    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     THE FIRST STEP ACT, THE PANDEMIC, AND
                    COMPASSIONATE RELEASE: WHAT ARE THE NEXT
                     STEPS FOR THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS?

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
                             AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEETH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                            FRIDAY, JANUARY 21, 2022

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-51

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    47-247                      WASHINGTON : 2022

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

    ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      DARRELL ISSA, California
        Georgia                          KEN BUCK, Colorado
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          MATT GAETZ, Florida
    KAREN BASS, California               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
    HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     TOM McCLINTOCK, California
    ERIC SWALWELL, California            W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
    TED LIEU, California                 TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
    JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
    PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          CHIP ROY, Texas
    VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
    J. LUIS CORREA, California           MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
    MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
    SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
    JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
    LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 BURGESS OWENS, Utah
    GREG STANTON, Arizona
    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
    MONDAIRE JONES, New York
    DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
    CORI BUSH, Missouri

             AMY RUTKIN, Majority Staff Director and Chief of Staff
                  CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director

                                  ------

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                        SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas, Chair
                        CORI BUSH, Missouri, Vice-Chair

    KAREN BASS, California               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Ranking
    VAL DEMINGS, Florida                     Member
    LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania         LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
    DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island        TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
    TED LIEU, California                 THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
    LOU CORREA, California               VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               BURGESS OWENS, Utah

                       JOE GRAUPENSPERGER, Chief Counsel
                        JASON CERVENAK, Minority Counsel

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Friday, January 21, 2022

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Chair of the Subcommittee on
      Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of Texas     2
    The Honorable Andy Biggs, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
      Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of
      Arizona........................................................     5
    The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the
      Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     6

                                   WITNESSES

    Gwen Levi, Baltimore, Maryland
      Oral Testimony.................................................    11
      Prepared Statement.............................................    13
    Homer Venters, Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor, NYU School
      of Global Public Health
      Oral Testimony.................................................    16
      Prepared Statement.............................................    18
    Alison Guernsey, Clinical Associate Professor of Law, University
      of Iowa College of Law
      Oral Testimony.................................................    26
      Prepared Statement.............................................    28
    Gretta L. Goodwin, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S.
      Government Accountability Office
      Oral Testimony.................................................    45
      Prepared Statement.............................................    47
    Julie Kelly, Senior Contributor, American Greatness
      Oral Testimony.................................................    56
      Prepared Statement.............................................    58
    Melissa Hamilton, Professor of Law and Criminal Justice,
      University of Surrey, School of Law
      Oral Testimony.................................................    62
      Prepared Statement.............................................    64

               STATEMENTS, LETTERS, MATERIALS, ARTICLES SUBMITTED

    Tweets submitted by the Honorable Kathleen Landerkin, submitted
      by the Honorable Andy Biggs, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
      Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of
      Arizona for the record.........................................    76
    An article entitled, ``Federal judge finds DC jail warden in
      contempt, demands DOJ civil rights probe of Jan. 6 detainees,''
      Fox News, submitted by the Honorable W. Gregory Steube, a
      Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
      Security from the State of Florida for the record..............    86
    Items submitted by the Honorable Cori Bush, Vice Chair of the
      Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from
      the State of Missouri for the record
      A letter from Members of Congress to the Honorable Michael
        Carvajal, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons..........   102
      A letter from Wendy Hechtman...................................   108
      A letter from Dianthe Martinez Brooks..........................   114
    Items submitted by the Honorable Thomas Massie, a Member of the
      Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from
      the State of Kentucky for the record
      A report entitled, ``COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations by
        COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Previous COVID-19 Diagnosis--
        California and New York, May-November 2021,'' Centers for
        Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality
        Weekly Report (MMWR).........................................   120
      An article etitled, ``Prior COVID infection more protective
        than vaccination during Delta surge--U.S. study,'' Reuters...   127
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Chair of
      the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
      from the State of Texas for the record
      An article entitled, ``As COVID Cases Spike, Federal Bureau Of
        Prisons Is Not Releasing Eligible Inmates,'' Forbes..........   140
      An article entitled, ``Racial Equity and Criminal Justice Risk
        Assessment,'' Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.........   144
      A letter from Colin G. Prince, Chief Appellate Attorney,
        Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho...   158
      An article entitled, ``Opinion: This is an Unmistakable Win for
        Incarcerated People,'' CNN...................................   161

                                    APPENDIX

      A letter from Bruce C. Harris, Vice President, Federal
        Government Affairs, Walmart, submitted by the Honorable Steve
        Cohen, a Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
        Homeland Security from the State of Tennessee for the record.   166

                     THE FIRST STEP ACT, THE PANDEMIC, AND
                      COMPASSIONATE RELEASE: WHAT ARE THE
                       NEXT STEPS FOR THE FEDERAL BUREAU
                                  OF PRISONS?

