[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU
OF PRISONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-92
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-426 WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
MATT GAETZ, Florida Member
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona ZOE LOFGREN, California
TOM McCLINTOCK, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Georgia
CHIP ROY, Texas ADAM SCHIFF, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina ERIC SWALWELL, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana TED LIEU, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon J. LUIS CORREA, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida Vacancy
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
Vacancy
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair
MATT GAETZ, Florida Vacancy, Ranking Member
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin LUCY McBATH, Georgia
TROY NEHLS, Texas MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama CORI BUSH, Missouri
KEVIN KILEY, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
LAUREL LEE, Florida HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina Georgia
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, July 23, 2024
MEMORIAL STATEMENTS
Page
Memorial statements for the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, former
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal
Government Surveillance from the State of Texas, from the
Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime and
Federal Government Surveillance from the State of Arizona; the
Honorable Lucy McBath, a Member of the Subcommittee on Crime
and Federal Government Surveillance from the State of Georgia;
the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of New York; and the Honorable
Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the
State of Ohio.................................................. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime and
Federal Government Surveillance from the State of Arizona...... 3
The Honorable Lucy McBath, a Member of the Subcommittee on Crime
and Federal Government Surveillance from the State of Georgia.. 5
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of New York....................... 8
WITNESS
Colette S. Peters, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
Oral Testimony................................................. 11
Prepared Testimony............................................. 13
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on
Crime and Federal Government Surveillance are listed below..... 44
A letter from Carlos Felipe Uriarte, Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice, May 14, 2024, submitted by the
Honorable Lucy McBath, a Member of the Subcommittee on Crime
and Federal Government Surveillance from the State of Georgia,
for the record
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD
Questions for Colette S. Peters, Director, Federal Bureau of
Prisons, submitted by the Honorable Matt Gaetz, a Member of the
Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance from
the State of Florida, for the record
No response at time of publication
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU
OF PRISONS
----------
Tuesday, July 23, 2024
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Andy Biggs
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Biggs, Jordan, Gaetz,
Tiffany, Moore, Lee, Fry, Armstrong, Nadler, McBath, Dean,
Cohen, and Johnson.
Mr. Biggs. The Crime Subcommittee and Government
Surveillance Subcommittee is called to order.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the Federal
Bureau of Prisons. Before we begin today, I want to acknowledge
the passing of our friend and colleague, Sheila Jackson Lee, a
longtime Member of this Committee and of the U.S. House of
Representatives.
The Ranking Member Jackson Lee was first elected to the
House 30 years ago. She previously served as Chair of this
Subcommittee, and I had the opportunity to be her Ranking
Member, and then we swapped positions. It was always a cordial
and professional relationship.
While we may not have seen eye to eye on every issue, on
most issues, in fact, I admired her, and I appreciated her
tenacity and commitment. We had many frank discussions
expressing sincerely held positions. She was a fierce and loyal
advocate for her constituents.
She leaves behind her husband, her two children, and two
grandchildren, and she will be missed by the Members on both
side of the aisle.
Before we take a moment of silence, I am going to yield
time to Representative McBath.
Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.
I would like to take a moment to honor my friend, mentor,
and my sister, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
She was a true powerhouse who fought for the betterment of
our country and all its people. She was a genuine force to be
reckoned with, always focused on making this country safer,
more equitable, and more just.
She was the first woman appointed Ranking Member of this
Subcommittee, and went on to fearlessly serve as Chair in the
117th Congress. Her leadership on civil right issues will
continue to be felt in Congress and all across this country.
She uplifted marginalized communities, championed human rights,
and tirelessly defended our democracy.
As a mentor, Congresswoman Jackson Lee showed me the ropes.
She took me under her wing during my freshman year. She was one
of my first friends on Capitol Hill and offered her support for
me even before I came to Washington. I thank God I had the
chance to know her and receive her precious guidance.
We served together as moms determined to make a better
world. I will do everything that I can in my power to keep that
work going. I want to take this time to thank the Congresswoman
for everything that she has done for all of us, the least of
us, the least of these. For her fighting spirit to the very
end.
I am praying for her family, her staff, and for all of us
feeling the impact of this loss. Sheila is one of a kind, the
only Sheila Jackson Lee.
I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Let's pause now for a moment of
silence to remember.
Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Nadler. Please, I yield to you.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, it is still hard to believe that we
will never again see our dear friend and colleague Sheila
Jackson Lee take her place on this dais.
She ably led the Crime Subcommittee as Chair and later
served as Ranking Member. No matter her title, she was always a
leader. The mark she made on this Subcommittee through her
forceful advocacy for criminal justice, police accountability,
gun safety, combating domestic violence, preventing
trafficking, protecting victims, and so many more issues will
live on for many years to come.
Sheila never let an opportunity pass to stand up for her
constituents, and she was a determined champion for all those
who are marginalized in society and who needed her voice in
Congress to represent them.
I will have a little more to say tomorrow in the Full
Committee, but I thank the Chair for recognizing me, and for
taking the time to remember such a valued Member of this
Subcommittee, as well as a treasured colleague and friend. May
her memory be a blessing.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. The Chair recognizes the
Chair of the entire Committee, Mr. Jordan.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
No one could get more out of five minutes than Sheila
Jackson Lee. She was a friend to everyone on both sides of the
aisle, someone that we are all going to miss. I love what the
Chair said. I think both he and the Ranking Member and Ms.
McBath said it all well.
So, we are going to miss her. One of a kind, one of a kind.
I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Let's pause now for a moment of
silence to remember our friend and colleague, Sheila Jackson
Lee.
[Moment of silence.]
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I will now ask the gentleman from
Wisconsin to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I will now recognize myself for an
opening statement.
I thank the Members for coming to this morning's important
hearing, thank the Director for being here. Today's hearing is
titled ``Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.''
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a component of the
Department of Justice, DOJ. The BOP's mission is to protect
society by confining offenders in the controlled environments
of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe,
humane, cost-efficient and--keep talking, OK.
So, BOP's mission is to protect society by confining
offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and
community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-
efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and
other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in
becoming law-abiding citizens.
At a time of rising crime, this is a critically important
function. BOP operates 122 institutions and locations
throughout the Nation, and these institutions are operated at
five different security levels in order to confine offenders in
an appropriate manner.
As of last month, BOP is responsible for the custody and
care of more than 158,000 inmates and employs more than 35,000
individuals. Five and a half years ago, President Trump signed
into the law the First Step Act of 2018. The First Step Act
sought to reduce the size of the Federal prison population and
reduce recidivism while still maintaining public safety.
The Act's three main goals were (1) correctional reform,
(2) sentencing reform regarding penalties for Federal offenses,
and (3) reauthorization of the Second Chance Act of 2007.
The BOP is charged with much of the implementation of the
First Step Act. As I mentioned earlier, we are experiencing a
nationwide spike in crime, and it is vital that BOP gets this
implementation right. The First Step Act required DOJ to
develop a system for BOP to use to assess the risk of
recidivism of Federal prisoners and to assign prisoners to
evidence-based recidivism reduction programs.
These programs include literacy programs, occupational
education programs, trade skill programs, and substance use
disorder programs. Inmates who complete the recidivism
reduction programming can earn additional time credits, which
allows them to be placed in home confinement or an RRC earlier
than they would have been.
This is why I said BOP needs to make sure they get this
right. We cannot allow criminals to be leaving our prisons
early unless we can ensure that they will not reoffend. This
Subcommittee has examined the implementation First Step Act on
a bipartisan basis since its passage, and I look forward to
continuing that conversation today.
However, there is a larger underlying problem that has
persistently plagued the successful operation of BOP, including
the implementation of the First Step Act, and it is something
that BOP consistently grapples with--the challenges of low
staffing and high attrition rates intensifying the risk in an
already hazardous profession.
As I mentioned earlier, BOP employs approximately 35,000
personnel across various prisons and facilities throughout the
U.S. That is a five-percent decline from 37,000 personnel
employed in 2020, yet the prison inmate population has not
declined. In fact, it has increased by almost 3,000 inmates.
I know that Director Peters is plainly aware of this
persistent problem, and I look forward to hearing from her
today on the steps that BOP is taking to address the manpower
problem at the Bureau.
There are a couple of other issues as well that I will
discuss with Director Peters.
First, I will discuss the treatment of BOP inmates, in
particular, impeachment witness Jason Galanis, which I believe
has been politically victimized by the Biden Garland Justice
Department Federal Bureau of Prisons.
If we look at this, in February 2023, the CARES--under the
CARES Act, Galanis applied for home confinement. In March 2023,
U.S. Probation Office approved the residence for home
confinement. In March 2023, the warden at the FPC Pensacola
also approved or signed off on the application.
It then went to Residential Reentry Management of Long
Beach, because it was in that sector. On June 9, 2023, RRM Long
Beach approved the request and contacted SDNY U.S. Attorney's
Office for their approval.
On June 10th, OGR Committee, here, announced that it was
subpoenaing Devon Archer, who was a co-conspirator of Jason
Galanis and is awaiting his prison term. In fact, everybody of
the nine partners in that conspiracy, all were indicted and
went to prison except for one. One was never indicted, and that
was Hunter Biden, although he benefited from that conspiracy
and was a business partner.
Near that June 12, 2023, announcement by the OGR Committee,
the U.S. Attorney SDNY, Negar Tekeei, gave, ``strongest
objection and threatened to go hard on this.'' On June 13,
2023, BOP announced--excuse me, denied the Galanis application.
On June 22, 2023, Galanis was informed of the denial.
