    [Senate Hearing 117-538]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 117-538

               SEXUAL ABUSE OF FEMALE INMATES IN FEDERAL PRISONS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                    PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   ----------

                               DECEMBER 13, 2022

                                   ----------

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

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                                            S. Hrg. 117-538

               SEXUAL ABUSE OF FEMALE INMATES IN FEDERAL PRISONS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                    PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               DECEMBER 13, 2022

                                   __________

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

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    50-239 1ADPDF            WASHINGTON : 2023

                       GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chairman
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
    MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
    KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              RAND PAUL, Kentucky
    JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
    ALEX PADILLA, California             MITT ROMNEY, Utah
    JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                         JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri

                       David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
                        Zachary I. Schram, Chief Counsel
                    Pamela Thiessen, Minority Staff Director
                         Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                        Ashley A. Howard, Hearing Clerk

                    PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

                         JON OSSOFF, Georgia, Chairman
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
    MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         RAND PAUL, Kentucky
    ALEX PADILLA, California             JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
                                         RICK SCOTT, Florida

                        Sara Schaumburg, Staff Director
                         Dan Eisenberg, Senior Counsel
                     Brian Downey, Minority Staff Director
                   Patrick Hartobey, Minority Senior Counsel
                          Kate Kielceski, Chief Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Ossoff...............................................     1
        Senator Johnson..............................................     3
        Senator Padilla..............................................    17
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Ossoff...............................................    45
        Senator Johnson..............................................    48

                                   WITNESSES
                           Tuesday, December 13, 2022

    Carolyn Richardson, Formerly Incarcerated in the Federal Bureau
      of Prisons.....................................................     5
    Briane Moore, Formerly Incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of
      Prisons........................................................     7
    Linda De La Rosa, Formerly Incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of
      Prisons........................................................     9
    Brenda V. Smith, Professor of Law, American University Washington
      College of Law.................................................    10
    Hon. Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
      Justice........................................................    23
    Colette S. Peters, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons...........    25

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    De La Rosa, Linda:
        Testimony....................................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................   109
    Horowitz, Hon. Michael E.:
        Testimony....................................................    23
        Prepared statement...........................................   156
    Moore, Briane:
        Testimony....................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................   103
    Peters, Colette S.:
        Testimony....................................................    25
        Prepared statement...........................................   167
    Richardson, Carolyn:
        Testimony....................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    49
    Smith, Brenda V.:
        Testimony....................................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................   112

                                    APPENDIX

    Staff Report.....................................................   174
    Kevin Ring, President, FAMM Statement for the Record.............   242

               SEXUAL ABUSE OF FEMALE INMATES IN FEDERAL PRISONS

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                  Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
                        of the Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Ossoff,
    Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Ossoff, Hassan, Padilla, Johnson,
    Lankford, and Scott.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR OSSOFF\1\

        Senator Ossoff. The Permanent Subcommittee on
    Investigations (PSI) will come to order.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Ossoff appears in the
    Appendix on page 45.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Today's hearing will examine the findings of our 8-month
    bipartisan investigation into the sexual abuse of women in
    Federal prisons.
        Before we proceed, viewers are advised that this hearing
    will discuss sexual violence and other deeply disturbing issues
    that we are duty-bound to bring to light. Anyone seeking mental
    health assistance can call the nationwide hotline at 988 to
    connect with a trained counselor.
        Eight months ago, as chair of PSI, I launched an
    investigation into the sexual abuse of women held in Federal
    prisons, and with Ranking Member Johnson's support, our
    bipartisan staff reviewed extensive non-public Bureau of
    Prisons (BOP) and whistleblower documents and conducted more
    than two dozen interviews with senior BOP leaders,
    whistleblowers, and survivors of prison sexual abuse.
        Our findings are deeply disturbing and demonstrate, in my
    view, that the BOP is failing systemically to prevent, detect,
    and address sexual abuse of prisoners by its own employees.
        The Subcommittee has found that Bureau of Prisons'
    employees sexually abused female prisoners in at least two-
    thirds of Federal prisons that have held women over the past
    decade. We found that BOP has failed to prevent, detect, and
    stop recurring sexual abuse, including by senior prison
    officials.
        At Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Dublin in
    California, for example, both the warden and the chaplain
    sexually abused female prisoners.
        We found that BOP has failed to successfully implement the
    Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). For example, two prisons
    where multiple BOP employees were abusing multiple women over
    an extended period, FCI Dublin and Federal Correctional Complex
    (FCC) Coleman, nevertheless passed or were found to have
    exceeded the PREA audit criteria, which are mandated by
    Congress and intended to detect the risk of sexual abuse in BOP
    facilities.
        In the case of FCI Dublin, the PREA compliance officer--the
    official specifically tasked with ensuring compliance with the
    Federal law whose purpose is the elimination of prison rape--
    was himself sexually abusing prisoners.
        In the case of FCC Coleman in Florida, all female prisoners
    had been transferred out of the facility 2 days before the PREA
    audit, making it impossible for the auditor to interview female
    prisoners despite the legal requirement that they interview
    inmates as part of the audit.
        Amidst more than 5,000 allegations of sexual abuse by BOP
    employees, we found at least 134 against female detainees were
    substantiated by BOP internal investigations or by criminal
    prosecutions.
        Given the fear of retaliation by survivors of sexual abuse,
    the apparent apathy by senior BOP officials at the facility,
    regional office, and headquarters levels, and severe
    shortcomings in the investigative practices implemented by
    BOP's Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) and the Department of
    Justice (DOJ) Inspector General (IG), I suspect the extent of
    abuse is significantly wider.
        Indeed, we found there is currently a backlog of 8,000
    internal affairs cases at the Bureau of Prisons, including at
    least hundreds of sexual abuse allegations against BOP
    employees that remain unresolved.
        DOJ's inspector general has found that BOP fails, at times,
    to properly credit allegations of sexual abuse brought by
    inmates. Multiple BOP employees who would later admit in sworn
    statements to sexually abusing prisoners have escaped criminal
    prosecution, due in part to weaknesses in the process by which
    BOP and the DOJ inspector general work together to investigate
    such allegations. In fact, several officers who admitted under
    oath to sexually abusing prisoners were able nevertheless to
    retire with benefits.
        Let me be absolutely clear: this situation is intolerable.
    Sexual abuse of inmates is a gross abuse of human and
    constitutional rights and cannot be tolerated by the U.S.
    Congress. It is cruel and unusual punishment that violates the
    Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and basic
    standards of human decency.
        In July of this year, the former Director of BOP testified
    before this very Subcommittee and insisted that BOP was able to
    keep female prisoners safe from sexual abuse by BOP employees.
    We now know that that statement was unequivocally false.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to understand what has
    gone so badly wrong, and to establish and examine the facts
    upon which we must build reform. Progress begins with the
    truth. It requires a full and unflinching examination of
    grievous failure.
        On our first panel, we will hear from three survivors of
    sexual abuse at the hands of BOP employees that occurred while
    they were incarcerated in Federal prisons: Carolyn Richardson,
    Briane Moore, and Linda De La Rosa. All of their abusers have
    since been convicted.
        The firsthand accounts of survivors are essential, and I am
    deeply grateful to them for coming forward to testify before
    the U.S. Senate. Their bravery will make it easier for others
    to tell their stories.
        Next, we will hear from Professor Brenda V. Smith of
    American University, a national expert on sexual abuse in
    custodial settings. We will ask her to put the survivors'
    testimony in a broader context.
        Finally, we will question two government witnesses: the
    inspector general for the Department of Justice, Michael
    Horowitz, whose office both oversees BOP and investigates
    criminal misconduct by BOP employees, and the new BOP Director
    Colette Peters, who began her tenure just 6 months ago, in
    July.
        The hearing today is part of a 2-year bipartisan effort by
    this Subcommittee under my leadership to investigate conditions
    of incarceration and detention in the United States. From
    corruption at the U.S. Penitentiary Atlanta (USPA) to the
    Department of Justice's failure to count almost 1,000 deaths in
    custody across the country, to abusive and unnecessary
    gynecological procedures performed on women in Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS) custody.
        Ranking Member Johnson, I thank you sincerely for your
    assistance in these efforts and your staff.
        Before I yield to the Ranking Member for his opening
    statement, it is important to acknowledge that law enforcement
    professionals working in our prisons have among the hardest
    jobs in our country, and I believe the vast majority of BOP
    employees share our goals of ending sexual abuse once and for
    all in Federal prisons.
        I also want to state for the record the Subcommittee
    investigated sexual abuse of women in Federal prison because of
    some of their unique considerations. Women are more likely than
    male prisoners to have suffered from trauma and sexual abuse
    prior to incarceration, and particularly susceptible to
    subsequent abuse in a custodial setting. However, the
    Subcommittee fully acknowledges that sexual abuse is not
    limited to female prisoners.
        Finally, the Subcommittee's findings, which form the basis
    for today's hearing, are laid out in a bipartisan staff report,
    and I ask unanimous consent that this report be entered into
    the record.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The staff report appears in the Appendix on page 174.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ranking Member Johnson.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON

        Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You pretty well
    laid out the case, so I will just ask that my opening
    statement\2\ be entered in the record.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
    Appendix on page 48.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Senator Ossoff. Without objection.
        Senator Johnson. I think it is safe to say, based on your
    opening comments when you say that what we have uncovered is
    deeply disturbing, and it is, that I do not think anyone is
    looking forward to this hearing. I do not know about you but
    any movie I watch where there is any kind of sexual assault, I
    have to turn it off. I cannot watch it. That is fiction.
        We are going to be hearing some pretty horrific testimony
    today. It is the government's duty to incarcerate individuals,
    to punish people for crime, for keeping dangerous people away
    from the general public. I do not want anything in this hearing
    to downplay that very serious responsibility of government. It
    is not a pleasant responsibility. But it also the
    responsibility of government to make sure when we do
    incarcerate individuals that they are safe, that these types of
    rapes, these types of assaults do not occur.
        This is something that the Federal Government has
    recognized has been a problem dating back to 2003. I would say
    that was probably a pretty good-faith effort to try and develop
    data, do audits, to try and prevent this. You will never
    eliminate all of this, but I do not think there is any doubt
    that the government can do more. Looking at the inspector
    general's testimony, understanding what this Administration is
    doing, it does appear that they are making good-faith efforts
    to do more to try and prevent this.
        As deeply disturbing and although I am not looking forward
    to hearing any of this, I agree with you it is our
    responsibility. We cannot turn our face from it. We have to
    face this. We have to do everything we can to eliminate it,
    recognizing what a difficult task that really is.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank all of our staff for
    doing a good job of looking into something that is not fun to
    look at but that is our responsibility to look at and try and
    fix. Thank you.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ranking Member Johnson.
        We will now call our first panel of witnesses for this
    morning's hearing. Ms. Carolyn Richardson was formerly
    incarcerated in Metropolitan Corrections Center (MCC) in New
    York City. Ms. Briane Moore was formerly incarcerated at
    Federal Prison Camp (FPC) in Alderson, West Virginia. Ms. Linda
    De La Rosa was formerly incarcerated at the Federal Medical
    Center (FMC) in Lexington, Kentucky. Professor Brenda V. Smith
    is a national expert on sexual abuse in custodial settings.
        I appreciate all of you for being with us today. I look
    forward to your testimony.
        The rules of the Subcommittee require all witnesses to be
    sworn in, so at this time I would ask all of you to please to
    raise your right hand.
        Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give
    before this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and
    nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
        Ms. Richardson. I do.
        Ms. Moore. I do.
        Ms. De La Rosa. I do.
        Ms. Smith. I do.
        Senator Ossoff. Let the record state that all witnesses
    answered in the affirmative.
        We are using a timing system today. Your written testimony
    will be printed in the record in its entirety. We would ask
    that you limit your oral testimony to approximately 5 minutes.
    You will see a timer in front of you. Please confirm, if you
    can, with the help of your counsel, if necessary, that your
    microphones are on, as indicated by the red light, before
    beginning.
        Ms. Richardson, at your convenience we will begin with you
    first please.

