[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU
OF PRISONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 17, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-55
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
32-843 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
------
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JERROLD NADLER, New York
Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
DARRELL E. ISSA, California HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
JIM JORDAN, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia TED LIEU, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
KEN BUCK, Colorado PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama VALDEZ VENITA ``VAL'' DEMINGS,
MATT GAETZ, Florida Florida
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
JOHN RUTHERFORD, Florida
KAREN HANDEL, Georgia
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff and General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TED POE, Texas VALDEZ VENITA ``VAL'' DEMINGS,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Florida
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
JOHN RUTHERFORD, Florida TED LIEU, California
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
CONTENTS
----------
APRIL 17, 2018
OPENING STATEMENTS
PAGE
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, New York, Ranking Member, Committee
on the Judiciary............................................... 6
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations, Committee on the Judiciary..................... 1
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations, Committee on the Judiciary..................... 8
WITNESSES
Mr. Mark S. Inch, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
Oral Statement............................................... 2
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim
Sensenbrenner [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Sensenbrenner, Gohmert, Chabot,
Poe, Roby, Johnson of Louisiana, Rutherford, Marino, Jackson
Lee, Nadler, Demings, Bass, Richmond, Jeffries, Lieu, and
Raskin.
Staff Present: Jason Cervenak, Counsel; Scott Johnson,
Professional Staff Member; and Joe Graupenspergerm, Minority
Counsel.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Subcommittee will be in order. Forum
for taking the testimony is present. Today's hearing is
oversight over the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. Without objection,
the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the subcommittee
at any time. I am going to ask unanimous consent to put my
opening statement in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that all members may put their
opening statements in the record. And without objection, so
ordered.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Sensenbrenner. We have a very distinguished witness
today. I will begin by swearing in Director Inch before
introducing him. Mr. Inch, could you please stand and raise
your right hand? Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are
about to give to this committee should be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God? Let the
record state that the witness answered in the affirmative.
Our witness today is Director Mark Inch of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons. He oversees the operation of 122 Bureau of
Prisons facilities with approximately 188--6,000 offenders. He
has a distinguished career of public service, including as a
military police officer for 35 years in the army and as a
graduate of Wheaton College and the University of Texas at
Austin.
Mr. Inch, would you summarize your testimony in about 5
minutes, and then we will have questions under the 5-minute
rule. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF MARK INCH, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Mr. Inch. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, Chairman
Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Jackson Lee and members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
as I complete my seventh month, as of today, in this position
to discuss the mission and the operation of the Federal Bureau
of Prisons.
I am humbled to serve as the agency's ninth Director, and
I care deeply about our responsibility to the American people
and the corrections profession.
I am honored to speak on behalf of the 37,000 Bureau
staff, corrections professionals who support the agency's law
enforcement mission. These dedicated public servants are on the
job 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, operating Federal prisons
that are safe, cost effective, humane, and provide appropriate
re-entry programs. It is through their hard work and dedication
that the Bureau has earned its excellent, well-deserved
reputation.
Chairman, I want to thank you for your support to the
Bureau. Our mission is challenging: protecting the safety of
the public, our staff, and the inmates while also preparing
inmates to be productive, law-abiding citizens when they return
to our communities.
Our prisons hold tens of thousands of drug traffickers,
many weapons offenders, and other dangerous individuals. We
house over 23,000 gang-affiliated inmates who pose threats in
and outside our facilities. More than 40 percent of our inmates
classify as high and medium security, due in large part to the
extensive criminal histories, severity of the current confining
offense, and the histories of violence. Yet and still, our
staff answer the call to duty every day.
I come to the Bureau with a great appreciation for our
mission and have a well-developed set of principles about our
individual responsibility as corrections professionals. I
applaud the Bureau's philosophy that all staff are correctional
workers first. I am convinced that this philosophy is a
critical element to the long-term success of the agency.
One of the things I appreciate about the corrections
profession is the selfless service demonstrated by those who
choose this career. They dedicate their lives to helping and
protecting others yet receive little recognition and even less
praise. Every day, Bureau staff must enter in an inherently
hazardous environment that most others would avoid to ensure
the safety of the public, the staff, and the inmates for whom
we are responsible.
As the leader of the country's premier department of
corrections, I am committed to ensuring the Bureau of Prisons'
staff exhibit the highest ideals of our corrections profession,
and through the shared values establish standards of individual
and institutional performance and commitment to the character
and competent standards of our profession. I am very proud that
all of our Federal prisons are accredited by the American
Correctional Association, and all of our prisons are PREA-
compliant as well.
These are significant accomplishments and signal that our
prisons are meeting the professional standards for safety,
security, sanitation, and programming. But we expect even more
of our agency, and I am working with our senior leaders to
begin work on significant priorities I established after my
first 90 days on the job.
Of course, the priorities include areas of concern that
have been identified by some of you as well as your colleagues
on the Senate side, other stakeholders such as our own staff,
including union leaders, and by outside interest groups.
As I am prepared to discuss our actions and
accomplishments over the past year, I also look forward to
reporting back to you at my next hearing about all the progress
we will have made to enhance the operations of the Bureau of
Prisons in furtherance of our mission.
In that vein, I want to discuss an issue of which I am
sure many of you are aware: the elimination of over 5,000
vacant positions throughout the Bureau from our personnel
manning documents. I want to be absolutely clear with the
subcommittee; this will not result in any job loss.
These are positions, vacant positions, not people. This is
based upon the Congressionally-approved fiscal year 2017 DOJ
spend plan. These positions have been unfunded for some time
and will not result in any staff members being displaced or any
reduction in force. And again, because these are vacant
positions, their elimination will not have a negative impact on
public safety or on our ability to maintain a safe environment
for staff and inmates.
The Bureau looks forward to continuing to support the law
enforcement efforts of the Department of Justice and the
administration. As an integral and essential component of the
Federal crime reduction effort, we continue our focus on agency
effectiveness and efficiency to safely and securely incarcerate
inmates and reduce recidivism.
Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and
members of the subcommittee, this concludes my formal
statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much. Recognizing that
you are the new kid on the block or almost the new kid on the
block, I think we will cut you a little slack on the questions
today, or at least I will. But the chair will withhold his
first round of questions and recognize the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Rutherford, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, good to
see you today.
Mr. Inch. Good to see you, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. Listen, can you tell me just a little bit
about the opioid treatment program within BOP and where most of
that is housed, actually?
Mr. Inch. Thank you, Representative Rutherford. The aspect
of treatment of opioid addictions, of course, is very important
within a prison environment as is the protection of contraband
being brought in. Where we are right now, of course, we have a
holistic approach to all the aspects of treatment of our
inmates and have a well-developed care level system for
providing physical and mental health treatment.
As it relates, specifically, to treatment and perhaps if
the following question is to discuss aspects of MAT,
medication-assisted treatment, we are at a point right now that
we have piloted the use of naloxone to assist with the
transition out of our facilities. And of course, you know, we
do not use other medicated treatment within our facilities. And
so, we will be starting with the initial aspect within two of
our residential re-entry centers in Boston.
Mr. Rutherford. But it is all directed toward withdrawal
not long-range maintenance, correct?
Mr. Inch. Yes, it is.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. One other thing. I was reading about
the security protocols for personnel, searches of officers as
they come in the facilities and saw where the Federal Labor
Relations Board had forced some changes in your policy on
screening employees for contraband. And the I.G.'s office
seemed to think that it had quite watered down the process. Do
you have changes that you would like to make in that policy for
screening employees as they come into your facilities?
Mr. Inch. Representative, at this time, I am not
recommending changes. The aspect of looking at the introduction
of contraband into the facility, I recognize that yes, a staff
member could be one source of that introduction. If I could
fall back a little bit on my military background of using the
term ``defense in depth,'' you know, of course, we have
procedures, both technology as well as, you know, search
procedures and the like, as well as looking for indicators to
address the introduction of contraband into our facilities.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. And lastly, I like to ask--I know
that you are doing some robust data collection. And the things
that I saw listed were fine, but I was wondering, because they
were not listed in the information that I had read. But are you
collecting information on the number of officers assaulted, the
number of officers injured, the number of prisoners injured,
the number of prisoners assaulted, and the number of prisoners
with additional add-on charges?