He then appealed. On August 8, 2023, his appeal to
Pensacola warden on ground was denied on grounds that ``the
amount of time he requested for home confinement `was not
appropriate.' '' His appeal was denied. That denial, that
rationale, was not under the CARES Act, that was not
appropriate to the CARES Act.
On September 22, 2023, Galanis appealed the denial to the
RRM, and on February 8, 2024, we announced we were going to
interview Galanis. I will say I thank the Director for
facilitating the interview of Mr. Galanis, who had been moved
to FBC Montgomery, Alabama.
The next day, the BOP central sent Galanis his denial of
his appeals. The new reason they gave was that the CARES Act
had expired, regardless of the fact that he applied for his
change in confinement three months before the expiration of the
CARES Act.
Yesterday we had a discussion and I was told that the
length of sentence, the high amount of restitution, and that he
had violated conditions of release eight years ago when he was
out on bail. None of those are statutorily consistent with the
CARES Act as well.
The point I am trying to make is this is not unique to Mr.
Galanis. Perhaps, I don't know. I will say that this is a
problem.
On September--and we moved to this, despite the fact that
Hunter Biden was a key partner in the same crime, DOJ failed to
hold the President's son accountable. Mr. Galanis provided
testimony, both transcribed and a hearing before the Oversight
Committee as part of the House's impeachment inquiry.
Mr. Galanis has alleged several instances of mistreatment
since his incarceration, including repeated abuse from a BOP
employee and DOJ intervening to deny him his home confinement.
Second, on May 6, 2024, Representative Gaetz informed the
House of Representatives that BOP Director Peters had denied
his request to meet with Dr. Peter Navarro, who at the time was
in custody. I also joined Mr. Gaetz and wanted to meet with Dr.
Navarro.
On May 9, 2024, I along with Chair Jordan and
Representative Gaetz sent a letter to Director Peters
requesting your testimony before the Committee, which is why
she is before us today. We are grateful for her being here.
Dr. Navarro served a four-month sentence at BOP facility in
Miami, Florida, after being charged and found guilty of
refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the partisan
illegitimate House Select Committee on the January 6th attack
on the United States Capitol and was released just last week.
Director Peters allegedly denied Representative Gaetz's
request because Dr. Navarro was ``too notorious'' to meet with
a Member of Congress. We will hear more about that today I am
certain.
Additionally, I informed the Director yesterday and I want
to make sure to reiterate today, we have a strong desire to go
and visit the Danbury, Connecticut, minimum security facility
and I hope to do so in the next few weeks.
I look forward to discussing these issues and more issues
with Director Peters, and I again thank her. She's been
cooperative, she has always been communicative with me. We may
have disagreements, but we always talk about those.
So, with that, I am going to yield back. I will recognize
Ms. McBath for her opening statement.
Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chair Biggs.
Thank you, Director Peters, for coming before us today, and
we really appreciate your willingness to answer our questions.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons' significance within the
Federal criminal justice system contributes to the overall
public safety of our country by not only housing individuals
who have been convicted of Federal crimes, but also by
providing those individuals with the tools and skills they need
to successfully reenter their communities.
In recent years, BOP has faced numerous challenges,
including the sexual abuse of inmates by staff and other
widespread employee misconduct, chronic understaffing, numerous
incidents of violence and inmate deaths, implementation of the
First Step Act, and a crumbling infrastructure.
Director Peters, I do want to thank you, though, for the
significant strides that you have made toward addressing each
of these issues, which existed long before you ever began your
tenure. However, these problems are still remaining, even if to
a lesser extent.
I urge my colleagues to use today's hearing to focus on
what this Committee and what Congress can do to ensure that the
Director has the tools, resources, and support that she needs
to address agency deficiencies, maintain the safety and
wellness of inmates and staff, and prepare inmates for their
release back into society.
I am encouraged by Director Peters' commitment to upholding
the highest ethical standards among BOP staff, staff members,
and her dedicated efforts to change the culture at the BOP.
However, we need to talk about the misconduct among BOP
employees, which I understand is a very complex problem
requiring increased scrutiny on management and comprehensive
solutions with robust oversight and a transparent disciplinary
process.
In November 2021, we were shocked to hear about the reports
at least that 100 BOP employees had been arrested, convicted,
or sentenced for crimes over a two-year period. If that report
wasn't shocking enough, we soon learned of the disturbing
atrocities occurring at FCI Dublin in California, a Federal
women's prison known among inmates and staff as the rape club.
Inmates at the facility were subjected to forcible rapes or
sexual activity, inappropriate sexual contact, and other abuses
at the hands of staff, made all the worse by acts of
retaliation for speaking out and coverups by BOP staff and the
officials.
While our justice system successfully convicted seven
corrections officers, including the prison's former warden, and
sentenced the offenders to prison for sexually abusing inmates,
in April we were made aware of the chaotic future of the
transfer of FCI Dublin inmates to various facilities throughout
the country following closure of that facility.
FCI Dublin is just a sampling of the corruption, of the
abuse and misconduct that has persisted at BOP for far too
long. An alarming number of BOP employees have been convicted
of an array of crimes, including bribery, obstruction of
justice, and smuggling contraband, while thousands of other
employees have been investigated for misconduct as well.
As we all know, employee misconduct of any kind undermines
the integrity of the correctional system, jeopardizes the
safety and the security of inmates and staff, and erodes public
trust in the criminal justice system.
That is why I partnered with Representative Kelly Armstrong
and Senators Jon Ossoff, Dick Durbin, and Mike Braun to
introduce the bipartisan Federal Prison Oversight Act, which is
now on its way to President's desk to be signed into law.
Through multiple investigations, we learned that the lack
of independent oversight led to long-term failures at BOP. That
perpetrated misconduct contributed to the loss of life,
jeopardized the health and safety of inmates and staff, and
undermined public safety overall.
Our legislation, as soon as it is enacted, will provide
additional safeguards and rigorous monitoring systems to
prevent and eliminate instances of inmate mistreatment.
Ensuring that inmates are treated with dignity and respect is
an ethical priority, but it also furthers BOP's mission, your
mission, I believe, as revised by you, Director Peters, by
encouraging rehabilitation and the successful reintegration of
inmates into society.
The agency remains critically understaffed, though. Neither
BOP nor Director Peters can be expected to fulfill the agency's
mission without proper staffing. These poor staffing conditions
were amplified by the reduction of more than 5,000 positions by
the previous administration and budget cuts. Staffing has
plummeted from over 43,000 employees to approximately 34,000
employees, drastically below critical staffing requirements.
Congress, this body, must do all that we can to address the
staffing shortages that BOP is undergoing that further compound
the challenges of maintaining simple order and safety,
providing necessary services, care, treatment, and
rehabilitative programming and prioritizing staff, their well-
being, and their morale.
Director Peters, you have implemented a series of
strategies to tackle the staffing crisis. Whether by offering
retention incentive bonuses or requesting a special pay rate
from the Office of Personnel Management, you have made
tremendous effort to compete with the private sector and other
law enforcement agencies for correctional officers, healthcare
professionals, and mental health specialists.
Despite your best efforts, BOP operates with nearly 8,000
fewer correctional officer positions than authorized, forcing
prisons to use cooks, teachers, nurses, counselors, and other
employees to guard the inmates, commonly referred to as
augmentation.
As BOP continues to grapple with staffing shortages,
particularly at geographically remote facilities, it is
expected that the existing workforce must contend with the
growing use of overtime, augmentation, fatigue, and burnout,
which compromises the safety of inmates and staff, leading to
heightened tensions and increased instances of violence.
The First Step Act, which provides inmates with incentives
to participate in rehabilitation programs, was signed into law
with a primary goal of reducing recidivism.
When teachers and counselors are used to serve as guards,
inmates lose staff resources that would otherwise be focused on
rehabilitation. Whether mental health or substance abuse
treatment, education, or learning new skills, undermining
opportunities to prepare themselves for return to their
families and communities is what we are faced with.
Without sufficient staffing, BOP cannot fulfill the
statute's purpose. As many Committee Members know, the First
Step Act suffered from numerous challenges at the outset,
beyond staffing shortages, that slowed various aspects of
implementation. Director Peters and BOP should be applauded for
their recent efforts in implementation of the new law.
The calculation of inmates earned-time credits is now
automated, programming capacity expanded by nearly 35 percent.
Participation expanded by 35 percent, and BOP now has 112
evidence-based recidivism programs and reduction and productive
activities.
Director Peters' leadership should be applauded. Yes, there
is more to do, but it should be applauded for the significant
programmatic advancements in implementation.
There is still room, once again, for improvement. As BOP
increases its capacity for inmate participation in First Step
law programming and thus the ability of inmates to reduce their
time in custody, BOP must also expand its residential reentry
center network. It is imperative that BOP ensures the prompt
transfer of those individuals who have done the work and earned
the time credits necessary for their release.
Director Peters, please let us know what Congress can do to
fulfill the promises that we made to these incarcerated
individuals by way of the First Step law. With that being said,
I hope that you are also prepared to tell us what Congress can
do to support the bureau's efforts to maintain and repair its
aging infrastructure.
When you were here last November, your team had identified
a $2 billion deficit that prioritized only those repairs and
improvements to facilities that address risks to life and
safety. I am interested to hear if that number is still
accurate today.
It is clear that the many issues facing BOP are significant
and cannot be ignored without jeopardizing public safety. In a
short time with the agency, Director Peters has confronted each
of these issues head on, with an eye always toward promoting
rehabilitation, successful reentry, and the safety and well-
being of inmates and employees.
As I said at the start of last year's hearing, there is
still much work to be done at BOP. I hope the Subcommittee
today, really focus today on this conversation and what we can
do to make certain that the agency is able to fulfill its
mission with transparency and accountability.