                                  ----------

                            Friday, January 21, 2022

                            House of Representatives

            Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., via
    Zoom, Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee [Chair of the Subcommittee]
    presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Nadler, Jackson Lee,
    Demings, Bass, McBath, Dean, Scanlon, Bush, Cicilline, Escobar,
    Cohen, Jordan, Biggs, Chabot, Gohmert, Steube, Massie,
    Fitzgerald, and Owens.
        Staff present: John Doty, Senior Advisor and Deputy Staff
    Director; Moh Sharma, Director of Member Services and Outreach
    & Policy Advisor; Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; John Williams,
    Parliamentarian and Senior Counsel; Merrick Nelson, Digital
    Director; Joe Graupensperger, Chief Counsel for Crime; Mauri
    Gray, Deputy Chief Counsel for Crime; Natalie Knight, Counsel
    for Crime; Nicole Banister, Counsel for Crime; Veronica Eligan,
    Professional Staff Member/Legislative Aide for Crime; Jason
    Cervenak, Minority Chief Counsel for Crime; Ken David, Minority
    Counsel; Andrea Woodard, Minority Professional Staff Member;
    Kiley Bidelman, Minority Clerk; and Carter Robertson, Minority
    USSS Detailee.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. The Subcommittee will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses
    of the Committee at any time.
        Good morning and welcome to today's hearing on The First
    Step Act, The Pandemic, and Compassionate Release: What Are the
    Next Steps for the Federal Bureau of Prisons?
        I would like to remind Members that we have established an
    email address and distribution list to circulate exhibits,
    motions, or other written materials that Members might want to
    offer as part of our hearing today. If you would like to submit
    materials, please send them to the email address that has been
    previously distributed to your offices and we will circulate
    the materials to Members and staff as quickly as we can.
        I would also like to ask all Members to please mute your
    microphones when you are not speaking. This will help prevent
    feedback and other technical issues. You may unmute yourself
    any time to seek recognition.
        I now will recognize myself for an opening statement, but
    before I do that, one of our colleagues on the Full Committee,
    Mr. McClintock, has suffered a terrible loss over the holidays,
    the loss of his wife, and I want to offer my deepest sympathy
    to him and his family and to all of you who work with him, all
    of us who work with him every day.
        We are here today to discuss several topics. We are here to
    focus on the great concern including the Bureau of Prisons'
    implementation of The First Step Act as so many Members on this
    Committee worked very hard, including Hakeem Jeffries, Chair of
    the Democratic Caucus, working across the aisle as we did on
    that very important initiative, its use of compassionate
    release, or the lack thereof, and its response to the COVID-19
    pandemic.
        In 2018, we passed a landmark piece of legislation, The
    First Step Act and aimed at transformational sentencing and
    prison reform at the federal level. It is an exceptional piece
    of legislation, and we must maximize its potential. Because we
    are here primarily to talk about the next steps for the Bureau
    of Prisons, I will focus on The First Step Act's legislation
    and its commitment to prison reform, which among other
    mandates, required BOP to create and use a risk and needs
    assessment tool to categorize federal prisoners as minimum,
    low, medium, or high risk to recidivate.
        Based on the resulting assessment, federal prisoners can
    earn time credits to reduce their sentences which can mean
    early release to a halfway house, home confinement, or early
    release to supervised release, all based upon the ability to
    rehabilitate and contribute to society.
        Although this Subcommittee has previously held two hearings
    that discuss the risk and needs assessment tools, now known as
    PATTERN, questions remain regarding the efficacy, validation,
    and implementation of the tools.
        First, we previously learned that PATTERN relies on dynamic
    and static factors, on factors which can never change such as
    criminal history and the community where a prisoner lived,
    before they were arrested. Knowing that communities of color
    are over policed, reliance on static factors could result in
    biases against people of color being baked into the application
    tool, as BOP adjusted the weight these factors are given in the
    assessment or otherwise accounted for the presence of this
    bias.
        I would venture to say that many of us on this Committee
    this morning may have known someone who, as we were growing up,
    we might have said they are in trouble all the time, but yet,
    we know them now as a contributing family man or woman, as a
    contributing citizen of the United States and as a loving
    person of their community. We know that rehabilitation can
    work.
        Second, as I understand that PATTERN may produce racially-
    disparate results in that the tool tends to over predict
    recidivism in people of color and under predict recidivism in
    others, as BOP adjusted the tool to account for over prediction
    and under prediction.
        Third, based on DOJ's 2021 review and revitalization of The
    First Step Act, risk assessment to Version 1.3 of PATTERN,
    which has not been approved yet by DOJ, addresses errors in the
    version that is currently being used by BOP. What does this
    mean for prisoners whose risk is being determined now for what
    is arguably a flawed tool of assessment?
        Last, it does not appear that BOP has made a good-faith
    effort to develop a needs assessment tool. BOP officials
    continue to use the same tools they have used for years such as
    a pre-sentence investigation report, a document that is
    prepared solely by U.S. probation and pre-trial service's
    officers for sentencing purposes.
        The Independent Review Committee pursuant to The First Step
    Act persists in the development of the risk and assessment
    needs tool, identified problems of BOP's approach to needs
    assessment in their report two years ago as BOP addressed the
    concern raised by the IRC. Does BOP plan to develop a needs
    assessment tool that goes further than the status quo?
        If The First Step Act is to be successful, we have a duty
    to make sure that the risk and needs assessment tool will
    produce reliable and unbiased results. We want to work with
    BOP, as Members of Congress, this Committee, the Full
    Committee, to ensure what is best for the safety and security
    of America and, of course, those who are incarcerated within
    the walls of BOP.
        I hope our panel can help us better understand the issues
    that remain in validating and developing the tool and offer
    suggestions to how we can make sure it works. In issuing a Rule
    last week concerning The First Step Act's earned time credit
    system, I was very pleased to see that DOJ heard the outcry of
    advocates, prisons, family Members, and several of the
    Subcommittee's Members, including Mr. Jeffries, in closing and
    choosing to do away with the proposed restrictive definition of
    a day of participation in calculating how prisoners would earn
    time credit.
        As a result of that simple clarification, thousands of
    prisoners should be released in the coming days and weeks which
    will reduce the number of prisoners in custody and reduce the
    risk of further spreading COVID-19 in the BOP facilities which
    at this time is raging and ravaging both those who are working
    there, as well as those who are incarcerated.
        Let me be very clear. This clarification does not pretend
    to release those who would be unsafe in the community. You
    still have to go through the normal processes, but it will give
    greater response to those who are working hard to rehabilitate
    inside the prison.
        To respond to the crisis of the impact of the pandemic on
    federal prisons, we included in The CARES Act an additional
    mechanism to allow BOP to release prisoners to home
    confinement, reduce the prison population, and reduce the
    number of COVID infections among prisons and staff. Although
    using overly restrictive criteria, BOP released thousands of
    prisoners under The CARES Act who reconnected with family,
    found employment, and have not re-offended. I am grateful for
    DOJ for reversing the past Administration's merciless opinion
    in deciding that most of those released will not have to return
    to custody when the pandemic ends. Yet, BOP still continues to
    stumble over those who are legitimately able to take advantage
    of the compassionate release and still are holding individuals,
    taxing their family, those who have committed nonviolence
    crimes, and who are sick. Many of those who are sick in the
    face of the COVID-19 breakout are still facing the lack of
    review and assessment of their eligibility for compassionate
    release.
        While BOP's ability to release prisoners was expanded under
    The CARES Act, BOP has long possessed the statutory authority
    through a request to provide early release of prisoners through
    compassionate release. Even in the early stages, they were
    counting those who were already being released to bolster up
    their numbers of those being released under COVID. Yet, even
    during the pandemic as thousands of prisoners testified
    positive for COVID-19, and others died, BOP failed to
    effectively utilize its authority. What seems to be divine
    foresight, we included a provision in The First Step Act that
    authorizes prisoners to request compassionate release
    themselves after meeting certain criteria. That seems to be
    receiving limited response.
        According to the Sentencing Commission, the first year of
    the pandemic, 96 percent of motions decided through December
    31, 2020, that were granted compassionate release were filed by
    the prisoner. Even as the pandemic worsened, that percentage
    remains the same. The Sentencing Commission released a more
    detailed report on compassionate release in September of last
    year that showed that just nine percent of motions granted were
    filed by the BOP Director.
        COVID-19 continues to run rampant throughout BOP
    facilities. On January 13th, there were 6,043 Federal prisoners
    and 939 BOP staff who tested positive for COVID-19. On January
    18th, there were 9,194 prisoners and 1,150 staff who tested
    positive for COVID-19 and 98 facilities at Level 3 of the
    modified operational level. From the time the pandemic began
    until now, BOP reports that 279 prisoners have died due to
    COVID, and 7 staff Members have died.
        I am certain that our Witnesses will let us know whether
    these numbers are correct. I hope they will also provide
    solutions for how they think we can reduce infection and
    protect prisoners and staff within BOP. BOP has operated under
    staff shortages for many years and the pandemic has only
    exacerbated staffing problems. That is something that I want
    this Committee going forward to focus on in assisting BOP and
    assisting of their staffing capabilities to be staffed up.
        The death of Jeffrey Epstein was in BOP custody almost 2\1/
    2\ years ago, attributed in part to staffing shortages. I look
    forward to the pending report from the Inspector General on the
    circumstances surrounding his death. I expect that the report
    will include recommendations to make all efforts to staff up
    throughout the Bureau.
        It is my hope that this hearing that we will take
    additional steps to ensure BOP carries out its mission to
    confine offenders in prison and community-based facilities that
    are safe, humane, cost efficient, and appropriately secure and
    that provide work and other self-improvement opportunity to
    assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens.
        It is now my pleasure to recognize the distinguished
    gentleman from Arizona, the Ranking Member of this Committee
    for his opening statement.
        Mr. Biggs, you are now recognized.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I particularly thank
    you for calling attention and reminding us of the grieving of
    our colleague and friend, Mr. McClintock of California, whose
    tragic loss of his wife came unexpectedly over the holidays and
    appreciate your thoughtfulness.
        This hearing today, we are focused largely on post-
    conviction sentencing and confinement. I welcome that
    discussion and there will be discussions about compassionate
    release, all for post-convicted individuals.
        There is also a concern regarding pre-trial detention and
    conditions in which defendants are held. Our constitutional
    rights, are they being protected? Is everyone receiving the due
    process regardless for the charge that they are pending trial,
    they are waiting conclusion, or the outcome of that case?
        On January 4th, I sent Chair Nadler a letter requesting a
    hearing on the treatment of the January 6th defendants while in
    custody at the D.C. Jail. I have yet to receive a response from
    the Chair.
        It is my position that the Judiciary Committee must
    investigate the horrific treatment of the January 6th
    defendants. Individuals being held at the D.C. Jail are being
    punished for exercising constitutional rights while in custody.
    For instance, them being held in solitary confinement for
    meeting with their attorneys. They are being forced to spend up
    to 23 hours a day in solitary confinement. This has received,
    actually, a bipartisan rebuke. Senator Elizabeth Warren told
    The Washington Examiner, and I quote ``I do not believe in
    solitary confinement for extended periods of time for anyone.''
        The ACLU has objected to the treatment of the January 6th
    defendants. Tammie Gregg, Deputy Director of the ACLU National
    Prison Project, told The Washington Examiner ``Prolonged
    solitary confinement is torture and certainly should not be
    used as a punitive tool to intimidate or extract cooperation.''
        However, it does not start or stop with solitary
    confinement. I appreciate the Chair's comments about healthcare
    in the prison system and what we have seen is that individuals
    that need healthcare in the D.C. prison have been defined that
    healthcare and I will mention that a little bit more in a
    minute.
        What is interesting about this pre-trial detention is that
    most of the individuals that are in this situation have had no
    contact with the criminal justice system previously. They don't
    pose a flight risk. They meet all Federal guidelines for pre-
    trial release but have been denied that release. They have been
    forced into rooms with human feces on the walls. One defendant
    was subjected to a strip search after meeting with his lawyer.
    When he asked for ``literature that authorized the strip
    search,'' the officers refused to answer. The officers then
    handcuffed that individual and put him a dark room with a chair
    and maced him.
        There are reports of defendants being denied medical care
    including one defendant who was denied treatment for non-
    Hodgkin's lymphoma. The treatment is so horrific that a Federal
    judge asked the Department of Justice to investigate the D.C.
    Jail for civil rights abuses saying ``It is clear to me the
    civil rights of the defendant were violated by the D.C.
    Department of Corrections.''
        The conditions in the jail were so horrendous that U.S.
    Marshals removed inmates from the jail, and they were quoted as
    stating that the facility did ``not meet the minimum standards
    of confinement as prescribed in the federal performance-based
    detention standards.''
        This is all being done to people who are innocent in the
    eyes of the law. They have yet to be convicted of a crime, but
    they are being treated as if they had been convicted of a
    crime. In fact, they are being treated worse than anybody who
    has been convicted of a crime should be treated.
        In America, we still adhere to the principle that you are
    innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, there have been
    people who have not allowed these injustices to go unreported
    and we have one of those individuals with us here today. Julie
    Kelly has brought to light the horrific treatment of the
    January 6th defendants by the D.C. Jail.
        I just highlight something else that the Chair said, and I
    appreciate her comments about compassionate release. Her
    comments focusing on compassionate release were directed to
    folks who have been convicted of a crime. When you meet the
    Federal guidelines for pretrial release, it is not
    compassionate. It is not due process. It is not fair or
    equitable to be confined in a prison, in a jail with the
    conditions that many of these January 6th defendants await the
    outcomes of their cases.
        I am glad that we have our Witnesses here today. I am glad
    we have an opportunity to put these issues on the table. Madam
    Chair, I thank you for the time, and I yield back to you.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Ranking Member, I thank you for
    putting these important issues on the table. Thank you.
        Now, it is my privilege, the Chair now recognizes the Chair
    of the Full Committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler,
    for his opening statement.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
    important hearing to discuss implementation of The First Step
    Act, and on-going efforts by the Bureau of Prisons to respond
    to the COVID-19 pandemic including its use of compassionate
    release.
        Let me join in an expression of condolences to our
    colleague, Mr. McClintock.
        Three years ago, we passed the ground-breaking piece of
    bipartisan legislation, The First Step Act of 2018, which truly
    was a step forward in our efforts to reform our criminal
    justice system. That law reforms in modest, but important ways,
    Federal criminal sentencing and various aspects of the Federal
    court system.
        These critical provisions are intended to improve Federal
    prison conditions, reduce the Federal prison population, and
    reduce recidivism among offenders released from BOP custody
    through evidence-based practices.
        Now, although COVID-19 certainly contributed to the delays,
    we should recognize that BOP was slow to implement this
    legislation long before the first inmate tested positive for
    COVID. I am pleased, however, that BOP and DOJ have now taken
    significant steps through the implementation of PATTERN, the
    risk and needs assessment tool used to determine inmates'
    eligibility to participate in recidivism-reducing programming
    which can help inmates earn credits toward early release.
        It has also completed an assessment of BOP inmates under
    this tool and a determination of how these credits will be
    calculated. The Biden Administration has also made important
    improvements to the implementation of The First Step Act in the
    past year. For example, just a few days ago, the Administration
    significantly revised how it will calculate the invaluable
    earned time credits using a much more reasonable and less
    restrictive formula than originally proposed. This new policy
    has the potential to lead through the release of thousands of
    inmates who are unlikely to re-offend.
        While I am heartened by this decision, many questions
    remain about whether the PATTERN tool, which shows so much
    power to determine an inmate's eligibility to receive earned
    time credits, has been sufficiently validated by independent
    experts. I look forward to hearing from our Witnesses on this
    important question.
        I also look forward to examining the BOP's troubling
    response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its inability to protect
    inmates and staff adequately. Since the pandemic began, more
    than 50,000 BOP inmates have been infected with COVID-19. This
    month, in just a five-day span, more than 3,000 more inmates in
    our Federal prison system tested positive and two more inmates
    died from complications due to COVID bringing the total number
    of inmate deaths from the virus to 279. The number of staff
    Members to die of COVID-19 remains at seven, although that
    seven is seven too many. These numbers are quite frightening,
    and we must do more to protect individuals in custody,
    individuals who are placed in our, particularly those of high
    risk to several COVID-19 complications, even if that means
    releasing them. Nobody deserves to die from this disease, and
    we have a duty to ensure basic protections for those in our
    custody.
        Unfortunately, in the years since the pandemic began, BOP
    has failed to make sufficient use of the authority granted to
    it under the CARES Act to place certain prisoners in home
    confinement earlier than previously permitted by statute,
    leaving many inmates unnecessarily at risk of illness or death.
        After the Trump Administration ordered that people released
    under the CARES Act will have to return to custody when the
    spread of COVID-19 has abated, I was pleased to see that
    Attorney General Garland wisely reversed this policy. Most of
    these individuals will now be allowed to remain out of custody
    and continue with the work of rebuilding their lives. This is a
    significant and appropriate change and I commend the Biden
    Administration for making this important move.
        Long before the pandemic, the CARES Act under The First
    Step Act, BOP already had the power to petition for the release
    of any Federal inmate if extraordinary and compelling reasons
    warrant or if an inmate met several criteria. Despite this
    broad authority called compassionate release, BOP has routinely
    chosen not to seek compassionate release of inmates. This is a
    wasted opportunity to deliver justice to people of low risk of
    recidivism and to the families and communities who would
    benefit from their return home.
        In light of the low recidivism rates among individuals
    released under the CARES Act and during the pandemic, I hope
    that BOP will begin to utilize compassionate release more
    often. I also hope that BOP will commit to improving the
    conditions at its facilities across the country. I am aware
    particularly of unacceptable conditions at the Metropolitan
    Detention Center in Brooklyn, conditions that long predate
    COVID-19. For example, a frigid cold spell in early 2019,
    detainees there had no heat or electricity, and BOP officials
    had no plan in place to assure inmate safety in case of a power
    outage and had no sense of urgency whatsoever to address the
    problem.
        I, along with other Members, including Mr. Jeffries and Ms.
    Velazquez, toured the facility to see firsthand the terrible
    conditions. At the onset of the pandemic, we continue to get
    reports about inadequate treatment of those detained at the
    MDC. We must do better. That is why I am pleased that Dr.
    Venters and Dr. Goodwin are here today to discuss their
    observations while conducting on-site inspections of BOP
    facilities. I expect that you both will have helpful
    recommendations for what we can do moving forward to improve
    the conditions at BOP facilities. To help inmates pass to
    treatment and programming and to protect the most vulnerable in
    custody.
        We are also fortunate to have other distinguished guests
    here to speak with us about some of the critical issues I have
    discussed, and I look forward to hearing from each of you.
        Madam Chair, before I yield back, I would like to take a
    brief moment of personal privilege to recognize Joe
    Graupensperger for his long and valued service at the House
    Judiciary Committee. Joe came to the Committee in 2009 to work
    on crime policy for then Chair John Conyers, Jr. He is today
    the Chief Counsel of our Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
    Homeland Security. In that span of service, Joe has drafted
    dozens of laws, run hundreds of hearings like this one, and
    without question, helped to improve the lives of millions of
    Americans.
        In particular, we should observe that Joe has played a role
    in every major criminal justice reform effort that has been
    signed into law in the past decade and a half including the
    Fair Sentencing Act and The First Step Act, as well as laws to
    address the rape-kit backlog, reform surveillance practice, and
    establish rights for survivors of sexual assault, among many
    others. In fact, under Joe's leadership, despite a divided
    Congress and a Republican President, more than a dozen bills
    under the Crime Subcommittee jurisdiction was signed into law
    last Congress alone. Several others have been signed into law
    this Congress as well.
        Today is Joe's last hearing as Chief Counsel. I want to
    congratulate him on his recent engagement and wish him well in
    his upcoming move to Texas. We will miss his leadership, his
    friendship, and his steadfast dedication to justice for all.
    Simply put, our country is better off because of Joe's work as
    a public servant.
        Thank you, Joe, for your service to the Committee and best
    of luck with this exciting next chapter. With that, I yield
    back.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, thank you so very much for your
    statement, but also for your kind words. Of course, I would be
    remiss if I also did not acknowledge the very invaluable and
    long standing, knowledgeable service of Chief Counsel Joe
    Graupen-sperger. He has given to the Judiciary Committee and,
    of course, to this Subcommittee years of experience having come
    from the Department of Justice.
        If I might say his calm demeanor was a guiding pulse in
    making sure that the Crime Subcommittee and his service to then
    Chair and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr., and of course, to
    you, Mr. Chair, was steady and constructive and helpful.
        You are right. He has been at the cornerstone of so much
    legislation that has helped millions and millions of Americans.
    I can think of legislation reducing gun violence, protecting
    the health and safety of those who are incarcerated, ensuring
    the need for access to counsel, and dealing with reducing
    domestic terrorism as well. This has been really a focus of
    this Committee and he has been at the center point of dealing
    with homeland security and reform of outdated drug laws. He has
    a passion for the law and a passion for service to the country
    and to this Committee and this Congress.
        I, too, would like to restrain him, but that I will not do
    because he is leaving because of a joyful moment in his life
    and that is an engagement to his wonderful now fiance and of
    course, the great opportunities for both of them.
        I want him to know that we are excited about his legacy and
    what he has done for this country through this Committee, but
    we are even more excited about his future. I want to
    congratulate you. I am glad we were able to have a Committee
    hearing that you had such a handprint on so that we could say
    congratulations to you. We will miss you, but we bid you adieu,
    my friend, and wish you the very best.
        I want to acknowledge the Ranking Member, Mr. Jordan. I
    thank him very much for his presence here today.
        It is now my pleasure to introduce today's Witnesses and
    again to thank them for their presence here and again to
    acknowledge the importance of their testimony.
        Gwen Levi was born and raised in Baltimore. As a mother of
    six, Levi lived a double life, serving as a PTA President and
    Model Cities representative, while also distributing cocaine
    and heroin. She is a cancer survivor, who in the 17th year of
    her 33-year prison sentence, was released to home confinement
    under the CARES Act, then returned to custody 13 months later
    due to a missed call from a halfway house. In July 2021, she
    was granted compassionate release under The First Step Act
    which resulted in a time served sentence.
        Dr. Homer Venters is a court-appointed prison and jail
    monitor and Adjunct Professor of New York University College of
    Global Public Health. He is a physician and epidemiologist,
    working at the intersection of incarceration, health, and human
    rights, specializing in prison health. He served on the Biden-
    Harris COVID-19 Health Equity Task Force and is a former Chief
    Medical Officer of Correctional Health Services at New York
    City Health and Hospital Corporation and author of Life and
    Death in Rikers Island. Dr. Venters received his medical
    doctorate from the University of Illinois-Urbana.
        Alison Guernsey is a Clinical Professor at the University
    of Iowa College of Law where she oversees the Federal Criminal
    Defense Clinic. She has also done extensive work on
    compassionate release, BOP's handling of COVID-19 and tracked
    deaths in BOP custody attributable to COVID-19. Ms. Guernsey is
    formerly an Assistant Federal Defender who served the United
    States District Court for the Eastern Districts of Washington
    and Idaho. She received her law degree from the University of
    Iowa College of Law where she was the Editor-in-Chief of the
    Iowa Law Review.
        Gretta Goodwin, Ph.D., is a Director of the Homeland
    Security and Justice Team at the U.S. Government Accountability
    Office where she leads GAO's work on justice and law
    enforcement issues. Her portfolio includes the Federal prison
    system, Federal law enforcement oversight and training, civil
    liberties and civil rights, vulnerable populations, and the
    Federal judiciary. During her 20-plus years at GAO, she also
    worked on issues related to Social Security reform, disability,
    worker protection, K-12, and higher education. Dr. Goodwin
    received her Ph.D. and Master's degree in Economics from the
    University of Nebraska at Lincoln and a Bachelor degree in
    Economics from the University of Houston.
        Julie Kelly is a political commentator and senior
    contributor at American Greatness. Ms. Kelly covers political
    and policy issues. She is an author and former political
    consultant for office holders and candidates in suburban
    Chicago. Her past work can be found at the Federalist and
    National Review, as well as guest editorials in the Wall Street
    Journal, Roll Call, and The Hill. Ms. Kelly is a 1990 graduate
    of Eastern Illinois University. She lives in Orland Park,
    Illinois with her husband and her two daughters.
        Melissa Hamilton, Ph.D., is a Senior Lecturer of Law in
    Criminal Justice at the University of Surrey, School of Law in
    the United Kingdom, who previously served as Visiting Criminal
    Law Fellow and Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at the
    University of Houston Law Center. Dr. Hamilton is a former
    police officer, former corrections officer, and former judicial
    clerk who is a member of the Task Force on Women and Community
    Corrections with the International Corrections and Prison
    Association. She previously served on the Risk Assessment Task
    Force with the National Association of Criminal Defense
    Lawyers. She received her Ph.D. in Criminology from the
    University of Texas at Austin and her J.D. from the University
    of Texas School of Law.
        I welcome all of you, welcome all our distinguished
    Witnesses. We are very grateful to them for their
    participation. It does not go unnoticed two Witnesses'
    connection to Texas and the University of Houston. It brings a
    great smile and of course, that means I have a smile for all
    the Witnesses.
        I will begin by swearing in our Witnesses. I ask our
    Witnesses to turn on their audio and make sure that I can see
    your faces and your raised hands while I administer the oath.
    Raised hands, raised right hands. Do you swear or affirm under
    penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is
    true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information,
    and belief so help you God? Witnesses need to show your
    affirmative.
        Thank you so very much. Please note that your Witnesses
    statements will be entered into the record in their entirety.
    Accordingly, I ask that you summarize your testimony in five
    minutes. To help you stay within that time frame, there is a
    time light on your screen. When the light switches from green
    to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. When
    the light turns red, it signals that your five minutes have
    expired.
        It is now a pleasure to recognize Ms. Levi for five
    minutes. Ms. Levi, you are recognized. Please unmute and begin
    your testimony. Thank you very much.

                         STATEMENT OF GWEN LEVI

        Ms. Levi. Good morning, Chair Jackson Lee, Ranking Member
    Biggs, and the Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Gwen
    Levi and I live in Baltimore, Maryland.
        In March 2020, when the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic
    hit, I was 16 years into my sentence for a nonviolent drug
    offense. I was 74 years old and had just survived a bout with
    lung cancer. Like so many other people in prison at the time, I
    was worried about the deadly virus spreading throughout the
    prison. There was no vaccine yet and being in prison made
    physical distancing and proper hygiene almost impossible.
        Fortunately, Congress did pass the CARES Act in March. The
    law included a provision that allowed the Federal Bureau of
    Prisons to send people to home confinement for long periods of
    time to save lives and to limit the spread of COVID-19.
    Attorney General Barr established a strict criterion for home
    confinement limiting it to people who served more than half
    their sentence, had a clean disciplinary record for the past
    year, had no history of violence, and had a minimum score on
    the PATTERN risk assessment, and were among those considered
    high risk for suffering complications from COVID-19.
        I met all those criteria, and I was approved for home
    confinement the day before my 75th birthday. It was a blessing
    to be able to return home to my family and my 94-year-old
    surviving mother which my incarceration was especially
    difficult for her.
        When I left prison, I was sitting with an ankle monitor
    that tracked my every move. I could not leave my house to go
    anywhere, even the grocery store without permission from my
    case manager at the halfway house. Doing a home confinement is
    much better than prison, but it is still worlds away from being
    free.
        When I got home, I began advocating for criminal justice
    reform, especially women, people of color, the elderly, and
    those without a lot of money, people just like me. I wanted to
    make a positive contribution to my community. I signed up for a
    full session computer class administered by the Maryland
    Justice Project which was being held in a building owned by the
    Baltimore Police Department. I didn't know the building was
    designed to prevent GPS monitoring as a security measure so the
    ankle monitor I was wearing lost its signal.
        While I was in the second class on June 12th, my phone was
    turned off. Apparently, the halfway house tried calling me for
    the radio pinged my ankle bracelet. I didn't hear either
    device. That afternoon, I was told I had committed an escape
    which the Bureau defined as being out of touch for four hours.
    I was told to pack a bag and return to the halfway house. While
    at the halfway house, I was questioned and told to sign a
    statement so that I could go home. My attorney asked to be
    present at that hearing when I was being questioned, but they
    refused her request. The day after I signed the statement, I
    wasn't sent home. Instead, the United States Marshals came to
    the halfway house and arrested me. They put me in the D.C. Jail
    on June 16th telling my attorney that they would expedite my
    return to a Federal corrections facility to complete my
    sentence.
        As awful as that was, I was luckier than most. My family,
    though devastated, they sprang into action, so did the
    organizations I had been working with. The media picked up the
    story and it struck a nerve with the public. Organizations like
    the National Council of Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls,
    FAM, organizations like Maryland Justice Project, these
    organizations would lobby to get me home. People across the
    country were outraged that during a pandemic, the BOP sent me,
    a 75-year-old cancer survivor to jail because I attended a
    computer class in the hope of finding a paying job.
        At that point, my request for a sentence reduction through
    compassionate release had been sitting in the court for more
    than a year. The Justice Department opposed my motion, just as
    they did nearly every motion for compassionate release that was
    filed. I was lucky this time. Thanks to the overwhelming
    support I received, my judge granted me compassionate release
    on July 6, 2021, reducing my sentence to time served. My long
    ordeal was almost finally over.
        My work to help others, however, goes on. I would like to
    share with the Subcommittee that there are things the
    Administration and Congress can do right now to help those in
    my position, people who are trying their best to make amends.
        First, President Biden could commute the sentences of
    everyone under CARES Act confinement to home confinement so
    that they can move forward with their lives.
        Second, as the latest COVID-19 variant makes its way
    through the prisons, the BOP and the Justice Department should
    use their authority to bring compassionate release motions on
    behalf of at-risk people.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Levi, your time is expired. If you
    could wrap up, I will let you finish. If you could wrap up.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Levi. Finally, we would like Congress to pass
    legislation establishing an Oversight Committee so that these
    things that we are addressing today at this Subcommittee
    hearing can be addressed.
        I thank you for allowing me to testify this morning and I
    look forward to answering your questions.
        [The statement of Ms. Levi follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much.
        Dr. Venters, you are now recognized for five minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF HOMER VENTERS