And what I am getting at is I particularly want to know,
number one, how officers are being supported by add-on charges
when they are battered by inmates.
Mr. Inch. So Representative, yes, we do maintain that
data. And I would not be able to, you know, work off those
numbers from memory.
Mr. Rutherford. Sure, sure.
Mr. Inch. But I certainly would be happy to work with your
office----
Mr. Rutherford. Okay.
Mr. Inch [continuing]. And, you know, review the data that
we have, how we collect that data, and discuss that aspect.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. I will have staff get with it.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Inch. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. I yield back.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much and welcome,
Mr. Inch. There have been several news stories about staff
shortages and cuts that have resulted in the deployment of
secretaries, teachers, counselors, cooks, and medical staffers
into guard posts at prisons across the country. I understand
this process is called augmentation, where you take someone out
of their normal post as a cook or a nurse and make them into a
guard. And I know it has come under some scrutiny and some
criticism.
The Federal Labor Relations Authority has ruled in favor of
employees who protested their reassignment because of safety
considerations, and I know the AFGE has expressed concern about
this practice. Have you considered how staff shortages and
augmentation are affecting the safety of inmates and the safety
of your employees?
Mr. Inch. Thank you, Representative Raskin. It is a very
important point and, I recognize, probably one of the key
issues that we will discuss today. At the risk of using your
entire 5 minutes, the short answer to the question is yes, I am
concerned. The personnel management within the Bureau of
Prisons and how we address going from normal operations to
those things that affect the actual day-to-day operations at
each specific institution certainly has my attention.
So it brings into the aspect of not only the use of
overtime, the determination of the right number of posts that
we run in our specific facilities, but also that aspect of
using staff that are correctional workers first, which is a
very important point. They have the training. Many have already
been correctional officers and then had moved on to and
promoted to other positions within the facility but do have
both the initial training and the training to man security
posts when the situation requires. But we watch that aspect
very closely. And I am sure later I can discuss different ways.
Mr. Raskin. Can I just follow up on that point?
Mr. Inch. Please.
Mr. Raskin. So the people who are there who are serving as
nurses or food personnel or religious service workers or
whatever, you are saying that all of them have the same
training as the guards do?
Mr. Inch. They all attend the same initial training at
FLETC. They all do the same [inaudible] training, weapons
qualification. And, again, they are all Federal law enforcement
officers. They all receive Federal law enforcement officer pay.
Excuse me, pay and retirement. They are correctional workers
first. And they perform the detention mission. And if you go to
statute, it is the aspect that even in their duties of working
food service, working, teaching, they are in the facility, and
they are contributing to the detention mission daily.
Mr. Raskin. And do they receive the continuing education
and training that the guards do?
Mr. Inch. Yeah, the same [inaudible] training. It is fair
to ascribe to, in our great correctional officers, the
experiential learning that they gain within the facility,
recognizing, again, that some that are called upon to augment
the correctional force were correctional officers prior. But
those who are not, you know, the warden takes into
consideration in identifying post and place, you know, the
relative experiential learning. But again, they are performing
the detention mission every day.
Mr. Raskin. I got you. And let me switch gears and ask you
about something else that I am curious about. And I know this
mostly from Maryland, where I was a State Senator and we dealt
with this issue of residential segregation, or what we used to
call solitary confinement. You call it, I guess, the special
housing in the----
Mr. Inch. Restrictive housing.
Mr. Raskin. Restrictive housing. As I understand it, the
inmate population has gone down. The number of serious assaults
taking place in Federal prisons has gone down. And yet, the
number of people in special housing has gone up. Can you just
explain why that is? You know, why there would be an increase
in the number of prisoners being held that way.
Mr. Inch. So the aspect of restrictive housing is very
important within the corrections profession and with the
orderly running of a facility. Variety of reasons of why we do
restrictive housing from disciplinary to administrative reasons
for separating. Just to frame it very quickly is, of course,
the majority of those inmates we have in restrictive housing,
it is still a two-person cell. But it is a closer controlled
model that is necessary for periods of time. We are always
looking for ways to decrease it, but it is a very important
tool for staff safety and for the orderly running of a facility
for those who would be disruptive and cause others to be
disruptive in the facility.
Mr. Raskin. And I am just curious about why the numbers
have gone up if the number of serious assaults as I read it has
gone down.
Mr. Inch. So I would argue that the use of our restrictive
housing----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Raskin. Forgive me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler,
the ranking member of the full committee.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I first
ask unanimous consent to insert my opening statement into the
record.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I also ask unanimous consent to
place into the record a letter we have received from Judge
Ricardo Martinez, chair of the Criminal Law Committee of the
Judicial Conference of the United States to the Bureau of
Prisons Director, Mr. Inch, expressing concerns about BOP's
closure of 16 halfway houses across the country and stating
that the availability of bed space in the remaining facilities
is inadequate from the standpoint of effective re-entry and
also providing court's appropriate alternatives to
incarceration in some circumstances.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Inch, I am
concerned about the issues underlying the reduction in
residential re-entry centers has not been entirely resolved.
Last year, Acting Director Kane testified that RRC placements
were quote, ``scarce and expensive,'' unquote. Subsequent to
those comments, 16 RRC contracts were ended, either canceled or
not resolicited or option years not renewed, characterizing
those facilities as underutilized.
Can you explain the basis for the scarce and expensive
statement? Do you believe that statement to be true today? And
how can you have these facilities are scarce and expensive, but
they are underutilized?
Mr. Inch. Thank you, Representative Nadler. I mean, that is
a very important question. And the use of our residential re-
entry centers, commonly called halfway houses, which is a very
important aspect of our Federal effort to re-integrate inmates
back into their home communities. It is rather a large
constellation of over 230 facilities nationwide done primarily
through contracts with private entities, but also with public
entities.
So in terms of the comment of my predecessor, not
addressing that specifically, the goal I have set for our team
based on the report by the Office of the Inspector General is
to run this $350 million enterprise efficiently for this
calendar year to understand the capacity of the system. You
mention the 16--I believe the decision would have been made
last May to--from that point to, I believe, the last of those
16 facilities closed in February, they did not close. We ended
our contract in February. It was a recognition that in those
facilities we had two issues with capacity management and,
frankly, overspending against our budget in 2017.
And that was in some facilities that had excess bed
capacity, meaning the contractor had the space, we actually
went over our contract caps of how we had designed the system.
The second reason was then, again, a series of underutilized
facilities.
The underutilized facilities, the 16 that have been
reported, certainly over these past months, represented about 1
percent of the bed space. So what we are doing this year,
recognizing that to use the system as efficiently and
effectively as possible, certainly, we are not going to exceed
our caps by location. But focusing our effort on the new
statement of work that was prepared last year.
Mr. Nadler. Excuse me. You are giving a lot of words, but
you are not answering the question.
Mr. Inch. Okay.
Mr. Nadler. And my time is expiring. In your written
testimony, you say that RRC bed space is limited. We must be
judicious with our use of resources, but you are closing 16
facilities. How can these 16 facilities be underutilized when
placements are considered scarce and expensive? In less than 50
words, please.
Mr. Inch. I will do it in very short term. Their location
did not justify the number of inmates that were being released
to that area.
Mr. Nadler. So I got what you said. So you have a shortage
of beds, but you had a surplus of beds in those areas.
Mr. Inch. Yes.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. Let me ask you one other question
quickly. A memo has been distributed to prisoners in Coleman, a
BOP facility in Florida, noting a new policy to ban all books
from publishers, book stores, book clubs, and from friends or
family. The new process for prisoners to receive books
requiring electronic requests from prisoners to the staff, who
will then place the order and accept payment from prisoners,
will make it so that only prisoner with access to funds can
have access to books.
Given that books are such an important part of rehab and
education inside the prison, in what way does this new policy,
which will clearly harm indigent prisoners, meet the mission of
the BOP? In other words, you say unless you have money, you
cannot have reading material.
Mr. Inch. So I recognize you are short on time. I can come
by your office, sir. And I will talk about that policy.
Mr. Nadler. Can you answer the question, please?