I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady yields back. We are being called
to votes. There's about three minutes left, so we are going to
take a recess until after the votes. Thank you.
Thank you, Director.
[Recess.]
Mr. Biggs. The Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government
Surveillance is called to order. Thank you.
At this point the Chair recognizes the gentleman, Ranking
Member for the entire Committee, Mr. Nadler from New York.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, when Director Peters appeared before this
Committee just seven months ago, I noted the Oversight of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons is one of the Committee's most
critical functions. I detailed the numerous deeply rooted
problems that Director Peters inherited when she took over as
BOP director in August 2022, problems such as chronic
understaffing, rampant sexual assault, and inadequate medical
and mental health treatment, problems that will take time and
resources to address.
Yet, the majority invited Director Peters just months after
our last BOP oversight hearing, when it will be unrealistic to
expect anything more than incremental progress in addressing
BOP's most serious issues. They did so not because they
actually care about those issues, instead, my Republican
colleagues are using this hearing to pursue their longstanding
and, frankly, inexplicable obsession with Hunter Biden.
They have called Director Peters here today primarily to
complain about BOP's alleged mistreatment of an incarcerated
felon, Jason Galanis, who testified for Republicans at one of
their failed impeachment hearings. Mr. Galanis, who gave that
testimony from Federal prison, was a former business associate
of Hunter Biden who has made all kinds of unfounded allegations
against him.
It is no surprise, therefore, that the majority has decided
to waste precious Committee time and resources attempting to
bully the BOP into granting Mr. Galanis' request for
compassionate release, even though BOP policy clearly calls for
denying this request, as Director Peters will explain.
Yes, that is right, in the service of their convicted felon
Presidential nominee, the majority is using its oversight
authority to champion the cause of another convicted felon, one
who is serving a sentence of more than 15 years in prison
because he defrauded, among others, an impoverished Native
American tribe to the tune of over $80 million.
I also expect that we will hear concerns today about the
BOP's alleged mistreatment of certain January 6th
insurrectionists. I welcome the newly founded interest of my
Republican colleagues in conditions at BOP facilities, but I
hope that their concern will also extend to the thousands of
other inmates, disproportionately people of color and from low
income communities, who do not have the ear of politically
connected individuals and elected officials.
The BOP reform could be an area of true bipartisan
cooperation, but only if we recognize that all inmates deserve
fair and equal treatment.
Since Director Peters' appointment nearly two years ago,
she has used her decades of experience to start the long and
arduous process of addressing the staffing shortages that BOP
has faced in recent years: The crumbling infrastructure of our
Nation's prisons and the rampant sexual and physical abuse of
inmates at the hands of more than a few bad actors at the BOP.
Since she was last here, for example, Director Peters took
the drastic and necessary step of permanently closing FCI
Dublin, a women's facility plagued by sexual abuse.
She has also taken agency-wide measures to punish and
prevent employee misconduct, and to change staff culture to
ensure that we never again see the type of abuse that we saw at
Dublin and other facilities.
Sexual abuse is not the only threat to inmate safety at
BOP. A February 2024 report by the Office of the Inspector
General found that systemic operational and managerial failures
contributed to hundreds of inmate deaths that occurred between
2014-2021, the period preceding Director Peters's appointment.
More than half of those deaths were suicides. Others were
attributable to lack of medical or mental health treatment, or
the presence of illegal drugs and other contraband, issues that
are compounded by the staffing shortages that have plagued BOP
since former President Trump instituted a hiring freeze from
2017-2019.
Last year, Director Peters told us about the steps she has
taken to improve employee recruitment, training, and retention,
to ensure that our Nation's prisons are fully staffed with
trained, experienced officers who are committed to protecting
and serving the inmates in their care.
I also hope that Director Peters will have an update on
BOP's continued reliance on solitary confinement, otherwise
known as restrictive housing, which takes a devastating mental
toll on inmates.
I do want to note that BOP has continued to make progress
in another critical area, implementation of the First Step Act,
in recent years. In recent years BOP has substantially expanded
the programming available to inmates and has improved the
process of calculating the time credits inmates earn for
completing rehabilitative programs. This has helped to ensure
that more inmates receive the FSA credits that they have
rightfully earned. As in other issues BOP faces, there is still
so much more to be done.
Due to our reliance on over-incarceration, coupled with a
refusal to adequately fund the programs necessary for
rehabilitation, the demand for these programs still outweighs
their availability. Many inmates who have earned FSA credits
still remain incarcerated, even though they have enough credits
to be released early to a residential reentry center simply
because there is not enough bed space in those residential
reentry centers.
This is a problem that must be addressed, particularly
since the evidence shows us that this programming works.
Inmates released early due to FSA earned time credits have a
dramatically lower recidivism rate compared to inmates who do
not participate in these programs.
As I said, rigorous oversight of the BOP should be a
bipartisan issue. The BOP's inmates come from all our districts
and they will be rejoining all our communities when they are
released. They must be treated with dignity and fairness. They
must be kept safe. They must be given the tools necessary to
become productive, responsible, hardworking citizens when they
are released.
I look forward to hearing from Director Peters and I hope
to engage in a productive conversation to ensure that BOP
continues to improve under her leadership.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. Without objection, all other opening statements
will be included in the record.
We will now introduce today's witness, Ms. Colette S.
Peters. Ms. Peters is the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons. She was sworn in by the Attorney General on August 2,
2022. She oversees 122 Bureau of Prisons facilities, six
regional offices, two staff training centers, and 22
residential reentry management offices.
We welcome our witness and thank her for appearing today.
We will begin by swearing you in, Director.
If you will please rise and raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
Ms. Peters. I do.
Mr. Biggs. The record will reflect that the witness has
answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
You have been seated, so that is good.
Please know that your written testimony will be entered
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
summarize your testimony. Keep it to five minutes. I believe
there is clock somewhere close where you can see it. You might
hear me knock a little bit when you get to five minutes,
indicating to please wrap up.
Thank you, Director Peters. We will now proceed under the
five-minute rule and go to your first for your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF COLETTE S. PETERS
Ms. Peters. Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Biggs, Congresswoman McBath, and the
Members of the Subcommittee. I first also want to offer my
sincere condolences for the loss of your colleague.
Yes, is that better? OK, I will start over
Thank you. Good morning, Chair Biggs and Congresswoman
McBath, and the Members of the Subcommittee.
First, I, too, would like to offer my sincere condolences
for the loss of your colleague. I am grateful for the
conversations I had had with her. Her fierce advocacy and
accountability for the Bureau will be missed.
I am honored to be here today representing our employees,
who are dedicated and courageous corrections professionals,
committed to our mission and the agency's core values of
accountability, integrity, respect, compassion, and
correctional excellence.
Nearly two years ago I took the helm, knowing that it was a
struggling agency and that it would take time and resources to
make positive change. What I found was that our recruitment and
retention crisis and our dilapidated facilities are at the core
of nearly all our challenges. Low staffing levels impact our
institutions' operations, including safety and security,
medical care, education, programming, and treatment. So, our
priorities are clear: Recruitment, retention, employee
wellness, and maintenance and repair.
Fortunately, we are making progress with our recruitment
and retention crisis. When I joined the Bureau, we had 986 new
hires for that entire calendar year. Already this year we have
onboarded over 1,400. The even better news is that we are now
hiring more people than are leaving the agency.
Yet, challenges remain. The bottom line is we simply do not
pay our people enough. Our average base salary of $55,000 for
new officers is simply not competitive. So, even when we
onboard people, some leave for better pay.
As an example, at our facility in Massachusetts one of our
officers left because they got a better offer, with better pay,
at the local grocery store.
Ads in New York city offer corrections positions that pay
$130,000 after three years, where our Federal officers makes
tens of thousands of dollars less.
Our staffing crises are very expensive, as we rely on
overtime, augmentation, and incentives to keep our prisons
operational. Last year alone we paid more than $128 million in
incentives and spent more than $315 million in overtime.
I also want to note the human cost of overtime and the
augmentation, which we know are incredibly difficult on our
corrections professionals, both their physical and their mental
health. So, incentives like augmentation, recruitment and
retention incentives, and overtime should only be short-term
fixes.
To solve our long-term problem, we are working closely with
the Department and OPM to create a special salary rate for
employees in our institutions. The request, if approved, will
require your support. We estimate the need for an additional
hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
Our dilapidated infrastructure also affects our mission. It
impedes our ability to offer safe, normal, and more humane
environments for our employees and those in our custody. That
number is now over $3 billion in maintenance and repair needs.
That tells you our infrastructure is crumbling.
We have created a four-year plan to attack the most serious
repairs first, and are preparing our 10- and 15-year plans.
Before I conclude I want to celebrate the passage of the
Federal Prison Oversight Act. This act enhances our ongoing
collaboration and good work with the Office of the Inspector
General. I share the Inspector General's and your commitment to
greater accountability and oversight and have said so from day
one on the job.
I would like to thank Representative McBath for her
leadership on this legislation and her acknowledgment on the
House floor of our brave men and women, and the need for
additional resources to improve environments for them and those
in our care and custody.
I also want to thank every Member of this Committee who
supported this legislation.
As I have mentioned publicly, we will need more resources
to implement this act efficiently on a couple of fronts.
The legislation limits the Bureau's use of augmentation.
While I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of limiting
augmentation, today in the midst of our crisis, without
augmentation we will need to mandate more overtime, which will
not only cost tens of millions of more dollars but, again, I
will note the human cost, the physical and mental wear and tear
of our employees.
