, in a different
setting, about things that might possibly be assigned to the
Marshals Service.
Mr. Gowdy. All right, let's do that. And again, if you
would tell the women and men that work in your respective
agencies how grateful we are to them, and especially the family
of the slain deputy in Georgia.
Mr. Harlow. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. With that, I would recognize the gentlelady from
Texas, or perhaps the gentleman from Maryland. Gentleman from
Maryland?
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you kindly. I appreciate
it. And welcome to our witnesses. Every day, I take it, there
are around 10,000 Federal prisoners who are in solitary
confinement conditions. And I guess the average stay in
solitary is somewhere around 75 days. So I know that there was
recently a critical Department of Justice report, a critical
GAO report, and then there were a whole study and
recommendations for change, which I was pleased to learn the
Bureau of Prisons' staff participated in. You were part of this
process.
And so coming out of that process, I understand you,
presumably, would need to make changes to your program
statements and rules and procedures and policies and practices
and so on. And I am just wondering if you could provide us with
an update on where we are in terms of translating a new
approach to solitary confinement in the prisons. Where are you
in this evolution?
Mr. Kane. Thank you very much, Congressman Raskin. First of
all, I am going to put this in a broader context, because I
want to you to understand that what is happening with what we
refer to as restrictive housing, as opposed to solitary
confinement, nationally, including the Bureau of Prisons, but
in State prisons as well, we actually work very closely
together in an association of all directors and we use a
different term. It is restrictive housing because we have
largely moved away from individuals in effect being in a cell
by themselves. At times that is necessary, but the vast
majority of people who are in restrictive housing are actually
in a cell with someone else. And so solitary confinement, as it
is typically thought of or depicted in movies, is not really
the case.
You are absolutely correct about the Department of Justice
Restrictive Housing Workgroup and the recommendations that were
made by it. It involved roughly a dozen components, including
the Bureau of Prisons' civil rights and others. And they were
adopted by the Attorney General and recommended to the White
House for endorsement. The President did that. But again, I
would like to offer that what is in those principles and
overseeing guidelines exists now across the States and in the
Bureau of Prisons, as well.
And by the way, there are roughly a little over 8,000
individuals in restrictive housing today. Only about a quarter
of them are actually there for disciplinary segregation. The
others are there for an investigation of something that has
happened that is threatening to the safety of the prison and
the security of the prison. And others, a small number, again,
are there usually at their request for protective custody. But
those people we work very closely with to move them on to
specialized units we have that gradually transition them out to
the general population and give them freedom of movement,
access to full programs, et cetera.
Mr. Raskin. I got you. The report, I think, stated--this
is, again, before a number of these changes were implemented--
that the ordinary prisoner in a solitary confinement or
traditionally solitary confinement-type setting would be alone
for 23 hours, with very little access to the outside. But you
are saying that that is not the norm today?
Mr. Kane. That is correct. That is absolutely correct.
People are not in ``solitary''. They are not alone. And
candidly, that is related to concerns by all of corrections
nationally, including the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of
Justice, about individuals who may have mental illness that we
are not aware of that can be exacerbated by being alone, not to
mention individuals who may be questioning taking their own
lives.
Mr. Raskin. Got you. One other question for you: The Office
of National Drug Control Policy found, in December, that the
Bureau of Prisons is conducting a field trial. Is that right?
They reported a field trial of a medication-assisted drug
treatment program for people who are transitioning back to the
community from incarceration. And I am just wondering, what is
happening with the field trial of prisoners going back and
getting medication assistance for drug problems?
Mr. Kane. Well, currently, that plan for the field trial or
the implementation of that program is suspended. It is a new
program that would have gone into effect after the continuing
resolution was put in place. And we are not able to do that.
Mr. Raskin. For budgetary reasons?
Mr. Kane. Yes, currently.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back. Judge Gohmert is
going to yield in lieu of Ms. Jackson Lee from Texas for 5
minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the judge from Texas for his
courtesies and the chairman for his courtesies. Let me also
acknowledge on the record that my inability to be here at the
beginning of the hearing was because of my membership on the
Helsinki Commission, which we were holding hearings on what we
call Sudden Kremlin Death Syndrome, which has to do with the
rapid death of dissidents in Russia under the administration of
Vladimir Putin. So I thank the committee for its courtesies and
appreciate the very fine work that is being done.