Mr. Inch. Okay. So the memo you are looking at, I have not
actually seen that memo. But the work that we are doing on
combatting the introduction of contraband into our facilities
addresses multiple ways materials are brought to our
facilities. As we look and pilot different ways----
Mr. Nadler. But can you make sure that people without
access to money have access to books?
Mr. Inch. Oh, absolutely. We have recreational,
professional libraries.
Mr. Nadler. So you will rescind that restriction insofar as
it violates what I just----
Mr. Inch. We absolutely have recreational and legal
libraries in our facilities.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, the ranking member of
the subcommittee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you very
much for holding this hearing. I know that we had scheduled it
sometime before. To the Director, let me thank you, Director
Inch. We have had phone conversations, and I would be remiss if
I did not thank you for your years of service to this Nation,
and we are grateful to have you. I look forward in my capacity
to have some ongoing discussions in my office as we had
indicated that we would.
So let me just very quickly say that I am disappointed in
the fact that the DOJ lifted the financial moratorium, the
funding moratorium on other DOJ agencies but did not lift it on
the BOP, and that certainly came after your involvement. But
that means that, as my colleague from Maryland indicated, cooks
and doctors and other persons may be used for work that I
believe the corrections officers are a profession and they are
trained to do. So let me register my complaint on the record.
Maybe in one of my questions you can answer what is your
response to that funding shortage.
But the question I have, having visited a number of prisons
when trying to get to a number of others, I have seen some good
works, but what is your relationship with the union? And
working with these men and women, I think it is crucial that
you have a working relationship, because they are the eyes and
ears in the conflict. Let me have you note that so that I can
be cognizant of my chairman.
I also am concerned. In the private prisons, I hear
different stories. They are not responding to Freedom of
Information Act requests. They indicate that if you, meaning
the Federal Bureau of Prisons, would direct them to do so, they
would. And I believe you cannot have an institution that has
governmental connection and families cannot get information
about the mistreatment of their family members.
And I am concerned about the May 2013 report on solitary
confinement. The GAO issued a highly critical report indicating
that the refinement housing seriously mentally ill inmates in
solitary, inadequate mental health treatment and staffing. Let
me see if I can get that. I am going to have another question,
but can you just give me pithy answers for that, please?
Particularly going right to the union first.
Mr. Inch. Okay, let me start with the union. I feel I have
a good relationship with the union president, Mr. Eric Young.
We have an open line of communication. We met last week. I
believe we have union representation in the room. You want to
raise your hands? So the aspect--of course, this is new for me,
coming from military----
Ms. Jackson Lee. And you will continue those discussions
with the union members, because I think the dialogue for you
will be very, very important.
Mr. Inch. Absolutely.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Go right ahead.
Mr. Inch. Okay. Then the----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Private prisons say they do not respond to
the FOIA request; and I have a bill that says they should.
Mr. Inch. Yeah. Allow me to research that and gain better
knowledge that, and then----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
Mr. Inch [continuing]. I will come back to you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I think you will find that if you direct
them to do so, I might not have to have this legislation.
Mr. Inch. Okay.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Then, of course, solitary confinement,
which has been a concern of mine. What are you doing about this
GAO report that you are housing seriously mentally ill inmates
in solitary confinement? You might also explain the criticism
of poor healthcare access there as well. There have been some
calls for improvement in the quality of medical care. Because I
have one more, so I am going fast. Yes, sir.
Mr. Inch. I will go fast with you. So what we established
is secure mental health units. I have visited both of them, one
in Atlanta, the other one at Allenwood. I am very impressed
with the program. In fact, we will present on that at the
American Correctional Association this summer. It is very
important that we have a program to bring them out of
restrictive housing.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yeah, but can you promise me that you will
take a hard look at solitary confinement? Maybe we will have to
continue that discussion and see whether or not--we know it has
to protect the population and the individual, but solitary
confinement can be a very devastating confinement, and I am
particularly concerned juveniles--and you have a few, I know--
that may be subjected to that. So let's leave that on the
record.
Let me, quickly, go to the issue of the potential reform of
the prison system that I think you need to go back to the
administration. When I say that a bill that may be coming
through this committee, you just cannot do the reforms that we
are trying to do with the staffing that you have. You need more
staffing.
So my question to you, will you, as this bill makes its way
through, reach out to the DOJ, your boss, to indicate that it
is unfair where we are right now in terms of staffing? Will you
assess that and do so?
Mr. Inch. I will be very involved, as I am now, with the
Department as we discuss different reform proposals.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And I have a good time credit bill that I
want to share with you. And I look forward to speaking with
you.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay. The gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs.
Demings.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you, Director Inch, for being here, and congratulations on your
relatively new position. Many, many years ago--and it has been
a while--I did my college internship in a correctional facility
in Florida. And while it has been a while, my memories of that
experience are still very vivid. And then having served 27
years in law enforcement, I am quite familiar with the business
that you are in.
One thing that causes me some concern: As a police chief,
one thing I knew every day was that there was no way I could
accomplish my mission, the very critical mission that had been
assigned to me, with severe budget or staffing shortages. And
there are very few directors or chiefs or sheriffs who I have
ever heard say that they can. But you feel that you can. So I
would like to hear a little bit more about that.
Officer safety, inmate safety, community safety, I believe,
is directly tied to appropriate staffing levels. And so, I
would like to hear more about why you feel that it is okay to
support severe staffing shortages, number one. And then I would
like to know if you have advocated, in any way, to the
Department of Justice or anybody to lift the hiring freeze.
Mr. Inch. Thank you, Representative Demings. So getting
directly to the heart of staffing, of course, I came in in
September. So that would have been kind of at the tail end of
the work on the fiscal year 2019 President's budget request. Of
course, 2018 had already been over here. Let me break it into
just three groups very quickly.
First group, as I did in my open comments, talking about
the vacant, unfunded positions that have been the case. I
looked back 10 years, well over 5,000. It was a management
technique done by the department to assist wardens, I would
argue, for hiring flexibilities. We were directed in 2017 to
have our manning documents match our budget documents. Not
people, positions on pieces of paper. For 2018----
Mrs. Demings. Sometimes budgets where you are allocated may
not have anything to do with your exact staffing needs.
Mr. Inch. Yeah, correct.
Mrs. Demings. Or making it fit within the budget.
Mr. Inch. Correct. Yeah. So the focused aspect then is
working within our staffing guidelines. I have been briefed on
our staffing guidelines. Our last review was in 2016. Staffing
guidelines are that----you know, we have 122 different
facilities, different custody grades, different programs,
different facility structures. So, it is a guideline by which
the warden determines the operational necessary positions for
security let alone the programming. So, the aspect of that is,
really, it is facility by facility by facility that we have to
assess through our programmed reviews that we have the right
staffing.
Now what has happened in 2017--of course, we can look at
the history of when the hiring freeze was, when that really was
lifted for our facilities--but those methods we took to address
hiring versus attrition. I will state clearly here is our
hiring did not keep up with attrition in 2017. So, I adjusted
our procedures in January for internal hiring to pick up that
pace. And then, for external hiring I made adjustments in
March. Because what I think is being felt at the facilities has
nothing to do with the vacant unfunded--because that is a
management technique--what the feeling was the hiring pace
against attrition. But that has----
Mrs. Demings. Yes, let me ask you a question, Director--and
I hate to cut you off, but back to the augmentation. You know,
just hearing that it sounds pretty ridiculous to me, but I hear
you that they received the same amount of training, although I
think performing the jobs every day, I believe it is a
diminishing skill, right? And so, I believe your policy says
that you use it only during emergencies, or it is reserved for
emergencies. How often do you use the practice of augmentation,
roughly?
Mr. Inch. Yes. Very hard to say----
Mrs. Demings. Would you say daily?
Mr. Inch. I would say facility by facility that----
Mrs. Demings. Would you say pretty much if you had to
answer that question that you use the practice of augmentation
on a daily basis at some facility throughout the United States
of America?
Mr. Inch. Yes.
Mrs. Demings. And do you feel--with my last few seconds--
that the eight-inmate-to-one-officer ratio is adequate? As the
Director of the Bureau of Prisons, ultimately responsible for
the safety of your officers, the inmates, that you feel that
that is appropriate?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mrs. Demings. Can I get a yes or no?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Can you say yes or no to that?