        Dr. Venters. Good morning, Chair Jackson Lee, Chair Nadler,
    Ranking Members Biggs and Jordan, and the Members of the
    Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present this
    testimony.
        My name is Homer Venters. I am a physician and
    epidemiologist who has spent the past two years performing over
    40 inspections of jails, prisons, and immigration detention
    facilities across the country to assess the adequacy of COVID-
    19 responses including Bureau of Prisons facilities.
        The BOP is at a crucial juncture regarding healthcare for
    detained people and I fear that many critical lessons from the
    COVID-19 pandemic may be ignored or left unaddressed. My
    greatest area of concern is that pre-existing deficiencies in
    the health services provided to people in BOP custody which
    contributed to the spread and lethality of COVID-19 remain
    unaddressed. We must replicate the strengths and address the
    deficiencies in how the agency has responded.
        My investigations have revealed a disturbing lack of access
    to care when a new medical problem is encountered. In the first
    BOP facility I inspected, the Metropolitan Detention Center in
    Brooklyn, New York, it quickly became apparent that not only
    were reports of COVID-19 symptoms being ignored, but that the
    sick call requests people filled out were being destroyed,
    leaving no trace of their original reports. Systemic issues
    like this meant that when COVID-19 arrived, incarcerated people
    relied on a broken system of sick call to seek care.
        Chronic care and behavioral health are two more areas where
    preexisting weaknesses in the BOP health services worsened the
    morbidity and mortality of COVID-19. One example is the take it
    or leave it approach to COVID-19 vaccination in BOP's large
    scale vaccination events. This approach may suffice for some,
    but for patients on multiple medications, with complicated
    health histories, and many questions, it simply does not
    suffice.
        The BOP needs to improve these areas of care, but the
    principles laid out in then Attorney General Barr's memo from
    early in the pandemic stand today. There is a compelling and
    unrealized rationale for release of high-risk patients who pose
    minimal public safety risks. This approach is even more
    important now to consider during the omicron outbreaks because
    of the tremendous lack of staffing inside facilities.
        There is one critical task that remains unaddressed
    regarding the BOP and COVID-19. We must have an independent
    assessment of all COVID-19 deaths including those that occurred
    in private facilities. In my work, I have encountered
    significant strengths and deficiencies in the BOP COVID-19
    responses. There is no doubt that many of these strengths saved
    lives and conversely, that many of these deficiencies led to
    preventable illness and death.
        To date, there has not been any systemic and independent
    review of deaths from COVID-19 in BOP custody, although a
    recent call for exactly this type of analysis was sent to the
    Inspector General of the DOJ. I strongly support this proposal,
    but it highlights a more fundamental problem for the BOP, the
    lack of independent assessment in how deaths are reviewed and
    more broadly, the lack of meaningful oversight by a health
    organization.
        Every other sector of healthcare in the United States has
    independent and professional health organizations reviewing the
    quality of care, but in the BOP and other carceral spaces, we
    leave those crucial assessments to law enforcement to review
    its own provision of health care. For the BOP to improve its
    overall health services and prepare for the next infectious
    disease outbreak, we must have an independent assessment of
    COVID-19 related deaths among people in BOP and Marshals
    custody. We also must create an independent health authority to
    oversee and report on all aspects of healthcare inside BOP
    facilities.
        The BOP faces an important choice in how they respond to
    COVID-19 and work to improve their health services. In
    community health settings, we do not allow a hospital or a
    clinic to be the arbiter of how well they were doing. Instead,
    we rely on external agencies and authorities with health
    expertise for this critical work.
        Currently, the BOP is left to make its own assessments
    about the quality and scope of its healthcare and only sporadic
    investigations by the Inspector General of the Department of
    Justice provide alternative viewpoints. This is wholly
    insufficient and leaves incarcerated people at a systemic
    disadvantage because the organizations and structures that
    measure and promote health for the rest of the nation--for the
    rest of us--are excluded from the care people receive in the
    BOP.
        The BOP has an opportunity to start addressing this unequal
    system of care and it must start with an honest assessment of
    COVID-19 deaths and partnership with the CDC and other true
    health organizations.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I
    am happy to take any questions.
        [The statement of Dr. Venters follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Jackson Lee. Dr. Venters, thank you so very much for
    your testimony.
        Now I would like to recognize Ms. Guernsey for five
    minutes. Thank you.

                      STATEMENT OF ALISON GUERNSEY

        Ms. Guernsey. Chair, Subcommittee Chair and Ranking
    Members, thank you for inviting me to testify here today for
    the more than 153,000 people currently incarcerated in federal
    facilities. The topics that the Committee is going to address
    today are literally a matter of life and death.
        My name is Alison Guernsey, and I am a Clinical Associate
    Professor at the University of Iowa College of Law where I
    direct the Federal Criminal Defense Clinic. My students and I
    represent indigent people who have been charged with Federal
    crimes or who are seeking sentencing reductions in various
    Federal Districts and Circuit Courts across the country. This
    includes motions for compassionate release and advocacy under
    the CARES Act.
        In addition to our direct representation, however, we spent
    the past 22 months attempting to monitor and track the COVID-19
    related deaths and infections in the Bureau of Prisons with an
    eye towards identifying the impact of the BOP's actions on the
    availability and use of compassionate release. Because of the
    people currently living in our prisons have been the driver
    behind our work, I want to start today by highlighting their
    real human toll COVID-19 has exacted.
        I want to tell you about Jaime Benevides. Mr. Benevides was
    a 49-year-old father and brother from Texas who died of COVID-
    19 while being housed at a medical facility in Springfield,
    Missouri. In March 2022, Mr. Benevides was sentenced for
    marijuana trafficking to 30 months. He had long-term pre-
    existing medical conditions that the CDC had listed as
    increasing his risk of severe COVID and even death. Not
    surprisingly, in December 2020, Mr. Benevides caught COVID. He
    started to get better until he didn't. In March of 2021, he was
    transported to the hospital and just days later he died.
        At the time of his death, Mr. Benevides had served 20
    months of his 30-month sentence. From the information we know,
    Mr. Benevides was a strong candidate for CARES Act home
    confinement. From what we know, he could have even had a shot
    at compassionate release. Although it is impossible tell from
    the Bureau of Prison's publicly-available data whether he
    applied for either, we know that he certainly did not get them.
        Mr. Benevides is one of thousands of people across the
    country in federal facilities who have caught COVID, some of
    them more than once. The deaths are close to 300 that have
    occurred since March 2020. As I highlight in detail my written
    remarks, having spent the past 22 months monitoring the BOP
    data and talking to advocates both inside and out of Federal
    prison, there is serious questions about the veracity of the
    BOP's infection and death data. Not only do these questions
    cast doubt on the BOP's handling of the pandemic, but they have
    real-world impact on the adjudication of compassionate release
    motions.
        First, the death rate. According to the currently available
    public data from the Bureau of Prisons, as of today, there are
    279 people who have died from COVID who were housed in Federal
    facilities. But this number is suspect for several reasons:
    First, delayed reporting; second, it doesn't include anyone who
    has died in a privately managed facility with a Federal
    contract; and third, it excludes people who are granted
    compassionate release just in time to die free.
        Second, the infection rate. The Bureau of Prisons has
    admitted that its cumulative infection rate doesn't include
    anyone who caught COVID and was then released from prison.
    Moreover, infection rate data is only as good as its testing.
    The BOP reports only one testing variable for incarcerated
    people, the number of people it tests. By recording the number
    of people it tests, as opposed to the number of tests
    administered, the BOP is able to hide whether a low-infection
    rate is due to low COVID prevalence or simply inadequate
    testing. As advocates and people who are incarcerated have
    reported day after day, their suspicion is the latter.
        The accuracy of the BOP's data matters. Federal courts rely
    on it routinely in granting compassionate release and if a
    judge misjudges the COVID risk based on inaccurate data, people
    that we know are medically vulnerable will be left in prison to
    die. We know the Bureau of Prisons is not bridging that gap. It
    has approved only 43 requests in 2020 and in the first part of
    2021 only 9.
        So, reduction is simple. What must we do? We should the BOP
    to report accurate and verifiable data. We should require them
    to do this for deaths and for infections. We should require the
    BOP to comply with the mandates already articulated in The
    First Step Act, that requiring them to report to this Committee
    in Congress what they are doing with respect to compassionate
    release procedures.
        I appreciate you taking the time to focus on some of the
    people who are the most vulnerable during the pandemic and I
    welcome your questions.
        [The statement of Ms. Guernsey follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Ms. Guernsey, for
    your statement.
        Now, Ms. Goodwin, it is my pleasure to recognize you for
    five minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF GRETTA L. GOODWIN

        Ms. Goodwin. Chair Jackson Lee, Ranking Member Biggs, Chair
    Nadler, and Ranking Member Jordan and the Members of this
    Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the
    recommendations we made to enhance BOP's COVID-19 response and
    BOP's efforts to address them and our on-going work on DOJ and
    BOP's implementation of certain provisions in The First Step
    Act.
        BOP is responsible not only for the supervision and custody
    of more than 157,000 Federal inmates, but also for their
    healthcare, safety, and rehabilitation. The COVID-19 pandemic
    has strained congregate living facilities such as prisons which
    are more vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks. As of
    yesterday, BOP attributed 279 inmate deaths and 7 staff member
    deaths to COVID-19.
        Our report examining BOP's COVID-19 response found that
    while BOP developed an updated guidance with input from the
    CDC, BOP staff reported confusion about how to implement the
    guidance. We recommended that BOP routinely evaluate how it
    communicates its guidance to facility staff and modify its
    approach to ensure protocols are clearly communicated. BOP has
    taken some actions such as surveying its staff on COVID-19
    guidance. We will continue to monitor BOP's efforts to review
    and assess staff feedback and to modify its COVID-19 guidance
    as needed.
        We also examined the process that BOP uses to identify and
    share best practices and lessons learned. To do this, BOP holds
    teleconferences among officials and inspects facilities.
    However, we found that the agency does not capture or share
    bureau-wide the lessons and best practices learned from these
    efforts. We recommended that BOP develop and implement an
    approach to capture and share best practices and lessons
    learned, as well as ensure that its facilities are applying
    this information to COVID-19 and future public health emergency
    response efforts.
        BOP continues to work on its approach to implementing these
    recommendations and we will continue to monitor its progress.
    Even as BOP has put COVID-19 protocols in place, it still has
    obligations to provide inmates with programs to advance their
    education and development. The First Step Act contains a number
    of requirements for BOP and DOJ related to assessing inmates'
    recidivism risk and the need for programs that target certain
    risk factors.
        DOJ has developed a risk assessment tool known as PATTERN
    which is designed to predict the likelihood of recidivism for
    all BOP inmates. BOP has begun to formalize and enhance its
    needs assessment system.
        BOP uses PATTERN risk scores, and inmates' needs
    assessments to determine the type and amount of evidence-based
    recidivism reduction programming that is appropriate for each
    Federal inmate. Eligible inmates who successfully participate
    in this programming or other productive activities may earn
    time credits that will allow them to be placed in pre-release
    custody or supervised release earlier than previously allowed.
        The First Step Act requires GAO to review the actions BOP
    and DOJ have taken to implement the risk and needs assessment
    system. Our ongoing work will analyze BOP data to determine if
    it is conducting risk and needs assessments with the frequency
    required by law. We will also examine inmates' participation in
    evidence-based recidivism reduction programming and productive
    activities, and we will examine BOP's process for applying time
    credits to reduce inmate sentences, and we will monitor BOP's
    new Rule implementing the Federal time credit program.
        Our prior work illustrates the importance of BOP
    effectively communicating its COVID-19 guidance to staff and
    ensuring that lessons learned from the pandemic are captured,
    shared, and applied. Our ongoing work on The First Step Act
    requirements is both timely and relevant in light of COVID-19.
        Chair Jackson Lee, Ranking Member Biggs, Chair Nadler,
    Ranking Member Jordan, and the Members of this Subcommittee,
    this concludes my remarks. I am happy to answer any questions
    you have.
        [The statement of Ms. Goodwin follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Ms. Goodwin, and
    thank you for your work.
        Ms. Kelly, I am very pleased to recognize you for five
    minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF JULIE KELLY

        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Chair Jackson Lee and Ranking Member
    Biggs, Chair Nadler, and Ranking Member Jordan. My name is
    Julie Kelly. I am a Senior Contributor for American Greatness.
    For nearly a year, I have reported on the inhumane conditions
    at the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility which has been set
    aside to detain Americans charged in the Justice Department's
    Capitol breach probe. The Justice Department has sought pre-
    trial detention for at least 100 January 6th protesters and
    right now more than 70 men are incarcerated at prisons across
    the country awaiting trial. At least 37 of those men are
    detained at the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility.
        It is important to underscore to the Committee and those
    watching that these defendants have not been convicted of any
    crime. Most have no criminal record, and some do not even face
    violent charges related to their conduct on January 6th. Many
    detainees don't even have a court date yet. They have been
    denied bail because prosecutors insist they are a threat to
    society based on their participation in the Capitol protest and
    Federal judges on the D.C. District Court have consented to the
    Justice Department's demands to keep them behind bars while at
    the same time repeatedly delaying their trials until the middle
    and end of this year.
        The original rationale for keeping the January 6th
    protesters separated from the general population incarcerated
    at the D.C. Department of Corrections was to protect them from
    more violent criminals. It appears, however, that the D.C. Jail
    for January 6th protesters is more of a political prison for
    Americans who protested Joe Biden's election.
        Detainees at the D.C. Jail have reported numerous human
    rights and constitutional violations. A detainee I spoke with
    this week, an Army Reservist charged with no violence crimes,
    who nonetheless has been in prison since his arrest one year
    ago, confirmed the January 6th jail is under 22-hour lockdown
    due to COVID. It is nearly impossible for detainees to meet
    with their attorneys or access the discovery evidence against
    them. Defense lawyers have complained that it takes months for
    their clients to finally receive digital discovery materials
    because jail officials are withholding the evidence.
        The viewing of video evidence, especially any clip produced
    from the roughly 14,000 hours of surveillance video captured by
    Capitol security cameras on January 6th at the Justice
    Department designated highly sensitive government material is
    under strict rules. It is nearly impossible for detainees to
    watch any relevant video concealed under protective orders.
        The situation is so egregious that the D.C. District Court
    banned the committee-to-committee to attempt to resolve the
    problem between defense attorneys and detainees accessing their
    evidence. Judge Randolph Moss blasted the D.C. Jail for
    withholding evidence from an accused defendant. ``I can't allow
    some to stay in prison for this long without access for
    material,'' Moss said back in July, calling the delays utterly
    unacceptable and not consistent with due process. Six months
    later, the situation does not appear to be improving.
        Living conditions are also utterly unacceptable. Detainees
    do not have access to religious service, a law library, or even
    personal hygiene services. They have not seen their family in
    nearly a year. Detainees have reported instances of racially
    and politically motivated verbal abuse. I am told the only
    newspaper distributed within the D.C. Jail for January 6th
    defendants is a paper published by the Nation of Islam.
        Just this week, Marvin Bickham, a Federal Detention Monitor
    for the U.S. Marshals Service detailed several issues at the
    D.C. Jail for January 6th detainees such as the presence of
    mold and maintenance of CPAP machines. They have been reported
    that detainees who refuse to get the COVID shot are denied
    shaving gear and haircuts. Detainees who refuse the vaccine
    cannot have personal visits. Regardless of vaccine status,
    January 6th detainees are only allowed out two hours a day for
    recreation time which means now they are spending 22 hours
    alone in a freezing, what I am told freezing, eight by ten
    cell.
        Again, these men have been convicted of no crime. They
    [inaudible] from detainees' lawyers and judges about lack of
    access to discovery material. Bickham wrote in his report, they
    are only allowed access to computers to review electronic
    discovery for only 14 days and there are not enough computers
    to go around. This is a clear violation of the 6th Amendment,
    yet Bickham still concluded that the conditions in the D.C.
    Jail for January 6th detainees are appropriate and consistent
    with Federal prisoner standards.
        I see my time is up. Thank you so much for inviting me here
    today. I look forward to answering any questions.
        [The statement of Ms. Kelly follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Kelly, we thank you. Ms. Hamilton, I
    now recognize you for five minutes. You are recognized.