I also want to say to the chairman that that request for
data is crucial. And I look forward to joining him on that
request for information regarding the impact on mandatory
minimums because I am hoping that we will ignite, again, our
move toward criminal justice reform, which would include the
bills of many of my members that are on this panel, including
Congressman Richmond and others who have joined us in very, how
should I say, unifying work on helping to improve the criminal
justice system. You gentlemen are components of it, and so I
want to get, as quickly as I can, to questions.
And Dr. Kane, thank you for your years of service. As you
may have known, I worked very closely with our past Bureau of
Prisons director, who visited Houston. So here is a personal
invitation for you and U.S. Marshals. You certainly should be
there. And I want to acknowledge my U.S. Marshal, Mr.
Blankinship, who has done a superb job, has a vast territory.
It is amazing how your U.S. Marshals can cover areas that are
larger than some States in the United States of America. So we
thank you, and Dr. Kane, certainly your commendations and
medals indicate your commitment to the service of this Nation.
We hold human beings in these institutions. And so we are
not retaining wild animals. They are human beings who have
varying levels of acts against society, violent acts, and
others. But they are also a myriad of levels. So we have the
responsibility for the care and handling of these persons. And
their civil rights are not denied or should not be
distinguished.
So let me quickly go to the question of private prisons.
And I would be interested in--and I am going to try and answer
these questions--private prisons, interested in the number that
we have. And I want to refer you to legislation that I have
that would apply the Freedom of Information Act to private
prisons, which is not the case now, which is a sad state of
affairs. I also want to know whether private prisons have a
major mental health component to it.
So let me just jump to your jurisdiction. When I say your
jurisdiction: prisons, not private prisons. Would you give me
the census that you think is in prison today under the Federal
system? Would you also give me what your mental health response
is and what your suicide census is? What do you do for
individuals who may appear to be subject to suicidal acts? And
I am going to jump to the U.S. Marshals, so when I finish, you
can answer the questions quickly.
First of all, thank you for the 46,000 persons that you
have, I think, in sex offenders. And when I say thank you for
the work under the Violent Offenders Program under President
Obama, $11 million that helped you get--well, you might want to
give me the number. I want to congratulate you on that.
But let me ask you these questions about the U.S. Marshals
being diverted into duties assisting ICE regarding undocumented
folk, because ICE presently is perennially short. Have you been
told by the administration that your offices would be used for
that? Thank you for the violent offenders that you have gotten.
Also, we have heard some unfortunate statements from the
administration about ridiculous opinions and Federal judges.
And I just met with my Federal judges just about a couple of
weeks ago and got a number of important issues. I want to know,
what level of security are you offering? Or what kind of
ramped-up security? Or your recognition that judges get threats
and to make sure that those judges, all of our judges, are
secure.
Lastly, Dr. Kane, would you comment on whether or not we
have a civil rights officer in the Federal Bureau of Prisons
and your openings to such kind of officer? I appreciate your
answer.
Dr. Kane, if you will go first on the questions that I
posed.
Mr. Kane. I am sorry?
Ms. Jackson Lee. If you would go first on the questions
that I posed, that I just gave you.
Mr. Kane. Thank you very much. I will.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Kane. Thank you, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and for
your support over the years of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
We greatly appreciate it. We do not have an individual who
would be identified specifically as a civil rights officer. But
we have very active oversight of all of our operations. And any
activity that would be potentially considered to be a civil
rights violation by our staff or environmentally would be
referred for review by our staff. And if they fail to refer
such, that alone is a referable action.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I gave you other questions. Did you not
take note of them?
Mr. Kane. Yes, but I do not claim to remember them all.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mental health?
Mr. Kane. Thank you, and private sector and mental health.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And the Freedom of Information Act.
Mr. Kane. Yes, the Federal population prevalence of serious
mental illness is approximately 4 percent or 7,000 nationally.