Mr. Inch. Ma'am, I can come by your office. The ratio does
not satisfy me as a yes or no. It has got to be way more
detailed than that facility by facility.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay. The gentlewoman from Alabama, Mrs.
Roby.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Director,
for being here today, and for your service. And we appreciate
your time. I certainly appreciate the service and sacrifices of
the 37,000 Bureau of Prisons corrections professionals who put
their lives on the line every single day.
So, can you please provide us with an update as it relates
to body armor for the Bureau? Do you have what you need? Can
you provide a short overview about how it is periodically taken
out of service and replaced with lighter, more suitable, or
survivable armor?
Mr. Inch. Representative, thank you. Officer safety, of
course, is a very important issue and both the introduction of
OC pepper spray at medium and high, the introduction of body
armor; we are exploring the expansion down our custody grade.
My understanding--but if you will allow me to get back to you
and your staff on this--is that we have successfully placed it
at our high facilities--Administrative Maximum, the higher
security--and are working down the custody grades. But I can
get you a complete layout of our fielding plan and our
replacement plan.
Mrs. Roby. I would appreciate that very much. I
understand--and actually this number seemed low to me, but you
can correct me if I am wrong--that over 23,000 prisoners are
affiliated with gangs.
Mr. Inch. That is correct.
Mrs. Roby. And so, how frequently do prisoners enter
prisons with existing gang affiliation, and then how many
prisoners actually join--if you have an estimate--with a gang
while in prison. And what do we need to do to combat the impact
of gangs in our prisons?
Mr. Inch. Yes, Representative. A very, very important topic
to discuss in our gang management--though I do not have on the
top of my head a figure of those who come to us affiliated with
a gang. The 23,000 number is correct. And then how many then
start affiliating with a gang while in incarceration?
The management is a very detailed process as we work to
understand the gangs and the gang activity--the criminal
activity they are trying to do from inside the facility out or
inside the facility--and how we work the different gang groups,
and those that could be in the same recreation area or those
who we would never put in the same recreation due to safety of
the inmates and safety of the staff.
If you would like, I could set up a time to come by and I
could bring some of our subject matter experts that really work
this issue.
Mrs. Roby. That would be great. I think maybe expounding
upon that, one of the issues is related is contraband and
cellphones, which seems to be a seemingly difficult--over
time--issue within the Bureau for you guys to deal with, which
would be related to gang activity or any other criminal
activity that is taking place within the system reaching out.
So, if you want to provide us an update with that as well.
Mr. Inch. So, very quickly on that, with the introduction
of contraband there is processes, technology, future technology
that we work for. So, just taking cellphones as an example: I
very much appreciated the chairman at the FCC holding a
conference that connected us with the wireless carrier users as
well as the different companies that deal with different
aspects of jamming. We have done a proof of concept of
microjamming to understand its capabilities, limitations. The
report is not yet out for that.
Mrs. Roby. When do you expect that report?
Mr. Inch. I do not know when the report will be completed
on that.
Mrs. Roby. Can you follow up with us on this?
Mr. Inch. I would be happy to. You know, there is other
aspects. When you think of things we have already done--
everything from thermal fencing to full-body scanners, the
different things we do on entry, aspects of how we supervise
visitation--the introduction of contraband is as varied as the
history of the Bureau of Prisons and corrections.
Mrs. Roby. Sure.
Mr. Inch. And there are just days where I think, `You just
cannot make this up.'
Mrs. Roby. Sure.
Mr. Inch. And we are very cognizant of that.
Mrs. Roby. And I only have 30 seconds left, but I would
also like for you to address the press reports about
radicalization by extremist organizations taking place within
our prison population. And again, I have got 15 seconds, so
with all the information that you are going to bring back to
me, if you could also provide me your perspective on that issue
and how we can combat that trend. And Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time is expired. The
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. Thank you for your time appearing
before us today, Director Inch. I wanted to follow up on my
colleague, the ranking member. He asked a question about the
policy in Coleman Prison, and I wanted to know--you made
reference to books that are available from a library, but this
policy says that books are banned from publishers, book stores,
book clubs, and friends and family. You said you were not aware
of it, and I understand that. My question is, can you do a memo
or some type of communication to all of the prisons under your
authority that under no circumstances would books be banned?
Mr. Inch. Representative Bass, again, thank you for the
follow-up on that question. And I will certainly communicate if
there is a misconception that we are withholding educational
and recreational books, legal books of any form, because that
is certainly not the case----
Ms. Bass. I would just encourage you to follow up with
Coleman, because this does not seem to be a misperception. This
seems to be a directive from that prison, and I certainly hope
that this is the only case that such a policy was distributed.
Mr. Inch. So, after this hearing I will certainly review
that memo.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. I wanted to ask you about women who
are incarcerated and who are pregnant. I know that it is the
general policy of the Bureau that a woman is supposed to notify
the Bureau if she is pregnant. But it is also my understanding
that you test all women inmates? It is a question.
Mr. Inch. Okay. I will need to confirm that aspect. I have
researched these aspects of our processes of how we care for
women in pregnancy. I am assuming--but that is a bad thing to
do in a hearing--that we do a test of----
Ms. Bass. Are you aware that in some prisons, that when a
woman is pregnant that she is shackled and has restraints on
her throughout her pregnancy, including in her third trimester
as well as during labor and delivery? Are you aware of that?
Mr. Inch. I know that does not happen in Federal
institutions, yes.
Ms. Bass. Well, I think that it does because there have
been a number of lawsuits filed against prisons because of
that. I wanted to know if you have ever heard of any instance
in which an inmate has either attempted to escape or escaped
from State--now, there are a number of States and State prisons
that prohibit or severely restrict the use of restraints on
inmates in their third trimester, during labor, delivery, or
postpartum.
Mr. Inch. Representative Bass. So, no I have not reviewed
the States' practices. In this timeline here, I have
specifically reviewed our practice in Federal Bureau of
Prisons. I know for a fact----
Ms. Bass. So, you do not know of any instance----
Mr. Inch. I know for a fact we have not shackled women in
any stage of pregnancy during the time I have been here, nor
can anyone remember a time in recent history where we have done
that.
Ms. Bass. Okay, so maybe we should let you know about
lawsuits that are pending?
Mr. Inch. I will ask those questions again as I go back.
Ms. Bass. How do you determine whether a pregnant inmate
has received adequate care? So, my office has met with
corrections officers who have raised concerns about staffing
shortages, and--well, there is medical, there is also
nutrition. What is the protocols?
Mr. Inch. So, at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, of course,
we have Health Services Division. We have both trained medical
personnel throughout our system as well as medical
administrators, members of the public health services----
Ms. Bass. So, are there specific protocols around the
nutritional needs and health needs of pregnant inmates?
Mr. Inch. Though I have not personally reviewed that, I
speculate there is, and I will confirm it upon return to our
central office.
Ms. Bass. Also, if you could document for me--and I know
you do not have this information now--but I would like to know
the number of women who are pregnant in prison and delivered in
the last couple of years and with the outcomes. How many
delivered normally, how many delivered through C-section, and
what were the birth outcomes?
Mr. Inch. We will go back and research that. I certainly do
not have that----
Ms. Bass. I would also like to know about private prisons
that are under your authority. Are there differences in terms
of protocol, in terms of the healthcare as well as the
nutrition? How it is handled?
Mr. Inch. Certainly. So, we have 11 private prisons
currently that we use from three different providers that
predominantly address criminal alien low population. Within our
contract there is absolutely standards of appropriate medical
care, and we check on that. We have on-site personnel that
check that.
Ms. Bass. So, are all of the private prisons for
immigrants?
Mr. Inch. So, for the 11. The predominant reason we use, in
the Federal system, private prisons is for criminal alien low
custody. By statute, of course, we have also some D.C.
offenders in our facilities as well.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
At this point, let me say, Director Inch, that you have
said in response to numerous questions on both sides of the
aisle that you have to get back and provide data. And what I
would ask you to do is to scrub the transcript of this hearing,
provide the data in a written form, and I would ask unanimous
consent that that response be placed in the hearing record
without objection.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Director
Inch, thank you for being here. I am going to speak quickly
because I have a lot I was going to try and squeeze in. I
wanted to pick up on where my colleague, Congresswoman Demings,
left off on the augmentation practice. It is a great concern to
us. Augmentation as it has been explained is when the agency
authorizes non-custody officers to step in and fill vacant
posts of correctional officers. This is nurses, counselors,
maintenance crews employed in a Federal prison asked to step in
and perform the duties of a correctional officer. Would you
agree that this creates a dangerous situation for those
employees?
