[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]