There is another 10 percent or so who need intermittent care,
such as a grief counseling, brief sort of intervention for
crisis, psychiatric medication. So, 4 percent serious mental
illness with ongoing acute treatment, another 10 percent who
need the intermittent engagement, and then the rest of the
population that is really comprised of people who have other
behavioral health issues, certainly including addiction and
substance abuse: 40 percent. Other individuals who are sex
offenders: roughly 10 percent, and requiring treatment.
At the private sector facilities, our approach is to ask
them to manage individuals who are at the minimal-need level,
both respect to medical issues and mental health issues. And we
try to take, the Bureau of Prisons, more challenging cases of
non-citizens who are low security who normally would go to the
private sector. But if they have more strident medical care
needs or mental health needs, we keep them in the Bureau of
Prisons and treat them there.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Dr. Harlow. Thank you. The last two
questions. Did you hear what I proposed to you?
Mr. Harlow. Yes, thank you, Ranking Member Jackson Lee. I
appreciate the time you gave me yesterday. And thank you for
your comments about the Marshals Service. To your first
question about immigration enforcement, ma'am, it is not
currently part of our jurisdiction, nor have we been asked to
assist.
I do want to be clear that the Marshals Service is
responsible for helping our State and local partners apprehend
violent felons, violent fugitives. And occasionally we do get
somebody who is an illegal immigrant who has a violent felony
warrant. So we may be involved in arresting that individual.
But we are not involved in what I would call status sweeps or
picking people up for their illegal status.
To your second question, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, about
judicial security, we have noticed a significant uptick. I
would associate it more with the proliferation of social media
and an uptick in what I would call, not necessarily threats,
but inappropriate communications. It is very easy for people,
with the variety of Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and so forth,
to type something on a computer that is inappropriate and send
it out. And so a lot of our protectees are receiving what we
call inappropriate communications. And our workload has
increased, trying to ascertain and analyze if those are serious
threats.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. May I
just introduce deputy chief counsel, Ms. Monalisa Deugeu, who
is now working on the Crime Subcommittee? Thank you.
Mr. Gowdy. Certainly. Welcome.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I will yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back. The chair will now
recognize the gentleman from Texas and then my friend from
Louisiana, who has been waiting very patiently. And now, Judge
Gohmert from Texas.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you both
for being here, for your testimony, for your job you are doing.
And sorry I was late getting here. I want to follow up on areas
my friend from Texas was asking about.
For one thing, there is an article here. It is not recent,
but it indicates that immigrants take a big bite out of U.S.
Marshals custody resources.
Mr. Harlow, what is the status right now? About what
percentage, if you could estimate, of your resources is being
expended for people who are apprehended who are aliens or
immigrants, whether legal or illegal?
Mr. Harlow. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
Currently, I am sorry, I do not have a number for you. I will
be happy to see if I can find that for you. But several people
who are arrested, if they are not charged federally, new
charges brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office, they do not
necessarily come into the Marshals Service's custody in pre-
trial detention.
It is important to note that we do have to fight for the
same detention beds that ICE does. And so many times, uptick in
immigration enforcement causes us to compete against each
other, trying to find appropriate bed space near our court
cities. So it does affect us. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. But my question was if you had an estimate on
the percentage of your expenditures regarding custody resources
for people who are immigrants.
Mr. Harlow. I am sorry, sir, I do not have an estimate for
that. I will be happy to get back to you.
Mr. Gohmert. All right. Well, we had heard during the
presidency of President Obama's administration a great deal
about people in Federal custody for just simple possession of
controlled substances. So, Dr. Kane, at one time Jeff Sessions,
then-Senator Jeff Sessions, had gotten information regarding
the number of people in Federal facilities who were there for
simple possession. It was my experience as a state prosecutor
at one time and as a felony judge in Texas and as a chief
justice that the feds just did not normally deal with simple
possession unless it was a huge amount, although sometimes
people who were a cooperating witness that were turning against
others were allowed to plea down to a simple possession in
return for testimony against co-conspirators.