     TESTIMONY OF CAROLYN RICHARDSON,\1\ FORMERLY INCARCERATED IN
                     THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

        Ms. Richardson. Hello. Good morning. I would like to first
    express my sincere gratitude to Chairman Ossoff and Ranking
    Member Johnson for the opportunity to testify before you today.
    My name is Carolyn Richardson. I was incarcerated in Federal
    BOP custody from August 2016 through October 2022, when my
    motion for compassionate release was granted on the grounds of
    extraordinary compelling circumstances I suffered while I was
    at Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Richardson appears in the
    Appendix on page 49.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My testimony will focus on repeated sexual abuse that I
    suffered for several months at the hands of former correctional
    officer Colin Akparanta. While I struggle to speak about the
    abuse, I am hopeful that my testimony will give voice to
    survivors in similar circumstances and help prevent sexual
    crimes in BOP facilities.
        In August 2016, I was indicted for my participation in a
    conspiracy to procure and distribute oxycodone. I am deeply
    remorseful for what I had done, which was fueled by my own
    addiction to oxycodone. I accepted a guilty plea and was
    sentenced to 12 years in prison, knowing that I would miss so
    many years with my six children. What I did not know was that I
    would come to suffer neglect and abuse in BOP custody that will
    forever change my life.
        Prior to my arrest I had received an artificial iris
    transplant for cosmetic purposes. When I was taken into custody
    I had normal vision and was in good physical health. Shortly
    after arriving in MCC New York, in August 2016, I began to
    experience complications with my transplanted irises. BOP
    personnel failed to provide me with timely medical care and
    caused my eyesight to deteriorate beyond repair. When I was
    finally taken to an eye surgeon in January 2017, I learned that
    due to the delay I would be permanently legally blind and would
    require extensive eye treatment.
        Since then, I required periodic visits to outside
    hospitals, including seven eye surgeries. Former correctional
    officer Akparanta was the BOP correction officer tasked with
    taking me to these hospital appointments. I was in an extremely
    vulnerable state--physically, mentally, and spiritually--due to
    my medical condition, and Akparanta preyed on this fact.
        When he took me to doctors' appointments, Akparanta made
    himself out to be someone I could trust. He talked to me about
    faith and spirituality, which was of central importance to me
    in coping with my loss of vision. He brought me food and
    medicine that I needed, but that I could not otherwise obtain.
    Right at my most vulnerable I believed that here was a person
    who cared about me when no one else did. I was wrong.
        After several months, and around May 2018, Akparanta began
    to demand sexual favors in exchange for the food and medicine
    that he brought. He switched from working the day shift to the
    night shift, and came to my cell at night. I did not have a
    cellmate. He told me that my cell was in a perfect area because
    the security cameras could not see him coming or going. He was
    the only officer working the night shift in my unit, which
    consisted of approximately 40 female prisoners. He used a
    flashlight to signal to me that he was coming to my cell.
        I felt utterly powerless. I was a vision-impaired prisoner
    who was relying on Akparanta for basic life needs and
    transportation to medical appointments.
        For about 6 months, Akparanta regularly demanded sexual
    favors from me. He became increasingly rough and cruel in the
    way that he treated me. I told him that I did not like it, but
    he continued in his conduct.
        Before the assaults he would act like he cared about me,
    and would ask me what was wrong when I was looking down or sad.
    After the sexual assaults began he stopped showing any signs of
    caring, and all he wanted was sexual favors. I felt disgusted
    with him but also with myself. I felt worthless, like I was
    something less than human, that he could deal with as he
    wished.
        When I indicated that I did not like what he was doing,
    Akparanta suggested that we would both get in trouble if I were
    to tell. I believed him. I was terrified that he or other BOP
    staff would retaliate against me or take away my privileges. I
    was afraid of being questioned and doubted. I felt the officers
    would stick together instead of believing me or caring for me,
    especially after Akparanta manipulated me.
        I felt that everyone had ulterior motives, but then I felt
    ashamed and blamed myself for not speaking up about the abuse.
    I felt like I should have yelled and screamed when he was
    sexually assaulting me, even though at that time I felt that I
    had no real voice.
        Further details of these can be found in Exhibit A, a
    complaint filed in my civil lawsuit.
        Even though BOP has a zero-tolerance policy toward sexual
    abuse, in reality it is extremely difficult for inmates to step
    up and report the abuse. It feels that there is no real
    protection from the guards retaliating against you under a
    pretext, or harassing you with their authority.
        Even when the abuse is reported, inmates are kept in the
    dark about the progress of the investigation, and the repeated
    questioning is jarring and emotionally scarring to relive the
    trauma. I could personally gain a small measure of peace by
    cooperating with the criminal prosecution with Akparanta,
    resulting in his guilty plea, and by my civil lawsuit, which
    allowed me to gain information and knowledge about what
    happened.
        However, my hope is that no other inmate will have to
    suffer similar abuse and that safeguards will be put in place
    to ensure that.
        I am appreciative of this opportunity to share my
    experience that I had at MCC. I stand here for other female
    inmates who have experienced sexual abuse, many of whom may
    feel that they are alone, without anyone to care about their
    story, like I used to feel. I hope in sharing this we can
    improve our system and prevent this from ever happening again.
    Thank you.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you Ms. Richardson. Ms. Moore, you
    may now present your statement.

      TESTIMONY OF BRIANE MOORE,\1\ FORMERLY INCARCERATED IN THE
                       FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

        Ms. Moore. Good morning. Thank you for giving me the
    opportunity to speak. I am not an activist or someone who would
    normally use my voice like I am today. Speaking about my
    experience in such a public setting is incredibly hard. I am
    willing to do so because other women are still in prison and I
    am out. I hope that they will not have to go through what I
    went through.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Moore appears in the Appendix on
    page 103.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I grew up in Illinois. My grandmother raised me, supported
    me, loved me. When I was 17 I had my daughter. I wanted to make
    money to support myself. I made the wrong decision. I sold
    drugs, crack cocaine to be exact. I was sentenced to 10 years
    in Federal prison. I accepted that because that was my choice
    at the time. I could have chosen to do something else and I
    chose to do that.
        I got 10 years in prison, and I accepted that as well,
    because as a result of doing that, consequences happened. I
    decided to take the time while I was in prison to improve
    myself, do my time so that I could get back home to my family.
        The prison guards tell you when you can sleep and when you
    can eat, when you can go. People who are in prison do not get
    to choose the location of the prison they are sent to. First I
    was sent to Alabama. I was there for about 2 years. I was
    transferred to FPC Alderson. Both prisons are about 12 hours
    away from my home. It was difficult for my family to visit. Not
    being able to see my daughter and grandmother was devastating.
        I put in a request to transfer prisons as a closer-to-home
    transfer so I could be closer to my family. BOP officials have
    the discretion to grant or deny requests. But I was determined
    to survive. I followed the rules. I took all the programs and
    opportunities available to me. I hoped the transfer request
    would eventually be granted. I knew that I needed to do my best
    for a chance at a transfer closer to home.
        Family is the most important thing to me. I was determined
    not to let prison break me. I was determined to return home a
    better mother.
        When I was in Federal prison in Alderson, in 2017, a
    captain began to target me. He took me to areas that were
    isolated in the prison, where there were no cameras. He told me
    that he knew I wanted to transfer to another prison. He said,
    ``The paperwork goes through me.''
        In October 2017, the building officer ordered me to go to
    the captain's office. The captain then summoned me into his
    office. There was a secretary's office within the captain's
    office. When I arrived there was no secretary. After the
    captain had me alone he locked the secretary's door and closed
    his door behind him. He reminded me that the transfer went
    through him. He told me that if I did not follow his orders he
    would interfere with my transfer. He then raped me.
        To be clear, even before the captain spoke those words I
    knew he had the power to prevent me from being transferred to a
    prison closer to my family, closer to my daughter. He was a
    captain with total control over me. I had no choice but to
    obey. I always had to follow orders in prison. It is hard to
    fully describe how this felt. The captain already had complete
    control over my day-to-day life and was now unfortunately in
    control over my body.
        Using my desire to see my children, he threatened me to
    stay silent. The captain made it clear that if I wanted a
    transfer I had to accept the abuse. I felt powerless. The abuse
    continued.
        Before my request could go through for a transfer closer to
    home I escaped the abuse when a prison close to home reopened,
    which was Pekin. When they asked for volunteers I jumped on the
    opportunity to save myself. I left Alderson in December 2017,
    and before I left the captain knew I was leaving. He raped me
    one final time. In total, he raped me five times, sexual
    assault on other occasions.
        After the abuse I could not sleep full nights for months. I
    had reoccurring nightmares that played over and over like a
    broken record. I woke up in cold sweats. I would wake up crying
    after nightmares that the captain was trying to kill me for
    reporting the abuse. I isolated myself from others. I developed
    post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and had to seek mental
    health treatment.
        The captain abused his authority and power, and while he
    was raping me he was raping other women in prison. We were not
    protected. I had no power to stop the abuse. The captain had
    total power over me and he knew that. He knew that I had no
    control and could not say no. The captain knew that I knew
    that. He made sure to make sure that I knew that. He made sure
    that he could for me to know that he could make things worse
    for me.
        Even before this threat, I knew that if I reported him I
    could be placed in solitary confinement or shipped to special
    housing unit (SHU), shipped out to another prison away from my
    family, which was something I did not want to do. I saw this
    happen to other women in prison. They would tell their story
    and they would be shipped, and the officer would still be
    there.
        I left Alderson in 2017. After the investigation began the
    captain resigned and was prosecuted for sexually abusing me and
    other women at the prison. He plead guilty.
        I am here today 5 years later, and I want you to know that
    I am still suffering. This has changed the course of my life
    forever. I am a different person physically and emotionally
    because of this. I am still in mental health treatment. I have
    lost trust in the system. I knew prison would be tough--I
    accepted that. I will do punishment for my crimes. It was not
    easy doing time.
        I was sentenced and put in prison for choices I made. I was
    not sentenced to prison to be raped and abused while in prison.
    This should not have happened to me, and it should not have
    happened to anyone in prison.
        Speaking about this is not easy. The day I started to hear
    was the day I could talk about what happened to me without
    being afraid. Thank you for your time.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Moore, for your testimony.
    For the benefit of all of our panelists, you may hear various
    sounds from the clock, and those have nothing to do with our
    hearing but indicate to us what is happening on the Senate
    floor. Please do not be alarmed.
        Ms. Richardson, Ms. Moore, thank you so much for your
    testimony.
        Ms. De La Rosa, you may present your opening statement.

    TESTIMONY OF LINDA DE LA ROSA,\1\ FORMERLY INCARCERATED IN THE
                       FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

        Ms. De La Rosa. Chairman Ossoff, Ranking Member Johnson,
    and Members of the Subcommittee, I am a victim and survivor of
    sexual abuse by a Federal correctional officer. That predator
    is now serving a 135-month sentence in a Federal prison. In
    2019, he sexually attacked me and three other women inmates at
    the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky, which is a
    minimum-security prison. It took 3 years to arrest, prosecute,
    convict and sentence him.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. De La Rosa appears in the
    Appendix on page 109.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On the one hand, I am grateful for the efforts of those in
    the Department of Justice who did help me and who successfully
    put my attacker away, in particular, the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI) Victim Specialist Cassie Young and
    Assistant U.S. Attorney Tashena Fannin.
        However, the Bureau of Prisons entirely failed. My attacker
    stayed at his job for years, even though BOP management and
    investigators knew he was a sexual predator. My life at FMC-
    Lexington was a living hell.
        I believe my attacker had been investigated on numerous
    occasions for sex crimes against female inmates. FMC-Lexington
    management and investigators were well aware that female
    inmate-victims were reluctant to come forward because they
    rightly feared retaliation, which took many forms, including
    transfer to different facilities, solitary confinement, loss of
    early release rights, detrimental write-ups, loss of work
    privileges, and interference with vocational skills programs. I
    witnessed many examples of punishments handed out to other
    inmates that challenged or reported abuse by prison officials.
    The ongoing threat of retaliation stopped me and other inmates
    from filing complaints, let alone timely ones.
        Let me tell you what happened to me. I was transferred from
    Lexington. After reporting the sexual abuse that happened to me
    in Lexington, I was sent back to that facility. When I returned
    to Lexington, all of my belongings were missing. There were
    photos and letters from my son and daughter's father, both of
    whom had passed. They can never be replaced.
        When I returned I also learned my attacker was still
    working at that facility. Incredibly, FMC-Lexington management
    granted my attacker unrestricted and unsupervised contact with
    me on work details, which gave him one-on-one access to abuse
    or threaten to abuse me. Because of his position, my attacker
    could and did access my personal history files, recordings of
    my telephone calls and personal emails, giving him additional
    leverage to extract sexual favors and threaten my safety.
        The system failed at every level, management from the
    warden on down, repeatedly. They failed to monitor, supervise,
    discipline, and remove male correctional officers, predators
    sexually abusing female inmates. Special Investigative Services
    officers supposedly charged with investigating staff misconduct
    failed repeatedly to investigate known and suspected predators.
    It is not enough to call this horrible. I believe the problem
    is ``the old boys club.'' Prison staff--managers,
    investigators, correctional officers--they all work together
    for years, if not decades. No one wants to rock the boat, let
    alone listen to female inmates. There is no effective,
    independent oversight.
        The mission of the BOP is ``to protect society by confining
    offenders in the controlled environments of prisons . . . that
    are safe, humane . . . and appropriately secure.'' The agency
    failed me and my fellow inmates. We were knowingly confined in
    a facility that was unsafe, inhumane and unsecure. Nothing was
    done. That was wrong. It never should have happened.
        Senators, I make one request: stop this from happening,
    from repeating. Now. Nothing you are hearing today is new. You
    have the power and authority to force the system to change.
    Please use it. Thank you.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. De La Rosa.
        Dr. Smith, your opening statement, please.