We will also need to hire additional employees to
effectively respond to the additional oversight and make that
meaningful, long-lasting change.
All of us at the Bureau, including our national union, look
forward to working with you closely to ensure that we have the
needed resources to uphold our end of the bargain.
As I have said before, I believe in the government's
accountability, transparency, and the importance of oversight.
Thank you for your time. I stand ready to answer your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Peters follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Director Peters.
Now, we will proceed under the five-minute rule with
questioning. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Gaetz, for five minutes.
Mr. Gaetz. Director Peters, do you remember telling me that
Peter Navarro was too notorious when I wanted to interview him
during his incarceration?
Ms. Peters. Congressman, we had a long conversation about
your desire to have us help facilitate Mr. Strand to appear on
your podcast.
Mr. Gaetz. Nope, nope, no, no. This is Navarro.
So, I am asking about Mr. Navarro. Do you remember telling
me he was too notorious?
Ms. Peters. Oh, sorry. Congressman, yes.
Mr. Gaetz. OK. So, all right, I want to get into how you
determined that an inmate is too notorious for an interview or
not too notorious for an interview. What is the standard that
you applied?
Ms. Peters. So, Congressman, I think it is really important
for the Committee to understand that the request was about him
appearing on a podcast. It wasn't about facilitating a meeting
with the two of you, which my office followed up and said we
would clearly facilitate.
Mr. Gaetz. Correct.
Ms. Peters. There is only one avenue, as we talked about,
in our policy around being able to appear on a podcast, and
that is our media policy. You, with your personal podcasts,
that is not official need.
Mr. Gaetz. No. No. It is my official podcast.
So, the Members of Congress do podcasts to function as
video newsletters to tell the American people what is going on.
So, I wanted to interview Navarro. You said he was too
notorious. You have acknowledged that was the basis.
So, I want to know now what test you apply to determine
that someone is or is not too notorious?
Ms. Peters. Again, Congressman, while I shared that
information with you in a one-on-one briefing, the crux of the
denial was that we were not able to help facilitate an
incarcerated individual to appear on a podcast.
Mr. Gaetz. No, no, no. That wasn't what you said. You said
it was--you acknowledged it was this notoriety factor. The
reason I ask is because Michael Avenatti gave an interview from
Federal prison.
So, I guess, why is it that Michael Avenatti is authorized
to do an interview from Federal prison but Peter Navarro isn't?
Ms. Peters. Congressman, I met with you to be as helpful as
possible to discuss--
Mr. Gaetz. That wasn't helpful.
No, because here is what it looks like. OK. You have
acknowledged that the reason you didn't let me interview
Navarro was because you said he was too notorious. Then, I have
spent more than a minute trying to get you to explain what the
test is for that notoriety, and you can't explain that. You
just keep on going back to, well, we couldn't facilitate you
and we were trying to be helpful.
That wasn't helpful. When you have standards that are
subject to just any interpretation you want, then you carry
with the entire Bureau the belief that you guys are just being
arbitrary. Because when John Gotti is allowed to do an
interview from the Federal prison and Peter Navarro isn't, it
is hard to ascertain how Gotti would be less notorious.
It just sort of looks like it animates the concern that you
heard expressed by the Chair, whether it's Galanis, or Navarro,
or Bannon, or whomever, that you guys are trying to make it
harder on people who are expressing views that you don't
particularly like.
So, that is going to be a problem. We are going to have to
put into law, or oversight, or something, the ability to get to
these people because we are not going to accept just you are
making a determination that Avenatti is not too notorious, but
Navarro is.
So, you hear the Chair say in his opening remarks that we
want to go to Danbury prison in Connecticut. We want to go
there to see Mr. Bannon.
So, is there going to be any problem in the next few weeks
approving a visit with the Chair of this Committee to go to
Danbury?
Ms. Peters. As the Congressman and I talked about during a
one-on-one conversation yesterday, and as I will say to the
Committee, we will be happy to review that request and make
that accommodation as you submit that request to the Office of
Legislative Affairs.
Mr. Gaetz. OK. I appreciate the commitment to review it.
Are you committing to approve it?
Ms. Peters. Congressman, those approvals actually happen
through the Office of Legislative Affairs. I can't foresee an
issue with the approval of that.
Mr. Gaetz. They work for you. This is the Legislative
affairs you are testifying before your Oversight Subcommittee.
So, why don't you just tell us that you will approve our trip
to go to Danbury?
Ms. Peters. That approval rests with the Department. We
have a longstanding process of reviewing--
Mr. Gaetz. You lead the Department. There is not some other
person. You are the head of the Department, why can't you just
say we can go?
Ms. Peters. We have a longstanding process of those
requests being reviewed by the Department. I will encourage my
team to work closely with the Department in reviewing that
request.
Mr. Gaetz. That is just a total non-answer.
This is what we get, Mr. Chair. This is what we get,
arbitrary standards, non-answers. Frankly, if we continue to
fund it and tolerate it, that is all we are going to get.
So, I would encourage some robust oversight here. I would
not want to be in a position where you guys denied this
request.
Finally, I would just say with my final few seconds, Mr.
Biggs and I were in really one of the most impressive prisons
in the world, CECOT, in El Salvador. There was concern
expressed by the Minister of Justice there that the Mexican
mafia is operating out of our prisons, and they are able to
conduct criminal enterprises and use communication
capabilities. So, I hope you would just take for the record
perhaps a review of what the Mexican mafia's activities are. I
would love to hear about it.
Finally, just want to echo all, everyone on the Committee's
very thoughtful and appropriate remarks about our colleague
Sheila Jackson Lee. It only seems appropriate to offer that
after the gavel has been rung because that is when Ms. Jackson
Lee did some of her most outstanding work.
I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. She and I talked about that frequently, so.
The Chair recognizes now the gentlelady Ms. McBath.
Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chair.
Director Peters, the grotesque actions at FCI Dublin is an
extreme example of why every person needs oversight, every
prison needs oversight. I back its closure 110 percent. Closing
the facility was the first step in a long and harrowing
process.
The women at that prison remain in need of supervision,
protection, and a sense of what their futures would look like.
They have already endured so much. It is your job to ensure
that no additional harm comes to them.
Many of these women held at FCI Dublin have family members
and loved ones who are concerned for their physical safety and
their emotional well-being.
What steps were taken to screen for histories of misconduct
among the temporary staff BOP brought to FCI Dublin to
facilitate the transfer of adults in custody?
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Congresswoman.
There was a review by the regional directors to ensure that
the people we were sending to have additional eyes and ears in
that facility during that closure were the appropriate people.
We also brought in additional members from the regional
office to have that oversight as well. Safety and security of
those women, and fear of even perceived retaliation during that
move was top of line for us.
Ms. McBath. Thank you.
What oversight is occurring to ensure that women are being
treated humanely during their transfer process?
Ms. Peters. So, on a variety of levels. We sent out clear
messages to the wardens that they would have direct eyes and
ears in watching these women as they arrived in their receiving
institutions to ensure that they had the medical care, the
mental healthcare, access to counsel, access to their family.
You are right, we were worried about their families as well.
We also have an individual that has been a liaison with our
SAFER teams from the department, from the Office of the Deputy
Attorney General. She, too, is keeping watch on these
individuals. So, we have someone in central office paying
attention.
I also had the opportunity to visit a group of these women
who have been transferred to our facility, our SeaTac facility
in Washington, and talked to them directly to ensure that their
transition was going smoothly.
Ms. McBath. Did BOP evaluate every woman's eligibility for
early release or release to community placements with
consideration for good time credit, and also the First Step Act
credit, and the Second Chance Act before assigning them to
another facility?
Ms. Peters. Congresswoman, we did. In fact, at the time
that we decided to close the facility there were over 600 women
at that facility. At the point of moving them out we had 518.
So, a substantial number of them were able to go to the
community based on those earned time credits or other standing.
Also, the women that I mentioned that were housed at
SeaTac, those were individuals that have less than five months
remaining on their sentence. We wanted them to be as close to
their releasing facility as possible during the latter part of
their sentence.
Ms. McBath. Finally, what efforts were made to ensure that
other BOP facilities had the capacity to receive those
individuals that were transferred from FCI Dublin?
Ms. Peters. Yes. We did a careful review of capacity and
their ability to safely absorb them. Felt comfortable with the
institutions that we had chosen that they were able to safely
absorb them and provide them the appropriate treatment,
programming, and medical and mental health.
Ms. McBath. We have also been kind of concerned about the
fact that we understand that some of the individuals that were
transferred were transferred very far away from their
communities and far away from their families, with no
notification of those family members as to where their family
and those individuals were being transferred to.
I, myself, also having the murderer of my son's child
actually placed in Federal prison as well, I will tell you our
rights were violated because that gentleman--I will call him a
gentleman--actually was transferred. We never knew anything
about it. I found out from the media that he had been
transferred out of the State of Florida to another facility.
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Congresswoman. I know you and I have
talked about that unfortunate incident. I was just, again,
sorry that happened to you and your family.
The families were also a concern of ours in this move. For
safety and security reasons we can't give advance notice on
when we are moving adults in custody ever, not just the
temporary closure of a facility but even the daily moves that
we make, which is why we made sure that they have access and
ability to reach out to their families once they arrived at
their receiving institution.
Ms. McBath. Thank you very much.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Biggs. The gentlewoman yields. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you.
Director Peters, the Ranking Member said it very good in
her, very well in her opening statement that everyone should be
treated with dignity and respect. I am assuming that applies to
all inmates. Is that correct?
Ms. Peters. That is correct.