                     STATEMENT OF MELISSA HAMILTON

        Ms. Hamilton. Thank you, esteemed Committee, for the
    opportunity to provide information about the current State of
    PATTERN which is the name of the risk-assessment tool developed
    under the auspices of The First Step Act.
        I will make six points. Transparency regarding PATTERN has
    waxed and waned. Notably, the most recent NIJ review and
    revalidation report of December 2021 provides a healthy amount
    of information. I refer to it here as the NIJ Report.
        The second point is that the version of PATTERN being used
    now for purposes of The First Step Act implementation is
    fundamentally flawed. The NIJ report reveals, for example, that
    two thirds of the risk factors were incorrectly weighted. Most
    factors were incorrectly defined and there were additional
    scoring errors. According to the NIJ report, due to these
    problems overall 11 percent of BOP population is placed in the
    wrong risk level.
        Third, the NIJ report offers a new version of PATTERN which
    corrects these errors and makes significant modifications
    otherwise. Nonetheless, this updated version will not be used
    in practice unless and until it is formally approved by the
    Attorney General himself. A time frame is not offered for that
    process.
        Consequently, there are over 14,000 prisoners in BOP
    custody with admittedly incorrect classifications. This impacts
    upon many of these individuals' ability to draw on the
    incentives that The First Step Act was meant to offer. The DOJ
    position is that nothing can be done until a new version is
    approved, the individuals reassessed, and then assigned new
    risk levels.
        Fourth, the NIJ report informs that PATTERN does not
    perform equally based on race and ethnicity.
        I do applaud the new NIJ consultants for helpfully
    providing multiple metrics on this.
        In sum, the tool over predicts which means unnecessarily
    classifying as a high risk the likelihood of any re-arrests
    specifically for African Americans, Asian Americans, and
    Hispanic Americans.
        Moreover, a recent DOJ publication revealed that a high-
    risk classification applies to over 50 percent of African
    Americans compared to 28 percent of race. Further, more work
    should be done toward ameliorating potential disparities.
        Fifth, sadly, NIJ report reveals that PATTERN operates with
    significant rates of error and that it disproportionately
    prefers false positives over false negatives. A false positive
    is the incorrect prediction of high risk when the individual
    remains crime free whereas false negative is the incorrect
    prediction of low risk. This means that a choice has been made
    to design the tool to perform far less accurately when
    designating persons of high risk which means placing too many
    individuals into the high-risk groupings than is necessary.
        This is a curious choice. As The First Step Act was
    designed, there is little danger to the public of incorrect
    predictions, and this does not lead to immediate release.
    Instead, the predictions relate to who is given more robust
    incentives to engage with rehabilitative programming. Thus, a
    policy directive could be to recalibrate patterns to reduce
    false positives which in turn would increase the number of
    individuals who are eligible to work toward earned time credit.
        Sixth, so far there has been no validation of the needs
    aspect of the broader system. The BOP is working to identify
    appropriate programs, but at this time, a significant divide
    exists between program availability and demand in many BOP
    facilities, resulting in sort of a lottery system whereby the
    luck of the draw in facility placement in some individuals will
    have greater access than others to earning time credit.
        In conclusion, I remain hopeful that there is a path for
    congressional intent to be realized with The First Step Act. On
    a risk guide, this will require continued effort to correct the
    current inaccurate rating and the brainstorm on ways to reduce
    racial disparities in the next version of PATTERN that must be
    offered to the Attorney General for approval.
        On the needs side of it, this means supplementing program
    availability and then conducting a validation of the needs
    component. Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Hamilton follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much for your testimony. I
    thank all of you for your opening statements. We will now
    proceed under the five-minute Rule with questions, and I will
    begin by recognizing myself for five minutes.
        Again, thanking all of you. Looking forward to the
    testimony of the Witnesses.
        Let me just briefly indicate that under compassionate
    release--the facts that have come to my attention--21,150
    motions were filed, 3,608 motions were granted, and so 6,957
    motions were denied.
        Ninty-six percent of the motions filed for compassionate
    relief were done by the prisons. That means the BOP was
    assessing no one, barely, and barely responding to the crisis
    of COVID-19.
        I'd like to explore that, first, with Ms. Guernsey and ask
    with the framework whether or not the legislation or the
    opportunity and the compassionate release was taken seriously
    during the height of COVID-19, which continues today.
        In your extensive work tracking compassionate relief and
    COVID-19 deaths in custody, have you noticed a trend where BOP
    has attributed an inmate's death to the very illness on which
    the inmate relied to request compassionate relief?
        If so, could you elaborate and tell us how frequently
    you've seen this happen and can you talk about whether or not
    there's been an active review of those with COVID-19 or maybe
    vulnerable to COVID-19 and the BOP assessing them and providing
    them with compassionate release?
        Ms. Guernsey?
        Ms. Guernsey. Thank you. I think that one of the things to
    make very clear at the outset is that, oftentimes--in fact, in
    almost every case--where an individual has died while seeking
    compassionate release, if you pull up the motions that they
    filed with federal court you will see that the prosecutors
    oftentimes argue--in almost all cases, in fact--that the
    conditions that the person suffers from aren't the type of
    conditions that would arise to the level of an extraordinary
    and compelling reason for a sentence reduction.
        Oftentimes, they rely on the medical records that the
    Bureau of Prisons has provided, and they oftentimes argued in
    front of the district courts that the Bureau of Prisons was
    providing adequate medical care.
        What is so striking about that position from the Department
    of Justice is that as soon as somebody ended up dying while
    they were seeking compassionate release or dying from COVID,
    generally, in prison, the Bureau of Prisons would immediately
    or sometimes, in a delayed sense, issue a press release and
    those press releases would always say as a justification for
    the death that the person suffered from conditions--chronic
    conditions--that the CDC had listed as making them more likely
    to be vulnerable to severe illness or death.
        So, the doublespeak coming out of the Department of Justice
    is quite striking. You have prosecutors arguing in court that
    the Bureau of Prisons is just fine, and you have the Bureau of
    Prisons stating in press releases after the death happens
    nothing to see here--in fact, this person was already ill.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Thank you so very much.
        Ms. Goodwin, would you explain what GAO found regarding
    staffing issues in the BOP facilities and how these issues are
    related to BOP's response to COVID-19 and its ability to
    provide services and programming and care to inmates?
        My time is running short. If you can give me a quick
    answer, I would greatly appreciate it.
        Ms. Goodwin. Okay. Thank you, Congresswoman. So, when we
    did the report looking at BOP staffing we found that BOP faced
    a number of challenges and they were very constrained with
    their staffing and one of the effects of that is the delivery
    of services.
        Like, some of the folks who were in prison weren't able to
    participate in various services or programming because the
    staff weren't available.
        Some of the other issues or concerns there would be, was
    having the appropriate number of staff to actually provide
    whatever kind of service that the inmates would need.
        So, as you move forward from that BOP staffing report and
    you look at, now, in this COVID-19 environment you have fewer
    staff to assist with the inmates and the fewer staff, maybe
    because of staffing issues or maybe because the staff have
    become infected with the virus themselves, you just have so
    fewer people to manage and address any of the challenges or
    services that the inmates need.
        So, it's kind of like a round--a loop.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Thank you so very much.
        Dr. Hamilton, I'm disturbed by the disparities of risk
    assessment. Would you provide just a brief response on how that
    impacts justice when there's a bias of where inmates may have
    come from, bias on race, gender, and otherwise?
        Ms. Hamilton. So, bias infects the system. So, often people
    assume that an algorithm cannot be biased. If it's based on
    biased data, then the algorithm becomes biased and then it
    produces biased results such as an over prediction and in turn
    then that encourages, unfortunately, people to believe that
    these are dangerous individuals when it may simply be based on
    bias.
        Then, real briefly, there something can be done and the NIJ
    consultants are aware of the discussions in the broader
    community about how to reduce biases in these types of
    algorithms.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
        I recognize Mr. Biggs for his questioning.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank all the
    Witnesses for their testimony. I feel like we have received
    important information already today and I appreciate your
    testimony and, hopefully, I think we'll get an opportunity to
    comment on that later.
        I hope, Madam Chair, as we do a follow-up--no doubt do a
    follow-up hearing on what we learned today that we'd bring in
    Bureau of Prison personnel and so that we might be able to
    question them as well. I think that would be important.
        Ms. Kelly, thank you for being here today.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Biggs, I don't want to interrupt you,
    but you are absolutely right, and we will be having the very
    next hearing in a few next days on that very point.
        Thank you so very much. I just wanted to answer you
    immediately.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
        Ms. Kelly, as I mentioned during my opening statement, some
    of the January 6th defendants have been held in solitary
    confinement for extended periods of time.
        What have you heard from detainees and their families or
    lawyers about how these men are coping with incarceration
    conditions that, simply, are not permissible in the United
    States?
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Ranking Member Biggs, for that
    question and for inviting me.
        It's, as you can imagine, extremely difficult. They were in
    solitary confinement conditions for the first several months of
    their incarceration, based on the pandemic, and then those
    conditions were loosened up a little bit.
        Now they are back to 22 hours in their cell with only two
    hours out. That only gives them time to--that's all the time
    that they have to try to communicate with their family, their
    lawyers, to see the discovery evidence against them.
        As I said, some of these men are not charged with any
    violent crime, and at the same time that COVID is impacting
    what's happening at the D.C. Jail for January 6th defendants,
    their trial dates now are getting pushed further out.
        For instance, I covered a hearing this week for Robert
    Gieswein. He has been incarcerated for over a year, not
    convicted of any crime, of course. He he will be in COVID
    isolation for 30 days based on the testing that's going on
    there.
        Even if someone tests positive in his unit--he was in 14
    days isolation, came out, someone else tested positive. He's
    now in another 14 days. His trial was set to begin the end of
    February. Judge Sullivan just moved it to the end of April,
    now. So, he will be in jail almost 18 months before he even has
    a chance to defend himself in a court of law.
        Mr. Biggs. So, Ms. Kelly, you mentioned Mr. Bickman going
    and investigating and coming up and determining that this kind
    of isolated treatment is appropriate for the January 6th
    detainees.
        My question for you is, is this treatment that they're
    receiving consistent of all Federal prisoners who are in
    pretrial detention?
        Ms. Kelly. That I don't know. That would be a great
    question. Maybe some of the other Witnesses have an answer for
    that.
        The idea that now they've been returned to what now is
    confirmed--I heard this from family Members and detainees over
    the past week or so--but now that it's been confirmed by U.S.
    Marshals, I don't know if that's the situation for all 130 some
    odd Federal detainees, not including the ones who are just
    there under pretrial detention.
        I just don't have an answer for that. My assumption is that
    no, this is not the situation for other pretrial detainees in
    the Federal system right now.
        Mr. Biggs. In October, Judge Royce Lamberth found the
    director of the D.C. Department of Corrections and the D.C.
    Jail warden in contempt of court for repeatedly refusing to
    turn over the medical records related to the care of
    Christopher Worrell, a former January 6th detainee who suffers
    from non-Hodgkins lymphoma. What happened in that case and
    what's the status now?
        Ms. Kelly. So, Judge Lamberth repeatedly asked for the
    medical records related to Christopher Worrell, who does suffer
    from non-Hodgkins lymphoma. His case worsened while he was in
    the D.C. Jail.
        He was denied medical care. He also broke his hand and was
    not getting attention for that. So, his medical condition
    worsened. Finally, a doctor decided that he needed weekly
    chemotherapy--intensive chemo and radiation every week, and
    Judge Lamberth had enough, finally.
        Now, Judge Lamberth has signed-off on many of these
    pretrial detention orders, but because he was not getting the
    documents that he requested in October, he cited both of them
    for Contempt of Court.
        He also referred this case to DOJ for civil rights
    violations. I have no update on that. Then Mr. Worrell was
    finally moved out of the D.C. Jail so he could get the care
    that he needed. I still don't think he has a trial date yet
    either.
        Mr. Biggs. Who's Kathleen Landerkin?
        Ms. Kelly. She was the Deputy Warden for the D.C. Jail. I
    believe she is still there. As you know, Representative Biggs,
    there were several Republican House Members who signed a letter
    demanding her resignation after social media posts showed
    extreme political bias against former President Trump and Trump
    supporters.
        It was racially biased. It was politically biased,
    religiously biased. As soon as her posts were exposed to the
    public, she deleted her Twitter account that showed exactly who
    she was and her views of the people under her care.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Thank you. My time has expired.
        Madam Chair, I would like to submit screen shots of Ms.
    Landerkin's social media depicting what Ms. Kelly has just
    stated.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