      TESTIMONY OF BRENDA V. SMITH,\1\ PROFESSOR OF LAW, AMERICAN
                  UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW

        Ms. Smith. First, I want to say how privileged I feel to be
    able to sit at the table with these survivors, because they are
    the ones who are doing the work to actually bring these issues
    to the fore. I thank you for your courage and for being willing
    to tell what has happened to you in custody.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Smith appears in the Appendix on
    page 112.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and
    Committee Members. I am a law professor at the American
    University Washington College of Law. I founded the Project on
    Addressing Prison Rape in 1993, after successfully representing
    a class of over 500 women who experienced physical, sexual,
    medical, and psychological abuse as well as systematic
    inequality of services and opportunities in D.C. correctional
    facilities. I was appointed to the Prison Rape Elimination
    Commission in 1994, by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
        Having sat on the PREA Commission for a decade, there is no
    question that the Prison Rape Elimination Act standards could,
    if followed, prevent the abuse of women in custody. At the same
    time, we know that while the PREA standards outline a
    successful approach to preventing, reducing, and punishing
    sexual abuse in custody, agencies, as these witnesses testimony
    has identified, often do not follow the standards.
        Agencies complain that the standards are nitpicking and not
    consistent with their lived experience of people in custody or
    correctional settings. They also argue that women in custody
    are trying to game the system by claiming that they were
    abused. They claim that it would be too expensive or take too
    much time to follow the standards that would protect these
    women. They also argue that the standards are there, but you
    really do not have to pay attention until there is an audit.
        I am familiar with Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities
    because many of the D.C. women I represented served their
    sentences in Federal facilities and returned to the District of
    Columbia after discharge from Federal facilities. These women
    spoke of abuse they had observed or experienced in a number of
    the Federal facilities that are the subject of this hearing
    today. The most recent incidents involving FCI Dublin, MDC
    Brooklyn, FPC Alderson, and FMC Lexington are instructive but
    they are not unusual. In other words, this is not new behavior.
        The abusers represent staff from a broad cross-section of
    the workforce. We have a chaplain, correctional officers,
    volunteers, and wardens. This points to abuse that is systemic
    in nature. What is clear from these incidents is that staff had
    unfettered, uninterrupted access to women. They abused with
    impunity and at will. They abused women in their offices, in
    corridors, out of sight of cameras, and in collusion with other
    staff.
        They also abused the authority of their positions. One of
    the assailants was a chaplain, another a warden; these are
    people who we should be able to trust.
        These system actors and leaders had intercourse with the
    women, took nude images of them, and threatened them, as we
    have heard. One of the assailants ran the PREA training, for
    preventing prison sexual assault, while he was actively
    involved in abusing women prisoners.
        Given the systemic nature of this abuse, I have three
    recommendations that have the potential to provide women with
    greater protection from abuse.
        First, reform the audit process for the Prison Rape
    Elimination Act. PREA audits are supposed to identify problems
    or practices that affect the protection of people in custody
    from abuse. The current audit structure is not well designed to
    ensure its success. The requirements to become an auditor, and
    the marketplace for auditors, make it very difficult for anyone
    who does not work in corrections to become a DOJ-certified PREA
    auditor. Having said that, we all know how hard it is for an
    institution to investigate itself. Agencies hire and pay the
    auditors who conduct the audit, so in reality, auditors work
    for the very agencies that they audit, making independence
    difficult. This creates a financial disincentive to identify
    problems.
        Next, another suggestion. Some agencies are audited through
    consortia, which means that State corrections agencies from one
    agency will send their staff to audit another State's
    facilities in a round-robin arrangement. This has not
    eliminated the potential for conflicts of interest in those
    arrangements. There is a quid pro quo.
        Finally, the cost of audits and the time that agencies or
    third-party auditing bodies that employ auditors allow for the
    conduct of audits do not adequately compensate auditors or
    allow the time necessary to conduct the audit methodology laid
    out by DOJ. If there were time, then what could happen is they
    could actually go through and look closely at these
    institutions, interview women, interview outside folks, and be
    able to find problems.
        Each of the facilities that are the subject of the hearing
    passed their audits with only minimal issues identified. Again,
    neutral auditors, from an independent external auditing
    authority, diversifying the auditor pool to include individuals
    with experience working with victims. There also needs to be
    ongoing training for auditors with a focus on auditing
    investigation standards and meaningful responses to
    retaliation, because as we have heard, many of these women
    experienced and feared retaliation.
        I think the other thing that we have to do is address the
    conditions of confinement that create vulnerability for women
    in custody. Each of these women have identified common elements
    of vulnerability that relate to their victimization.
        Women, as you know, often bring multiple well-known
    vulnerabilities into the correctional setting--past histories
    of childhood and adult physical and sexual abuse, poverty,
    involvement with powerful systemic actors like courts, child
    protection, housing, and immigration authorities that control
    their existence, their future, and their families. These
    factors create the leverage of pressure that correctional staff
    employ to ensure compliance with both legitimate and
    illegitimate requests.
        Given this inequality of power, women bargain, capitulate,
    and comply, even as they fear for their lives, their freedom,
    and often for their families. Though there are constitutional
    limitations on cross-sex supervision, male staff still have
    found ways to have unfettered, unsupervised access to female
    inmates in their care.
        Clearly, identifying and implementing better supervision
    strategies are in order. These strategies include increasing
    the number of female staff at every level, including leadership
    at women's correctional facilities. They also include
    decreasing the numbers of women in custodial settings. Women
    inmates are still incarcerated for primarily nonviolent
    offenses. Increasing the opportunities for supervision in the
    community would also help keep women safe from the pervasive
    sexual abuse culture we are discussing today.
        Finally, we need vigorous prosecution of these cases and
    enhanced penalties. The penalties for abusing a person in
    custody should be commensurate with the harm and damage they do
    to women in custody, their families, the community, and to our
    ideals of the rule of law. The sentences that prison sex
    offenders receive are not commensurate with the injury that
    they inflict or the harm they cause. In my view, the penalties
    should be comparable to the offenses for other individual
    victims who have been framed by the law as unable to consent.
    That would include people with developmental and other
    disabilities, children, and individuals in institutional
    settings, including prisoners.
        Finally, what I want to say is that the abuse of women in
    custody has created a stain on our society. It is a stain that
    I do not believe can be cleaned. What I hope we can do is
    repair our broken systems. I hope we can go forward and do
    better for women in custody. We can create the conditions that
    provide safety for these women, provide safety for our
    communities, and actually improve the integrity of the
    correctional system. As a community and country, we can provide
    punishment where appropriate but also provide justice for
    people who are abused in custody.
        I thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to
    answering your questions.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you very much, Professor Smith, and
    thank you to our first panel. Thank you Ms. Richardson, Ms.
    Moore, and Ms. De La Rosa, in particular, for having the
    strength to share these horrific ordeals that you endured with
    the U.S. Senate and the American public.
        I would like to begin, please, by discussing the imbalance
    in power that underlies so much of this abuse. Ms. De La Rosa,
    you made reference to this in your remarks, the power over
    transfer, the power over all aspects of your life. How did that
    feel, and how did that play a role in making you vulnerable to
    this abuse?
        Ms. De La Rosa. Senator, I felt trapped, powerless. There
    were so many things that were taken from me or times I was
    stuck in transit. I was held longer than I was supposed to be
    because of not being at a facility that could file my
    paperwork. I was imprisoned 6 months longer than I was supposed
    to be, for this investigation. There is so much we need to work
    on as far as being able to report it.
        Senator Ossoff. Ms. De La Rosa, the officer who assaulted
    you had previously been investigated----
        Ms. De La Rosa. Yes, sir.
        Senator Ossoff [continuing]. For sexually abusing other
    female prisoners.
        Ms. De La Rosa. Yes, sir.
        Senator Ossoff. But was still on the job.
        Ms. De La Rosa. Yes, sir.
        Senator Ossoff. You are in a Federal prison, supervised by
    a male officer who had complete control over all aspects of
    your life.
        Ms. De La Rosa. Yes, sir.
        Senator Ossoff. Unrestricted access to you while working.
        Ms. De La Rosa. Yes, sir.
        Senator Ossoff. Who eventually pled guilty to sexual abuse
    and was sentenced to 135 months in prison.
        Ms. De La Rosa. Yes, sir.
        Senator Ossoff. While that abuse was ongoing, did you have
    any safe outlet to report it? Did you feel you had any safe
    outlet to report it?
        Ms. De La Rosa. No, sir. In Lexington they have something
    called the ``penalty box,'' which is if an officer is under
    investigation they put them in the phone and email room. They
    listen to your phone calls and read your emails. Inmates would
    call it the ``hot box,'' but all officers called it the
    ``penalty box.'' Any way that you can report something to
    outside staff on the PREA signs throughout the prison is an
    email or a phone number, but you would not feel safe reporting
    it when the officer you want to report is in the penalty box,
    listening to all of your phone calls and reading all of your
    emails.
        So no, at Lexington I did not feel safe reporting.
        Senator Ossoff. What kind of retaliation did you fear?
        Ms. De La Rosa. All of the retaliation that I got. I was
    working on an 8,000-hour welding apprenticeship. I got
    transferred to a prison that did not have that program. I was
    46 hours from completing that program. I was transferred to the
    prison that I was scared to be at. I got transferred straight
    back there after reporting it. I got put back at the prison
    that I had reported.
        All of my belongings ended up missing. There were letters
    from my son, my grandpa, my Paw Paw that passed, pictures over
    the last 9 years that I was incarcerated, of my child coming to
    see me, and he passed away. I cannot ever get those things
    back, letters he wrote me since he was 10 years old. I will
    never get those things back, and they came up missing.
        They tell you that whenever you tell on an officer that it
    is completely confidential, but all of those things that
    happened to me afterwards were not coincidence. They were not.
        Senator Ossoff. Access and proximity to your family. How
    did they play a role in your fear of retaliation and the
    retaliation that you experienced?
        Ms. De La Rosa. Not being able to make phone calls,
    constantly being put in, once Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-
    19) started, ``quarantine.'' They would restart your
    quarantine, 21 days, with no phone calls, no anything. Every
    time they move you, you have 21 days, not being able to contact
    your family, not being able to have video visits with your
    kids, and for 9 years that is what my kids looked forward to
    every week. They can do anything they want, and they do.
        Senator Ossoff. Ms. Moore, I would like to ask you the same
    question, how access to family, proximity to family play a
    role. If you would not mind, Ms. Moore, just ensure your
    microphone is on. Thank you.
        Ms. Moore. Like she said, the same fear of getting incident
    reports for nothing, not being able to call home, not being
    able to have contact with those video visits. I did not
    necessarily have that happen where I was but I did fear
    retaliation, which is why I never reported it while I was still
    at the prison.
        My whole goal was to try to get closer to home. I put in a
    near-home transfer before I went to Anderson, and because
    Alderson needed head count I had to go there. That is how I
    ended up at Alderson.
        Again, here I am trying to fight to get closer to my family
    so that I can have visits, because I had one visit while I was
    there, for my daughter's birthday, and I did 7 years in prison.
    Being able to talk to my family and my grandmother, because she
    is older and sick, was very important to me. My daughter was 7
    when I went to prison, so that was very important to me.
        Like she said, the officers have a lot of control. They
    have a lot of control, and we really do not have a say-so. I
    had already been in prison with women who had reported stuff
    and been sent to county jails where the food is moldy and they
    are wearing underwear that had been previously worn. It is
    like, nobody wants to be uprooted from a prison that you have
    taken time to do programs in and be sent to another prison
    because you report this stuff. I am sure that is why a lot of
    people do not report, besides the retaliation.
        I had already heard that he had been under investigation
    before, but nothing was done. Who was I to report someone,
    thinking that something was going to happen, and I did not
    report it. They called me after I transferred prisons. I was at
    another prison before they called me to ask about it.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Ms. Richardson, I
    will have a question for you in the next round. At this time I
    am going to yield to Ranking Member Johnson for his first round
    of questions.
        Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Ms. Moore
    is really highlighting the most difficult aspect of this is the
    inability to report, the power that prison guards have over the
    prisoners, and how certainly some of them peripherally abuse
    that power.
        I want to quickly go down the table. We know, Ms. Moore,
    you never did report the sexual assaults. Correct?
        Ms. Moore. Correct.
        Senator Johnson. How did they ever come to light? Why are
    you sitting here before us? At what point in time--was it
    during the prosecution of your abuser?
        Ms. Moore. No. I guess the day after I transferred, they
    day after I left to go to Pekin from Alderson, he got walked
    off. Maybe a week or two later, they called me at the prison I
    was at. They called my counselor and he came down and got me,
    and said somebody was investigating. I do not know how they got
    my name, but they wanted to know what happened. At the time----
        Senator Johnson. Somehow somebody heard about your abuse.
    You might have talked to other fellow prisoners? Did you ever
    talk to anybody about it?
        Ms. Moore. Not really, no.
        Senator Johnson. Somehow the investigators found out that
    you may have been abused so they contacted you and then you
    told your story to the investigators.
        Ms. Moore. Yes. They asked if I wanted to tell my story,
    and at first I said no. Then they gave me a couple of days to
    give them a call back. I do not know. I know they have cameras
    in the administration building, so I do not know if maybe they
    went through the cameras and saw that I had been there.
        Senator Johnson. Ms. Richardson, what about you? Did you
    ever report this to anybody when you were in prison?
        Ms. Richardson. No, sir, I did not. Actually, I found out
    through a former inmate that Akparanta had been arrested and
    that empowered me to come forward. But prior to that I would
    have never told anyone because I was mandated to be there in
    MCC because I was on medical hold for my eyes, and I had
    already been sentenced.
        Senator Johnson. What about you, Ms. De La Rosa? Did you
    ever report this when you were a prisoner?
        Ms. De La Rosa. I was moved from Lexington to Bryant,
    Texas, to complete a program there, and when I was in Bryant,
    Texas, someone came and spoke with me and asked me about it. I
    was reluctant to talk to them at first, and I ended up
    reporting it while I was in Bryant, and shortly after that I
    was moved back.
        Senator Johnson. The only reason any of your situations
    came to light is because somebody investigating abuse came and
    talked to you.
        Ms. De La Rosa. Yes.
        Senator Johnson. Ms. Smith, being an expert in this area--
    and again, I am not looking for a hard and fast answer. I doubt
    this has been researched. But it would seem that probably most
    cases of this kind of abuse go completely unreported.
        Ms. Smith. I think these cases are like sexual abuse in the
    community as well. Often those cases go unreported as well. To
    be victimized means that you do not have power, and I think it
    is that sense of powerlessness that makes you think that
    either: you cannot report; nobody is going to believe you; or
    that nothing is going to happen to help you. You believe you
    will not be protected because you were not protected in this
    situation.
        Senator Johnson. Chances are, based on the statistics we
    have, it is something like 8,000 complaints that have not been
    filed. That may still be the tip of the iceberg.
        Ms. Smith. Absolutely.
        Senator Johnson. Obviously, PREA, those audits, have not
    worked. Maybe they have in some cases, but they certainly have
    not eliminated sexual assaults.
        Ms. Smith. So, let us say with PREA, some aspects of it
    have worked, but some of the procedures have not. What I would
    say is that the audits, as I have testified, need a tremendous
    amount of work.
        Senator Johnson. Can any of you think of any process of
    reporting where you might feel safe enough to actually try and
    report it? I have a hard time thinking of one, quite honestly.
    It is a devilish problem. Ms. Smith, can you think of some kind
    of reporting? I mean, you find out a chaplain is doing the
    abuse of this, you would think that would be a place for
    somebody to go. If somebody set up inside the prison, in a
    position of power could be abusing. Where does the solution lie
    here?
        Ms. Smith. I think there are a number of issues. OK, so
    first of all you start with being able to report outside of the
    institution.
        Senator Johnson. Correct. Where would you go outside, and
    how would that be done when they are monitoring phone calls and
    email messages, that type of thing?
        Ms. Smith. The fact is that there should be a phone line
    that you can use that is not monitored, right? There should be
    a way to report out to a rape crisis center or an inspector
    general's office.
        Senator Johnson. But the prison guards are going to know
    that you are using that phone, right?
        Ms. Smith. Yes. But the fact that there is a potential for
    abuse, as there currently is already, does not mean that you do
    not take those steps.
        I think you also have to protect people from retaliation.
    What you are also hearing here is that these women did not
    report because they actually had no confidence at all that they
    would be believed----
        Senator Johnson. No, again--yes, the retaliation, the power
    is real.
        Ms. Smith. Exactly.
        Senator Johnson. The power is real, to transfer you away
    from your family. The power is real. It really does come down
    to, if we are going to really prevent this, there has to be
    some method of an anonymous reporting system that cannot be
    abused for other things prisoners may be doing from inside the
    prison. There is the real devilish problem here.
        Ms. Smith. Yes. Agree.
        Senator Johnson. Any of the three witnesses, can you think
    of a reporting system that you would have had confidence in?
    Can you think of one? I will start with you, Ms. De La Rosa.
    Can you think of something that, if it would have been
    available you might have used to try and report this, or is the
    power just such overwhelming and the threats of retaliation are
    so horrific that you just had to bear it?
        Ms. De La Rosa. I honestly cannot think of a way that you
    can report it that the staff will not know about.
        Senator Johnson. Ms. Moore, can you think of one?
        Ms. Moore. No.
        Senator Johnson. Ms. Richardson?
        Ms. Richardson. No, sir, because one thing is for sure is
    that wrong or right does not matter. They all stick together.
        Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, to me there is the crux of
    the problem that needs to be solved. How can people inside
    prisons report without having a very high probability of being
    retaliated against, against the very people that are abusing
    them? I think our next panel, that will be the main line of
    questioning I will be pursuing there. But thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you very much, Ranking Member
    Johnson. Senator Padilla.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA

        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you have so well
    laid out, the purpose of today's hearing is to address the
    sexual misconduct that plagues U.S. Federal prisons and the
    irreversible harm that it causes victims. While the various
    investigations tell us that abuse and exploitation has run
    rampant, there is no misconception that incidents are isolated
    to only the facilities explicitly mentioned.
        The horrendous reality is that detainee abuse is pervasive
    in facilities across the country. My office has received far
    too many reports about California facilities suffering from
    dangerous living conditions, year-long delays in providing
    adequate health care in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, and
    yes, claims of sexual abuse and assault.
        Yesterday, Senators Durbin, Feinstein, Grassley, and I sent
    a follow-up letter to our original letter requesting more
    information from BOP concerning sexual misconduct allegations
    by its personnel. We reiterated that the Department of Justice
    must take immediate action to root out staff misconduct at BOP.
        This behavior cannot continue. The Bureau must act urgently
    to make meaningful, systemic improvements in facilities across
    the country.
        Now it has been reported that incarcerated individuals who
    are victims of sexual misconduct and abuse may become
    overwhelmed with crippling anxiety and fear of retaliation of
    incidents are reported. Correctional facilities should not be
    contributing to an environment where victims are terrified of
    reporting abuse due to fear of retaliation.
        Now one detainee in Dublin said that she was, and I will
    quote, ``overwhelmed with fear, anxiety, and anger, and cried
    uncontrollably'' after enduring abuse and retaliation for
    reporting it.
        Ms. Richardson, Ms. Moore, and Ms. De La Rosa, I want to
    thank you as well for being here today and for your courage to
    share your stories. No one should have to suffer what you have,
    and your testimony today is invaluable as we work to ensure
    that these abuses are prevented in the future.
        Would you each be willing to share a little bit about your
    mental health journey, how you have been able to manage, how
    you have been able to cope? Again, it has taken courage for you
    to be able to tell your story, to tell your story publicly, and
    to be here today to participate in this hearing. If you can
    talk a little bit about what the impacts have been, what
    resources or support you have been able to access to help.
        Ms. Richardson.
        Ms. Richardson. I was diagnosed with PTSD and I believe it
    is called persistent anxiety disorder. Since that diagnosis I
    have been on medication. Also my spirituality comes into play
    and keeps me grounded somewhat.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. Ms. Moore.
        Ms. Moore. I continued to see a therapist at the prison
    that I was transferred to, and then the prison after that, and
    then when I got home. I have been out 3 years and I continue to
    see a therapist. I have not really had anxiety since I have
    been out of prison because I feel like I am not contained
    anymore, and so the retaliation is not as scary as it is in
    there.
        But with this, like before when they asked me if I wanted
    to do it, at first I was afraid because I felt like, what kind
    of retaliation can I get from this? My anxiety has been high,
    knowing that I am coming here to do this. But as I told my
    attorneys, I am not the only one who has went through this, and
    if my story can help somebody else, then maybe going through it
    or could potentially go through it, I decided to put my anxiety
    to the side. And like she said, my faith helps me.
        I have two children, and I work every day. I am trying not
    to use it as a crutch and let it control my life. I am trying
    to keep control of my life, keep the control of my life since I
    have it back after what happened, and I am trying to move on
    with my life. But part of this is a part of me healing by doing
    this today.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. Ms. De La Rosa.
        Ms. De La Rosa. Anxiety has definitely been my biggest
    struggle. I was a lot more anxious prior to his incarceration.
    During his trial they did not even have him incarcerated. He
    got a bond and he was out, and my anxiety was so high during
    that time. But since he has been incarcerated I feel much
    safer.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. Thank you all for again being
    able to speak about that publicly, because we know there is
    still a lot of stigma around mental health and accessing it,
    whether it is seeing a counselor, a therapist, or medication,
    that we have to overcome, because it is OK. It is OK to not
    feel OK.
        Professor Smith, I wonder if, in the brief time we have
    left, you can begin to discuss more generally the mental health
    impacts of correctional officer abuse on detainees, both while
    they are in custody and when they are no longer incarcerated.
        Ms. Smith. What we know is that a significant number of
    women who come into custodial settings come in with past
    histories of abuse and trauma, and that abuse, the abuse as
    these women have talked about, in custody actually deepens that
    existing trauma that they already have. As we know, there are
    not a lot of resources available for women in custody to
    actually deal with the trauma that they are experiencing, that
    they experienced before they were in custody, while they are in
    custody, and also that they will experience upon their return.
        I think that it is really important that we enhance those
    services in custodial settings and actually after women return
    to the community.
        Senator Padilla. OK. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chair.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Senator Padilla.
        Ms. Richardson, you stated in court, you described a
    meeting in 2017, where a BOP supervisor told you and other
    assembled female prisoners, quote, ``I don't want to hear
    nothing about my officers touching you.'' Another officer who
    ignored pleas for help from a group of female prisoners and
    said that your abuser, quote, ``will eventually get caught.''
    What was it like to hear those things, and what, in your view,
    was it about MCC New York and the environment there that
    contributed to that culture?
        Ms. Richardson. Two of those statements were not actually
    made by me. It was made by the other ladies on the complaint.
    But I did hear one of the statements by Counselor Lewis, and at
    the time it did not register to me what it actually meant. But
    the dynamics of that place, like I said before, wrong or right
    does not matter. They all stuck together.
        Senator Ossoff. Unpack that a little bit for us please, Ms.
    Richardson.
        Ms. Richardson. Just like you said the statement that was
    Counselor Lewis. She is saying, ``I don't want to hear anything
    about what my officers are doing to you ladies.'' Everybody
    wants to cover their own butts so they basically--they do not
    do anything about what they hear. They sort of sweep it under
    the carpet.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Richardson.
        Ms. Moore, you explained how the captain would take you to
    isolated areas where there were not security cameras. Talk a
    little bit about the presence of cameras in the prison, the
    lack of coverage of certain areas in the prison, and how that
    contributed to an environment where you and others were
    vulnerable.
        Ms. Moore. I was at a camp so there are not very many
    cameras at a camp. Maybe they have some in the buildings, but
    Alderson, if you have ever been there, is really big, and 75
    percent of the place is not covered by cameras.
        In his office, of course his office does not have a camera
    in it. Certain parts of the building where we slept, where the
    counselors and the case managers worked, did not have cameras
    in those areas. Being at a camp, they say it is supposed to be
    low security, so I am assuming that is why they do not have as
    many cameras. But for things like this I feel like there could
    be more, even if it is just some outside, just more.
        What can you do about a camera in his office? He is the
    captain. Of course, they are probably not going to put a camera
    in his office. It was like he had the perfect opportunity to be
    in there with little visibility for anyone to see.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Moore.
        Professor Smith, let us talk a little bit about the Prison
    Rape Elimination Act, and it is perhaps obvious given the
    title, but what is the purpose of the Prison Rape Elimination
    Act?
        Ms. Smith. The purpose is not only prevention but also
    detection, punishment, and to create the conditions, whether it
    is the law, whether it is policy, whether it is related to
    prosecution to end sexual abuse of people in custody. That is
    the aim.
        Senator Ossoff. Professor Smith, one of the most concerning
    aspects of our investigation is that we found these PREA audits
    were conducted during times when there was ongoing sexual abuse
    inside Dublin, inside Coleman, and yet the auditors found and
    stated in these reports that both facilities met or exceeded
    every PREA standard. Talk a little bit about that, and I have
    to ask the question, do these audits work?
        Ms. Smith. I think, as I testified, there are significant
    problems with the audit, and there need to be substantial
    improvements. Currently, as I mentioned, we have the people who
    are supposed to be being audited, auditing themselves,
    essentially. What happens, there is not a great deal of
    diversity. What we have is auditors who formerly worked as
    wardens. We have agencies who audit each other, and so there is
    a disincentive for them to actually find another agency out of
    compliance, because they are concerned that when they are
    audited that they will be found out of compliance.
        I think that what is really important is having neutral
    auditors, to have people who are clearly not a part of that
    system, and also to have audits of the audits, to actually go
    behind the audits in the same way that you did in your report,
    to actually identify, yes, there were zero complaints here but,
    we looked at case law and we looked at actual criminal
    complaints, and this does not match up with what you--the
    correctional agencies--are reporting.
        I think that it has to be more than the actual audit, but
    there actually has to be some other independent verification of
    that audit, which would include, as the Committee has done
    here, looking at whether there are complaints, looking at
    litigation, talking to external organizations, talking to
    people who are outside of the system.
        Senator Ossoff. My time remaining is brief, if you can
    attempt this one. Do you think it would be helpful to have more
    women working in facilities that incarcerate women?
        Ms. Smith. Absolutely, and I testified to that as well. The
    presence of female staff--in fact, one of the huge issues that
    come to bear in each of these situations is how did these male
    staff actually have unfettered access to women inmates? A door
    should have been open when they were alone with a female
    inmate. Female staff should have been walking through. In many
    places, what has happened is female staff are the only ones who
    are allowed to perform certain services or perform in certain
    ways with female inmates.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Professor Smith.
        Ranking Member Johnson, do you have further questions for
    this panel?
        Senator Johnson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As Professor Smith pointed out earlier, obviously rape and
    sexual assault occur throughout society. You could actually
    argue inside the walls of a prison might be one place where you
    could actually prevent it from happening. There are guards.
    There are people there to enforce the law. You could argue that
    it should not happen.
        I think with my last round of questioning here I wanted to
    try and get some sense of how pervasive it is within prison.
    Obviously, in society there are so many reasons why rape
    victims do not come forward. You have those same dynamics
    occurring with prisoners, plus you have the even more horrific
    power and fear of retaliation, which would prevent victims from
    coming forward and blowing the whistle.
        What I would like to ask the three witnesses is, within the
    spectrum of isolated to pervasive, having talked to fellow
    prisoners, do you have any sense whatsoever? Were you
    unfortunately a victim of an isolated problem? Maybe it is
    different for every facility. It probably is different for
    different facilities. But do you have any kind of sense
    whatsoever in terms of what kind of problem we are dealing with
    here, that you were the unfortunate victim of an isolated case
    or you are unfortunately the victim of something that is
    pervasive within the prison population, of women's prisons?
        I will start with you, Ms. Richardson.
        Ms. Richardson. I was one of seven victims from MCC that
    the officer pled guilty to, and that was in the pretrial
    facility that I was housed in for 4\1/2\ years. When I was
    transferred to Tallahassee, Florida, prior to me leaving in
    October, there were three inmates there who were sexually
    assaulted by an officer, and one officer was walked off the
    compound. It seems to be in all of the facilities.
        Senator Johnson. Yes. It is occurring. I am trying to get
    some sense. What is the total prison population of women,
    something like 17,000? Is that from my briefing? I will go to
    Ms. Moore. What is your sense, isolated or pervasive throughout
    prison systems?
        Ms. Moore. I think it is throughout the prison system as
    well. The captain abused more than just me. I never knew the
    ladies but there were other women on his case as well that came
    forward, for him to be prosecuted. It is not isolated.
        Senator Johnson. You are dealing with the same information
    we are looking at right now in terms of what has been in the
    end prosecuted, what has come to light. I am trying to get some
    sense, through conversations with fellow prisoners, do you have
    any sense whatsoever?
        I will go to Ms. De La Rosa for that.
        Ms. De La Rosa. Pervasive throughout. It is way more than
    just the people who have reported. It is throughout the system.
        Senator Johnson. That would also imply there are a lot more
    perpetrators.
        Ms. De La Rosa. Yes.
        Senator Johnson. Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you
    forcing us to look at something we have to look at. We just do.
    We really do need the Department of Justice to step up to the
    plate, examine this carefully, utilize different tools,
    recognize that the PREA Act certainly has not eliminated this.
    We need more of a sense to figure out, really, how pervasive
    this is and what we can really do. I will, again, point out
    that the real problem is how can prisoners have any confidence
    to report?
        The other thing that I found bizarre, and we will cover
    this with our next panel too, is the strange situation if the
    Office of Internal Affairs compels a guard to do an interview
    and they find out that wrongdoing has occurred, that is a Get
    Out Of Jail Free card. I think we are going to have to
    obviously look to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to step
    up their investigations, because I think the Supreme Court has
    ruled on that. That is the way it is going to be, compelled
    testimony.
        We are going to have to figure out a better way to
    investigate because that is one of the ways you reduce this, at
    least, would be more consistent prosecutions and very severe
    penalty, which, by the way, penalty includes incarceration. But
    even those perpetrators deserve to be in a prison that is safe
    and where they are not abused as well.
        This is a big problem, and as I said at the outset, it is
    not a fun problem to look at. It just is not. But it is one
    that we have to, and I appreciate the fact that you are forcing
    us to look at it.
        Senator Ossoff. Ranking Member Johnson, I very much
    appreciate your consistent support and engagement in this
    investigation and that of your staff. I think it sends a
    powerful message to the Department that there is strong
    bipartisan will to address this crisis, and we will have the
    opportunity to question government witnesses in the next panel.
        I want to take this opportunity to thank each and every one
    of you. I want to thank, in particular you, Ms. Richardson, Ms.
    Moore, and Ms. De La Rosa, for coming forward, for having the
    strength and courage to address the U.S. Senate in this
    setting, to speak publicly about what you endured, to help
    Senators and the entire Congress to understand the dynamics
    that led to this exploitation, that led to the horrific ordeals
    that you suffered. Please know that we will continue to work on
    the basis of what you shared with us, and I believe that the
    courage you have demonstrated today will inspire and empower
    others as well to share their stories.
        It is with gratitude and admiration for your courage that I
    thank you, and Professor Smith, thank you for lending your
    expertise to the Senate today, and I hope that as Senator
    Johnson and I continue to work together to identify solutions,
    either at the administrative or legislative level, that you
    will remain engaged with us.
        At this time we will excuse this panel. Thank you again for
    your contributions. We will take a brief recess and set up for
    the second panel of government witnesses.
        [Recess.]
        We will now call our second panel of witnesses for this
    afternoon's hearing.
        Michael Horowitz serves as the Inspector General for the
    Department of Justice. Colette Peters serves as the Director of
    the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
        The rules of this Subcommittee require all witnesses to be
    sworn in, so at this time I would ask you both to please stand
    and raise your right hand.
        Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give
    before this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and
    nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
        Mr. Horowitz. I do.
        Ms. Peters. I do.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the
    record show that both witnesses have answered in the
    affirmative.
        Your written testimonies in full will be printed in the
    record, and I would ask that you seek to limit your oral
    testimony to approximately 5 minutes, as indicated by the
    clocks in front of you.
        Mr. Horowitz, we will hear from you first.

     TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ,\1\ INSPECTOR
                  GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

        Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Chairman Ossoff, Ranking Member
    Johnson, and Members of the Subcommittee.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Horowitz appear in the Appendix
    on page 156.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        During my tenure as inspector general I have identified for
    each of the five Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General
    that I have worked with that the safety and security of the
    Federal prisons is one of the most important and compelling
    issues facing the Department of Justice, so I am particularly
    pleased to be here today to talk about these issues and to work
    with the Committee on how to address them. I also want to thank
    you for the important and impactful report that was released
    today through the bipartisan work of the Committee.
        I also want to take a moment to thank Ms. De La Rosa, Ms.
    Moore, and Ms. Richardson for their courageous and compelling
    testimony that we heard in the first panel and for their
    bravery in cooperating with my office as we pursued the
    wrongdoers who committed the heinous acts that they described.
    Because of their assistance, those corrupt employees were held
    accountable in Federal court and are no longer able to
    terrorize other BOP inmates.
        No inmate should ever suffer sexual abuse in prison, and as
    your report details, female inmates are particularly vulnerable
    to such assaults. We must do everything we can to eradicate
    such behavior, and you have my commitment that the OIG will
    continue to make this fight against sexual assault one of our
    highest priorities.
        Indeed, our office regularly commits about 50 percent of
    our investigative resources to addressing criminal
    administrative wrongdoing by BOP employees, an outsized
    percentage of resources given that the BOP accounts for about
    30 percent of the Department's employees. However, I only have
    about 113 agents nationwide, which means I have the equivalent
    of 56 agents available to handle the thousands of allegations
    we receive across the 123 Federal prisons.
        It is clear that more independent oversight is needed, and
    that is why we have asked Congress, and I am working with
    Congress, to try and get more resources to do that kind of
    work.
        We continue to see widespread instances of sexual assault,
    most recently, as was discussed earlier, at the BOP's prison in
    Dublin, California, an all-female prison. Last week, the jury
    convicted the former warden of sexually assaulting eight
    inmates at the prison. The investigation that we have conducted
    with the FBI has also identified other Dublin employees and
    charged other Dublin employees, including the former chaplain,
    and we have a very active and ongoing investigation there.
        These problems did not happen overnight, and the BOP must
    do more to prevent and detect them before they become endemic
    at other institutions, as we have seen in Coleman and others,
    as we heard in the first panel.
        In short, these are substantial problems that need
    immediate attention and action, and the Subcommittee's report
    and the recommendations in it are going to be very valuable as
    we move forward to address them. We are also pleased by the
    recommendations contained in the Deputy Attorney General's
    recent report by her Task Force on Sexual Assault. Those
    recommendations need to be implemented promptly. I have also
    had several positive discussions with Directors Peters since
    she became the director in July of this year.
        Let me mention some additional issues that I am hoping the
    Committee will consider. First, the BOP needs to be, and take
    more timely and effective action at holding accountable corrupt
    BOP employees. Second, the BOP needs to rely on credible inmate
    testimony in its administrative misconducts proceedings. Third,
    the BOP must repair and improve its camera systems.
        Fourth, the BOP needs to implement an effective staff
    search and contraband policy. One of the things that I am
    hoping that the Committee will consider is a potential increase
    in the penalties for contraband smuggling. In some instances,
    those are merely misdemeanors, when contraband is smuggled into
    BOP prisons to provide contraband to inmates that they are
    grooming for their sexual assaults. That should be addressed.
        I am also taking several steps within the OIG to ensure
    that we can do a better job in our office, investigating and
    pursuing these allegations. I have included them in my
    testimony. Among them, using data analytics to identify
    problems early on, like you have recounted in FCI Coleman and
    what occurred there. We will take more action, and I am
    assuring this Committee that we will take those steps.
        I appreciate the support of this Committee and of the
    Congress in pursuing our work and allowing us to conduct our
    investigations. We will use all the tools you have provided us
    to take action to prevent this scourge from occurring.
        I look forward to answering your questions today, and thank
    you again for the important work that you have done.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Inspector General Horowitz.
        Director Peters.

    TESTIMONY OF COLETTE S. PETERS,\1\ DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
                                PRISONS