Mr. Tiffany. Derek Chauvin in a Tucson facility was stabbed
22 times while he was copying documents. What happened?
Ms. Peters. Congressman, excuse me, I won't be able to
speak to the details of that situation for obvious reasons. I
will tell you that the safety of all individuals in our custody
is what we do every day. That is our mission. That is our
focus.
Mr. Tiffany. So, the gang member that stabbed him 22 times
seems now to have full access to being able to, for example,
copy documents, stuff like that, while Mr. Chauvin is not
allowed that privilege currently.
Why would there be disparate treatment like that?
Ms. Peters. Congressman, I wouldn't be able to speak to the
specifics of Mr. Chauvin's incarceration or the assailant.
What I can tell you is that we have experts who make
housing determinations and placements to ensure that people are
safe and secure, both the individuals that were assaulted and
the assailant.
Mr. Tiffany. Are you aware that Jason Galanis reported to a
BOP chaplain that he was the victim of repeated incidents of
sexual harassment at the hands of BOP staff?
Ms. Peters. I am familiar with Mr. Galanis' allegations,
yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Is that staff member who assaulted Mr.
Galanis, is he still working for BOP?
Ms. Peters. Again, that is an ongoing investigation. I
wouldn't be able to speak to the alleged individual's
circumstances right now.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chair, this is really one of, I have been
here four short years, this is really one of the frustrating
things. When people come before this Committee, whether it is
the FBI, the Department of Justice, whomever, we rarely get
answers. You can see why the American people are losing faith
in some of our institutions when we can't even get answers to
some of these things.
I just want to close with this question, Director Peters.
In Wisconsin recently we had a staff member that was killed
at the Lincoln Hills Juvenile Facility. I don't expect you to
know the details in regard to it. A judge restricted use of
restraints for violent youth due to an appeal by the ACLU.
Do you ever run into the same problem where a result of the
actions of the courts that they restrict the ability to protect
staff?
Ms. Peters. Congressman, I am not aware of any examples.
Mr. Tiffany. So, you believe your staff is well protected?
Ms. Peters. I am sorry, I am not understanding the
question.
Mr. Tiffany. Do you think your staff is relatively safe in
the environment that they work in?
Ms. Peters. I think that the important thing that we do
every day is working to train them with make sure they have the
tools and the resources they need to operate safe and secure
prisons.
Mr. Tiffany. So, Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me the
latitude where I am morphing into a State issue, but it is very
disappointing now, a staff member, a very good staff member was
killed in a facility that I live in, that lives in my district
as a result of a judge who took actions that allowed the
inmates to run the asylum.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the whole
Committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In April 2023, GAO placed management of the Federal prison
system on its high risk list, in part due to staffing
challenges. In which positions are vacancies most acute?
Ms. Peters. We are focused mostly on our correctional
officers.
Mr. Nadler. What is your short- and long-term plan to
increase the number of correctional officers to meet the needs
of the system?
Ms. Peters. Thank you for the question.
We have done so many things:
LWe have used every incentive that we have at our
fingerprints, both recruitment and retention incentives.
LWe have changed how we are marketing and trying
to hire our correctional officers.
LWe increased correctional officers' base salary
by $2,000.
LWe waived the maximum entry--age entry, excuse
me, from 37-39.
LWe pay a $1,000 recruitment bonus to any employee
that successfully recruits someone and brings them onto the
Bureau.
LAs of May 2024, we received direct hire authority
for our correctional officers nationwide, which has proven very
successful.
Then, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, I think the
primary focus is really that base salary and working with the
Department and OPM for a special salary rate.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
According to GAO, some of the staffing concerns relate to
difficulty recruiting, while other challenges relate to what
the GAO calls ``the growing use of overtime and augmentation.''
What are you doing to reduce overtime and, specifically,
the use of mandatory overtime?
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Congressman.
As I said in my opening remarks, in wears and tears. As I
walk through the halls of my institutions, while our
correctional officers are so proud to tell me of the work that
they are doing, they also share how exhausted they are. It is
driven by overtime and augmentation.
So, our focus to reduce that is hiring, is to get our
institutions fully staffed.
I just visited our facility in Michigan, Milan, Michigan,
where it is nearly fully staffed. Just the tenor and tone of
that institution was so different because they weren't buried
with overtime and augmentation.
Mr. Nadler. Would adjusting the pay scale or GS scale of
correctional officer, correctional officers upward across the
board be more advantageous to BOP in retaining staff and cost
savings than paying millions of dollars in overtime?
Ms. Peters. Congressman, any way that we can pay our people
more, will actually in the long run cost less than overtime,
yes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
You have made it clear that you will not tolerate employee
misconduct of any kind, and that this issue is among your
highest priorities. What specific steps are you taking in this
regard?
Ms. Peters. So many. This is something that we have focused
on out of the gate.
When I first started as director two years ago we had under
30 people who worked in the Office in Internal Affairs. We now
have almost 150 individuals. We have realigned their reporting
authority, so they report directly to headquarters, not up
through the warden, to remove any perceived or real barriers to
that.
We are working very closely with the Office of the
Inspector General. I personally meet with him quarterly. Our
teams meet regularly to ensure that the backlog and the
communication is wide open there as well.
Mr. Nadler. In what way is the Department of Justice
assisting your efforts to root out and address employee
misconduct?
Ms. Peters. They have been incredibly helpful. The Deputy
Attorney General herself and I have met directly with the U.S.
Attorneys to talk about the importance of prosecuting employee
misconduct out of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. They have been
very receptive to that.
I have met with U.S. Attorneys regularly in the last two
years, multiple times in the last two years to share that very
sentiment.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
In recent months there have been a series of reports
documenting BOP's continued widespread use of restrictive
housing, with devastating and deadly results. What steps is BOP
taking to restrict the use of restrictive housing?
Ms. Peters. This is an area where we still have room for
advancement.
I have a long history of reforming restrictive housing. As
I was talking to the union earlier, it is a tool we will always
have inside our institutions, but we need to limit it even more
dramatically. It has dropped slightly since I started.
Probably the biggest thing that we have in the works is we
have been working closely with the national union to revise our
policy around discipline for those in our custody. As it is
written right now, it reduces the sanction time in restrictive
housing by almost 84 percent.
So, once that is passed, I think we will see substantial
change.
Mr. Nadler. What has BOP done to address the high rate of
suicide in restrictive housing?
Ms. Peters. So, we have mandated that individuals are
double celled in restrictive housing to ensure that they have
human contact while they are in restrictive housing.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Before becoming Director of BOP, you often spoke about the
harms of solitary confinement and the benefits of alternatives
to the practice. What are the benefits that you see in
alternatives to solitary confinement where people are separated
from the general population but are provided real and effective
out-of-cell programming and services?
Ms. Peters. We have--
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman's time has expired.
You may go ahead and answer the question.
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The research is very clear: The more normal and humane
environments that we provide for the adults in custody, the
safer they are, the less wear and tear on them as well as our
employees.
So, we have many alternatives to restrictive housing that
we have engaged in over the last couple of years, including our
Step Down Units, our Reentry Reintegration Units, and our GROW
Units, which actually prevent people from actually going to
restrictive housing.
So, we are taking lots of steps to see those numbers drop
because we know very clearly the negative impacts of
restrictive housing on those individuals.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Director. I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields back. At this time, I
acknowledge that the gentleman from South Dakota--
Mr. Armstrong. North Dakota.
Mr. Biggs. Sorry about that. The gentleman from North
Dakota, Mr. Armstrong, would like to be waived on. Without
objection? Seeing none, OK. Chair now recognizes for his five
minutes of questioning, the gentleman from--excuse me, the
Chair of the entire Committee from Ohio, Mr. Jordan.
Chair Jordan. I thank the Chair. Director, how many Federal
inmates were released to home confinement under CARES Act?
Ms. Peters. We had about 35,000 released under the CARES
Act.
Chair Jordan. Thirty-five thousand?
Ms. Peters. Oh, excuse me, 35,000 is the number under FSA
Earned Time Credits. Under CARES Act, it was--
Chair Jordan. Thirteen?
Ms. Peters. Thirteen thousand--13,204.
Chair Jordan. Thirteen? That's what I thought.
Thirteen thousand. On February 4, 2023, Jason Galanis after
serving approximately 40 percent of his sentence applied for
home confinement. The very next month, the probation office
approved that. You're familiar with that, right?
Also, the very next month, March 2023, the Pensacola warden
approved--and then on June 9th, the Residential Reentry
Management Center also approved Mr. Galanis for home
confinement under the CARES Act. Then, four days later, the
Board of Prison denied it. Who made the decision to deny that?
Ms. Peters. The denial came out of the Residential Reentry
Management Office.
Chair Jordan. After they approved it, four days later, they
changed their mind?
Ms. Peters. So, the Chair and I spoke yesterday. I think
there's some confusion around approvals and referrals. The
warden has the ability to refer. Probation has the requirement
to confirm that his housing option in the community is proper.
That still doesn't approve a home confinement placement. The
final decision rests with the Residential Reentry Management
Office.
Chair Jordan. They told Mr. Galanis on the 9th that
everything was fine. Then on the 13th, they changed. Why?
Ms. Peters. That is not my understanding. The Residential
Reentry Management Office did a thorough review of his case and
concluded that he was for a variety of indicators would not be
a good candidate for home confinement.
Chair Jordan. The Residential Reentry Management Center on
June 9th approved Mr. Galanis' request for home confinement and
then reached out to the Southern District of New York where he
was prosecuted. Is that what happened?