                            MR. BIGGS FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
        Mr. Biggs. I yield to you. Thank you.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you to the Ranking Member.
        It's now my privilege to recognize the gentleman from New
    York, the distinguished Chair of the Full Committee, Mr.
    Nadler.
        Chair Nadler. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
        Dr. Venters, you bring deep experience in evaluating not
    just individual provisions of medical care in correctional
    facilities but also managing and evaluating systemic issues
    from your role at Rikers Island.
        I know you visited the Brooklyn MDC during the first large
    COVID outbreak in 2020, spoke directly to a number of
    incarcerated people and also evaluated the adequacy of medical
    care there. Was there anything about MDC's medical response to
    COVID that stood out to you as more concerning than what you
    saw at the BOP nationwide?
        Mr. Venters. I think two of the things I was especially
    concerned about were the approach of just letting the virus run
    rampant--locking people in small spaces and letting the virus
    run through housing areas with little or even no care, and the
    other was that when people were reporting problems through sick
    call slips, until we started looking into this the practice in
    the facility was to throw those slips out.
        If a person never got seen, there was no actual record of
    what they had experienced and that was especially shocking to
    me. I really hadn't encountered that previously in my work in
    correctional health.
        Chair Nadler. I gather this is totally contrary to be BOP
    policy?
        Mr. Venters. Yes. I, certainly, have looked at how sick
    call is approached during the COVID pandemics because there's
    only a few ways people can get care when they get sick with
    COVID. So, it's a special area of scrutiny for me everywhere I
    go.
        Chair Nadler. Do you have a sense of how MDC Brooklyn is
    dealing with medical care today as it faces among the highest
    positivity rates for COVID-19 among detainees of any BOP
    facility in the country, and did they seem to learn anything
    from the initial outbreak?
        Mr. Venters. Well, I haven't been back in the facility, I
    should say. I think my concern now is that, like a lot of
    facilities, there's a huge number of cases happening very
    quickly but that there is still not a system to find and keep a
    special eye on high-risk people--people with special-risk
    factors--because while we all think of Omicron as being
    potentially less deadly, overall, we know who are the people
    that are most likely to die.
        It's really important, as staff gets sick themselves and
    there's less work that can be done, to keep a special eye on
    high-risk people, both to check on them every day for symptoms
    but also to aggressively push for potential release when they
    meet the public safety criteria.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you.
        Professor Guernsey, can you explain the discrepancy between
    your reported number of deaths and BOP's reported number of
    deaths?
        Ms. Guernsey. I'll attempt to do so with the information
    that's publicly available, but it's really quite difficult.
        The Bureau of Prisons is reporting 279 deaths. We know for
    a fact that this number doesn't include the 18 people whose
    names we learned through a Freedom of Information Act request
    who were incarcerated in private facilities that had a Federal
    contract.
        The other problem is that the Bureau of Prisons is,
    frankly, removing numbers from its website, particularly the
    numbers with respect to these privately managed facilities.
        The other issue that we're having is that the reporting of
    deaths appears to be quite substantially delayed. Of the people
    who I can track, which is very few--it's only 276 out of the
    potential 297--several of them--more than a dozen died and the
    Bureau of Prisons did not report their deaths within six
    months.
        Frankly, there were two that it took a year for the Bureau
    of Prisons to report.
        The other issue is that the Bureau of Prisons and, frankly,
    Federal courts are granting compassionate release when people
    are on their death beds and so they will, literally, be
    released so that they don't die in chains, and those numbers
    are never attributed to the total death count at the Bureau of
    Prisons.
        Chair Nadler. So, BOP's policy seems to be downright
    dishonest is what you're really saying?
        Ms. Guernsey. I can't speak for the motivation behind the
    Bureau of Prisons. I can tell you that the data indicates that
    there are substantially more deaths than they are reporting,
    and that's just limited data. I still have two Freedom of
    Information Act requests outstanding so it's difficult to do a
    comparison.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you. My last question is how has BOP-
    reported information to family Members of individuals who died
    in custody differed from the information you received from BOP
    through Freedom of Information Act requests, and do you believe
    the BOP is withholding information from families of individuals
    who die in custody?
        Ms. Guernsey. So, I've attempted to reach out to a lot of
    family Members, and I've been quite surprised at how many say,
    I had no idea that my family member, in fact, died from COVID.
    I can think of two families off the top of my head that were
    given information that their loved one died from a pre-existing
    condition when, in fact, the FOIA that I received indicated the
    death was the result of COVID-19.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you. I yield back.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chair very much for his
    questioning.
        Now, I'd like to recognize--pleased to recognize the
    gentlelady from California, Ms. Bass, for five minutes.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Jackson Lee. We'll come back to her. We'll come back to
    her. At this time, it's pleasing as well to recognize the
    gentlelady from Florida and that is Ms. Demings for five
    minutes.
        Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and for
    holding this very important hearing, and thank you to all our
    Witnesses for joining us today.
        There is no doubt the testimony we have heard about the
    operation of the Federal Bureau of Prisons is troubling. I did
    my internship--yeah, it was a lot of years ago, but I did my
    internship in a Federal correctional institution.
        There were challenges then and it is apparent today, based
    on our Witnesses' testimony, that we still have a lot of work
    to do.
        We have heard testimony that describes the poor conditions.
    My colleague, Mr. Biggs, talked about the filth that is just
    unimaginable. We have heard about inadequate medical care and
    attention, a failure to properly administer authorities granted
    by Congress.
        Yes, we can hold people accountable, but we know that we
    can also treat them with dignity. I'm glad we're having this
    hearing to confront these important issues and I hope we're
    able to have someone--we have already heard it but, let me just
    say it again--I hope that we're able to have someone from the
    Bureau of Prisons before us soon to continue the conversation.
        Chair Jackson Lee, thank you for your commitment there.
        Ms. Goodwin, you testified that the GAO's work has shown
    that BOP's deficiencies can, generally, be categorized into
    three themes, one of which is inadequate management of staff
    and resources.
        Ms. Goodwin, could you just please expand a bit on that and
    show how BOP's deficiencies in their management style, if you
    will, contribute to other issues identified by your office?
        Ms. Goodwin. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
        GAO, every two years, does what we call the high-risk list
    where we note the agencies that we think are at risk for issues
    around fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement of resources.
        So, this past high-risk list GAO listed the management of
    the Federal prison system as an emerging issue because we were
    concerned about those three themes, particularly, the first one
    being management of resources and the number of times the
    leadership has changed over.
        When that happens, that affects everything else in the
    agency. It affects the staffing. When we did the report looking
    at BOP staffing, and to circle back to the question I got from
    the Chair earlier, if you don't have the appropriate staff, you
    can't get the appropriate programs to the inmates.
        Then if you're short staffed, here comes COVID, and if
    staff are going out because of COVID that's fewer and fewer
    staff that you have to just provide services to the people who
    are incarcerated.
        Another reason we have listed BOP as an issue--as an
    emerging issue on the high-risk list is just the management of
    resources. When we did the staffing report, just getting
    information about how BOP was conducting augmentation or
    information about how they were providing overtime and how that
    was being done across the number of staff that they had it was
    problematic.
        The agency has faced some fairly severe staffing challenges
    before COVID, and then once COVID hit, those challenges were
    only exacerbated.
        So, we will continue to review everything that's happening
    at the agency, and we'll see if they're an emerging issue now,
    and we will make decisions about whether they become placed on
    the high-risk list later on.
        One of the things we're looking at is how they're going to
    be implementing the First Step Act. Those requirements,
    particularly the needs and risk assessment, that's ongoing work
    we have right now. So, that will help feed into our
    determination as to whether they end up on the high-risk list.
        Ms. Demings. Ms. Goodwin, you also talked about inadequate
    planning for new programs and initiatives that help inmates
    prepare for a successful return back into our community. Can
    you also expand a little bit on that and what needs to be done
    there in your recommendation to improve the planning for future
    success?
        Ms. Goodwin. Yes.
        The couple things that we looked at there, when BOP would
    pilot new programs, just paying attention and keeping the data
    on the effectiveness of those programs to see if it's something
    that they could put up on a larger scale and provide throughout
    the agency.
        Just lessons learned from all that we found that the agency
    wasn't adequately capturing that. So, at times, they might be
    duplicating efforts, or they might just not be getting the
    cost--paying attention to the cost benefits or cost
    effectiveness of the efforts that they had ongoing.
        So, you do something one year and then maybe 10-15 years
    later you might try something again. Did you learn from what
    didn't work the first time?
        Ms. Demings. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I'm out of time. I
    just want to say very quickly, Madam Chair, Ms. Levi, thank you
    so much. I didn't get to my question to you but thank you so
    much for sharing your story. It is most helpful for this
    Committee.
        Madam Chair, I do yield back.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady yields. Thank you so very
    much.
        Mr. Chabot, let me yield to you for five minutes and thank
    you for accepting my apology.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Chabot. No problem.
        Madam Chair, the conditions of inmates at prisons are
    important. No question about that. Before there was an
    incarceration, a crime was committed.
        Back in the summer of 2020 following the horrific death of
    George Floyd, many protesters and elected officials, mostly
    Democrats, across the country proclaimed that because Mr. Floyd
    had died at the hands of a police officer it was time to defund
    the police.
        In cities across America we did, indeed, see that
    defunding, and we have seen the Federal prosecutor, again,
    overwhelmingly Democratic--liberal prosecutors--deciding that
    they no longer prosecute so-called low-level offenses, like
    shoplifting which, for example, resulted in mobs with
    sledgehammers rampaging through department stores.
        We have also seen the left's relentless campaign to
    eliminate cash bail. Criminals commit crimes, they're quickly
    released on low or no bail, and they go out and commit more
    crimes.
        It's even gotten too much for, of all people, Governor
    Newsom in California. Apparently, thieves have been raiding
    cargo containers on trains near downtown L.A. for months. For
    months.
        Thousands of empty cardboard boxes were strewn [inaudible]
    after they'd been plundered. Newsom said it looked like a third
    world country. No wonder we have a supply-chain problem.
        Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it
    comes to the level of crime in America, particularly in cities.
        Madam Chair, I urge the majority to invite the Attorney
    General and the FBI to testify--the Director of the FBI to
    testify before this Committee to discuss their strategy for
    combating the current spike of violence and crime in this
    nation.
        Now, I'd like to direct a question to Ms. Kelly. As a
    result of the Antifa and BLM-led marches, which, in many cases,
    led to riots and violence, there was an effort by the left,
    including some Democrats in Congress, to defund the police.
        Because most major cities across the country are controlled
    overwhelmingly by Democrats, many police departments were,
    indeed, defunded.
        For example, Portland, Oregon, $16 million cut; Baltimore,
    $23 million; Philadelphia, $33 million; San Francisco, $120
    million; Austin, Texas, and L.A., $150 million; and New York
    City cut its police department by a billion dollars.
        My question is, do you believe that this defunding of
    police has contributed to the increased crime rates that we're
    seeing currently?
        Ms. Kelly. This question is to me?
        Mr. Chabot. Yes. Ms. Kelly.
        Ms. Kelly. Oh, yes. Well, I assume so. I'm not an expert
    specifically on that.
        I will say that people who I hear from, based on my work,
    the disparity in the treatment between Capitol protesters and
    those who rioted and did far more destruction to the country,
    responsible for $2 billion worth of damages, thousands--
    hundreds or thousands of police officers attacked and
    assaulted, and nearly two dozen deaths related to what happened
    in the summer of 2020, what I hear mostly from Americans is
    outrage over this disparity between the treatment of those
    rioters, activists, whatever you want to call them, and what
    happened for four hours at the Capitol, the DOJ and FBI
    rounding up people every single week, mostly on misdemeanors,
    but nonetheless, treating them as domestic terrorists while we
    have so many of the offenders from 2020 who have not been
    charged anywhere close to what these people have been.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Just to follow up, I would also note
    that during the course of those riots that I mentioned earlier
    there were approximately 2,000 police officers who were
    injured, some severely, and, unfortunately, some died.
        I'd also note that one of the things that my Democratic
    colleagues in Congress wanted to do was to take away their
    qualified immunity, which would, basically, allow people to sue
    police officers in their personal capacity, in which case their
    pension funds, their home, their college funds for their kids,
    could all be at risk of greedy trial lawyers.
        What sane person is going to want to go into policing if
    you're actually going against their personal assets?
        It's no wonder that we've seen morale decline to a
    considerable degree, less proactive policing in some
    communities across the country, and the resulting rise in crime
    rates.
        Whereas this is a very important topic, Madam Chair, that
    we're discussing today, we ought to be discussing that crime
    and the dramatic impact it's having on the quality of life in
    this Nation across the country.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chabot, let me thank you. I would be
    remiss if I did not remind our Committee that we know that
    through the January 6th investigation there are several Members
    in this Congress that they are concerned about.
        They are contributing to the incidents that occurred, and I
    think as we look at the video, we saw many people that were not
    those that you refer to, Mr. Chabot, who were beating police
    officers, to my horror and outrage.
        We need to look at these issues globally and recognize that
    the facts are important when we're in this Committee as well.
        Let me indicate that we think Ms. Bass has come online and
    I'm pleased to yield to her five minutes at this time.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize for having
    technical difficulties on my end, but I appreciate your
    leadership for holding this hearing today.
        I wanted to ask the Witnesses, many communities around the
    country have been experiencing an uptick in crime and some
    people are concerned that maybe that uptick is due to early
    release programs because of the pandemic, and I wanted to know
    if there is any data about what is happening to the people who
    were released.
        Have they gone out and engaged in new crimes and have they
    been reincarcerated, as opposed to what the Witness described
    earlier, which was technical, because of the problem with her
    ankle bracelet?
        I wanted to know about people who have been released
    because of the pandemic and if there is evidence,
    documentation, that they have gotten out and been involved in
    crimes--also, people who were released not just because of the
    pandemic but because of compassionate release.
        Dr. Goodwin, if you could respond.
        Ms. Goodwin. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
        GAO hasn't looked at that issue, yet. It's something that
    we can, certainly, work with your office if it's something you
    want GAO to investigate. We don't have a lot of information on
    that right now.
        Ms. Bass. Can any of the other Witnesses speak to that?
        Ms. Guernsey. If I may.
        Ms. Bass. Yes.
        Ms. Guernsey. I know that in the December 21, 2021, an
    Attorney General memorandum that reversed the decision that
    individuals on home confinement had to be sent back to prison,
    the Attorney General cites a very specific number of people who
    have been on CARES Act home confinement who were returned to
    prison, and that number is 289.
        Thinking about the fact that there were 36,000 people
    placed on home confinement, 289 is a very small number to have
    returned.
        It's my understanding that the Bureau of Prisons, in fact,
    has the data that breaks that down even further into people who
    were returned for technical violations and people who were
    returned for new crimes, and it's my understanding that the
    people who were returned for new crimes is relatively small. I
    mean, we're talking less than 10 people.
        In terms of the compassionate release data, I do not have
    that.
        Ms. Bass. So, 289--you cannot distinguish whether those
    were new crimes or just technical?
        Ms. Guernsey. There is no public data that indicates
    whether they were new crimes or technical. I do know that there
    was something published in April of 2021. A gentleman named
    Ames Grawert from the Brennan Center of Justice indicated that
    there were three who had been returned as of April 2021 for new
    crimes.
        Again, the Bureau of Prisons has that data. It cited that
    data in a memo that it submitted to the Attorney General's
    office and I would urge this Committee to ask for that data
    from the Bureau of Prisons.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Dr. Venters?
        Mr. Venters. I don't have any information on that question.
    I apologize.
        Ms. Bass. Okay. All right. I appreciate that.
        The Witness that described being violated because of the
    technical problem with the ankle bracelet, I wanted to know if
    you could elaborate a little more.
        When it was discovered that it was a technical problem, was
    there any consideration given to that at all?
        Ms. Levi. What happened is that my attorney brought in
    evidence to show that I had been attending a class that I had
    previously attended, and it was acknowledged that I had
    attended that class before. My case manager at the halfway
    house did not follow through, I believe, and it was--
        Ms. Bass. Didn't you say that--didn't you say that it
    wasn't just a matter of you attending class but that your ankle
    bracelet didn't work?
        Ms. Levi. Yes, and several times my ankle bracelet didn't
    work and that's happening to the thousands of people who are
    out. Your ankle bracelet will ping when you're in different
    places. Your ankle bracelet will ping when you're home.
    Sometimes when you're being called there are people who will
    speak a foreign language that you can hardly understand who
    will call you.
        Ms. Bass. What is your situation today?
        Ms. Levi. My situation today is that I am on--been released
    on compassionate release by my judge as a result of the fine
    that was given out by me being reincarcerated.
        Again, I say the people who are on compassionate release
    are out right now attempting to do just what I did, try to
    gather their self-back together, try to reunite themselves with
    their families.
        They're taking classes. They're buying homes. They're going
    back to school. They're doing all these things, and that
    threat, thankfully, was just removed from over their heads by
    Judge Garland.
        We really appreciate that. There's so much that can be done
    towards giving these people compassionate release because not
    just technicalities--most people are not committing new crimes,
    as the lady said before. The level of new crimes being
    committed by people on compassionate release is almost minute,
    10--less than 20 people, probably, out of thousands of people.
        Ms. Bass. Well, I do wish you success in the future. Thank
    you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady's time has expired. Thank
    you for your questioning.
        Now, I'm pleased to yield five minutes to Mr. Steube. You
    are recognized.
        Mr. Steube. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        We've heard a lot today from Witnesses about the Bureau of
    Prisons. I do hope that--unfortunately, we don't have a Witness
    from them today. I do hope the Chair is committed to bringing
    somebody in so we can ask some of these questions on both
    sides. I think we both have questions that we want answered.
        We have heard a lot today about Democrats wanting to let
    folks out of prison in the middle of the biggest crime wave in
    decades. They also don't want to let out people who have been
    charged with misdemeanors who are languishing in prison for
    January 6th.
        I want to read and quote from the District judge his exact
    quote, and I quote, ``For the reasons stated in open court, it
    is adjudged that the warden of the D.C. Jail, Wanda Patten, and
    director of the D.C. Department of Corrections, Quincy Booth,
    are in civil contempt of court,'' U.S. District Judge Royce
    Lamberth of Washington ruled.

            ``The clerk of the court is ordered to transmit a copy of this
            order to the Attorney General of the United States for
            appropriate inquiry into potential civil rights violations of
            January 6th defendants as exemplified in this case.''

        Now, we haven't heard from DOJ as to whether they're
    actually doing that or not. I would love for another
    opportunity to question AG Garland in the Full Committee about
    that.
        He goes on, ``I find that the civil rights of the defendant
    have been abused,'' Lamberth said at a hearing:

            ``I don't know if it's because he's a January 6th defendant or
            not, but I find this matter should be referred to the Attorney
            General of the United States for a civil rights investigation
            into whether the D.C. Department of Corrections is violating
            the civil rights of January 6th defendants in this and maybe
            other cases.''

        I ask unanimous consent, Chair, to enter into the record
    Fox News article, ``Federal Judge Finds D.C. Jail Warden in
    Contempt.''
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

                           MR. STEUBE FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Steube. Thank you.
        Ms. Kelly, my questions are for you. Even January 6th
    suspects who were accused of minor crimes, ones simply charged
    with trespassing or parading, are the targets of hyperbolic
    statements and smears by Merrick Garland's propaganda press
    team.
        Can you speak to some examples of this? Just recently, in
    Florida I read of an individual who simply walked into the
    Capitol, was not violent, didn't commit any other crimes than
    walking in, gets a year of probation, has to deal with house
    arrest and all these other things, which, if it was reversed,
    like the Department of Interior, we have heard nothing of those
    who raided the Department of Interior, questions I asked AG
    Garland the last time he was before the Committee.
        Could you expand on that?
        Ms. Kelly. Yes. Thank you so much, Representative. It's
    important to note that the most often used charge for Capitol
    protesters is a Class B misdemeanor called parading or
    picketing in the Capitol building, and that is what most of the
    defendants--not necessarily the ones in the D.C. Jail, but most
    of the defendants have been charged with.
        Again, it's important to remember these people, almost all
    of them, have no criminal record. That doesn't stop prosecutors
    in Joe Biden and Merrick Garland's Justice Department from
    suggesting that they are domestic terrorists, even if they were
    let into the building by Capitol police, as we now have
    surveillance video that proves that this is the case--went in,
    thought that they were allowed in, took selfies. Some were in
    for 5-10 minutes and left peacefully. They were not arrested.
    They were not told they weren't allowed there, and then woke up
    to FBI raids at their homes.
        The Justice Department is asking for harsh penalties--
    sometimes three years' probation, and sometimes home detention.
    What's even more egregious are D.C. District judges who even go
    above and beyond what the Justice Department is asking and
    imprisoning these paraders for 30, 60, 90 days in jail,
    condemning them as potential terrorists attempting to overthrow
    democracy that day.
        All the hyperbole you see in the press you also hear in the
    courtroom. So, that is what they're doing to trespassers who
    thought they were doing nothing wrong on January 6th.
        Mr. Steube. Some of that video shows that there was
    officers that were standing there while people entered and were
    doing nothing about it. The treatment of January 6th suspects
    has been far different than BLM rioters and others accused of
    liberal goals through violence, including the Department of
    Interior that I asked AG Garland about, and he seemed to not
    even know that happened blocks from his office.
        January 6th suspects have been interrogated by the FBI
    about their political beliefs such as whether they thought the
    2020 election was fair. Can you discuss the role political
    motivations have played in the treatment of January 6th
    suspects, both in prison and in terms of prosecution?
        Ms. Kelly. So not only are they asked about their political
    views by investigators, but they've also been asked what kind
    of news that they watch, yes, whether they believe that the
    2020 election was stolen, their views on immigration.
        I've seen in sentencing memos, especially for one man who
    was sentenced for parading in the Capitol--they retrieved
    social media posts from his deleted Facebook account that were
    negative against Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats, and
    that was used as evidence to try to convince a judge,
    successfully, that this particular man should go to jail for
    three months for parading in the Capitol.
        Mr. Steube. My time has expired. Thank you. Thank you for
    being here.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I'm very pleased to yield five minutes to the gentlelady
    from Georgia, Ms. McBath. I thank her for her service to this
    Committee.
        Ms. McBath?
        Ms. McBath. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning to our
    Witnesses. I'm really pleased that you have been able to join
    us today as we continue to discuss this critically important
    piece of criminal justice legislation, the First Step Act, and
    to examine how the Board of Prisons has responded to the COVID-
    19 pandemic.
        I remember specifically the day that the Judiciary
    Committee--we had a hearing and we also had discussions on the
    compassionate release of nonviolent offenders under COVID-19
    conditions.
        Today, I am glad that we are revisiting what appears to be
    the Board of Prison's stalled implementation and also their
    neglect of just the basic health policies and practices for
    those that are incarcerated.
        We know that the First Step Act was a major stride forward
    in criminal justice reform designed to address the systemic
    issues in our Federal prison system, and this bipartisan piece
    of legislation was crafted to reform sentencing and improve
    prison conditions.
        It measures--it includes adding anti-recidivism programs,
    amending sentences based on good time credits, and expanding
    the rights of female inmates, particularly, female inmates who
    are mothers.
        The First Step Act, for example, requires feminine hygiene
    products to be free and, largely, prohibits the use of
    restraints on pregnant women and those that are in postpartum
    recovery.
        Despite these positive reforms, since the bill was signed
    into law on December 21, 2018, many of these provisions have
    not been implemented, and it is our responsibility here as
    policymakers to ensure that transformative wins of this bill
    are fully being carried out.
        My questions are for Ms. Goodwin today, and thank you so
    much, Ms. Goodwin, for visiting us again today. I really
    appreciate you being here.
        In your 2021 report on pregnant women in Federal custody,
    you found that out of the Board of Prison policies that address
    the treatment and care of pregnant women that only eight of
    these policies were fully aligned with the national guidance
    for the health and safety of pregnant women and following this
    report that the Board of Prisons improved their policies to
    align with national standards.
        Can you attest to that?
        Ms. Goodwin. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman. So, that's
    correct. When we did the work looking at the care and treatment
    of pregnant women in DOJ custody, we found that with those
    national standards BOP wasn't fully aligning or had not fully
    aligned with quite a number of them, and those national
    standards speak to issues around providing nutrition, providing
    prenatal care, providing mental health services, and we also
    looked at whether or not they were restraining pregnant women.
        We made our recommendation to the BOP. They agreed with the
    recommendation, and they are in the process of fully aligning
    the ones that--we have a table where we note what was fully
    aligned and what was partially aligned. They are in the process
    of fully aligning the ones that we found to be deficient.
        However, we are leaving that recommendation open until all
    those categories that we noted are fully aligned. We will be
    circling back to BOP to find out where things are.
        Then another recommendation that we had was to the U.S.
    Marshals about the restraining of pregnant women.
        Ms. McBath. Well, thank you, and I think this Committee
    would be more than interested to have access to that
    information and that data once you have access to it as well.
        I'd also like to know, since the COVID-19 pandemic has the
    Board of Prisons implemented additional policies to protect
    pregnant women from the increased risks of the disease itself?
        Ms. Goodwin. My understanding is that they have. What is
    interesting about the pregnant women's report that we did our
    last site visit in January 2020, right as everyone was
    beginning to understand how dangerous the COVID virus was, and
    then in the process of pulling the report together, we did
    circle back to BOP to ask about what they were doing in terms
    of protecting pregnant women.
        They talked about providing special housing, putting
    women--pregnant women in additional special locations to keep
    them away from the general population.
        That's something we didn't go into a lot of detail in. It
    is something--as we do future work on how BOP treats pregnant
    women it's something that we will definitely look into.
        Ms. McBath. Well, thank you so much. We really appreciate
    that.
        There, again, Ms. Levi, I am so sorry for all that you've
    appeared to suffer through, and it's just kind of disturbing to
    hear that there may be others as well that are incarcerated
    that are going through some of the same kinds of conflicts and
    problems.
        With that, I yield back.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady yields back.
        I would now like to recognize Mr. Tiffany for five minutes.
        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you
    for the hearing today and thank you to all our Witnesses that
    are here today. It's good to have you all here.
        I just would share a comment regarding Mr. Venters'
    testimony where he was talking about an independent assessment
    of COVID. I would say we should not just do it with the Bureau
    of Prisons, we should do that for all government, including the
    Centers for Disease Control.
        There should be a full, thorough, independent review of all
    the actions regarding COVID over the last couple months.
        I would hark back to March 30, 2020, when the Chair of the
    Judiciary Committee urged Attorney General Barr to assess all
    prisoners for release regardless of the type of institution in
    which they are housed, the seriousness of their offense, or the
    potential recidivism risk they may present.
        So, here we are today. We're talking about a significant
    issue. This Committee is whistling past the graveyard of what
    is the most important thing on the minds of Americans at this
    point and that is crime. Well, maybe inflation. Maybe the
    border might be more important for some.
        I got to tell you, for a lot of people, especially in big
    cities--and I'm hearing it from them--is crime, and they're
    deeply concerned about it. You see smash-and-grab going on
    across the country, Wild West train robberies. You got
    carjackings that are up all over the country, especially the
    big cities and, of course, the murder rate is at its all-time
    high in what was it, 15 cities across America where we have
    been weak on crime, and we're not dealing with that. We're not
    dealing with that here today.
        On November 21, 2021, Darrell Brooks drove his car through
    a Christmas parade, injuring over 60 individuals and killing
    six, one of whom was an eight-year-old.
        In response, after seeing these horrific scenes in
    Waukesha, we learned that Darrell Brooks intentionally drove
    his SUV through these parade goers. In 2006, he pled guilty to
    statutory sexual seduction.
        In 2016, a warrant was issued for his arrest for jumping
    bail. In 2020, he was charged with recklessly endangering
    safety being a felon in possession of a firearm and later
    released on bail. On November 21st, he, again, was criminally
    charged for allegedly running over the mother of his child with
    a car.
        Despite that long history, the Milwaukee DA set bail at
    $1,000. Here's what that district attorney said back in 2007--
    John Chisholm:

            ``Is there going to be an individual I divert or I put into
            treatment program who's going to go out and kill somebody? You
            bet. Guaranteed. It's guaranteed to happen. It does not
            invalidate the overall approach.''

        This is what's happening across the United States with
    these weak district attorneys. They're worse than weak. They
    are fostering crime.
        Today, I call on the Governor of Wisconsin, who has the
    authority--he can rectify this problem with this district
    attorney in Milwaukee County to relieve that district attorney
    of his duties, because he has done this before in the case of
    Cassandra Lutz, who was given a fatal dose of heroin by
    Jeremiah Schroeder, who got out on a low bail.
        So, we're seeing this all over the country. Speaking of
    Milwaukee, we have the Milwaukee aldermen calling to prosecute
    South Korean automakers because they're encouraging car theft
    in the United States.
        Think about it. Elected officials blaming a car company for
    the car thefts that go on in their city. It is crazy. Think
    about the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which Vice-President Kamala
    Harris in 2020 said, ``we got to get money to these people who
    are rioting in Minneapolis,'' and they nearly burned the city
    down.
        Well, she got plenty of bail money into the Minnesota
    Freedom Fund and $1,500 went to a guy that has now committed a
    murder.
        That, ladies and gentlemen, is what is going on in America
    at this point. I'm going to go back and reread what the
    District Attorney for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, said in
    2007:

            ``Is there going to be an individual I divert or I put into a
            treatment program who is going to go out and kill somebody? You
            bet. Guaranteed. It's guaranteed to happen. It does not
            invalidate the overall approach.''

        They don't care about the criminals--or they care about the
    criminals. They don't care about the victims, and it's time for
    us to begin looking out for victims.
        I want to ask one last question before my time is up.
        Ms. Guernsey, do the January 6th defendants have a
    legitimate claim?
        Ms. Guernsey. I'm not quite sure what you mean in terms of
    a legitimate claim. I do want to highlight that I think that
    the things that are happening to some of the January 6th
    defendants are truly appalling. I don't think that they're
    isolated to the January 6th defendants. I think that--
        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much. I agree with your answer
    there.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
    expired. Thank you.
        I'm now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from
    Pennsylvania and thank her for her service. Ms. Dean is
    recognized.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank you. As we
    continue to grapple with this pandemic, I thank you and this
    Committee for continuing to shine a light on this important
    issue.
        I'd like to start with you, Ms. Levi, and I thank you so
    much for sharing your story, your experience, with us. I have
    two brief questions:
        (1) How are you doing today? How are you and your mother
    and your family doing today?
        (2) Do you think compassionate release is adequately and
    equitably being used?
        Ms. Levi. First, I'm doing great. Good health. My mother's
    in good health. My mother is just awesome. I can't say too much
    about her. We live in a three-story house, and she walks those
    steps every day. I mean, she's in good health and she's just
    concerned, like I am, about the people who got left behind.
        She hears me talking to ladies who call me on the phone,
    now that I can receive phone calls, and she hears from them and
    she knows that, no, compassionate release has not been applied
    as it should be.
        Most wardens refuse to even put it in for most people who
    are there, and when they do it comes back--mine came back
    denied before. I got denied compassionate release. I got
    denied--
        Ms. Dean. Even with your history? Even with your history of
    lung cancer and (simultaneous speaking)--
        Ms. Levi. Yes, even with my history of lung cancer, even
    with my history of initiating programs for the elderly, going
    to school, and doing the things that I was doing positive
    inside. Even with all that, I got denied initially for
    compassionate release. Yes.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you.
        Ms. Levi. That thousands of people--I mean, no, it is not
    being applied. The Bureau of Prisons should really take the
    initiative and start a program where it will be almost
    mandatory that people who qualify, who meet those needs
    assessments, and who really fit the criteria, it should be
    mandatory that they apply for compassionate release for these
    people. Especially the elderly, they warehouse people.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you so much. I appreciate those updates and
    your commonsense response.
        Professor Guernsey, with your troubling expertise and what
    you know about the inaccuracy of the reporting in terms of
    COVID infection and COVID death, Congress made clear that we
    intended for the Bureau of Prisons to more broadly use
    compassionate release authority, and this was even more
    important during the COVID pandemic.
        I introduced this Congress legislation, the emergency GRACE
    Act, that allows people to petition the Federal court directly
    in a public health emergency rather than waiting for BOP to Act
    within 30 days.
        Do you think this type of legislation would help, would be
    more effective in terms of the use of compassionate release?
    Maybe, if you can add to that also, what can we do about
    transparency of these numbers in the areas that you show a real
    delinquency?
        Ms. Guernsey. Certainly. I think that we have been much
    more successful in getting individuals out on compassionate
    release in front of the Federal district courts--3,000 at the
    very least, compared to the 43 in the Bureau of Prisons.
        That said, I would like to caution that even petitioning
    the Federal courts is not a perfect solution because most
    judges have compassion fatigue. We have all been living through
    this pandemic, and you start to become numb to the reality of
    what's happening in prisons, which I think is why it's really
    important that we have the independent oversight and people in
    there reporting what's really happening in the Bureau of
    Prisons. I do think the GRACE Act is a wonderful step forward.
        In terms of the Bureau of Prisons and its lack of
    transparency, what I think is quite troubling is that a lot of
    the information that this Committee may seek has already been
    ordered to be provided.
        The First Step Act provides that the Bureau of Prisons
    shall provide the data as to how many people apply for
    compassionate release--how long did it take, the justifications
    for the denials, did someone die while their denial was
    pending--and the Bureau of Prisons is, simply, not reporting
    that data.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Venters, I have just a little bit of time left, but
    your disturbing testimony as to sick calls being thrown away,
    destroyed, ignored--what can we do? What should we do?
        Mr. Venters. Well, we won't get a better outcome unless we
    establish real oversight--independent oversight--of health care
    in the BOP. Otherwise, if law enforcement is overseeing the
    care that they provide themselves, we're going to get the same
    results over and over.
        The CDC, independent organizations, need to be involved in
    overseeing this care.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you very much.
        Madam Chair, my time has expired. I yield back.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady's time has expired. Thank
    you very much.
        It's my privilege now to yield to Mr. Massie for five
    minutes. You're recognized.
        Mr. Massie. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
    holding this hearing. I hope we do get some correctional
    officers as Witnesses.
        Mr. Biggs. Madam Chair?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. You want to raise your volume? Thank you.
        Mr. Massie. Can you hear me now?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
        Mr. Massie. Okay. I'll work on that. Can you come back to
    me?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Is Ms. Spartz able to be
    recognized?
        Ms. Spartz?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Biggs. I don't believe she's on, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Is there another person
    besides--I see Mr. Jordan on but I'm not sure if he's ready
    now?
        Mr. Biggs. Yeah, we'd defer--
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Massie?
        Mr. Biggs. Madam Chair, it's interesting to me that one of
    the most sophisticated technical geniuses on this Committee is
    Thomas Massie and he can't get his microphone to work. That's
    interesting.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. He's a scientist. If you don't mind, Mr.
    Ranking Member, I will go to a--let me see if he is ready now.
        Mr. Massie?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. Mr. Massie?
        Mr. Biggs. Still having troubles hearing you, Thomas.
        Madam Chair let's go to a Democrat and then we'll come back
    to Mr. Massie.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. We'll work on Mr. Massie. He's probably
    got a new scientific approach. Thank you.
        Again, thank you, and it's my privilege and pleased to
    yield to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for
    five minutes.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Madam Chair, for calling this
    hearing today.
        I will just say one of the issues that built bipartisan
    support for passage of the First Step Act was mass
    incarceration throughout the United States. We incarcerate
    exponentially more people per capita than any other country in
    the world, a staggering 698 out of every 100,000 people, for a
    total of over 2 million people in jail in the U.S.
        As we try to move our prison system to a more
    rehabilitative and a more productive model, we know that there
    are longstanding problems with that prison system and
    particularly its treatment of Black and Brown inmates, and that
    must be addressed.
        For example, in 2015 the Washington Lawyers' Committee for
    Civil Rights released a report condemning conditions in the
    D.C. Jails, and those conditions and findings have been largely
    ignored until a more diverse population recently was
    incarcerated there. We know there is plenty of work to do.
        Dr. Goodwin, I am interested in the GAO's findings that the
    Bureau of Prisons has been deficient in planning for new
    programs and initiatives to help inmates prepare for a
    successful return to the community. Can you elaborate on your
    concerns in this regard and share any suggestions for
    congressional action to move this process along?
        Ms. Goodwin. Well, thank you for that question,
    Congresswoman. I will hearken back to report that we did on BOP
    staffing and the concerns that we raised there and talk about
    like the challenges that that presents for individuals
    preparing for re-entry. If you don't have the appropriate
    staffing levels, you don't have the folks to provide the drug
    treatment, education programs, or any of the other programs or
    activities that an inmate would need to help earn them time
    credits.
        We've got the new proposed legislation out there, but we at
    GAO, we're also mindful that if the staffing numbers or the
    numbers aren't there, then the programs won't be there, and the
    inmates aren't able to earn those time credits. So, that
    affects what their re-entry looks like.
        We've also done work looking at the Federal prison
    industries because that is also another way that to provide
    additional job skills to folks who are incarcerated, but if
    those programs aren't in place, time credits aren't getting
    earned and then when people are coming out of prison, they're
    coming out with fewer job skills. So, that's a concern that we
    have, absolutely.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
        Ms. Guernsey, did you have anything to add?
        Ms. Guernsey. I don't.
        Ms. Scanlon. Okay. How about you, Mr. Venters?
        Dr. Venters. No.
        Ms. Scanlon. Okay. I mean I do think it is really, really
    important that we are setting people up for success upon
    release, otherwise we end up in this endless cycle of
    incarceration, and that doesn't help any of us. I would like to
    keep looking at that, and thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Mr. Biggs. Madam Chair, if I may--
        Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady yields back.
        Yes?
        Mr. Biggs. I think Mr. Massie is still working on his
    technical difficulties and I think Mr. Jordan is ready to go if
    that is okay.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Thank you so very much, Mr.
    Biggs.
        I am very pleased to yield to the Ranking Member of the
    Full Committee, Mr. Jordan, for five minutes.
        Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate the
    Witnesses, appreciate you putting this hearing together.
        Ms. Kelly, let me see if I have the facts straight: First,
    the Deputy Warden at the D.C. Jail, Ms. Landerkin, the person
    in charge of day-to-day operations at the jail, had a number of
    social media posts in the previous couple years expressing her
    dislike for the former President and anyone who may or may have
    not supported, or may have supported the President. One of
    those tweets, she said if you're behind Trump, you are trash. I
    think the Ranking Member of the Committee put those up earlier.
        Second, Ms. Kelly, have talked to individuals in the D.C.
    Jail personally and they have expressed the conditions under
    which they were being held that seemed to reflect the attitude
    that Ms. Landerkin conveyed in that tweet.
        Third, on October 13, 2021, Judge Lamberth held the D.C.
    Warden in contempt and asked the Department of Justice to
    investigate a possible civil right violation in the way they
    were being held in this facility.
        Fourth, the U.S. Marshall Services has moved inmates out of
    the D.C. Jail because of the poor conditions of that facility.
        Are those four facts accurate?
        Ms. Kelly. Yes, that is correct.
        Mr. Jordan. All right. Well, Madam Chair, one of the things
    I think we need to know, what is the status of the Department
    of Justice investigation? You had a Federal judge ask them to
    investigate. That would be something--I mean, ask them to
    investigate a situation where the U.S. Marshall Services felt
    it was warranted to move people out of the very facility that
    he asked the Department of Justice to look into.
        I think it would be important for our Committee, certainly
    this Subcommittee and the Full Committee to understand what is
    going on there because I agree with what Professor Guernsey
    said earlier: ``We need to be concerned about the conditions of
    anyone in Federal prison to make sure the Constitution and due
    process are being followed.''
        There was a reason we all came together. We all came
    together on the First Step Act in the last Congress. That was
    an important first step. We are concerned about the compassion
    and the due process and the Constitution that need to be
    involved with this type of situation, and frankly the
    rehabilitation concern. We are concerned about all those.
        It is important I think we get the answers from the
    Department of Justice on that.
        Also, I think it is important for this Committee to balance
    everything because the biggest concern I hear from our
    constituents right now, the constituents I get the privilege of
    representing, is the dramatic increase in violent crime. There
    is a distinction we need to make. Violent criminals need to be
    incarcerated; others we need to look at how we can in a
    compassionate way help them get on with their lives and be
    productive citizens. So, that is what I hope we will do.
        I guess I would maybe let Ms. Kelly respond a little bit
    and then I would love to hear as well from Professor Guernsey
    on some of the things I just outlined.
        Ms. Kelly, if you could go first?
        Ms. Kelly. Well, thank you so much. Thank you, Member
    Jordan, and thank you for your attention to this matter.
        I'd like to thank Professor Guernsey for acknowledging the
    mistreatment of January 6 defendants.
        What we really have is political prison in the United
    States. We have defendants, Americans who protested the
    election of Joe Biden who are not being treated the same as
    other political protestors, including those with similar, if
    not far more dangerous offenses than what happened on January
    6. So, I appreciate the attention to this.
        I think it's also important to note given all that we're
    hearing about the pandemic, that this Justice Department
    prosecutors continue to seek pretrial detention for January 6
    defendants and extending their pretrial detention orders signed
    off by Federal judges. There is no compassion or consideration,
    at least in this legal and judicial system, and it sounds like
    that extends throughout the country, certainly when it comes to
    the situation with Ms. Levi.
        I once again just appreciate the Committee's attention to
    this.
        Mr. Jordan. Thank you.
        Professor?
        Ms. Guernsey. I think that the defendants from the January
    6 had the ability and the privilege that a lot of individuals
    who are currently incarcerated in Federal custody didn't have.
    They had people who were able to give them voice and to help
    them amplify their voices outside of the prison context. So, I
    want to be careful because when we talk about the treatment
    that they're undergoing, it's quite similar for most of my
    clients who've been held in pretrial detention, not identical
    given the conditions of the jail, but this is something that
    Black and Brown individuals and non-January defendants face
    across the country.
        The other thing that I want to address, too, is that I
    think that addressing the fact that there has been an increase
    in violent crime is concerning. Of course, we're all concerned
    about that, but mass incarceration is not a way out of that.
    So, I want to be really careful when we think about potential
    solutions that we really are thinking about--
        Mr. Jordan. I know my time is up, let me just ask: So, what
    we have seen from certain prosecutors and their unwillingness
    to prosecute certain crimes now in large urban areas around the
    country, that have been elected to the prosecutor's position,
    is that contributing to the increase in violent crime we are
    seeing? Because I certainly think it is. We want to make sure
    bad guys are off the street, but we also want to treat people
    with the due process and constitutional principles that our
    great country, our great system has. So, that to me is where
    the focus has to be, particularly for this Subcommittee.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman's time has expired.
        You want to finish your last sentence?
        Ms. Guernsey. I was going to say I think that the causes of
    crime are really complex, and they hinge on various social and
    economic factors, particularly given the pandemic that we've
    been living through for these past two years. So, I just urge
    that incarceration is not the answer.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Witnesses. Ranking Member, I
    thank you for your questioning.
        I now yield five minutes to the gentlelady, thank her for
    her service, Ms. Bush from Missouri.
        You are recognized.
        Ms. Bush. Yes, thank you. St. Louis and I appreciate you,
    Chair, for convening this important hearing. I am so glad to
    hear all this advocacy for those who are incarcerated. I just
    wish I would have heard it be this loud and this big push for
    it when we were talking about mostly Black and Brown people,
    but I'll move on.
        As the Congresswoman from Missouri's first district I have
    heard from my constituents behind the wall, many of whom have
    shared their horrifying experiences of unsafe, unsanitary, and
    inhumane conditions while incarcerated before and during COVID.
    From traumatic lock-downs to being denied visitation for months
    on end, this pandemic has laid bare the extreme violence
    inherent in our prison system.
        For three years this pandemic has deprived thousands of
    people in our Federal prisons and jails of their health and
    well-being. More than one in five federally-incarcerated people
    have been affected with COVID-19 and at least 279 people have
    died. Our prisons are a petri dish for infectious disease
    outbreaks and the Bureau's policy to release thousands into
    home confinement under the CARES Act has reunited families and
    it has saved lives.
        Ms. Levi, thank you for your powerful advocacy for home
    confinement. Can you talk to us about your experience since
    being home under supervision and about the psychological impact
    of being sent back to jail in June of last year while you were
    attending computer class during your home confinement?
        Ms. Levi. I really think this might have been the first
    time that I've even addressed the psychological impact. You
    come home, you have expectations. You're reuniting with your
    family, getting yourself back together, doing things that just
    show your self-worth, show your community, show your family
    that you're a changed person, that you're not the same person
    who went into prison 16 years beforehand. That's your dream.
    That's your hope. That's your prayer, that they can see who you
    are now.
        So, that's what I began to do. I began to advocate. I began
    working with organizations that had helped me while I was
    inside, I connected with those organizations. I tried to make
    sure if there was anything I could do to speak out and let them
    know what my prison experience was like and what I thought was
    needed.
        One of the things you are talking about today is the lack
    of re-entry. I took that computer class because coming home at
    the--at the halfway house I was refused--there were 100
    computers in that halfway house. I was refused to go back there
    to use any one of them. Those are the kinds of things that are
    happening to people who are on home confinement. Those are the
    kind of things that are lacking in the re-entry process with us
    coming out, using the phone, those kinds of things.
        The psychological effect of being sent back, I weigh 169
    pounds. I now weigh 138 pounds. Just those 21 days back inside,
    it's devastating. It's devastating, especially when you know
    that you were doing all the rights things. Like I said, I'm not
    just talking about me. There are thousands of people who that
    threat--
        Ms. Bush. That is right. That is right. That is what we're
    talking about.
        Ms. Levi. --there are thousands of people who that's still
    over their heads, that home confinement--
        Ms. Bush. Right.
        Ms. Levi. --that monitor is on their ankle and it doesn't
    work right all the time.
        Ms. Bush. Well, let me add--
        Ms. Levi. --whatever you all can do, whatever you all can
    do towards making compassionate release more effective, more
    efficient.
        Ms. Bush. Right. Well, that is our duty as lawmakers. That
    is our duty to represent, and it is imperative that we
    prioritize the public health and safety of all people, not just
    those that agree with us politically. In society with more than
    140,000 people in Federal custody, this is the only way to do
    it, we have to be decarcerate, we have to grant clemency and
    move people out of prisons and jails and back home to be with
    their families and in their communities.
        I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record a
    letter that Congresswoman Watson Coleman and I led today
    seeking clarification from BOP on the implementation of the new
    OLC guidance for those on home confinement pursuant to the
    CARES Act.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