Mr. Inch. No.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. We are asking nurses, counselors,
kitchen staff, non-custody officers to guard inmates all alone.
They are equipped only with keys or radio and handcuffs.
Typically, the guards are outnumbered by 100 to 150 inmates,
and you say that is not a dangerous situation?
Mr. Inch. Representative Johnson, again, this issue is a
very important issue, and staff safety is absolutely my
concern. The aspect of identifying a certain population of
Federal law enforcement officers that we have in our
facilities--I did discuss earlier that all our employees in our
Federal Bureau of Prisons are correctional workers first. They
perform a detention mission no matter what their duties are.
And, in fact, many within the facilities started as
correctional officers and then moved into positions. Others
were direct hires as you would expect; for example, nurses or
those.
The practice of identifying within a facility those
operationally necessary positions that must be manned for
running of a safe facility--the wardens do have the ability to,
either through overtime or augmentation--is to address placing
the person with the right skills at that location. Now, every
one of our employees has the same initial training at FLETC. In
fact, today I will be flying down there to observe that. And
then the same annual training requirements, weapons
requirements.
You should expect of a warden, and the experiences that our
wardens had is that they place those that with more
experiential learning; for example, if somebody grew up as a
correctional officer and is now a counselor, that they would
identify that person to a certain post compared to another
post.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. But that is not always happening.
I mean, we have recent reports that you have all types of non-
custody officers being asked to supervise dangerous inmates.
And so, are you saying that the decision is unilaterally that
of the warden?
Mr. Inch. Representative, they are supervising dangerous
inmates in the performance of their primary duties as well,
whether it is in food service, whether it is in the health
center, whether it is in the education class. They all perform
that detention mission. There are some systems in which they
divide correctional officers from non-custodial staff. And so,
for example, if there was an education class there would be a
correctional officer standing there as well. We do not do that
in the Federal system. Everybody is a correctional worker
first.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, I am just going to tell
you, I have met with a number of these from my home State of
Louisiana. They are not comfortable with that assignment. Many
of them feel like they are endangered and I feel like they have
good reason to be. Can you inform the committee the total
number of assaults on Bureau of Prisons staff committed by an
inmate in 2017?
Mr. Inch. I do not have that at the top of my head. I know
that we are on a 3-year downward trend. I will get you the
exact number. It is in the 100 to 200 range if my recollection
is correct.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I appreciate that. Very quickly,
the Federal Correctional Institute in Oakdale, in South
Louisiana--it is in my district----
Mr. Inch. Yes.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. They are currently scheduled to
lose about 77 positions, all of which are currently vacant. Why
have those positions not been filled?
Mr. Inch. I have gone back 10 years to look at this. So,
the manning policies for the Bureau of Prisons is, there is the
budgeting side that has budgeted us approximately at 89 to 91
percent of our manning. Our manning documents always had that
10 percent over as a method by which they gave flexibility to
the wardens. The positions were never funded, and though vacant
positions could switch, the total aggregate number did not
switch.
So, what has been directed from the 2017 spend plan--and
has already actually had that action at department level--is
that we are making the budget authorization, having our manning
documents match that. So, as I did in my opening statement, the
removal from our manning documents--these positions--are not
real people. It is a shift in how we are doing personnel
management at facilities.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, I am just going to tell you
the folks down there are greatly concerned about it. They think
it is a dangerous situation, and I agree with them. So, I look
forward to seeing your statistics. I wanted to yield to Mr.
Marino, and I am out of time.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired. The
other gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
Director Inch. Let me just ask you a general question. What is
the recidivism rate of inmates coming out of federal prison?
Mr. Inch. I believe for Federal prison at 3 years we are at
43 percent, but I will verify that figure. I believe I had it
in the written testimony.
Mr. Richmond. Wow. And that is coming back to Federal, or
coming back to Federal or State--going back to either?
Mr. Inch. I believe that number would be a reincarceration.
The Sentencing Commission has an excellent report that actually
breaks it down between reoffending, reincarcerated----
Mr. Richmond. Do you know the recidivism rate of private
prisons that you use?
Mr. Inch. I do not; I will have to go back and check that.
Unless we are talking about the D.C. population,
Representative, we use it for criminal alien low, presumably
unless they are being transferred to another incarcerated
aspect. Depending on the decisions of the courts, many are
extradited; so I am not sure the recidivism rate would apply as
the Federal system uses private systems. We could certainly do
it for the D.C. inmates that are in the private.
Mr. Richmond. Let me ask you this question. Forty-three
percent is pretty high. Can you rank the top five programs that
reduce recidivism that you all offer in our prisons, in terms
of effectiveness?
Mr. Inch. Representative, excellent question. So, what I
think are the most important things that affect the recidivism
rate. I would say first it is the culture by which we operate
our facilities. That is from the frontline correctional
officer----
Mr. Richmond. No, no, no. I am looking for the programs.
Because it is my understanding that the RDAP program is not in
the top five.
Mr. Inch. I think the RDAP program is exceptionally
important. So----
Mr. Richmond. Not that it is not important. One of the
institutions we visited in Texas, the warden said that inmates
participating in what would be prison enterprise would probably
be number one in their mind.
Mr. Inch. Their prison industry is an excellent program.
Mr. Richmond. Right. So, I am just asking you to rank the
programs, because RDAP is the only one that we provide good
time for. So, if there are other programs that are effective in
terms of reducing recidivism--because we are at 43 percent--
what are they so that we can look at trying to get more people
to participate in those? That is the gist of the question.
Mr. Inch. So, do I consider RDAP important? Very important,
and I do recognize there is an incentive for it. I think
Federal prison industry is important. Yes, I do. Do I think
that requires incentive? No, we have a waiting list of inmates
who want to participate.
I would add into that vocational training. As we look at
many of the discussions that are going on now for improvements
in reentry program, there is great potential of vocational
training, education. Both language skill and GED for----
Mr. Richmond. But if you participate in those you do not
get any good time?
Mr. Inch. That is a correct statement.
Mr. Richmond. Do you think you should get good time for
participating in those?
Mr. Inch. I do not think that is necessary, even in our
education programs. I think the incentive of that education and
the way, at least in our case, in many of the more desired
vocational training Federal prison industry we make getting a
GED as an appropriate gateway to going to that that we can
incentivize that within our facility.
Mr. Richmond. Well, then why do we have to incentivize
RDAP? And I do not look at it as an incentivize; I really look
at it as a reward for doing something to better yourself that
reduces the likelihood of another victim when you get out of
prison and reduces the chances of you coming back for us to
continue to pay to incarcerate you.
Mr. Inch. So, it is hard to generalize on the motivation of
all of those that participate in RDAP. I have visited quite a
few of our programs and I have spoken with the inmates.
Entering a therapeutic community is intimidating, at least as
it has been expressed to me. The amount of opening oneself up
to a community is so----
Mr. Richmond. Let me get my final point because the
chairman is a stickler for time. Every 7 days of good time that
we can give our Federal population saves the taxpayers $50
million. You are authorized to give 54 days a year. You average
47 days a year good time. That $50 million could be used to
fully fund the RDAP program or other things. So, why are we not
maximizing the good time for those who qualify?
Mr. Inch. Representative, I understand the history of this
discussion and the litigation history of it as well and how we
in the Bureau define it. I would be at a disadvantage to do a
legal discourse at this point, but I do recognize the
litigation history of the definition of how we give good time.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The chair gave some good time to the
gentleman from Louisiana. It was an important question, but
that is expired now.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you. Thank, you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would note that
one of the signs that we have a good chairman is being a
stickler on times. So, I would thank the chairman for doing
that. In that light, I have got three things I want to touch
on. I am going to try to yield time to Mr. Marino, who I know
he is chomping at the bit down there.