Ms. Peters. That's not my understanding. My understanding
is since he had more than five years on his sentence, it was
practice for the Residential Reentry Management Office to reach
out to the U.S.--
Chair Jordan. Anyone else get CARES Act release and home
confinement under the CARES Act who had more than five years
left on their sentence?
Ms. Peters. I can't answer that question.
Chair Jordan. I can. David McMaster did. David McMaster did
and sentenced for fraud, similar to Mr. Galanis, had 188 months
sentence and was given home confinement under the CARES Act.
Ms. Peters. We look at each case individually. I am
confident that Mr. Galanis--
Chair Jordan. OK. So, this is what I'm getting at. What was
the reason--whether it was an approval then a denial, what was
the reason for the denial?
Ms. Peters. So, it was a handful of reasons. We look at the
totality of the circumstances when we make--
Chair Jordan. When you say we, who ultimately makes the
decision? Does that rest with you?
Ms. Peters. No, sir. I do not review these.
Chair Jordan. Can you overrule it?
Ms. Peters. This is the Residential--
Chair Jordan. Can you overrule what happens at the
Residential Reentry Management Center?
Ms. Peters. I have never overruled one of their decisions.
Chair Jordan. Never? OK. Then what were the factors that
made this determination?
Ms. Peters. So, the factors included the fact that in a
previous incarceration cycle, he violated the conditions of his
supervisory lease by texting a potential witness. His bond was
ultimately revoked. His role in the instant offense as a leader
and organizer was outlined in the presentencing we support. As
was mentioned earlier, he owed over 80 million dollars in
restitution. He had more than ten victims and more than five
years left on his sentence.
Chair Jordan. How many were turned down? The people who
applied under the CARES Act, you gave approval to 13,204. How
many were denied?
Ms. Peters. I don't have that number but happy to look into
it and get it back--
Chair Jordan. Is it a big number? Is it a small number?
What's the number?
Ms. Peters. Congressman, I wouldn't venture a guess under
oath. I will tell you that toward the end of CARES Act, the
number of requests that came in I'm told tripled as the
population learned the CARES Act was expiring. So, I know at
the time of his request, the numbers were very high.
Chair Jordan. Did the fact that the House Oversight
Committee subpoenaed Mr. Galanis' business partner have any
weight on the decision to deny his request?
Ms. Peters. No.
Chair Jordan. You're confident of that?
Ms. Peters. I have no evidence to suggest that the
Residential Reentry Management Office would have taken that
into consideration. That would've been outside BOP policy.
Chair Jordan. Because June 9th, they basically told him,
OK, it looks good. On June 13th, they deny it. Anything happen
in between there that could've influenced the decision?
Ms. Peters. Not that I am aware of.
Chair Jordan. That's when the subpoena was sent to his
business partner on June 12th. We actually think that probably
had some impact on the decision to deny his request given that
other people--similar crime, similar sentence were, in fact,
approved like Mr. McMaster. You're saying that had nothing to
do with it?
Ms. Peters. Correct.
Chair Jordan. You don't know how many were turned down?
Ms. Peters. No, but happy to find that number and get it
back to you.
Chair Jordan. Mr. Galanis is nonviolent. His crime was
nonviolent. Any people who were in for a violent offense were
then released under the CARES Act?
Ms. Peters. Congressman, I am confident that Mr. Galanis'
case was handled within existing BOP policy, and I am aware
that any part of his application was denied other than the
merits that I just described to you.
Chair Jordan. OK. Well, the timeline doesn't seem to add up
to what you just described there. I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. McBath. Mr. Chair?
Mr. Biggs. Yes?
Ms. McBath. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter
into the record a letter from DOJ explaining that Mr. Galanis
was not eligible for home confinement under the CARES Act
consistent with department policy because of the length of time
on his sentence and the nature of his conduct, which as we know
involved conning shareholders, investors, and a tribal entity
out of tens of millions of dollars.
Mr. Biggs. Without objection. The Chair now recognized the
gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Peters, thank you for
being here today. On December 21, 2018, President Trump signed
the First Step Act, and it was sentencing reform. I understand
that mandatory sentences were reduced, in some cases from 20-15
years, depending on the crime, of course. Did you say 35,000
people were released as a result of the First Step Act?
Ms. Peters. That's correct.
Mr. Moore. The safety valve program which also restricts or
allows judges in nonviolent crimes to allow criminals or at
least people who have been convicted a little earlier release.
Has that been helpful in lowering prison population and
crowding?
Ms. Peters. Our prison population is continuing to climb
ever so slightly even though we have some of these tools at our
disposal.
Mr. Moore. In Alabama--I think we spoke about this last
time. I'm a proponent of prison reform and certainly sentencing
reform. We have a prison in Alabama that actually teaches
skills.
So, when the inmates come out, they're certified welders,
diesel mechanics, and all the above. The recidivism rate has
lowered dramatically. So, I would encourage us to look at those
kind of programs.
Concerning Mr. Galanis, I didn't realize that he had eight
business partners. I think Hunter Biden had eight business
partners, and Mr. Galanis was one of the eight that got
sentenced. Hunter did not get charged with anything is my
understanding. That's the problem and we talked about this with
Merrick Garland.
Sometimes it seems like certain people, justice is not
truly blind, and that's been a concern for us. Certainly, with
Mr. Galanis being a partner with Mr. Biden and us trying to get
information concerning the impeachment process, you understand
how we're concerned when he's denied after he's approved, and
then all of a sudden, we send a subpoena and they go, oh, by
the way, you've been denied? You think in any way that
sometimes politics gets into the part of the prisons?
Ms. Peters. Congressman, no. We are to uphold the letter of
the law and our policies. Politics should not be taken into
account when we're making those decisions.
Mr. Moore. Well, under the First Step Act which we just
talked a little about, certain incarcerated individuals are
meant to be able to earn time credits for participating in
recidivism reduction programs. Our productive activities which
can be later applied toward early release, we've been informed
by the BOP that it is not processing--or at this time, it's not
processing these earned credits, leaving inmates, including
Jason Galanis in the dark regarding his status through the
First Step Act. What is the BOP doing to rectify the
implementation of the First Step Act to ensure that individuals
like Mr. Galanis are receiving proper treatment under the law?
Ms. Peters. So, the automation of the earned time credits
has proven very effective. It really allows for transparency
with the adults in custody now. So, now they know they have a
projected date on if they stay in program, if they continue to
engage in positive behavior that those earned time credits are
there.
Mr. Moore. So, why are we keeping the prisoners in the dark
on these? I think in some ways, that's a carrot that we can
say, hey, at this point, we can move you along a little--you're
making great progress. We always want to encourage folks who
are trying to make the effort to correct their path. Any reason
why we're keeping certain inmates or inmates in the dark on
this?
Ms. Peters. Congressman, you and I are aligned on this. I'm
a behaviorist by training. It's absolutely a carrot which is
why we have changed the practice now. So, now they're not in
the dark. Now we're doing the automated projected earned time
credits, and they're able to see that carrot--
Mr. Moore. When did you all begin that?
Ms. Peters. We have been working on automated time credits
for over a year. It's been in the last few months that we've
been doing the projected earned time credits.
Mr. Moore. OK. To your knowledge based on participation of
these programs facilitated under the First Step Act--yes, First
Step Act--how many earned credits does Mr. Galanis--how much
has he accumulated?
Ms. Peters. I do not have that answer. We're happy to look
into it and get back to you.
Mr. Moore. OK. Thank you. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield
back.
Mr. Biggs. The Chair now recognizes Representative Dean.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Chair Biggs. Thank you for holding
this hearing. Thank you, Representative McBath, for your
leading role here.
In the absence of our colleague, I just want to take a
couple seconds to also offer my thoughts and sympathy
especially to Sheila Jackson Lee's family and her staff, her
able staff, both here and in Houston. I feel so lucky that I
had the chance to serve with her for 5\1/2\ years on this
Committee and on this Subcommittee on crime. What a force.
The hardest working woman in Congress, everybody knows
that. There wasn't an issue she didn't speak about. So, is
already dearly missed, but her 30 years will live on for a long
time. If I could begin.
Thank you very much, Director Peters, for being here. The
BOP reports that 45 percent of Federal prisoners have mental
health or behavioral problems. More than 30 percent struggle
with substance use disorder. That's in line what I have heard
when I was State Representative in Pennsylvania and when I
spoke to Secretary Laurel Harry of the Pennsylvania Department
of Corrections.
She estimated that roughly 35 percent of the people within
her care struggle with mental health. At least 15 percent
suffer from serious mental health problems. She said a
majority, perhaps as high as 70 percent, grapple with addition
substance use disorder.
Clearly, our inmates need comprehensive support because
they are coming home. They will reenter our society, and we
want that to be as successful as possible for them, for their
families, and also to reduce recidivism. So, addition to mental
health, what are the top things that the Bureau is doing or can
do, especially if you had the resources, to aid inmates with
mental health issues and substance issues?
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Congressman. You're absolutely
right. The numbers that you mention reflect what's in my
recall. A large number of individuals suffer from mental health
issues, alcohol, and drug addictions.
Many of those are drivers to incarceration. So, it's really
our job to focus on getting them healthy, both physically and
mentally, before they come back and become our good neighbors.
So, all our institutions have doctoral level psychiatrists--or
psychologists, excuse me. We have 500 psychologists and
approximately 600 treatment specialists across the country who
focus on this alone as well as residential and nonresidential
alcohol and drug treatment.
Ms. Dean. I appreciate that. You talked especially in your
testimony about recruitment and retention. By way of staffing,
how many staffers are you down? Then I'm wondering has there
been any attempt in terms of compensation, attempted special
pay increases for staff, for example, that we should know about
because of our appropriations role and responsible? So
staffing, how much are you down and what do you need in terms
of appropriations and any special pay?