                            MS. BUSH FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bush. Thank you, Chair. I also ask for unanimous
    consent to enter into the record testimony from Wendy Heckman
    and Deantha D. Brooks on the challenges of home confinement
    conditions in Federal facilities and earned time credit.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

                            MS. BUSH FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bush. Thank you, Chair. We must not close our eyes to
    the tragic circumstances behind prison walls and we must not
    turn our backs on those who have been released to home
    confinement who are still living with uncertainty about whether
    they will be able to stay home. Thank you so much and I yield
    back.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has
    expired.
        I am pleased now to represent and to recognize the
    gentleman, Mr. Massie, for five minutes.
        You are recognized.
        Mr. Massie. Can you hear my microphone now, Madam Chair?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. We can hear you better. Thank you so very
    much.
        Mr. Massie. Okay. Thank you. I would rather have a cold mic
    than a hot mic any day, but glad that we have this working.
        Ms. Goodwin, Congress appropriated I believe $300 million
    for the Bureau of Prisons to deal with COVID. Can you tell us
    how this money has been spent?
        Ms. Goodwin. We actually have been in the process of trying
    to examine all of that. We've submitted some requests to BOP to
    kind of ask for a layout, a detailed listing of what those
    monies have gone to. What I will do, Congressman, I will circle
    back to you.
        Mr. Massie. Okay.
        Ms. Goodwin. I'll get back to you. I'll connect with your
    staff, and I'll get back to you on that.
        Mr. Massie. Appreciate that. When you look into it, see if
    they bought some walk-through FDA-approved COVID killers and if
    those are working, because I think some of that money have been
    spent on things that didn't work out. One concern that I also
    had is an understaffed jail is a dangerous jail. Same for a
    prison. Congress funds a certain number of correctional
    officers every year. Can you tell us whether they have
    recruited and retained the number of correctional officers that
    Congress has funded?
        Ms. Goodwin. So, first, in terms of the funding that they
    have and things that they purchase, I want to go back. I mean,
    we know that they purchased masks and other supplies.
        Mr. Massie. Yes.
        Ms. Goodwin. The other stuff I will certainly circle back
    to you because we have a request out for that information.
        Second, in terms of recruiting, hiring, and retaining, that
    came up when we were doing the BOP staffing report. They have
    started to recruit--they have started to recruit additional
    officers. What we don't know because that report was about a
    year or two ago is how successful they've been and particularly
    if they've been successful in this era of COVID. What I can do,
    Congressman, I can circle back to you on that as well. I can
    reach out to BOP to see what information we can get for you.
        Mr. Massie. Okay. Thank you very much. Also, I would like
    you to look into reports that I received from officers,
    correctional officers that when they identify COVID-positive
    inmates they walk them through the compound, thereby possibly
    exposing everybody else and then sending them to isolation
    units. They may not be getting--that may not be the best idea
    to walk a bunch of sick men together and to walk them through
    the facility and around the facility in the process of doing
    that. Could you look into that and see if that has been the
    policy at some of these correctional facilities?
        Ms. Goodwin. We could certainly look into that. I will tell
    you that when we were doing the BOP COVID work, and we spoke
    with union officials and others representing the officers and
    that was one of the concerns. I will certainly see what we can
    find out for you.
        Mr. Massie. Thank you very much.
        I want to take a little bit of time and point out that the
    officers that work in these correctional facilities have a
    vaccine mandate, yet the inmates do not. The irony here is that
    the inmates have more rights than the officers themselves.
    There are correctional officers and staff in a facility in my
    congressional district who applied and were just categorically
    denied medical exemptions. Nobody has been granted a medical
    exemption. They were able to receive, 52 of them, religious
    exemptions, and 4,495 staff at the BOP have received religious
    exemptions, but I think it is a shame that we have to apply for
    religious exemptions when what they want is a medical
    exemption.
        We have failed to recognize natural immunity and I am going
    to submit to the record something that just came out from the
    CDC. It is dated January 19, ``COVID Cases and Hospitalizations
    by COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Previous COVID-19
    Diagnosis.'' What it shows is that prior COVID infection was
    more protective than vaccination during the delta surge, yet
    the guards aren't having their prior infection immunity
    recognized. So, I think that is a problem.
        I would like to submit to the record, Madam Chair, the
    MMR--MMWR Report from CDC showing that natural immunity was
    better than the vaccine. Then, also, a Reuters article that
    highlights that.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