        Ms. Peters. Good morning, Chairman Ossoff, Ranking Member
    Johnson, and Members of the Committee. I am honored to appear
    before you as the Bureau's 12th director and to provide
    leadership to corrections professionals in the largest
    corrections agency in the country.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Peters appear in the Appendix on
    page 167.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        After 30 years in public safety, working in roles from
    victim advocate and inspector general to serving as the
    director of the Oregon Department of Corrections, I can tell
    you that the topic of this hearing is of immense importance to
    me, I thank the Committee for their years of work, and I
    especially thank the victims who are here today, bravely
    sharing their heartbreaking and compelling stories.
        I welcome accountability and oversight, and I welcome this
    hearing. We must come to this work with our arms wide open. Our
    work with Congress, the Office of the Inspector General, and
    the Government Accountability Office (GAO), among others, has
    helped us identify and address areas of concerns within our
    agency. Sexual misconduct by Bureau employees is an issue of
    critical importance, and I also appreciate this Committee's
    support in this area.
        With your oversight I see this moment as an opportunity to
    work together to make our facilities safer for the people in
    our care and custody. I believe we all want the same thing: a
    safe, humane, and effective Federal Bureau of Prisons.
        Any kind of misconduct, especially sexual misconduct by
    Bureau employees, is always unacceptable and must not be
    tolerated. The vast majority of our employees come to work
    every day ready to serve in complex and challenging jobs that
    can also change lives and make our communities safer. I join
    these dedicated employees in being horrified by the small
    number of employees who engage in inappropriate, egregious, and
    criminal behavior. We must hold accountable those who violate
    that public trust, and we are strengthening our processes,
    realigning resources, and clearly communicating those
    expectations.
        Our work is to combat sexual misconduct, and that work is
    complex and must include prevention, reporting, investigation,
    discipline, and also prosecution. We must begin with assessing
    and then changing the culture and the environment in our
    facilities where need be. At all women's facilities, we want to
    ensure that gender responsive, and trauma-informed practices
    are being followed. We must train all Bureau employees on their
    obligation to report misconduct.
        Since leadership is essential to creating the appropriate
    culture, we are also examining how we select, supervise, and
    support wardens in our women's facilities. I believe that
    detection and accountability is critical to deterrence. We will
    leverage both technological and human resources (HR) to better
    detect and prevent sexual misconduct.
        On the technological side, we are working on upgrading
    camera technology and usage.
        I have also been very clear in my communication to Bureau
    employees that while I am proud of those who come to work every
    day dedicated to our core values and mission, for those that
    are not we will fetter them out and hold them accountable, up
    to and including termination and conviction. We will also not
    tolerate any acts of reprisal.
        There is no and should be no limitation on who may submit
    allegations of misconduct, and our Office of Internal Affairs
    works closely with the Office of Inspector General and other
    entities to ensure all obligations are reviewed. In this vein,
    we are looking into collaborating with formerly incarcerated
    individuals and using the lessons learned from their
    experience. Myself and other Bureau employees have already
    participated in two very powerful listening sessions, which
    included formerly incarcerated individuals.
        We too are bolstering and reorganizing investigative
    resources and personnel to support the Office of Internal
    Affairs in conducting timely, thorough, and unbiased
    investigations. This includes adding more than 40 employees to
    the OIA team, realigning reporting structure for those agents,
    and training investigators in trauma-informed techniques.
        When criminal misconduct is uncovered it is important that
    people are held accountable, either administratively or
    criminally, if legal action is warranted. That is why I would
    like to publicly thank the Inspector General for his commitment
    to ensuring the Bureau's success through the timely
    investigations, and I would like to thank the Deputy Attorney
    General for giving very clear direction to all U.S. Attorneys
    on prioritizing prosecution of criminal misconduct in the
    Bureau.
        As I have said many times, and I will repeat here today, I
    believe in good government, I believe in transparency, and I
    know we cannot do this work alone. We must come to this work,
    as I have said, with our arms wide open.
        Chairman Ossoff, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, I am honored to speak on behalf of the Bureau and
    its dedicated employees. This concludes my opening statement
    and I look forward to your questions.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Director Peters, and I will
    begin.
        Director Peters, you were appointed over the summer. You
    have been on the job about 5 months. Correct?
        Ms. Peters. That is correct.
        Senator Ossoff. I think it is important to acknowledge--and
    I know Ranking Member Johnson and I, both acknowledge you are
    new in this post--the overwhelming majority, if not all, of the
    events presented in our report occurred prior to your tenure.
        Nevertheless, as you and I discussed in your confirmation,
    or your first hearing, rather, in the Judiciary Committee, the
    buck now stops with you. One thing I wanted to state at the
    outset of your responses to our questions today is that while
    we are deeply interested in your plans for reform, and you will
    have every opportunity to present them, the purpose of this
    hearing as well is to examine what happened in the past, what
    went wrong, and what has been broken at the Bureau of Prisons.
    You, in your capacity, leading the BOP, today are here to help
    us understand that. I hope that is clear, Director Peters.
        Ms. Peters. Very clear, Senator. Thank you.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you. I appreciate that. Same to you,
    Mr. Horowitz.
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Senator Ossoff. Ranking Member Johnson made reference to
    this in his questions to our prior panel, defining the scope of
    the problem. We agree that is vital. What we found in the
    course of this investigation is that in two-thirds of the
    Federal prisons that have housed women in the last 10 years,
    there has been sexual abuse of female prisoners by BOP
    employees. I believe this number is likely significantly
    higher, both in the number of facilities and the number of
    cases, in part because of the severe deficiencies we have
    identified in terms of how, Director Peters, the Office of
    Internal Affairs handles investigations of allegations of
    sexual abuse, the limitations that you have acknowledged,
    Inspector General Horowitz, in your office, as well as the
    widespread fear of retaliation and a culture of impunity that
    we have seen prevail in multiple of these cases.
        We start with Dublin. It was widely known, before it broke
    into the official record, that there was a serious problem at
    Dublin. There have been multiple convictions. There are over a
    dozen ongoing criminal investigations. This went on for years.
    The warden and the chaplain were sexually abusing prisoners.
        Before Dublin, multiple officers abusing multiple female
    inmates in other facilities--MCC New York, Metropolitan
    Detention Center (MDC) Brooklyn, FCC Coleman. Every few years,
    despite the culture of impunity, despite the fear of
    retaliation, it has broken into the public consciousness that
    there is a serious problem, and yet nothing systemic has been
    done to address it. In fact, when we asked senior BOP
    personnel, ``What was done after the Brooklyn facts came to
    light?'' ``What was done after the Coleman facts came to
    light?'' little or nothing in the way of a systemic attempt to
    address the issue.
        I want to understand from you, Director Peters, why. You
    have been in the job now for 5 months. Presumably you have
    debriefed senior leadership that is outgoing. Yes?
        Ms. Peters. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Ossoff. You have inspected prisons?
        Ms. Peters. Yes.
        Senator Ossoff. You have discussed these issues with
    regional directors, with wardens. You have, I assume, done your
    best to understand this so that you can be effective at
    addressing it.
        Before we get into what you are going to change, why is it
    that for 10 years, despite being known to BOP leadership that
    there was a serious problem, nothing was done to address it in
    any kind of systemic or effective way?
        Ms. Peters. Senator, I wish I had a good answer to that
    question. What I can tell you is that when you look at the
    institutions that you are highlighting--the Brooklyn, MCC New
    York, Dublin--and you see an institution that has been riveted
    with cases, it is hard to explain. It is hard to understand how
    systemic changes were not implemented.
        When you look at the power differential inside an
    institution there is no ability for an individual who is
    incarcerated to consent to any form of sexual relations. Then
    when you look at individuals like a warden and like a chaplain,
    there is something even more exponential there in terms of that
    power differential.
        I find that that situation is absolutely egregious, and it
    is about the systemic change. That is what we need to look at,
    Senator. We need to be able to look in all of the categories
    that I mentioned in my opening statement. We have to figure out
    how to prevent this. We have to figure out how to better
    investigate, streamline resources, hold people accountable, and
    work to prosecute those who deserve prosecution.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Director Peters. I appreciate
    that. Again I want to stipulate, I think it is important for
    the public to be reminded that the events that we are
    investigating predated your tenure. Nevertheless, I think you
    have to understand why systemic change was neither attempted
    nor did it succeed. Because for you to reform this vast
    bureaucracy, which is diseased--and this Subcommittee has done
    other work looking at the BOP in the last few months. We looked
    at corruption and misconduct in Atlanta, for example, and we
    examined, in the course of that hearing, a lack of
    accountability from the very top. You need to understand that
    in order to change it.
        Here is something I want to put to you and get your
    response, Director Peters. We, in the course of conducting this
    investigation, heard different things from folks at different
    levels of your organization. For example, we interviewed a
    former warden at Dublin, not the one who has been convicted but
    a former warden at Dublin, who described this as--and this is a
    quote from his interview--``bad people making bad choices.'' He
    identified it and I am now paraphrasing, but the gist of it was
    a few bad apples, people making the wrong choices, not so much
    systemic. He denied there was a culture of abuse.
        But we spoke with your chief of Internal Affairs, who
    described a culture of abuse, who described it as systemic at
    that facility.
        Have you, for example, talked to the regional director who
    was in charge at the time, to understand how it could have
    evaded their attention that this was ongoing at Dublin for so
    long, and how is it that there are these different views within
    your own bureaucracy? You have a former warden saying just a
    few bad apples, and your own Internal Affairs folks saying it
    was culture of abuse.
        Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator. I have a tough time
    understanding how the warden drew that conclusion based on the
    facts as I observe them today. I have not spoken to that
    warden. I have had lengthy conversations with the administrator
    responsible for our Office of Internal Affairs, and we agree,
    that is a culture of abuse, that is a culture of misconduct,
    and that culture needs to be reset in order to ensure the
    safety and security of those in our care and custody. I think
    we do have systemic changes in the works that will help us
    reset that culture there and throughout the Federal Bureau of
    Prisons.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you. Ranking Member Johnson.
        Senator Johnson. Director Peters, how do you determine
    whether it is a few bad apples versus a culture of abuse? How
    do you make that determination systemically? Obviously, when
    you have the warden and the chaplain, you kind of figure that
    is probably a culture. But again, you have a number of
    facilities. How do you make that determination?
        Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator. I think the Bureau is now
    putting together cultural assessments where we have teams who
    are trained to come in and assess that culture. I think some of
    the signs are absolutely, Senator, like you said, when it is
    high-level officials engaging in these egregious criminal acts,
    there is clearly a culture.
        But also when you find those who are incarcerated who
    openly tell our cultural assessment team that they do not feel
    comfortable coming forward, they do not feel like there are
    avenues to report in a way where they can report without fear
    of reprisal. It is those sorts of warning signs that we want to
    be able to find during these cultural assessments so that we do
    not have a Dublin repeat again, and so those individuals in our
    care and custody are safe.
        We look forward to continuing those cultural assessments
    and ensuring that we are taking all of that data into account.
        Senator Johnson. Do you have any idea, in terms of how
    somebody is being sexually abused inside a prison, can report
    that without having a very legitimate fear of retaliation or
    reprisal? Can you think of anything--understanding you have a
    hotline. They will know they are using the hotline. You provide
    confidential communication. That will be abused by drug
    traffickers. It is a tough nut to crack. Do you have any
    possible ideas of what might work?
        Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator, and I appreciated those
    questions directly to those who were formerly incarcerated and
    now victims of these egregious acts that you asked earlier this
    morning.
        I think the answer is there has to be many avenues. First,
    we have to create a culture where they have developed
    relationships with the frontline officers and they do feel
    comfortable talking to them. Absent that, we have to develop a
    culture where family members and loved ones know that they too
    can report, internally or externally. I think the key--and as
    we listened to the women talk this morning--that ability to
    report independently, without any tracking from the Bureau,
    directly to the Inspector General's Office is a key component
    of being able to crack that nut.
        Senator Johnson. But again, they are in prison. How can
    they report without people knowing? Then, let us face it. They
    report it, and after a certain amount of time all of a sudden
    people are asking questions?
        Ms. Peters. That is right. Right now the way they can
    report directly to the Inspector General without us knowing is
    through Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer Systems (TRULINCS).
    They are able to send an email directly to the Inspector
    General, outlining their allegations and their concerns.
        You are absolutely right. Then investigators come, Senator,
    and questions are asked. The information is inside the
    institution. It cannot just be reporting alone. It has to be
    things like the convictions that we are seeing out of
    California, so that our Bureau employees know that if they
    engage in this type of behavior, or engage in acts of reprisal,
    that they will be held accountable. I think that level of
    prosecution and accountability will allow us, over time, to
    develop an environment where individuals can come forward
    without that fear of reprisal.
        Senator Johnson. In the PREA audits, what percentage of the
    inmates are questioned during those things in a confidential
    manner?
        Ms. Peters. Senator, I do not know the answer to that
    question.
        Senator Johnson. OK. That would certainly be one way, a
    more all-inclusive survey, surveillance audits, that type of
    thing.
        How many personnel do you have in the Office of Internal
    Affairs?
        Ms. Peters. I do not know the total number, but I do know
    that we added more than 40 positions to the Office of Internal
    Affairs in order to help us----
        Senator Johnson. It is probably in the hundreds?
        Ms. Peters. Yes.
        Senator Johnson. Inspector General Horowitz, do you know?
        Mr. Horowitz. I do not know the exact number in the BOP's
    operations. I do think it is--I would be guessing. I am not
    sure exactly how many they have in their internal affairs. As I
    said, we have about 113 agents around the country devoting
    about half their time to this.
        If I could answer, I think you have hit on, as you talked
    about in the first panel, a critically important question. As
    Director Peters said, there is this ability to send an email
    directly to us that is anonymized, that cannot be traced. The
    question, of course, is who is watching over people's shoulders
    when that occurs, where is the terminal, what happens when we
    respond, because obviously we want to respond, so that has to
    be addressed.
        But I think one of the things that is critically important
    is the culture question we have been talking about, because as
    you know from having run a business, the question is why are
    the employees not stepping forward? Why do we need the inmates,
    and only the inmates, to step forward?
        It is a very serious problem. We have the warden, a
    chaplain, and many other employees at the Dublin prison. We
    could talk about Brooklyn, MDC Brooklyn. We could talk about
    MCC New York. We could talk about FCI Atlanta. We could talk
    about Thompson Prison. We can keep going, right? Why are those
    employees not coming forward, when they have a predator among
    their fellow employees? They are the eyes and ears, along with
    the inmates. They are the ones who need to come forward. There
    needs to be that ability and accountability for people who are
    responsible and for people who should have come forward,
    including supervisors.
        Senator Johnson. Director Peters, I know local law
    enforcement, for a host of reasons, are having a very difficult
    time recruiting. The Defund the Police movement, the blame cops
    first, that type of thing. What kind of recruitment issues are
    you having within the Bureau of Prisons?
        Ms. Peters. Thank you for that question, Senator. First, I
    cannot agree more with what the inspector general just said.
    Our employees have an obligation to come forward. I think it
    ties directly into your next question, which is how do we hire
    the right people to come in, who want to change hearts and
    minds, who want to do the right thing, who have those core
    values, who have those ethics?
        If ever there was a time where it was difficult to hire at
    the Bureau of Prisons, it is now, for all the reasons you just
    mentioned, Senator. It was difficult to hire before the
    pandemic. Then the pandemic hit and made these jobs even less
    attractive, as well as the other issues that you just raised,
    in the field of law enforcement.
        One of our top priorities is recruitment and retention
    strategies, and we have been working diligently, internal with
    the Bureau, but we have also reached out to two organizations
    and contracted with them in hopes that we can rely on their
    expertise to improve our ability to hire not just people but
    the right people for this business.
        Senator Johnson. If you will indulge me for one more point,
    maybe question. There is a real problem of false reports.
    Correct? Do either of you have any indication of how
    significant a problem that is? Let us face it. You are talking
    about people who have committed crimes. Some of them maybe are
    not the most honorable or most honest, and it is not a bad way
    to retaliate against a guard either.
        How does Bureau of Prisons, how does the Office of Internal
    Affairs, how the Office of Inspector General try and sift
    through the true claims versus the fraudulent ones?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes, it is an excellent question, Senator. It
    is something, actually, having done police corruption cases
    back when I was a Federal prosecutor in New York, was one of
    the key questions also, which is you had a lot of allegations
    against the bad cops, but you had allegations against the good
    cops because the drug dealers knew that was a convenient way--
    or thought it was, at least--to impact them.
        You have to be very careful as investigators to understand
    that. Frankly, the only way you do it is by getting the
    complaints, carefully vetting them, and not jumping to a
    conclusion, and that is one of the challenges we face also,
    particularly because it is so challenging to get into the
    prison to see if there is corroboration, and this is where
    cameras come in. I could talk about this for days. It is not
    only on sexual abuse, it is on assaults in prison. How many
    times do we get a complaint that an inmate was assaulted by
    another correctional officer? A lot of those are false, because
    they had an injury and it was their own doing. We do not have a
    camera. There is no excuse for that, none whatsoever.
        Senator Johnson. By the way, I completely agree with that,
    and that is just table stakes. That has to be fixed. The
    cameras have to be fixed. They have got to provide, as much as
    possible, 100 percent coverage. That would take care of an
    awful lot of this. In the scheme of things, probably one of the
    most cost-effective ways of really addressing this.
        Mr. Horowitz. You are a thousand percent right.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ranking Member Johnson. I would
    note, as a point of personal privilege, Senator Lankford, that
    Senator Grassley and I have the Prison Camera Reform Act. It
    has passed the Senate unanimously. Any help that anybody in
    this room can muster to get that through the House before this
    Congress ends would be deeply appreciated.
        Senator Lankford.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD

        Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you to
    both of you for your work. I have several questions on this
    topic and a couple of other questions because it is unique to
    be able to sit down with both of you on that. I want to take
    advantage of that moment.
        I want to pick up, Director Peters, in this discussion
    about cameras. That was actually my first question. A common
    story on the sexual assault that we have heard already was that
    the assault was happening with staff members in the locations
    where they were not monitored. How do we get that fixed? In the
    meantime, how do we make sure that, until we get cameras and
    monitoring in those locations, we get additional staff eyes and
    ears in those locations, or certain policies that if you are
    passing through these certain locations you cannot do it one-
    on-one? What is in process right now?
        Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator. I could not agree more with
    your sentiments or that of the Inspector General. In my 30
    years in public safety, having formerly been the Inspector
    General of Oregon and the Director of the Oregon Department of
    Corrections, technology and camera usage is key.
        You are absolutely right. The stories we heard this
    morning, people know where those cameras are, both my employees
    and those in our care and custody, and probably more
    importantly, they know where those cameras are not.
        Senator Lankford. Right.
        Ms. Peters. The more that we can improve that technology
    inside, in my experience I have seen this type of behavior and
    other non-sexual behavior decrease dramatically with the
    introduction of cameras, both static cameras inside the
    institution and also the usage of body cameras.
        One of the concerns I have today, as the new director of
    the Bureau, is the lack of resources that we have for the
    camera installation. The time it is going to take to install
    these cameras that have been approved, based on the resources
    we have, is concerning to me. I always appreciate the support
    of Congress in establishing those resources so that we can
    ensure that those institutions are safe and secure, with the
    most upgraded technology possible.
        Senator Lankford. Thank you. We appreciate that. We look
    forward to getting a chance to track what facilities were
    chosen first, what the process was for the rollout of that.
    That will be important to see, as well, how that actually
    happens, and how those priorities are actually set.
        While I am on the technology conversation, different
    subject on this but still technology related to this has been
    the microjammers in the managed access. That is a security
    issue not only within the prison but outside the prison for
    individuals to not be basically stalked from inside the prison
    or to use contraband cellphones to be able to communicate with
    other prisoners, to coordinate activities within the prison as
    well.
        This has been one I have worked on for years. I have
    continued to be able to push. There have been pilot programs,
    but we have not seen wide distribution. The technology
    currently exists to do managed access or microjamming in all of
    our facilities, but it is not being rolled out quickly. What is
    needed to do that? Where does that land on your priority list?
        Ms. Peters. I could not agree more, and the Inspector
    General alluded to this in his opening comments. Contraband is
    the beginning of sexual assault, and so eradicating the use of
    cellphones inside our institutions for the various reasons that
    you just talked about, addressing this issue of drones, which
    is the new way to introduce contraband inside our institutions,
    and really figuring out how to ensure that that type of
    technology is not the introduction of further criminality.
        At the core of the Bureau has to be safety and security,
    and this issue is really important to me. To answer your
    question, it is about resources. It is about funding and being
    able to ensure that that technology is kept outside of our
    institutions. Absent that funding, we are relying, in some of
    our institutions, on local law enforcement to come in with
    their cell dogs, if you will, their cellphone dogs, to help us
    figure out where those cellphones are and how to ensure that
    the least amount of contraband is being introduced into our
    institutions.
        Senator Lankford. Mr. Horowitz, do you want to comment on
    that as well?
        Mr. Horowitz. It is something, Senator, I know you have
    been working on and something we have been writing about for 10
    years now. Other States are doing it. Long ago, finally the
    BOP--and I appreciate them--finally taking that effort. But as
    Director Peters said, cellphones in a prison are a deadly
    weapon.
        Senator Lankford. Right.
        Mr. Horowitz. We did a case in Puerto Rico where it was
    used to put a hit on a correctional officer. They run drug
    businesses. They are used to groom future abused inmates. You
    know what? Smuggling a cellphone into prison is a misdemeanor.
        Senator Lankford. Right. Yes. There are several issues that
    we have to resolve here, both the disincentive to be able to
    bring that in, the consequences for smuggling that into,
    whether that be a drone or whether that be a staff member,
    however they may get that in, a contractor may get that
    cellphone in.
        But for the longest, States, local entities could not do
    this jamming because it was blocked in Federal law. This is
    still a big issue for us, and we are still blocking the
    microjamming, that the technology is there. We are acting like
    this is 20 years ago, but the technology is there and the
    managed access where it is being used is being used effectively
    to deter future crimes that are there.
        I appreciate the engagement. This is an area that we have
    to continue to advance on to make our prisons more secure and
    our staff that are there, that the vast majority are good
    actors in that, to continue to protect them as well.
        Director Peters, I want to ask you, as well, about the
    First Step Act, and I am going to make a quick comment and move
    on to other things. One of the aspects of the First Step Act
    was actually outside groups being allowed to do the annual
    recidivism work. This has always been very difficult for the
    Bureau of Prisons to allow outside entities to come in and do
    this. It is very common in State and county facilities. There
    are very popular programs that are done in State and county
    facilities on recidivism.
        But the Bureau of Prisons has continued to lock them out.
    Even after the First Step Act is passed, many have applied and
    few are actually getting in, to do that work. Faith-based
    entities and others are trying to step in and they are being
    blocked out to do that. I would like to have a follow-up
    conversation with you and your team on this. I met with the
    previous director on this, and what I really got was a ``We are
    thinking about it. We are working on it. There is no
    requirement to many.'' But it was very clear from Congress,
    start allowing some outside groups to work on recidivism issues
    within our Federal Bureau of Prisons as we do in State and
    Federal.
        Will you commit to meet with me on that so we can get a
    chance to talk about it?
        Ms. Peters. I look forward to the conversation.
        Senator Lankford. Thank you. We do want to help in that
    area, and Congress has spoken clearly on this.
        We have talked a lot about staff-to-inmates assaults. This
    continues to be an issue within inmates as well. I have a
    culturally difficult area that you have to deal with all the
    time on this, and that is the transgender population that is
    now in the Bureau of Prisons care.
        As of June of this year, the best numbers that I have, we
    have 1,427 individuals in Bureau of Prisons custody who are
    transgender. Of those, 72 percent of those are male. Of those,
    47 percent of those male individuals are currently incarcerated
    for sex crimes.
        My question is, how are we protecting other inmates where
    we have individuals that have a sex crimes conviction? They
    have currently transitioned already and they are in another
    facility where they are biologically male in a female prison or
    biologically female in a male prison. Based on that, what
    policies are in place to protect other inmates? I have read
    through some of the areas on the policy to honor those
    individuals and the gender that they have chosen, but what
    about for other individuals that are in that prison as well,
    and what are you seeing?
        Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator. This has been an issue that
    I have been personally working on as the former Director of the
    Department of Corrections and, of course, now as the Director
    of the Bureau of Prisons. The bottom-line answer is safety and
    security and individualized case management, not making
    sweeping decisions around our trans population but really
    looking at that individual sitting in front of you, what their
    situation is, what is the safety and security of the
    institution we are considering assigning them to, and then
    training our employees to understand the complexities of
    housing individuals who are trans inside of our institutions,
    and ensuring not just their safety but as you said, Senator,
    the safety of those who are incarcerated and the safety of our
    employees.
        Senator Lankford. Right. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman,
    thank you for the little bit of extra time on this. Can I make
    one more follow-up statement on that?
        When I read through the Bureau of Prisons transgender
    policy it has a section there where it says, ``Transgender
    inmates shall be given the opportunity to shower separate from
    other inmates when individual shower stalls are unavailable.
    The agency shall not place transgender or intersexed inmates in
    dedicated facilities units or weighing solely on the basis of
    such identification or status.''
        That gives some rights to them. Is that also extended to
    other individuals? If a biological male is placed in a female
    prison, do the other prisoners there also have the same rights
    on protecting themselves as well, to saying, hey, this is also
    our preference, to not be housed with an individual that is a
    biological male, especially one that is currently incarcerated
    for sex crimes?
        Ms. Peters. Senator, I think that obligation and that onus
    is on us, not those who are incarcerated. It is our obligation
    to ensure that we are placing them on units where they are safe
    and the people on those units are also safe. I would not want
    to put that ownership on the adults in custody to determine
    their safety and security. That is an issue that lies with us.
        Senator Lankford. Right. But based on this policy, a
    transgender inmate is given the opportunity to be able to
    choose. What I am asking is, do the individuals that they are
    housed with, do they also get that same opportunity, or is that
    opportunity for choice only given to the transgender inmate?
        Ms. Peters. The opportunity to provide input is only given
    to that transgender inmate. The choice of placement is not up
    to the individual that is incarcerated. That is on us to make
    that security and housing placement.
        Senator Lankford. The opportunity to give input is not
    given to the other folks that they are placed with that are not
    transgender?
        Ms. Peters. That is correct.
        Senator Lankford. Why?
        Ms. Peters. I think that it is really important for us to
    own that safety and security and that placement decision. We
    are the experts in corrections. We are the ones that need to
    determine where those individuals can be appropriately housed.
        Senator Lankford. You have also got a situation where some
    people get input and some people do not on that, and I think if
    you are going to give input to individuals on housing and
    safety and what they feel secure, their own background and
    perspective, I think that should be given to all in that
    situation.
        Ms. Peters. Thank you.
        Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
        Investigating the abuse of incarcerated women by BOP
    employees, I want to return to some questions about management,
    accountability, what has gone wrong for the last 10 years such
    that there has been no systemic effort to address this crisis
    despite acknowledgment today from the inspector general that it
    is widespread.
        Let me begin by saying we found approximately 5,200
    allegations of sexual abuse targeting inmates by BOP employees
    over the last decade. As the Ranking Member noted, not all of
    them will be valid. We also heard, however, from three
    survivors in the first panel, none of whom themselves made a
    complaint. Given the fear of retaliation, given the power that
    BOP employees have over the lives of those in their custody, it
    stands to reason that there are a substantial number of
    incidents where no complaint is made.
        We also found, to our shock, that the Office of Internal
    Affairs, Director Peters, has an 8,000-case backlog, including
    at least hundreds of sexual abuse allegations. The first
    question for you this round is, how and by when will you clear
    it?
        Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator. I spoke earlier. We have
    added more than 40 positions to the Office of Internal Affairs
    to help shore up that backlog. I think when you talk about,
    Senator, what has gone wrong over the last 10 years it has been
    lack of resources. It has been a lack of accountability. When
    you have investigations open for as long as we have had it is
    hard to hold people accountable at the end of those
    investigations.
        It is my hope that those additional positions will help
    shore up that backlog. But as you know, and from the testimony
    of the administrator to you from our Office of Internal
    Affairs, even those additional resources, it is going to
    require us 2 years to clear that backlog.
        Senator Ossoff. Two years. Understood, Director Peters. I
    hope that those sexual abuse allegations will be prioritized as
    you work through those 8,000 cases. I recognize the resource
    constraints but I think, Ranking Member Johnson, it is fair to
    say we hear pretty consistently that the solution to
    intractable bureaucratic deficiencies is more funding and more
    personnel, and sometimes that is true, but there are deeper
    management problems here.
        Director Peters, I want to discuss a little bit about how
    you are approaching this, again, with the stipulation that you
    have been on the job for 5 months, you are new to this role,
    you are taking charge of the institution and these events
    predated your tenure, how you are going to handle ensuring that
    you have all of the information about what is happening within
    your facilities, that the regional directors have all of the
    necessary information about what is happening in their
    facilities.
        How could it be, based upon your experience thus far in the
    role and your experience managing this organization the last 5
    months, for example, that the regional director responsible for
    Dublin would have been unaware that the chaplain and the warden
    and other employees, now over a dozen investigations, were
    abusing inmates, such that it spilled out into the Associated
    Press (AP) reporting that it dubbed ``The Rape Club''? Why was
    the regional director unaware?
        Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator. In my 18 years in adult
    corrections this is one of the biggest questions I have been
    faced with since I have taken on this new role. Having been in
    institutions countless times, understanding how corrections
    works, the warden cannot leave his or her office without people
    knowing, so how this type of behavior happened, unaccounted
    for, without people stepping forward, I do not understand it.
        But what I have been working on is sending very clear
    messages to every member of my executive team and the wardens
    that I must know about the good, the bad, and the ugly that is
    happening inside this organization, which means they too need
    to know. They need to have a pulse on what is happening in
    their regions and in their institutions.
        Going back to the previous question, it starts with the
    investigators. One of the changes that we made was to ensure
    that the investigators that are handling these very significant
    sexual abuse cases report to headquarters. There needs to be
    more accountability in headquarters. There needs to be more
    accountability in the Director's Office. We are going to ensure
    that that reporting authority is changed, and then myself and
    the Deputy Director will be meeting with the administrator of
    OIA and our HR division Assistant Director regularly to review
    those cases.
        Also as it relates to the broader leadership structure, we
    are really looking at how those appointments are made, how we
    recruit for those positions, who fills those positions. But I
    have also sent a very clear message to the organization that we
    are going to be transparent and that we need to be aware of
    what is happening inside our institutions.
        Senator Ossoff. All well noted, Director Peters.
        Returning to the question--and I think it is important that
    the Congress and you personally have answers to these specific
    questions--how is it that the regional director, with direct
    responsibility for FCI Dublin, did not know the extent of
    ongoing abuse in a facility for which they were directly
    responsible? If you have not, will you seek to speak with that
    person to understand how they possibly could have been blind to
    that severe abuse happening on their watch?
        Ms. Peters. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Director Peters.
        One of our courageous witnesses from the first panel, Ms.
    De La Rosa, who was assaulted at Lexington, described the
    culture of the institution as an ``old boys' club.'' What do
    you think she meant by that?
        Ms. Peters. I would not want to surmise what she meant by
    that, Senator.
        Senator Ossoff. I think you probably have an idea.
        Ms. Peters. Senator, I think the notion of an old boys'
    club, as I have seen and experienced in my career, is one where
    decisions are made often behind closed doors, they are often
    made without women in the room, and I assume that is what she
    is speaking to.
        Senator Ossoff. Inspector General Horowitz, you made this
    point in the previous round of questions, not just that BOP
    employees are not reporting when they are aware of abuse that
    is perpetrated by their colleagues, but, in fact, what we heard
    from the survivors who testified in the first panel is a