Ms. Peters. Great. So, I'll start with the money. As I said
in my opening comments, we paid over 128 million dollars last
year in recruitment and retention incentives alone. We're
working with the department and OPM specifically on a special
salary rate.
Because as I've said before, these incentives are band-aids
only. The bottom line is our employees are not getting paid
enough. So, a special salary rate is really the long-term fix.
Ms. Dean. What does that look like? What would a special
salary rate look like?
Ms. Peters. We estimate needing an additional 600 million
dollars a year to have that salary rate accepted and have a
competitive salary with other law enforcement agencies and the
private sector.
Ms. Dean. OK. Is that what is meant by a special pay
increase? Is that what you're--
Ms. Peters. Special salary rate, that's correct.
Ms. Dean. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Peters. We're asking for all the employees in our
institutions.
Ms. Dean. In terms of staffing, under the previous
administration, how many staff members did you lose?
Ms. Peters. That 2016 number keeps coming up. It was around
6,000, I believe. What we've really focused on is the fact that
even though we have positional authority right now, we're not
able to fill them all.
So, you asked about what is authorized and what is filled.
We have over 20,000 authorized in the correctional officer
series. If you look at boots on the ground, those correctional
officers that you think of managing the units, we have about
14,900 authorized, and only 83 percent of those are filled.
We also had a contractor come in and do an assessment to
figure out going forward how many do we need to safely operate
our institutions. They're telling us we need an additional
4,000 correctional officers and another 2,500 healthcare
professionals. They're going to complete their analysis this
fall on the other employees that are working inside our
institutions.
Ms. Dean. Thank you for your leadership, and I hope those
who appropriate the money for the Bureau, for your tireless
staff--actually hear those words and meet the moment.
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Congressman.
Ms. Dean. Thank you.
Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady's time has expired. Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would yield my five
minutes to the distinguished Member and future Governor of the
State of North Dakota, Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you. Where are you from in South
Dakota?
Ms. Peters. Milbank.
Mr. Armstrong. Oh, fantastic.
Ms. Peters. So not far from your border.
Mr. Armstrong. Ninety percent of the people who are in
custody and in the Federal system will be released?
Ms. Peters. That's correct.
Mr. Armstrong. That's why we're here. That is why it's
important. You inherited a mess. You inherited a mess. We
walked through--and there's not a lot of great stories over the
last five years.
I think there are some, and I think it can also help. The
CARES Act recidivism rate was 3.7 percent. That's roughly 10
percent of BOP at large, and it's statistically no different
than traditional home confinement. Are my numbers accurate?
Ms. Peters. The recidivism rate for CARES Act was about 4.4
percent is what I have, yes.
Mr. Armstrong. The recidivism rate for First Step Act is
about 35-37 percent lower than the BOP at large?
Ms. Peters. That's correct.
Mr. Armstrong. So, these programs work. So, when we're
talking about staffing and I'm going to ask about the OPM
salary thing in a second because there's another side to this,
right? What percentage of people who you hire are gone within
the first year? Do you know?
Ms. Peters. I don't have that number, but it is an area of
concern because we were able to onboard in 2022. We onboarded
fewer than last. So, the good news for his year so far is that
we've onboarded 1,400 and it's more than have left.
Mr. Armstrong. I appreciate you saying you support the BOP
oversight bill because it's not often we have somebody in
here--there's some strict measures in there. You talked about
augmentation and all those different issues. If you're hitting
overtime at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, and you're committee is to
working another two hours a week, and you have two kids at home
that you haven't seen and you're working in a dilapidated
facility.
People have to be locked up all weekend because you don't
have enough staff to get them in there. Do you know what that
creates? One, it's a terrible working environment outside of
the pay.
It also creates recidivism. There are things the Federal
system does really well. One of them is pretrial release. It's
fascinating to me because it's almost counterintuitive.
It's less confrontational, more rehabilitative, life choice
skills, all those different things. The problem is nothing you
get taught in pretrial release you remember 10 years later when
you get a 10-year minimum mandatory. Some of it is
geographical.
One of the things the Federal prison system I don't think
does very well and I think we have an opportunity to increase
on it is reentry. The tools for reentry, we have a bill with
David Trone, just to give everybody a BOP ID to set up a bank
account, or to buy a bus ticket, or to get home. So, when we're
talking about the First Step implementation, we talk about what
happens when they get out.
What are you guys doing to implement--and this becomes more
important because a lot of times people are not incarcerated
locally. So, what are you doing, so meeting the good time
credits and outside of staffing because I'm assuming staffing
is a challenge to this. What are you doing to increase the
ability of the people who qualify for video calls with family,
telephone calls with family, all those different issues,
because we know and the data supports the more you do that, the
less likely they're going to reoffend when they get out.
Ms. Peters. So, you covered so much there.
Mr. Armstrong. I'm taking everybody's time.
Ms. Peters. Of course. As the Director of BOP and as the
former Inspector General of the good State of Oregon, of course
I support the Oversight Act. I understand the important role of
the Inspector General. He and I work closely.
As it relates to release IDs, I had met with Congressman
Trone many times. I'm proud to report to the Committee that all
the BOP facilities now have the ability to issue an ID. So,
individuals are actually leaving--in fact, since December 2023,
we've generated over 6,500 release cards. As you all know,
that's an incredible barrier to reentry.
As it relates to staffing inside our institutions, when I
walk the halls of our institutions and we have great
representatives from the union here in the room, they're
exhausted. They tell me exactly the anecdotal stories that you
just shared, that the families have pick up times figured out
and who's cooking figured out. The Federal Bureau of Prisons
messes it up regularly because of mandated overtime.
Mr. Armstrong. We want to hold people accountable.
Ms. Peters. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. We want them to serve their sentence.
Ms. Peters. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Ideally we'd prefer when they get out, they
don't reoffend again right away.
Ms. Peters. That's right.
Mr. Armstrong. That is the officer safety. This is for
everybody. This is the only adult population that the Federal
Government is in charge of everything.
Ms. Peters. Right.
Mr. Armstrong. We have taken care, custody, and control of
them. Whether it's a facility and everybody looks at it and
says, I don't care what kind of room a violent criminal is in.
The employees do.
If you're working in something that's 30 years old and
across all of that, and if we don't retain employees because
it's not just the number of employees. It's how many years of
experience they have. That is the single best way to deliver
all of the things we need to deliver and also ensure a safe and
secure society. With that, I yield back. I'm sorry.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. Director Peters, thank you for
coming. Before I talk to you, I'd like to reflect a few of my
thoughts about Chair Jackson Lee.
We sat together for nearly the entire 18 years I've been
here side by side in the Judiciary Committee. She came to
Memphis for a hearing. We had a field hearing and supported me.
I went to Houston and supported her.
She was a dynamic figure and one of a kind. She was a
force, and a force that soaked up as much information as she
could to help her people and justice as she saw it and did a
marvelous job in Congress. She will certainly be missed. She
was something else.
Director Peters, let me ask you this. I've not caught a lot
of the hearing. So, I'm asking you something that's been asked
before, just let me know that.
Following up on the Governor's questions, what does a
person get when they're released from prison right now? You're
talking about this card. What's such a big deal about giving
somebody a card?
Ms. Peters. It's such a big deal because it's a barrier to
so many things, to getting a bank account when you get out, to
being able to show formal ID to rent an apartment.
Mr. Cohen. I can see that they need it. Why is it such a
problem to give it to them?
Ms. Peters. So, it's been a barrier on so many levels
because the way that the individuals get IDs when they get into
the community is through the Department of Motor Vehicles. If
you've been incarcerated for a while, you might not have that
Social Security card. You might not have that birth
certificate. So the Federal Bureau of Prisons' employees spends
time sleuthing and getting those document, so that they do have
them when they leave. Then, they also have an official ID that
is being accepted in 26 States as these individuals come back
into our communities.
Mr. Cohen. Then when they leave the prison system, are they
just taken out the prison doors and released? Or are they given
transportation back home? How is that handled?
Ms. Peters. So, the majority of them not only receive
transportation, but they receive transportation to a
residential reentry center or to home confinement. So, I think
the ability to take people who are still serving a sentence and
have a step down for them in the community really proves
beneficial so that they have a safe environment to try to
reenter, but with wraparound services around them.
Mr. Cohen. Once they leave the Bureau of Prison and they go
to these programs which are available to them, Bureau of
Prisons is totally out. You all don't have any--you don't give
them any money to have an opportunity to buy some things when
they get out or any credits?
Ms. Peters. We encourage people to save money on their
account for reentry purposes. When they're in the residential
reentry center or on home confinement, they're still sentenced
to the Bureau. So, they're still under our custody which is why
it's a great step down. It isn't until their sentence expires
that then we hand them off to pretrial for supervision--or
probation--
Mr. Cohen. On Saturday, I went to Payne's Bar-B-Que in
Memphis and a man came up to me. After shaking my hand for the
longest period of time I've ever had my hand shaken, a big man.
Anyway, he came up to me afterwards at lunch and he said, I
just spent 15 years in the Federal system, and I want to start
a reentry program. How does somebody start a reentry program
from Federal prisoners?
Ms. Peters. So, they would be able to reach out to our
procurement staff and be able to share what their reentry idea
is. Our procurement staff would be able to point them in the
right direction.
Mr. Cohen. So, they go to the Federal Correctional Facility
in Memphis?
Ms. Peters. No, I would refer them to our procurement staff
at headquarters.