First of all, residential reentry centers provide
transitional services and programs for offenders moving from
incarceration to our communities. The time spent in these
placement centers is critical for successful transition where
these men and women are, again, tasked with making decisions
for themselves for the first time in a long time, which is
especially true for inmates who have served long sentences.
It has come to my attention that the Bureau of Prisons
lacks sufficient reentry center capacity leading to inmates
spending oftentimes more time in prison, and then being
released directly into our communities without appropriate
supervision, which can be a detriment to our public safety.
Could you describe the current capacity for residential reentry
center placement and is there anything we can do realistically
to improve that?
Mr. Inch. Representative Chabot, that is an excellent
question, and the importance of our residential reentry centers
and how we reintegrate inmates back to their home communities
is very important, and I agree with you on that. We ascribe
about $350 million to a constellation--because it is all
private providers or other government agency providers--a
constellation of over 230 centers ideally placed at the
locations of greatest release. Because you were correct in that
4 to 6 months when they are at the facility we are trying to
connect them with employment, housing, and their family; and I
absolutely agree with you that it is most important for the
inmates at the high-end. So, we release anywhere between 40,000
to 44,000 inmates per year.
It is based on other risk factors and the like.
Approximately 80 percent would participate in that program or
home confinement or both.
So, in terms of the capacity this year: In 2017 we actually
exceeded our contractual limits--that was pointed out by OIG--
as well as there was a small number of facilities that were
underutilized. Facilities in locations that capacity was about
1 percent of the bed space. But those facilities are
underutilized, or there were other facilities in which another
RRC could pick up that.
The challenges as I look at the constellation of our
residential reentry centers is two things: It is to the extent
of how far out it can spread and the cost that is associated
with it. My goal this year in 2018 is just to have very clear
usage data against the ascribed budget so that I can make very
logical budget requests in the future.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. I have got 2 minutes. Two questions
to go and I want to get to you so I am just going to talk very
briefly about the other things.
First of all--it already came up, for one thing--the
cellphones. Whatever we can do to stop the communication
between inmates and the gangs outside, or whatever, is good. I
understand we have got a letter from the Federal Communications
Commission. We have been looking at this for a while. There is
a task force, and I think the first meeting is at the end of
this month, so----
Mr. Inch. And we are a key member of that task force.
Mr. Chabot. We appreciate that. And finally, prison
industries came up. I am a big fan of that, keeping those in
prison occupied. Most of them are going to be out some day. If
they have got a skill and it keeps them out of trouble to some
degree when they are in there, it makes the guards safer. So,
we need to promote prison industries. So, you do not
necessarily need to respond. I yield whatever time I have left
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino.
Mr. Marino. Thank you. Welcome, sir. So, I am going to get
right to the point, fire off some questions. If you cannot
answer each one in 5 seconds, I know you have a staff behind
you and I know this is going to be part of the record for you
to answer.
I am an 18-year prosecutor, both State and U.S. attorney. I
have been in many, many of your prisons. I think we have one of
the largest prison complexes in my district. Allenwood, McKean,
and Lewisburg. I have been there, I have visited many times.
And now I want to concentrate on corrections officers,
corrections officers, corrections officers. Not staff members
who fill those positions. Why are we not hiring outside the BOP
to fill those corrections officers?
Mr. Inch. We are now.
Mr. Marino. Okay. That is good. Let's just go on to, I have
a real problem with inexperienced staff. You can train me as a
corrections officer and a year down the road if I have done
nothing concerning corrections work and you call me on board, I
may not be ready for those split-second decisions like these
men and women are who are the corrections officers. Why are we
cutting 6,000 positions when it seems like, and correct me if I
am wrong, we are building two new prisons: one in Kentucky and
one in Illinois? The next thing I want to talk about----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from Ohio has
expired. Would the Director submit Mr. Marino's questions for
the record?
Mr. Inch. Yes, Chairman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay. The gentleman from New York, Mr.
Jeffries.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the
Director for your appearance here today and your service to the
country. Now, educational and vocational programs for Federal
prisoners have shown to significantly reduce recidivism. Is
that correct?
Mr. Inch. That is correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And are you familiar with a recent RAND study
that concluded that inmates participating in these types of
educational and vocational programs are 43 percent less likely
to reoffend and return to prison?
Mr. Inch. I have read several studies, but that seems
consistent with studies I have read of the importance of
education and vocational training.
Mr. Jeffries. Are the educational and vocational programs
are extremely popular within the Federal system, is that right?
Mr. Inch. Yes, sir, Representative.
Mr. Jeffries. And as I understand it, there is
approximately 15,000 Federal inmates who are on waiting lists
for such programs. Is that right?
Mr. Inch. I would have to check that figure.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. But it is a substantial number of
inmates who are waiting to get access to educational and
vocational programs, is that right?
Mr. Inch. I believe the 15,000 number, if you combine it
with educational, that is tied in with those that are in the
pipeline do get GEDs. Some having to do education, learning to
read from prior, other disabilities aspect. But yes, the aspect
of education and vocational training, there is a demand for
that.
Mr. Jeffries. I recognize the demand as well as the
importance in reducing recidivism. I think the previous
administration in 2016 hired an education specialist to
overhaul programs in the Federal Prison System and also create
what it called a semiautonomous school district within the
Federal Prison System, in order to help facilitate reentry.''
Is that right?
Mr. Inch. That is correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And last year, the current administration
fired the specialist. Is that right?
Mr. Inch. If you want to use that term, yes. The person
that was brought in----
Mr. Jeffries. Let go, released, tossed aside, fired.
Mr. Inch [continuing]. Let go, released. Given another
option, but did not stay, yes.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And the programs that you have
acknowledged on the record are important in terms of
facilitating successful reentry have been scaled back and/or
scrapped. Is that right?
Mr. Inch. Now, I would not state it that way,
representative. I would say that the recommendations in the
Bronner Study which is what you are referring to with the
establishment of a school system like aspect at central office,
which would have added, would have grown us by about, I
believe, 40 positions. The decision was made prior to me
arriving to not take that approach but to continue with how we
address supervision of our education program.
Mr. Jeffries. Is it also fair to say that these educational
and vocational programs which we have established successfully
facilitate reentry, which also reduce violence on the outside
against American citizens, are also important in maintaining
safety for the courageous Bureau of Prison correctional
officers, as well? Is that right?
Mr. Inch. Absolutely.
Mr. Jeffries. So, it would seem to me that the
Administration is going in the wrong direction, not the right
direction. Both as it relates to your own employees who are
providing for the maximum amount of safety within the system,
as well as for American people on the outside, and the
opportunity to give these individuals a successful opportunity
to reenter our society. So, I would ask that you just, within
the Department of Justice, perhaps pursue a more aggressive
posture toward the Attorney General or others who are taking us
in a direction that I do not think is a healthy one for a wide
variety of reasons.
In addition to the fact that as Cedric Richmond pointed
out, these type of programs save taxpayer dollars. And instead,
what we are seeing is the VOP is relying on augmentation, which
I do not think is helping anyone as it relates to both the
inmates and the correctional officers as well.
In the time that I have remaining, I just want to ask
briefly about private prisons, which has also been the subject
of some discussion now. In 2016, the Department of Justice took
the step in a memorandum that I believe was authored by Sally
Yates, of phasing out the Federal use of private prisons. Is
that right?
Mr. Inch. I am familiar with those actions at that time.
Yeah. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. And it is my understanding that one of the
first acts of the new Attorney General on February of 2017, he
rescinded that memorandum that ordered the phase out of the
Federal use of private prisons. Is that correct?
Mr. Inch. Not that I saw that memorandum since I have come
on, but we continue to use private prisons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay, and I would just ask, given all that
has been documented about the fact that inmates are more likely
to recidivate in the private prison context, the safety
conditions, the humanity of the conditions in which they are
maintained, dramatically different than what is done in the
Bureau of Prison System that that be reevaluated internally.
Certainly, I think we are going to continue to put external
pressure on you as well. I yield back.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert,
the vice chair of this subcommittee.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate
being here. With regard to cellphones, it is a huge problem in
both Federal and State facilities, State prisons. Have you
looked at just having jamming capabilities? So, of course, that
would mean prison guards could not use their cellphones, but
because there is so much control and participation by inmates
in nonconfined gangs, I would think it would be worth it. Have
you looked at it? Have you studied jamming all signals from
prison?