    culture of mutual protection. Talk a little bit about that
    please, Mr. Horowitz.
        Mr. Horowitz. That is one of the biggest challenges we
    face. These are not secrets. The warden taking these actions,
    the chaplain taking these actions, other inmates taking these
    actions, they are not secret. You mentioned Atlanta, the
    Federal prison there, that was essentially closed for a period
    of time. When they tossed the prison to go look, we had been
    doing case after case there. Dozens of phones found. Other
    contraband found. It is not a problem that happened overnight.
    In fact, we looked at the past audit reports. They got passes.
    But if you read those reports, you could not miss the problem.
        There needs to be more ownership at the director and senior
    levels of the BOP, at the regional levels of the BOP, and there
    has to be put in place a process by which the good actors, the
    people who do not want to be working next to a predator--and I
    think that is probably most employees--are comfortable coming
    forward and reporting it, knowing they are not only not going
    to get retaliated against for doing that but they are going to
    be held on a pedestal and supported by the organization, rather
    than have the people who are engaged in the wrongdoing
    promoted.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Horowitz. Senator Johnson.
        Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I am very
    mindful of the fact that this hearing really is about prison
    personnel preying on prisoners. I got that. But I think Senator
    Lankford brought up a pretty relevant point as well that,
    certainly coming into this hearing I was thinking about to what
    extent are there sexual assaults occurring between prisoners?
        Director Peters, how many biological males are being housed
    with biological females in Federal prisons?
        Ms. Peters. Senator, I do not have an answer to that today.
        Senator Johnson. Do we have some?
        Ms. Peters. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Johnson. I will go on the record and I will not
    belabor this point. Let me go on the record, when we are
    incarcerating somebody because they have committed a crime, we
    have taken away their right of moving freely around society, I
    would say they have no right to determine, if you are a
    biological male, to be housed with biological females. They
    have no right. That is insane policy. When we are talking about
    sexual assaults, to have the Federal Government engage in a
    policy that allows biological males to choose to be housed and
    come in close proximity with female prisoners. That is insane.
    That is something Congress probably ought to address if the
    Administration is not smart enough to reverse this policy.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
        Director Peters, let us talk about how the BOP implements
    the Prison Rape Elimination Act, whose purpose is indeed in the
    name of the legislation. It is to eliminate prison rape. We
    must dispense of any notion that there is any inevitable level
    or any acceptable level of sexual abuse of inmates by BOP
    employees. Our objective, our imperative, our moral obligation,
    and your moral obligation, Director Peters, as I believe you
    know and have stated you accept, is to eliminate sexual abuse
    of those in your custody.
        I was pleased to hear you describe the possibility that
    this hearing could be a turning point. Those were your words, a
    turning point. Because again--I am repeating this so that the
    public viewing this hearing understands this because it is
    important--you are new to this job, and the events that we are
    describing did not occur under your tenure.
        But now that you are in this role, I want to respectfully
    tell you that I believe your tenure will be judged by whether
    you succeed in eliminating the sexual abuse of those who are in
    your custody. I think this is your highest and most immediate
    moral imperative in this position.
        Prison Rape Elimination Act, audits are conducted
    periodically to assess the compliance of BOP facilities. It is
    correct, is it not, that those audits are viewed, and they have
    testified to it in a recent subcommittee by BOP leadership as
    an essential tool.
        Ms. Peters. That is correct, Senator.
        Senator Ossoff. Help us to understand--again, you were not
    in the role at the time, but you need to understand this--help
    us to understand how it is that, let us take Dublin and
    Coleman, two facilities with widespread, in the case of Dublin,
    high-level, ongoing sexual abuse, months, in some cases years,
    could both pass their PREA audits during the period in
    question?
        Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I was
    with the Oregon Department of Corrections when the Prison Rape
    Elimination Act was passed. I was the inspector general as we
    implemented those recommendations. It is an issue with every
    corrections agency. We had hoped that those standards would
    eliminate sexual misconduct, as you mention but what we have
    learned is that is only one tool in our toolbox. Those audits
    come in and ensure that the institution is compliant with the
    Federal standards that were created. It does not address
    cultural issues. I think there are, back to my opening
    statement, other avenues and other tools that we need to rely
    on in order to work toward eliminating sexual misconduct inside
    of our institutions.
        I heard the professor speak earlier. There are concerns
    about how audits are conducted. In some State correctional
    systems, as she alluded to, some audit themselves. Some rely on
    other jurisdictions to audit their jurisdiction and then vice
    versa. At the Bureau we do hire outside contractors to come in
    and conduct those PREA audits, so I think that is a step in the
    right direction.
        But again, Senator, I think the bottom-line answer to your
    question is the PREA audits are just one tool in our toolbox.
        Senator Ossoff. I think we need to understand how this tool
    can be so ineffective that at Dublin, for example--and here is
    the 2017 Dublin audit--it was found that the facility met the
    standard of ``zero tolerance of sexual abuse and sexual
    harassment.'' It says that the facility ``meets the standard.''
    The warden, the chaplain, others who have been convicted,
    allegedly over a dozen who may be under investigation at this
    time, were, in fact, engaged in sexual abuse.
        Here is what really stands out about this. It cites the
    PREA coordinator as the key source for making that finding. The
    PREA coordinator was sexually abusing inmates.
        I understand the intent of these audits, and you and your
    team believe it is a key tool. It is clearly not working,
    right?
        Ms. Peters. That is correct, Senator. It has not eliminated
    prison rape.
        Senator Ossoff. I think it is not just that it has not
    eliminated prison rape, it is that it is generating false
    negatives at facilities where, as the inspector general said--
    and Mr. Horowitz, if I am correct, your comments to the effect
    that if the warden and the chaplain are engaged in widespread
    sexual abuse of inmates, there is no way that is a secret. Mr.
    Horowitz, is that----
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Senator Ossoff. You have abuse occurring at this facility
    that is so severe and so high level that it must have been
    widely known. In fact, as I said, it eventually spilled out
    into the public. The place was called ``The Rape Club,'' but
    the PREA audit found that it met the standard of zero
    tolerance.
        In Coleman--again, predates your tenure--two days before
    the PREA audit was executed, every female inmate had been
    removed from the facility. Now I am not saying there was or was
    not foul play involved there, but it is true, is it not,
    Director Peters, that interviewing inmates is a core part of
    the process of conducting a PREA audit. Yes?
        Ms. Peters. Yes.
        Senator Ossoff. If every female inmate had been removed
    from the facility 2 days before the PREA audit, those
    interviews could not have been properly conducted, could they
    have?
        Ms. Peters. That is correct.
        Senator Ossoff. Director Peters, this was before your
    tenure. My point is this process is badly, badly broken, and as
    a result the tool that you are going to have to rely on--and I
    know you are also implementing these cultural assessments, and
    I am eager to see how effective they are--to know what is
    happening in your own facilities is not currently functioning
    to give you the visibility that you are going to need. If you
    lack that visibility, with you as the leader of reform, we are
    not going to be able to implement change.
        Let us talk a little bit about OIA processes, the Garrity
    precedent, Inspector General Horowitz, when prosecutions are or
    are not brought, what the consequences of those are. Looking
    into Coleman, multiple BOP employees who eventually admitted,
    in sworn statements, compelled by Bureau of Prisons Office of
    Internal Affairs, admitted, in graphic and explicit detail, to
    sexual abuse of prisoners. All or most of those cases had been
    referred to your office as candidates for criminal prosecution.
        The outcome is that none of them were criminally
    prosecuted, and in fact, many retired with their benefits
    intact. How did that happen?
        Mr. Horowitz. I have looked at those cases and there are
    multiple reasons for it. First and foremost, we need to do, as
    a general matter, and are doing a more effective job at looking
    at these cases when they come back to us. Initially, remember,
    we are essentially in a triage business. We get thousands of
    complaints every year. We have a dozen agents, for example, in
    the Florida region, in our Miami field office, to cover a
    number of prisons throughout the Southeast.
        We are doing triage initially, keeping the ones that look
    like they need independent oversight by us, and we are
    returning the vast majority to the BOP for their internal
    affairs to handle. It is very simply a resource question. There
    are only so many cases a dozen agents, spending half their time
    on BOP work, can take. We are looking for those at the outset.
        BOP then investigates, and they, on occasion, when they
    find things, come back to us and say, ``We have found
    additional evidence.'' It is particularly at that stage that
    many of these cases came back that we probably could have
    done--and most of the people, by the way, are no longer in the
    organization because many of these happened years ago, so I
    have not been able to talk to the actual decisionmakers--but it
    appears, looking at the file, that in most cases we could have
    taken several steps to further investigate those, before
    deciding to send them back to the BOP again.
        It was at that stage that the BOP sought to compel the
    officer, and of course, as has been alluded to, once an
    employee is compelled to speak it means they cannot invoke
    their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and
    anything they say is tainted from a prosecution, which is how
    they ended up not being prosecuted.
        We need to both look at those cases that come to us with a
    more stringent review. We also need to make sure we are well-
    coordinated with the Office of Internal Affairs at BOP and
    sharing insights, including what we are now doing with data
    analytics, which is looking for trends at prisons so that we
    cannot look at these anymore as one-offs, but do they reflect a
    broader problem, suggesting that we might have more witnesses
    out there if we go in and talk to inmates.
        Because what we have seen, frankly, at Coleman--and I have
    talked to my agents about this around the country--once we go
    into a prison--and by the way, the three inmates on the first
    panel who said they did not report it, we went to them because
    we had learned about wrongdoing in the prison and reached out
    to them as potential witnesses. My agents tell me this over and
    over again. Once inmates see us on the ground and see action
    being taken, like when we searched the warden's residence in
    connection with Dublin--we searched the warden's home during
    that investigation--we received a substantial number of
    complaints from inmates, several of which we have corroborated.
    But those happened once they saw that action.
        There are a lot of things that need to occur, both on our
    end and on the BOP's end. I will go back to talking about two
    things that would help up front--cameras and search policy,
    contraband penalties. Inmates are being groomed. Contraband is
    a huge problem. If we had cameras--I cannot tell you how many
    cases we have where the absence of video testimony makes it
    extraordinarily difficult.
        One other thing that is important on the accountability
    front and the credit to the deputy attorney general for doing
    this. She has told the U.S. attorneys they need to prosecute
    these cases. Because keep in mind that is the other thing my
    agents are looking at these cases for. If there was a crime but
    no one is going to prosecute it, our investigating it as a
    criminal matter does not make any sense. There needs to be the
    partner on the receiving end, and that has been very helpful.
        Senator Ossoff. You mentioned the proactive monitoring of
    data to include complaint data. Correct to include complaint
    data?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Senator Ossoff. My view is that both OIG and OIA need to be
    engaged in that. In fact, we heard from OIA that they are not
    doing that. I will enter into the record, without objection,
    some charts\1\ that we produced that show that at several of
    these key, most notorious facilities, there was a data
    signature of increased complaints in the years during which the
    misconduct was occurring but before it broke into the public
    domain and before there was significant official action.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The charts referenced by Senator Ossoff appears in the Appendix
    on page 212.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Director Peters, will you commit to ensuring that OIA is
    proactively monitoring sexual assault complaint data at the
    facility level to get ahead of any possible major crises at a
    facility?
        Ms. Peters. Yes, Senator. The inspector general and I just
    met a couple of weeks ago and he talked about this notion of
    data analytics, and I went back and talked to my team. We
    certainly want to be looking at the exact same data that the
    inspector general is looking at so that we see that information
    parallel to him looking at it. Our Office of Internal Affairs
    is looking forward to that collaboration and ensuring that we
    are monitoring the same sets of data.
        Mr. Horowitz. Keep in mind, most of the data that we
    receive are the referrals we get from the BOP. The ones we
    cannot share with the BOP are the whistleblower complaints, the
    inmates that come straight to us that need confidentiality. So
    short of that data, we should have the same data.
        Senator Ossoff. I think proactively monitoring that data is
    going to be essential, and Inspector General Horowitz, you
    noted that in those Coleman cases, at least in several of the,
    OIA brought them back.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Senator Ossoff. But still no prosecution was brought, and
    as a result, those folks faced no criminal penalties for pretty
    egregious acts. Clearly it sounds that you engaged in and
    change is necessary. I understand you both face resource
    constraints, but this is a crisis that requires immediate
    action.
        We are going to close now. Just a couple of final thoughts
    for you.
        Director Peters, I have been genuinely encouraged by the
    tone of your tenure thus far, by the ambitious reform
    objectives that you set out in public, and when we have met in
    private and during these public engagements I have encouraged
    you to make good on those intentions and those promises. I want
    to encourage you again to embrace the possibility that you can
    turn this agency around with everything that you have. I think
    you should expect that so long as I have the ability, I will be
    calling you back to the Senate to ask what progress you have
    made.
        The one thing that concerned me from today's discussion is
    that your admirable plans for reform, which I hope you
    implement with speed and strength, need to be informed by a
    fulsome understanding of what has gone wrong in the past. When
    we investigated Atlanta, what we heard from your predecessor
    was that he was blind, in my view willfully blind, but blind to
    what was happening at the regional level and at the facility
    level, and the regional director did not know what was
    happening at the facility level.
        You will be held accountable for knowing, and I believe you
    have an opportunity to establish a legacy as a reformer who
    saves lives and protects vulnerable people from sexual assault,
    one of the most heinous things that can happen to any human
    being. This has to stop. You have the power to stop it.
        I also hope that you will be responsive to the U.S.
    Congress, and I want to note that we are still awaiting answers
    to specific questions regarding U.S. Penitentiary Atlanta that
    were submitted following that July 26th hearing. You need to
    set the tone within your organization and working with DOJ's
    Office of Legislative Affairs that responsiveness to the Senate
    is essential, because it is not an encouraging sign when we are
    stymied in our efforts to conduct oversight.
        Thank you for your commitment to change, and please make
    good on it. Please cooperate fully with our efforts to support
    reform. We should be working together to make these changes.
        This will be the final hearing for the Permanent
    Subcommittee on Investigations this Congress. I believe that
    the work that we have done investigating conditions of
    incarceration and detention in the United States has been among
    the most substantive and focused effort in the history of the
    U.S. Congress. We have investigated corruption and misconduct
    at Bureau of Prisons facilities. We have investigated the
    medical mistreatment in DHS custody. We have investigated
    failures to implement the Death In Custody Reporting Act. We
    are now continuing to investigate the sexual abuse of women in
    Federal custody.
        This work will continue. Accountability will continue. Both
    of you have key roles to play in making sure that when I close
    this hearing, that is not the end of this. It is the turning
    point that you referenced in your opening remarks, Director
    Peters.
        Thank you both for your testimony, and the hearing is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]