Do you have a current figure on what percentage of people
are in Federal prison for simple possession of controlled
substance?
Mr. Kane. I do not have that specific figure with me here
today.
Mr. Gohmert. What would be the latest numbers you would
have?
Mr. Kane. I can tell you, however, though, it is my
experience that it is a very, very small percentage.
Mr. Gohmert. Yeah. And in fact, it was surprising to me
that, although it is a very small number, the numbers that were
given to Senator Sessions, that it seemed like around 3/4 of
that small number in Federal prison for simple possession were
illegally in the country. Do you have any idea how many people
are in Federal prison for possession of a controlled substance
who are here illegally?
Mr. Kane. I do not have that with me offhand.
Mr. Gohmert. Can I make that request?
Mr. Kane. Yes.
Mr. Gohmert. Would you agree to provide the latest
information you have on the number of individuals in Federal
custody and the number of people that are in Federal custody
who are here in the U.S. illegally? You agree to provide that?
Mr. Kane. Yes. I can tell you that 22 percent of all
Federal offenders are non-citizens. They are not citizens of
the United States. That is almost 40,000. 39,000-plus.
Mr. Gohmert. Now, you say 22 percent. Is that of people
that are----
Mr. Kane. All Federal prisoners.
Mr. Gohmert. All Federal. Including pre- and post-
conviction?
Mr. Kane. No. These are post-conviction.
Mr. Gohmert. Those are all post-conviction.
Mr. Kane. Yes.
Mr. Gohmert. I was not familiar with any in Texas. It seems
any time there were Federal prisoners, they were kept in the
local jail, the county or city jail, normally the county. Is
that true around the country?
Mr. Harlow. Yes, Congressman. Pre-trial detainees are kept
by the U.S. Marshals Service.
Mr. Gohmert. Right. Okay.
Mr. Harlow. And usually, we rent space at the county jail.
Mr. Gohmert. All right. Well, I sure do appreciate your
work, your testimony, and we will look forward to getting the
information. Thanks, Dr. Kane.
Mr. Kane. Thank you, Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Harlow.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Texas yields back. The chair
will now recognize the very patient gentleman from Louisiana,
Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Richmond. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Kane, let
me just ask you one quick question, which is, when I looked at
some of the private prison contracts, some of them had
occupancy guarantees; do we still employ occupancy guarantees
for contracts with private prisons?
Mr. Kane. We basically are changing the way we do contracts
so that we specify a target number to be housed there. And that
is the approach we will continue to take going forward.
Mr. Richmond. Why do we give them a target population? I
mean, we still fund our prisons. I mean, we are going to have
to pay for all of the utilities, the guards, and everything
else no matter if they are at 5 percent, 10 percent, 100
percent. I just do not see the logic in basically giving an
occupancy guarantee or a guarantee or profit or break-even
point to a private industry that wants to engage in this
business. And I would hope that we could revisit whether we
should guarantee any sort of baseline money that they will
receive.
Mr. Kane. My understanding is that, from a contracting
perspective, it is used to, in effect, drive economies of
scale, larger populations in prisons that can be managed, so
that their offers in the contract amounts and payments are as
low as we can obtain.
Mr. Richmond. Well, I would just suggest that, in the
hotel-motel industry, as a State, we have done that and others.
And to me, it just kind of defies logic because, if we reduce
our Federal prison population, we still have an obligation to
make sure that their beds are full. So I do not want to belabor
that point, but I think it is something that we should look
into.
Let me get into what I was really interested in. You
mentioned or we have information that the recidivism rate for
those that participate in the prison enterprise program or,
what is it, RPI, is 24 percent less than others.
Mr. Kane. That is correct. Less than comparable others.
Mr. Richmond. Right, and that they are 14 percent more
likely to get steady employment.
Mr. Kane. That is correct.
Mr. Richmond. Do they get any good time credit for
participating in that program?
Mr. Kane. They do not.
Mr. Richmond. Okay. What about the, what is it, the RDAP
program?
Mr. Kane. Yes.
Mr. Richmond. If they participate in that, they can get
almost a year of early release.