Mr. Inch. Representative Gohmert, thank you for bringing
that up again. Cellphones; you are absolutely correct. It is
very important. So, yes, we have. We have done a pilot on micro
jamming which is one method by which we are researching an
ability to jam. There are other ways of jamming. There is,
frankly, ways that we can work with the wireless cell carriers
as well. So, the meeting that was hosted by the FCC chairman, I
was able to participate in that along with the representatives
of the wireless carriers, different organizations, and we are
members of the task force that came out with that.
Mr. Gohmert. So, there is only a pilot program right now?
Mr. Inch. So, there have been different pilot, yeah, there
are different programs, both have been State piloted as well as
we did one very recently. The report is not yet completed on
that.
Mr. Gohmert. So, it is State piloted? You did not do the
pilot program?
Mr. Inch. No, we did one at one of our facilities----
Mr. Gohmert. Only one?
Mr. Inch [continuing]. Micro jamming.
Mr. Gohmert. Yeah.
Mr. Inch. We also have----
Mr. Gohmert. Well, look. My time is running out. I just
would appreciate it if you would make it more extensive than
one pilot program. It is a huge problem and apparently people
are getting killed at the direction of people within prisons
from what we read and hear.
But then, on to reading. Books are important and books can
help if they are the right kinds of books, even help reduce
recidivism, you know. For example, Christian groups that have
truly mentored use workbooks and whatnot is extremely helpful
in reducing recidivism dramatically. I understand that books
can also be the source of extensive smuggling, so I understand
concern there. But what about if you allowed books not to be
sent to individual inmates but books that are sent to the
library, to put in the library, after a thorough analysis of
whether or not there is any potential for contraband? Have you
considered something like that?
Mr. Inch. Well, I am certainly going to need to research
that, because, you know, we do maintain both recreation,
religious, legal libraries and provide material like that, so I
am not sure the----
Mr. Gohmert. Well, I understand, but sometimes there are
great books that the library would not order that an inmate,
that somebody wanting to help inmates would be willing to send
and pay for. And the question is, would the library in the
prisons accept it? And you ought to have a very thorough way to
analyze to make sure there is no contraband.
So, obviously that has not been something you have done,
but I would really encourage you to look at that potential
policy change as a way to allow. I mean, fantastic books are
being written all the time your libraries will not have, and
you do not have the money to go buy them all. So, I would
suggest that.
One other area I want to hit right quick. Radicalization
was brought up earlier, but I would direct your attention to a
man name Al-Amoudi. During the Clinton administration, he had
an agreement with the Clinton administration to help them find
people he considered good Muslims to be chaplains. That
included in the military, that included in the government, it
included in prisons. And from what I have read, he helped find
imams to be chaplains in prisons.
Mr. Al-Amoudi, no thanks to the FBI, Director Mueller had
blinded our FBI of their ability to spot radicalized Muslims,
so he was not capable. But as I understand, MI6 provided
information on--by the way, he also did the same thing under
the Bush administration until MI6 provided our government a
slam dunk case. Al-Amoudi was supporting terrorists.
And I would just suggest to you there ought to be a study
in your Federal prisons to see which ones were placed there,
recommended by Al-Amoudi since he is doing 23 years in Federal
prison and see whether or not there is radicalization
heightened in those prisons that a terrorist placed that imam.
I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
Gentleman from California, Mr. Lieu.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Director Inch
for being here today and thank you for your over 3 decades of
service to the U.S. Military. I previously served on active
duty and I am still in the Reserves. And as a JAG, I had a lot
of interaction with military police as well as corrections
facilities, so thank you for your service, too.
I have a few questions about the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
First of all, let me say, I appreciate your comments to
Representative Jeffries that you support education and
vocational programs. And as you are aware, any large population
of people, certain programs have more impact for certain people
than others. And some folks might really love and enjoy a
plumbing course, and some might hate that and not want to do it
at all.
So when we were in California, I served for 9 years in the
State legislature, and we realized there was a program known as
``Arts in Corrections,'' that ended up actually really having a
large impact for some of the prisoners in California. And I
increased funding for it when I was in the State legislature
and it showed that these Arts in Corrections programs resulted
in improved behavior among inmates, fewer disciplinary actions,
reduced recidivism, and it produced a cost savings.
So, the Federal Bureau of Prisons actually runs six of
these programs, as you know, in conjunction with the National
Endowment for the Arts. The prior director stated that the
Bureau of Prisons supported these programs.
I just want to get you on the record that you also agree
that arts in prisons programs are important tools to help
rehabilitate prisoners.
Mr. Inch. I support it. Yes.
Mr. Lieu. And if we got you additional funding for
educational and vocational programs, you would not oppose
looking at expanding these programs if you had additional
funding, correct?
Mr. Inch. Representative Lieu, the issue of specific
programing is, you know, I am actually very encouraged with the
Federal Interagency Crime Prevention and Reentry Improvement
Council, bringing the FIRC forward. As we address all different
program recommendations and how we assess them.
So, on the six that we have, I have not personally observed
the program yet, but I have received great reports especially
on the discipline behavior of the inmates that participate in
it. And I find that is encouraging.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. So, there have been amazing groups.
One of them is, for example, is Actor's Gang and they invite
people to watch what they do. And so, I would assume you would
not be opposed to if you or a member of your staff would be
able to see one of these programs in action, correct?
Mr. Inch. As I do my travel, that is on my list. I would
like to see that.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. So, I would like to talk about
pretrial detention. It turns out that a lot of people are
actually detained and using the taxpayer resources, even though
they have not been convicted of anything. And the statistics
show that if we exclude immigration cases, the percentage of
Federal defendants detained in pretrial increase from 53
percent to 59 percent, from 2006 to 2016.
And what I want to know is how can we try to reduce the
number of pretrial detainees? Because it is spending a lot of
taxpayer resources. It is not clear if there is a huge effect
on public safety. So my first question is do you know
approximately how many inmates at the Bureau of Prisons are
currently in pretrial detention?
Mr. Inch. Representative, I can certainly get you that
figure because we do have our metropolitan detention centers
supporting U.S. Marshals, certainly with pretrial detention. I
do not have the figure----
Mr. Lieu. Okay.
Mr. Inch [continuing]. Right on top of my head.
Mr. Lieu. It is my understanding that some of these folks
are detained for quite a long time. Hundreds of days and if we
could get some sort of movement on maybe ways to reduce the
number of days they are awaiting pretrial, because that also
would save taxpayer funds as well.
Mr. Inch. Sorry. I think this would be a case that I would
refer that to the department level, considering that I do not
actually impact those that are placed in pretrial detention,
let alone sentencing. And obviously that comes from the
different processes outside the Bureau of Prisons, so I think I
would want to defer that to the department level.
Mr. Lieu. Okay. So, why do not we do this. Is it okay if we
sent you a letter with some questions, and then you can refer
it to the best people to answer it and then provide a response
back to us?
Mr. Inch. Certainly, sir. Yeah.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, chairman. Thank you for being here. I
have several questions and then I want to go over one topic,
specifically in more detail. What is the cost to run the Bureau
of Prisons in the United States?
Mr. Inch. Our budget is approximately $7.1 billion.
Mr. Poe. My question was the cost, not the budget. Is the
budget and the cost the same thing? It is not a trick question.
How much does it cost to run the Bureau of Prisons?
Mr. Inch. Representative Poe, so as we go through the
budgeting process, of course, I arrived here at the tail end of
the work on the 2019 budget. There are cost factors based on
what we want to address that exceed----
Mr. Poe. Excuse me, Director. I just want to cut to the
chase.
Mr. Inch. Exceeds that number.
Mr. Poe. Okay. It is higher than the budget.
Mr. Inch. Certainly.
Mr. Poe. Okay. It is not a criticism. It is just a
question. What is the recidivism rate of the Bureau of Prisons,
the Federal Bureau of Prisons? In other words, recidivism rate.
What is the recidivism rate when an inmate is released from
prison, what is the recidivism rate when an inmate comes back
to Federal prison?
Mr. Inch. My understanding at 3 years, it is 43 percent,
but I will verify those figures.