                           MR. MASSIE FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Goodwin. Congressman Massie--
        Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman's time--
        Ms. Goodwin. Oh, is his time expired?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
        Ms. Goodwin. I did have one more thing. When we spoke to
    the union officials, we didn't hear anything about them walking
    inmates through the--sick inmates through the compounds. We did
    hear concerns about just having a large number of sick people
    in any one location.
        Mr. Massie. Right. Okay. Thank you very much. That is what
    I am hearing, too.
        Madam Chair, I hope that we do get correctional officers in
    the next hearing because we want to hear from the front line
    what is really happening.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman's time is expired.
        Thank you so very much, Mr. Massie.
        I am pleased now to thank him for his service and to
    recognize Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island for five minutes.
        You are recognized.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
    really important and very timely hearing.
        I want to first say that we have heard a lot about violent
    crime and smash and grabs, and we of course have all condemned
    that. I just wish we heard the same enthusiasm about the
    importance of prosecuting the smash and grabs and the violence
    that occurred on January 6.
        We are also hearing lots of concerns from our Republican
    colleagues about conditions for those in confinement. That is
    welcome news. There are many of us who have been worried about
    that particularly for communities of color for a very long
    time. It is good to have some of our Republican colleagues now
    so concerned about that and we welcome their newfound
    enthusiasm or interest in this area.
        The suggestion though that this compassionate release or
    early home confinement is releasing criminals into the
    community, the Bureau of Prisons director testified in the
    Senate in April that 24,000 people were transferred to home
    confinement and only 3 were arrested for new crimes. These
    individuals by and large reintegrated into the community
    successfully.
        What I want to focus on is what the purpose of this hearing
    is, and that is the effect of this pandemic on incarcerated
    individuals. We get to make decisions to mitigate the risk of
    COVID by vaccinating ourselves, wearing protective masks,
    staying six feet away from each other, getting tested. Those
    same practices are not available very often to those who are
    incarcerated.
        So, while I welcome the news of Attorney General Garland to
    reverse the Trump era legal opinion that the Bureau of Prisons
    now has the option to allow inmates to remain on home
    confinement to avoid risk of COVID, Dr. Venters, I want to ask
    what should the Bureau of Prisons be doing today to reduce the
    spread of COVID-19 or the other strains and also in their
    treatment of individuals who test positive?
        Dr. Venters. I think one of the most pressing issues is to
    find and protect people who are high risk. Omicron particularly
    moves so quickly through facilities, the congregate settings.
    All these places know or have the capacity to know who is high
    risk, that's who either is unvaccinated or meets the CDC
    criteria for higher risk of illness or death. We need to
    protect those people and it means that we prioritize them for
    vaccination. We don't just offer a whole housing area a
    vaccination; take it or leave it. We find those high-risk
    people. We talk to them, engage with, because they have lots
    and lots of questions about the vaccine, legitimate questions.
    Every one of those people vaccinated is a potential life save.
        Then when COVID, if and when it hits, when people are in
    quarantine because they've been exposed, we need to find those
    high-risk people every day and check on them for symptoms. The
    CDC has said let's do this for everybody since the outset of
    the pandemic. When I get into facilities, I find nobody's
    actually asking people about new symptoms of COVID during
    quarantine. Those high-risk folks, we can save their lives if
    we find their symptoms early.
        Then finally when they get into medical isolation, if and
    when they have COVID themselves, we need to have a lower
    threshold for sending them to the hospital or just having a
    nurse call a doctor if it's a high-risk person. So, a pulse
    rate of 92 in a person with diabetes or who's 85, or both, is
    probably more concerning than a pulse rate of 105 in a young
    healthy person. We need to think about that.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I want to try to just get in one
    more question. Thank you for that.
        Ms. Guernsey, thank you for all the work that you have
    done. You have concluded that 280 people have died from COVID-
    19 in the Federal Bureau of Prisons and your research has shown
    that of the 260 deaths that you were able to track just 70 had
    filed a motion for compassionate release with the federal
    courts and 3 of those motions were granted.
        Based on your research is the Bureau of Prisons
    compassionate release process being adequately utilized for
    individuals suffering from COVID-19 or at risk of COVID-19?
    What should the BOP be doing better to address that?
        Finally, I have a piece of legislation that will also allow
    the court to grant compassionate release directly. Would that
    be helpful in this context as well?
        Ms. Guernsey. Yes, so those three people whose motions were
    granted, those are just the three motions that were granted of
    people who ultimately died. We know that Federal courts have
    granted around 3,000 compassionate release motions generally.
    Those are 3,000 people who certainly wouldn't have died in
    Bureau of Prisons custody because they had been released.
        I do think that looking at just those three motions isn't
    accurate. We know at least of the 297 people that have died
    and--at least 297 people that have died in Bureau of Prisons
    custody who have petitioned for compassionate release or asked
    the court for relief we can't actually identify what they've
    done in the Bureau of Prisons because the Bureau of Prisons
    doesn't provide that data. It's very difficult to judge from
    the data that we have for the Federal courts what's truly
    happening in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I think again
    getting that data.
        Again, a piece of legislation that allows people to
    petition directly to the courts would be a step forward, but I
    also think it's imperfect just because of the discretion vested
    with the Federal judiciary and compassion fatigue.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
        Madam Chair, before I yield back I just want to acknowledge
    the extraordinary testimony of Ms. Levi and thank you for
    sharing your story and the powerful words you gave to this
    Committee. I yield back.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline. Your time is
    expired.
        Has anyone else come on.
        Thank you, Cicilline.
        Do you have any Members that have come on that we should
    recognize at this time?
        Mr. Biggs. Madam Chair, I do not see any additional
    Republicans who have come on to ask questions, so yield it back
    to you.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Let me know, please. Thank you
    so very much.
        I am pleased now to represent the gentleman from California
    Representative Service and to recognize him for five minutes.
    Mr. Correa. You are recognized for five minutes.
        We will come back to him.
        I am pleased now to recognize, thank her for her service,
    the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar.
        You are recognized. Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Madam Chair,
    for holding this very important hearing and to the recent
    practices of the Bureau of Prisons around addressing the needs
    of inmates during the COVID-19 pandemic and the Bureau of
    Prisons' compliance with the First Step Act.
        I do want to echo my gratitude not just for all the
    panelists, but especially for Ms. Levi, as Mr. Cicilline just
    pointed out. I am so grateful that you are here sharing your
    story with all of America. Thank you.
        Our prison system has long failed to recognize the dignity
    of incarcerated people, the majority of whom are Black and
    Brown.
        This morning we heard the minority Witness and our friends
    on the other side of the aisle lamenting the treatment of those
    incarcerated for the January 6 terrorist attack against our
    country. Mr. Jordan mentioned that he is, quote, ``concerned
    about compassion and due process.'' I am so glad to hear that.
    The minority Witness and my Republican colleague's concerns
    include a list of things: A delay in hearings, their belief
    that there is a lack of due process, claims of abuse, and the
    fact that some of the individuals they are fighting for don't
    have a criminal record or their charges are misdemeanors.
        I want to just note here that the concerns that they have
    articulated are exactly the same concerns many of us have been
    expressing about migrants in ICE custody. Lack of due process
    claims of abuse, lack of a prior criminal record, and lengthy
    incarceration on civil charges. It is truly my hope that their
    concern about compassion and due process will be extended to
    the migrant population in our custody as well. One day, I hope.
        In the summer of 2020 when a majority of Americans were
    working and learning from home to avoid spreading or
    contracting coronavirus, prisons and ICE facilities were the
    site of rapid unmitigated spread among staff and those
    incarcerated, and unfortunately instead of embracing the
    allowances the CARES Act made for home confinement, many Bureau
    of Prisons facilities attempted to contain the spread of COVID-
    19 with lock-downs and heavy reliance on solitary confinement,
    a psychological harmful tactic that prisons have historically
    employed as punishment. Those decisions cost lives, not just
    the lives of 277 incarcerated people, but the lives of 7 staff
    Members as well.
        So, again, Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to
    discuss how Congress can Act and how we can do better in our
    country.
        Mr. Venters, in your statement you mention that your
    investigations have not just included the Bureau of Prisons,
    but you mention that your investigations have covered ICE
    detention facilities as well. Do you see similar problems with
    ICE detention as you have within the Bureau of Prisons? Lack of
    oversight, the need for independent health authority, et
    cetera?
        Dr. Venters. Yes, I think that in the micro sense some of
    the same failings about finding and protecting high-risk people
    are apparent, but the larger problem, the problem that will
    persist unless we address it is that there is no independent
    oversight of the quality of health care in these settings. We
    must have that, otherwise we're going to get the same outcomes:
    Preventable deaths, over and over.
        Ms. Escobar. You are absolutely right. I will give you just
    a quick example of the desperate need for that independent
    health care oversight not just during COVID, but preceding
    COVID. One example is that we had a number of ICE detainees in
    the El Paso facility who went on a hunger strike. Then as their
    health deteriorated the same doctor that was overseeing their
    care then ordered that they be force fed, tied down and force
    fed against their will. Then it was that same physician who was
    given the authority to check on their health even after the
    forced feeding and after the decline in their mental health as
    well. I called for an independent review, independent
    oversight, and that is really critical.
        Can you articulate why across the board in detention we
    need that independence?
        Dr. Venters. Certainly. I mean we accept this as a core
    requirement in every other aspect of health care in the United
    States if you go to a dialysis center, if you go to a clinic, a
    hospital. We understand that you don't let the hospital decide
    if they did a good job or a bad job with your surgery or with
    your X-ray. We need to use the skills of quality assurance,
    quality improvement, and independence in figuring out whether
    or not health care is adequate.
        For some reason, for a lot of reasons we all know that are
    complicated for decades we've decided to carve out health care
    behind bars and say we're going to let sheriffs, commissioners
    of corrections, people who run these boxes we put people in--
    we'll let them decide if it's good enough and if it's the
    appropriate scope of services.
        We get what we should expect, which is lots of jail and
    prison attributable deaths because we don't have independent
    oversight.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Mr. Venters, and to all our
    panelists.
        Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much for your
    questioning and thank you for raising ICE. I think we know that
    we have seen some terrible articles recently on the conditions
    there and I think we will be--from the perspective of detention
    facilities be looking at that. Again thank you.
        Let me say I am pleased now to recognize another well-
    serving Member, and that is Mr. Cohen of Tennessee for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
    holding this important hearing. I am disappointed the Bureau of
    Prisons isn't with us. I know they will be at some time in the
    future.
        We had a head of the Bureau of Prisons who I don't think
    did is job very well and it is unfortunate that one of the best
    things that President Trump did--he certainly was responsible
    greatly for getting the vaccines available with Warp Speed; and
    that was something to his credit, but he also got this bill
    passed, he with the work of Mr. Kushner, and Hakeem Jeffries,
    and others. It is an important bill and I wish that his
    Administration as head of the Bureau of Prisons would have
    tried to implement it, but he didn't. Hopefully the Biden
    Administration will.
        There is an individual I have been in touch with, Michael
    Cohen, who was an attorney for Mr. Trump, who has been
    incarcerated. He still has certain limitations as he has got on
    parole, guess. Those could be conditions of restrictions on his
    liberty could be removed if they completed the Fresh Start Act
    and gave him the credit that he deserves for the time he has
    spent in prison as really a political prisoner because what he
    did was just facilitate Mr. Trump's work with Stormy Daniels.
    The individual, one has not been punished, but Michael Cohen
    should get his credits and hopefully the Biden Administration
    will see that everybody that should get their credits get them.
        Ms. Levi, you brought up the fact that there is nobody in
    the system that is supposed to work on compassionate release
    except you just make your application to the Warden. Do you
    think there should be an individual other than the warden in
    the system, like an ombudsman who looks over the prison
    population and tries to make recommendations of those people
    who should qualify for compassionate release?
        Ms. Levi. I certainly do. I think some of the--not just
    compassionate release. The clemency process also, but
    compassionate release, yes. Leaving just to the warden--in my
    case my warden denied me. No, I'm sorry. In my case my warden
    took over 30 days and I was able to avail myself of that
    privilege since she didn't respond in 30 days, I was able to
    put an application in for compassionate release on my own
    through my attorney on the 31st days, which subsequently was
    denied.
        Yes, there should be an ombudsman. There should be maybe a
    Committee or a council or whatever. I don't know what you all
    want to call it, but there should be somebody besides the
    warden in that institution or outside the institution who would
    oversee those people who we already know qualify and have been
    vetted and everything. They qualify for the compassionate
    release, but it's just not being processed. It's just not.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Levi. I am sorry about what
    happened with you, but I am happy you are out, and I appreciate
    your testifying. I know that the Chair will look into that. I
    hope that if she does look into it, and I am sure she will,
    with the staff, that I would like to work with her on that.
        I have been an advocate for compassionate release for a
    decade, at least, and oftentimes it was--it was not just COVID;
    it was people who were--had been incarcerated for a long time
    and were old as they could be. They didn't have the physical
    ability to commit a crime anymore and yet they are still being
    incarcerated. Those people should be released for compassionate
    reasons and for economic reasons because there is no reason for
    us to be housing those people. So, that is something we need to
    do.
        Ms. Goodwin, what implications do these failings in the
    Bureau of Prisons that they haven't implemented the First Step
    Act have for those in Federal custody and what lessons should
    current Administration fund?
        Ms. Goodwin. Thank you, Congressman. The work that we are
    currently doing: Looking at inmates' needs and risk assessment
    and how the Bureau of Prisons is implementing that particular
    requirement under the First Step Act. That work is ongoing. As
    we get closer to having, preliminary findings or anything, my
    team, we can certainly circle back to you to share some of that
    information, but for us right now the work that we have is too
    early for me to be able to provide some substantive data or
    information.
        Mr. Cohen. Well, thank you. Hopefully the Biden
    Administration will appoint a progressive-minded head of the
    Bureau of Prisons so that we don't have problems such as we had
    with this past chief who didn't do his job and let the First
    Step Act languish.
        Ms. Guernsey, what role can the Bureau of Prisons play in
    criminal justice reform particularly given the authorities it
    has under the CARES Act and the First Step Act?
        Ms. Guernsey. Well, I think those two things are exactly
    right. They have two really important tools for decarceration
    and we know that decarceration is good for penalogical purposes
    and public health purposes. So more standardized processes and
    procedures for compassionate release and expanded use of both
    compassionate release and CARES Act home confinement are
    incredibly important for us to move forward past an era of mass
    incarceration.
        Mr. Cohen. I want to thank everybody on--all the Witnesses
    for testifying and I want to--it has been wonderful listening
    to my Republican colleagues, a byproduct of January 6 is we
    have got some new allies in trying to get prison reforms.
    Strange friends through strange conditions and things work in
    mysterious ways.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman as the gentleman's
    time is expired and I hear a strike for unity. Thank you all
    very much.
        I am going to express my appreciation to Mr. Nadler, Ms.
    Bass, Ms. Demings, Ms. McBath, Dean, Scanlon, Bush, Mr.
    Cicilline, Escobar, and Cohen. Thank you so very much. Likewise
    express my appreciation to Mr. Biggs, Chabot, Gohmert, Steube,
    Tiffany, Massie and Jordan. I think Mr. Gohmert was not on, but
    we thank him.
        Let me also express my appreciation to Dr. Venters, Ms.
    Guernsey, Ms. Levi, and Dr. Hamilton, Ms. Goodwin, Dr. Goodwin,
    and Ms. Kelly. Let me thank you very much.
        I am going to, if I might Members, yield myself a few
    minutes for two Witnesses.
        Mr. Biggs, I didn't know if you had any matter that you
    wanted to address. I am going to yield to you if you have a
    matter that you want to address as we close. Mr. Biggs?
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to again
    thank all the Witnesses and I appreciate, and I want to just
    comment on some specific things that are takeaways. Appreciate,
    Ms. Levi, for your testimony. I think you really highlighted
    some of the deficiencies that we have in our system. I think
    that is critical that we hear firsthand the experiences that
    you underwent and appreciate your willingness to share those
    with us today, take time out.
        Dr. Venter, I really appreciate your comments today and
    your efforts and your work. Particularly, I think it is
    critical that--not just within the prison system, but I think
    generically we understood early on who were the most vulnerable
    and who are at most high risk particularly in congregate
    settings. I think you have further identified that today as a
    system-wide failure to care for people who are particularly
    vulnerable, and I appreciate that.
        Ms. Guernsey, Professor Guernsey, I thank you too because I
    think the idea of the COVID data within Bureau of Prisons and
    other data that comes out--it is missing, or it is incomplete.
    I think that is critical if we are going to study and see what
    is going on and what needs to be fixed. Thank you very much for
    that.
        I am looking forward to getting a Bureau of Prisons
    representative in, Madam Chair, to testify to us. Appreciate--
    is it Professor Goodwin? Or Dr. Goodwin?
        Ms. Goodwin. Dr. Goodwin.
        Mr. Biggs. Dr. Goodwin? Okay. I am sorry. Appreciate your
    comments with regard to best policies and practices,
    particularly by internal communications within BOP and its
    failures. Sometimes the water doesn't get to the end of the
    row, those of us out here in the land of irrigation. Sometimes
    the water doesn't get to the end of the row, and I think it
    needs improved communication. Thank you.
        Ms. Hamilton, thank you as well. A startling statistic that
    you laid out was that 11 percent have wrongfully assessed for
    risk. I think that is critical. I would like more information
    on that including the underlying independent variables.
        Appreciate Ms. Kelly being here today and your thoughtful
    work on the January 6 detainees and also the testimony that
    indicates from some--at least from some Members that may be a
    wider-spread problem than we knew about. That is critical as
    well.
        Just want to make a couple quick comments as well with
    regard to the comment that there had not been universal
    condemnation of violence on January 6. That is actually
    inaccurate. I can't think of anybody who did not condemn the
    violence of January 6. Indeed, all violence should be
    condemned. I think sometimes the hyperbole gets in the way and
    sometimes we politicize things that don't need to be
    politicized, but violence is violence and should be condemned.
        I would ask--Madam Chair, it was raised in here that the
    Department of Justice was compelled by a court to investigate
    what was going on in the D.C. Jail, and I would ask if we could
    maybe follow up with a hearing on that. If not, then maybe you
    and I could lead a letter to the Department of Justice asking
    what the progress of that investigation in response to the
    Federal judge is. I think that is important to know and we
    continue to hold the DOJ accountable for what the Federal court
    indicated.
        I am also looking forward to finding data on the crimes and
    compassionate release. Apparently, that is incomplete as well
    and that is--we really need to get to the bottom of that, too.
    So much came out of this hearing today. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Appreciate it and I yield back.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much, Ranking Member
    Biggs, and thank you for specifically highlighting the great
    insight that all our Witnesses gave.
        Let me say to all our Members data is crucial. Many of you
    know that the head of the Prison Bureau, Federal Prison Bureau
    resigned, I would say hastily, about two weeks ago. But we are
    never far away from the will of the Members, but also our
    thoughts are already present in the thoughts that you have. We
    will have a Bureau of Prisons hearing on February 3 with those
    officials. Just think of the approach that we took, which is we
    had an expansive fact-finding group of Witnesses that have
    provided us enormous insight and we will rely upon their
    testimony.
        I, too, want to take just a quick moment. Dr. Goodwin,
    thank you. The GAO is doing great work. We will probably engage
    with you further as well as Attorney Bensy. Thank you for your
    firsthand work that tells us that we should be concerned about
    courts that have not been as friendly toward compassionate
    release and we should look into all options and how that system
    could work.
        Dr. Hamilton as well, and the disparity, if you want to
    explore that even more so that our First Step Act can work.
        Dr. Venters and Ms. Levi, I am going to pose questions to
    you that I did not and was not able to raise.
        Ms. Kelly, thank you for your research and work. You can
    see that you have been heard. Thank you again. I know many
    asked you questions.
        Ms. Levi, you are my personal hero because you have not
    been silenced by your experience. Some would come out and be
    embarrassed or hesitant to speak and I am grateful that you are
    not. I also just want to follow up on the emotional tie, the
    emotional tie that you have to those who are still there
    because you know the conditions in the prison and then also the
    emotional toll that still is on you.
        You got out. You know that there are others, I would
    assume, and I don't want to presume, but would you share that
    there are others that could be eligible inside the Federal
    Bureau of Prisons and are not being responded to? Would you
    comment on that, please? Thank you so very much for not being
    silenced about the conditions.
        Ms. Levi, would you answer that, please?
        Ms. Levi. Yes, I couldn't be silent. My friends I left
    behind, the women and some guys that I corresponded with, you
    cannot just forget. What I went through I know that they're
    going through. They're continuing to go through.
        I have friends who are at Carswell and Alderson and what
    they're going through right now, the letters that they write
    are--it's a sad tale that's being told. People talk about
    people being locked down for two hours where in some prisons
    they're not getting two hours out. They're getting a half an
    hour to come out and have to use the phone, have showers, and
    everything. It is just a sad situation that the people that
    were left behind. I have to talk about them. I have to--I still
    hear from them. They're my friends.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. If I could very quickly ask you; I know
    you don't make decisions, but would you comment on those who
    are there who have made requests for compassionate release who
    in your view are eligible and just being ignored or denied? Is
    that happening?
        Ms. Levi. Yes, it is. You have people who are sick, in
    wheelchairs, who can't get around. One lady just told me about
    that she--there's a towel around her whole face just so that
    she can walk through during that one hour that she gets to use
    the phone, that has an hour that she gets to use the phone.
    They reduced their phone calls to five minutes. COVID is
    devastating the emotional impact that it's having on people
    inside. I mean, to be locked down like that knowing that you're
    eligible, knowing that you fit the criteria, knowing that
    you've submitted paperwork and the warden denies you. It gets
    denied. Knowing that you know within your heart, your attorney
    has told you fit the criteria. It's frustrating for me just to
    see people who I know should be out still in.
        I will continue to speak out. Emotionally, yes, it does
    have an effect on you, but I think it gives you--
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
        Ms. Levi. --more drive because you know the emotion that it
    has on me, so I know what it has on the people that are still
    inside.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. You have done so
    much for us in your testimony.
        Dr. Venters, you really highlighted some crucial issues
    regarding health care. I think we should understand that these
    are still human beings, but in the Bureau of Prisons there are
    medium and minimum facilities. There are people of all
    categories that are incarcerated. Of course, there's maximum.
    Can you comment on is there any standard criteria for which
    doctors or nurses or health professionals are hired in the
    Bureau? Is there consistency in quality or consistency in
    numbers? Have you been able to determine that? Are those
    deficiencies continuing or are those deficiencies contributing
    to what you say are bad health conditions and a lack of
    understanding of the impact of COVID and the high numbers of
    COVID-19? Dr. Venters?
        Dr. Venters. Yes, I think that--thank you. I think that
    certainly there are problems recruiting staff all over, health
    staff in both the BOP facilities and other carceral settings. I
    think there are some very sound reasons why a lot of health
    staff are reluctant to take these jobs. It's not just that
    these are tough physical environments and it's really actually
    not so much, in my experience as a doctor at Rikers, that we're
    afraid of your patients. It's that these are places where we're
    not sure we're going to be able to provide ethical care and
    evidence-based care.
        So, until and unless we establish independent oversight so
    that a doctor, a nurse, a physical therapist knows that their
    delivery of care comes from a line of power and a line of
    authority that goes to a real health organization; it doesn't
    just go up the chain to a security person, I think it will be
    difficult to get the staff in that we want to fill those
    positions. So, that's why I sound like a broken record over and
    over about the need for independent oversight that comes from a
    health authority, not from some other law enforcement agency.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank all of you so very much. This
    hearing today will be an effective fact-finding basis for our
    February 3 hearing and the Witnesses, each of you, have
    contributed in your own way.
        I do want to conclude my remarks and conclude this hearing
    by adding to the record an article at Forbes: ``As COVID Cases
    Spike, Federal Bureau of Prisons is Not Releasing Eligible
    Inmates.'' Then the Justice and Policy Center ``Racial Equity
    and Criminal Risk Assessment.'' Then a CNN article: ``This is
    an Unmistakable Win for Incarcerated Persons,'' regarding the
    DOJ reform dealing with the First Step Act.
        [The information follows:]

                         MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Jackson Lee. So again, we are dealing with incarcerated
    persons, but we are dealing with human beings and their
    families. It is our responsibility and task as a Committee and
    to be vigilant and diligent. I want to see complete reform of
    our Federal prison system so that it meets society's needs of
    incarcerating those who have certainly violated the law
    inviolate, but also has a strong commitment to human dignity
    and response, and as well rehabilitation. I don't think they
    are mutually exclusive.
        Thank you, Members, for contributing to today's hearing.
    This concludes today's hearing.
        Thank you again to our distinguished Witnesses for
    attending.
        Without objection, all Members have five legislative days
    to submit additional written questions for the Witnesses or
    additional materials for the record.
        This hearing is adjourned. Have a good day. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]