Mr. Kane. That is correct.
Mr. Richmond. What is the recidivism rate of those who
participate in RDAP compared to those who do not who also had
an addiction?
Mr. Kane. The recidivism rate, did you say?
Mr. Richmond. Yes, recidivism rate.
Mr. Kane. Recidivism rate. The relative reduction in
recidivism as a result of participating in the RDAP program is
16 percent.
Mr. Richmond. So for a program that makes you 16 percent
less likely to recidivate, we give you a year off. For a
program that makes you 24 percent less likely to recidivate, we
do not give you anything. Look, you do not set the policy. I am
just asking if I am correct.
Mr. Kane. The incentive, I will offer, for Prison
Industries that individuals pursue--and we have waiting lists
virtually everywhere; people really want that training
opportunity--is they are paid more than other inmates in other
institution jobs. And virtually everybody works. But beyond
that, they see the value in that program.
Mr. Richmond. Right. And where I am going is, if they are
less likely to commit a crime when they get out, would it be
good policy to give them some good time? Maybe not a year, but
give them some early release because every 7 days that we
increase good time or release, we save $50 million a year. So
if we are talking about where we are spending money and what
would be wise, would it be wise to give people who participate
in that program some increased good time like we do RDAP?
Mr. Kane. Well, incentivizing prison program participation
is a major issue for us all the time. We would be happy to work
further with you and the committee on this issue and brief you
on what we do and have discussions with you and other members,
if you wish.
Mr. Richmond. And it would go the same for the educational
programs and the financial literacy, all those other programs.
You do not get any increased good time or early release for
participating?
Mr. Kane. With respect to education and completion of a
GED, a high school equivalent, an individual who does not have
that certificate yet, to be eligible for good time, must
participate.
Mr. Richmond. Okay.
Mr. Kane. So the Congress did design in that contingency
for individuals who do not yet have a high school education.
Mr. Richmond. My last question would be, statute authorizes
you to do up to 15 percent in good time, which would be 57 days
a year, I believe. Somewhere around there. 54 days a year, 55.
Mr. Kane. Fifty-four, that is correct.
Mr. Richmond. You all implement a program that is 47, days
as opposed to 54. If you just get us to the 54, we save $50
million a year. So the question becomes, I am not saying that
it was your idea to do it, but what is the rationale of
offering less days' credit than we have authorized you to give?
Mr. Kane. We have dealt with this issue over the years and
worked with the committee on it previously. There is a
relatively minor tweak in the authorizing language for good
time that needs to be made in order for us to give that full
54. And basically, the issue is this: the individual is, in
effect, eligible for 54 days a year for every year served.
Mr. Richmond. Correct.
Mr. Kane. And so, because the individual does not serve the
entire term, they do not get 54 days for all 10 years on a 10-
year term, you know, if they are able to leave at 8-and-a-half
years.
Mr. Richmond. Okay.
Mr. Kane. And so that is all. It is an issue that I think
can be resolved fairly non-controversially.
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chairman, if he could just let us know
what that tweak is, because if we are trying to find some
savings and not put the public at risk----
Mr. Kane. And that is an incentive for positive performance
while people are incarcerated.
Mr. Richmond. Well, thank you. And I look forward to
working with you on all of your issues. And thank you for the
job that you do. It is not easy.
Mr. Kane. Thank you.
Mr. Richmond. And thank your employees also.
Mr. Kane. I will.
Mr. Richmond. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. Our friend from Louisiana yields back. This
concludes today's hearing. On behalf of Chairman Goodlatte,
Ranking Member Conyers, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and all the
members of the committee, we want to thank you for your
appearance today and for loaning us your insight and your
perspective.
Again, I know I have said it twice before, but it means a
lot to me that you let the folks that you work with know that
we have asked a lot of them. They have a lot of responsibility.
And we have very high standards for the folks in the U.S.
Marshals and the BOP. But we are very grateful that there are
people willing to do these challenging jobs.
So with that, the hearing is concluded. Without objection,
all members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional
written questions for the witnesses or additional matters for
the record. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]