Mr. Poe. Forty-three percent within 3 years. All right. How
many inmates in the Federal penitentiaries?
Mr. Inch. Currently we are just under 185,000.
Mr. Poe. How many of those are foreign nationals?
Mr. Inch. Current foreign national is approximately 40,000.
Mr. Poe. Forty-thousand of a hundred----
Mr. Inch. Foreign-born?
Mr. Poe. That is right.
Mr. Inch. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Poe. Forty-thousand of the hundred and what?
Mr. Inch. One-hundred-and-eighty-five thousand, just shy of
that number.
Mr. Poe. Okay. I am a former judge in Texas, 22 years. I
saw a lot of folks come to the courthouse or ``palace of
perjury'' as I referred to it in those days. About 25,000
felons. I think I am somewhat familiar with the prison system.
I am a big believer in putting inmates to work in a productive
way where that when they get out of prison, they can use
whatever skills they learned in prison. Good skills, not the
bad skills, to be a productive member of our community.
I represented Beaumont for a while, and I went to the
Beaumont Federal Penitentiary. And I am sure, being in the
military, you know what this is. It is a Kevlar helmet. And it
was made by the inmates at the Beaumont Federal Penitentiary.
Mr. Inch. Yes, I did.
Mr. Poe. I went and talked to them and, you know, they have
got American flags everywhere. They are very proud of what they
are doing for the war on terror. And I got the impression from
them that this was something that they wanted to do, was be
involved in working in a productive way as all of us should.
But I understand that the system of using inmates for work is
dropping. In other words, the number of people that are working
in our prison system who are inmates is dropping. Can you
explain why that is?
Mr. Inch. I can, Representative Poe. So, actually right
now, the number of inmates we are back increasing again. After
several years, repeated years, of monetary losses, there was a
requirement to restructure the business because this is a
nontaxpayer-funded enterprise. So they have to be successful.
Frankly, the assistance that came from Congress in
addressing the ability to do repatriation, for example, has
provided the opportunity that once we did a business model of
collapsing on what we could do within the cost figures, we are
growing back out again. And very positive movements especially
as new business development as it relates to repatriation.
Mr. Poe. Do you have any statistics on inmates that
participate in the Federal prison industries, their recidivism
rate when they leave prison?
Mr. Inch. Yes, we do, and I just drew a blank, but I will
get you that figure. But we certainly have very positive
aspects, and I will get that to you real quick.
Mr. Poe. Do you remember if it is higher or lower than the
40 percent for everybody else?
Mr. Inch. For those who participate as opposed to those who
do not participate, 16 percent? Twenty-four percent.
Mr. Poe. Recidivism rate?
Mr. Inch. Yeah. So the recidivism rate is lower than those
who do not participate than those who do participate.
Mr. Poe. Okay.
Mr. Inch. Difference of 24 percent. Very positive.
Mr. Poe. So, you say that the system is--the industry is
being used again? Inmates are starting to sign up for it again
or?
Mr. Inch. Well, we have always had a waiting list. We have
no problem with inmates participating in the program. It is
running those programs----
Mr. Poe. Oh, it is the bureaucracy that does not work.
Okay. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired. The
chair yields himself 5 minutes. Director Inch, you may or may
not know that two Congresses ago, Representative Bobby Scott of
Virginia and I introduced the rather broad Prison and
Sentencing Reform Bill which had a lot of talk but not too much
action here.
The last Congress, we did have some action here but it
never made it to the floor. There was a lot of talk about it.
One of the things that both efforts attempted to look at was
lowering the recidivism rate, which I think everybody would
agree is a good thing.
We have heard a lot of talk about a lot of programs,
beginning with Mr. Richmond's questions. And I am wondering if
you have had any statistics in the Bureau of Prison that talks
about which programs in the prison inmates have had, and then
the recidivism rate on how many of the people who have been in
those programs end up reoffending and being convicted again.
You know, this would be the type of information that both you
and we would need to find out, what works and what does not. Do
you have that kind of stuff?
Mr. Inch. So, we do. Of course, we have looked at
recidivism rate for Federal prison industry, for the RDAP
program, and the like. And actually, in this process that we
are doing this year with FIRC, of course, is trying to have
clear evidence-based analysis of different programs. Those that
are being recommended to us, those that are being used in
States, those that we are using so that we can make, you know,
very positive recommendations on funding, appropriate
expansion, or even elimination of programs if they are shown
not to work.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Forty-three percent recidivism rate is
not very good, because the job of any prison system is
``corrections.'' And at least 43 percent of the people in there
are not being corrected. And one of your jobs, I think, is to
correct them, you know, as well as to have people who have been
convicted pay their debt to society. Because we do not want to
have prisons become a place where you learn how to become an
even hardened criminal.
And there is a lot of questioning, you know, about whether
that is the net result of how we are operating our prisons. And
we in this subcommittee want to have a change and I think the
public would support us.
Now, I want to go to cellphones. Mr. Gohmert brought this
out. You know, obviously somebody having a contraband cellphone
while they are incarcerated allows them to do business as usual
even though they are not on the street collecting whatever
money is being paid for their illegal activities. Now if I try
to take a cellphone through the magnetometer at the airport,
the TSA is going to nail me and say, ``Run this thing through
the X-ray so we can see if it is a cellphone or something that
is much more dangerous than that.''
So, you know, rather than trying to have jamming devices
which end up denying the use of everybody else--you know mainly
the employees of the prison and the corrections officers the
use of their own cellphones for personal use--why we cannot
just use what the TSA does to make sure that cellphones that
get on planes are really cellphones rather than something that
is not? And here we could just flip this over and do the
reverse, saying that if there is, you know, if it is a
cellphone, you do not get it and you keep it out or maybe you
get a big bucket like the TSA has where they throw the
contraband in.
Mr. Inch. Chairman, you describe our procedures. As I
understand it, certainly as I have experienced in the 22
facilities I have gone into, is that, you know, I do not take
in my personal cellphone, because we do not take our personal
cellphones into the facilities, and I walk right through a
metal detector. And then, I have to take my belt off.
So that aspect, that is one area where we combat the
introduction of cellphones. Of course, there is other
absolutely ingenious ways, everything from taking a football
and filling it with cellphones and trying to throw it over the
fence into the exercise yard. It is just amazing, the daily
competition for the introduction of cellphones that we work
through.
But we, everything from our full body scanning of inmates
as they come in, thermal imaging on the fence line, and other
ways, and, of course, our issue on addressing drone technology
is very important as well.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Would you refer to filling a football
with cellphones and tossing it over the fence as an f-bomb?
Mr. Inch. No, I would not use that terminology, but.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay. Thank you very much. We are done
with the questioning. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for a minute or two.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Chairman, thank you for your kindness. Let
me indicate that I would like to put several potent points on
the record for your response, possibly oral response when we
have the opportunity, but I would like you to circle these in
particular.
So, particularly, I want a better response on good time
credits being used again. I would like to modify that by saying
I have introduced a bill dealing with good time early release
for elderly inmates who, statistics show because of medical
concerns can be extremely costly. So, I would like to have that
question. Compassionate release which is somewhat of a partner
to that, but how that is utilized and is it utilized
effectively as it relates to relevant inmates.
And then, to respond to the incident where I think an
inmate was held 13 months past the legitimate time that they
were supposed to be released. That is a crucial issue that, I
think, is of dignity to the individual and to the institution.
Finally, let me say that as you have a good working
relationship with the union, but it has come to my attention of
prison assaults. Certainly, we know one that occurred in 2008
where someone was attacked and there is a question about having
corrections officers work together. Can you respond to the
potential assaults on corrections officers and the staffing
structure that would lessen that possibility? Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Would you please submit answers to those
questions for the record?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. This concludes today's hearing.
Mrs. Demings. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Now, is this a second round of
questions?
Mrs. Demings. I would like to interject something into the
record.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for a
minute.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Mr.
Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to insert two letters into
the record that demonstrate the broad bipartisan concern among
members both on and off this committee over the staffing
shortages and augmentation practices discussed here today.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well. Now this concludes today's hearing
and I thank you, Mr. Inch, for coming into the frying pan here.
We will get you back sometime. Without objection, all members
will have 5 legislative days to submit additional questions for
the witness and additional materials for the records, and
without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]