Mr. Cohen. OK, OK. They need something. Representative
Armstrong was getting close to an idea they just can't leave
them there. They need help so they don't commit crimes when
they're released. Has there been any privatization of any
Federal services, prisons?
Ms. Peters. So, we had engaged in 11 contracts with private
prisons. Based on the President's Executive Order, we no longer
engage in any of those contracts.
Mr. Cohen. I'm not for private prisons. I think it's the
government's responsibility. A lot of States have done it.
What's been experience with private prisons?
Ms. Peters. So, I'm previously the Director of the Oregon
Department of Corrections. That was actually statutorily
prohibited in Oregon. So, it wasn't something I was familiar
with there. Then, of course, the Executive Order was in place
when I arrived in this role. We successfully complied with the
Executive Order's timeframe and ended those contracts.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Compassionate release, that's a
program I've been interested in as well. What have you done to
streamline the compassionate release program and get more
people that are old as hell who are not going to be able to or
want to commit a crime again out of the system and home?
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman's time has expired, but you may
answer the question.
Ms. Peters. Thank you. Then in the interest of time, I'll
say I think the most prominent expansion that we've engaged in
this last year has been to be able to include confirmed victims
of sexual assault inside our institutions for compassionate
release. That was part of the U.S. sentencing guideline
changes.
Mr. Cohen. Did you say victims of sexual assault? OK.
Ms. Peters. Confirmed victims of sexual assault on our
watch that they're now able to apply for--and then I think it's
important for the Committee to understand I can recommend to
the courts for compassionate release. That decision ultimately
rests with the courts. I think that's a really important
expansion of compassionate release that we've engaged in this
last year.
Mr. Cohen. If I may--
Mr. Biggs. Gentleman's time is expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Peters, thank
you for your work as Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
The people you house in your facilities are there for a limited
period before they reenter society.
As someone who believes that everyone deserves a second
chance, that is what I am most interested in. So, I want to
jump right in and ask you about how well the prison system is
working when it comes to rehabilitation and reentry. I believe
it's imperative that we equip inmates with the tools they need
to succeed on the outside.
Doing that will help them be engaged productive members of
society. It is what will keep them from entering recidivism.
Can you please talk about the programs that you have inside the
prison walls that help with rehabilitation? Do you have enough
staffing and resources to run these programs effectively?
Ms. Peters. So, we have over 115 evidence-based recidivism
reduction programs now. As I walk the halls of our
institutions, there's a lot of creativity about even expanding
those. So, everything from mental health treatment to alcohol
and drug treatment, to anger management, to cognitive
behavioral therapy, residential alcohol and drug programs,
nonresidential, so a plethora of programs.
We believe at the Bureau that the conversation around
reentry begins on day one to get them prepared to become those
good neighbors as you say. Do we have enough staff? No. Are
they being paid enough? No.
Mr. Johnson. I was proud that that the bipartisan First
Step Act was signed into law back in 2018, which contained both
sentencing and prison reforms aimed at recidivism reduction.
It's the most significant bipartisan criminal justice reform
legislation in a generation. The First Step Act provides that
those serving sentences have the opportunity to earn good time
credits for participating in recidivism reduction programs and
related activities.
For qualifying low-level offenders, those time credits will
result in early release. Also, there are other changes to the
good time credit calculation. There are some other things in
the First Step Act about having to do with when the sentence
was first commenced. Can you talk about how you calculate those
earned time credits for persons who are in prison at the time
the First Step Act passed?
Ms. Peters. Yes, so originally when the First Step Act
passed, it was a manual calculation which caused a lot of labor
and a lot of confusion among the population. So, we have now
automated the earned time credits. Just recently in the
previous months, not only have we automated the earned time
credits, we're actually projecting out what their release date
might be as we talked about earlier as a carrot so that people
understand if they continue to engage in programming and
treatment, if they continue to have good conduct inside the
institution, then they know what their earliest release could
be.
You mentioned how many people are released and the
recidivism rate. Under the First Step Act, we've already
released over 35,000 individuals with a recidivism rate of just
9.7 percent. So, you're correct. It is working.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. What actions has BOP taken to
ensure that risk and needs assessments are conducted as
required and that there are sufficient evidence-based
recidivism reduction programs available to meet the needs of
all incarcerated people?
Ms. Peters. Yes, so we have over 150 evidence-based
recidivism reduction programs and productive activities right
now. We are working to expand those every day. As I walk the
halls of our institutions, the creativity that I'm seeing
around advancing additional programs is great.
I mentioned earlier that I just visited our prison in
Milan, Michigan, which happens to have the only Federal prison
with a high school inside of it. So, you can get not just a GED
but a high school diploma. They had over 15 apprenticeship
programs at that one facility. So, people are taking--we say
the First Step Act is part of who we are, part of our daily
life now. You see that when you walk the halls of our
institutions.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes the
gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Lee, for five minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for having this hearing.
Director Peters, thank you for being here with us today and for
your testimony about your work with the Bureau of Prisons. The
last time you were here with us, one of the things that we
discussed were the conditions at FCI Dublin and the incidents
of the abuse of female prisoners.
You shared with us your plans to ensure that oversight and
accountability were brought to that facility. Of course, since
that time, the facility has been closed. Would you share with
us more about your efforts in that regard and where the women
who were housed at FCI Dublin are now?
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Congresswoman. So, as we spoke
previously, we poured so many resources into that institution
in hopes that it would succeed, additional staffing, additional
incentives, additional psychologists, trauma informed training,
and gender responsive training. We changed the executive team
three times over and unfortunately concluded that it still was
not meeting expectations.
So, we temporarily closed it. We did move individuals to
other female facilities. For those individuals that had less
than five months on their sentence, we moved them to SeaTac,
our facility in Washington to ensure that they were close as
they could be to family. Others have been distributed
throughout the country at other female facilities.
Ms. Lee. You also mentioned earlier some of the changes
that you've made internally to increase accountability and
prosecutions for those who do commit these types of violent
acts against people who are in custody. Specifically, you
touched on a very large increase in the number of people
assigned to internal affairs and changing the reporting process
to not go through a warden but instead go straight to
headquarters. Would you give us a summary of your assessment?
Are those changes working? Were the people who committed
these crimes at FCI Dublin held to account? Would you share
with us your perspective on what has been done to ensure this
type of treatment of female inmates doesn't reoccur?
Ms. Peters. I think it starts exactly where you're at,
employee accountability. For the record, I'd like to say the
super majority of our employees come to work every day doing
the right thing, are ethical, and are as disappointed as you
and I are when people engage in this type of egregious
misconduct. So, the realignment that you talk about, the
additional staff that we brought on is working.
We've closed--since August 2022 when I started, we've
closed over 9,500 open matters in the Office of Internal
Affairs. We have seen more prosecutions. There are still
investigations pending out of Dublin. We may see more.
I've worked very closely with the U.S. Attorney's as has
the Deputy Attorney General to ensure that they're prosecuting
these cases. The importance of holding people accountable is so
important. Then we've done so many other things.
We work closely with the Inspector General who is engaged
in unannounced visits. The Office of the Deputy Attorney
General has created SAFER teams that have now visited every
single one of our female facilities. We've done cultural
assessments now at all our female facilities to see if we can
see warning signs, so we don't ever get to a place again where
we have a culture that is as egregious as the one at Dublin. As
I mentioned earlier, I am pleased with the passage of the
Oversight Act which will shepherd forward more announced and
unannounced visits from the Inspector General, because I
actually believe we can't do this work alone.
Ms. Lee. I was interested in exactly that point. What about
the Federal Prison Oversight Act do you believe that there are
provisions in there that are going to be specifically
impactful? Of course, I am very pleased to see it pass the
House, pass the Senate. Are there provisions there that you
think will help prevent further abuse of women who are in
custody?
Ms. Peters. I do because the act really enhances what's
already happening with the Office of the Inspector General. It
just allows for more of the unannounced visits, using data to
look at any concerns that we have so that we can see a culture
change before it gets into a more difficult place. So, we'll be
seeing more announced visits, more unannounced visits from the
Inspector General. Then I think the ombudsman position is very
powerful as well for it to have a place where individuals can
bring forward complaints and somebody there to ensure that
those complaints are asked and answered.
Ms. Lee. What about women in custody who are feeling
threatened or are in danger? What options do they have to
ensure that their concerns are heard and that they are kept
safe?
Ms. Peters. So, it's our obligation to create a culture
where they feel safe coming forward. That's one of the things
that we really work on with our trauma informed care and our
gender responsivity. They have the right to come forward to any
employee that they feel safe talking to. They also have the
ability to contact the Inspector General through anonymous
channels to be able to report any complaints or concerns that
they have.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. The Chair recognizes himself for five
minutes of questions. Director, I've received certain reports
that more than 60,000 First Step Act eligible inmates in the
system face significant delays in their prerelease to a halfway
house or final release to freedom because there's not full
compliance or you haven't been able to fully comply with the
First Step Act yet.
There are estimates that these delays range from 3-6 to
even as much as 12 months depending on the length of sentence
which may be costing the taxpayers as much as five billion
dollars according to estimates. So, I'm going to ask you today
is that do those numbers sound accurate to you? Are they
accurate?
Ms. Peters. I'd want to confirm with my team on the
accuracy of the numbers. Anecdotally, that is what I'm hearing
when I walk the institutions. There's a lot of frustration with
the adult in custody population about them already qualifying
for an RRC.
We simply don't have the capacity in the community. So,
you're raising a very important point. The residential reentry
center program was created before FSA. Before FSA, people would
spend weeks or months in an RRC.
Now, they qualify for months and years in a Residential
Reentry Center. So, we are at capacity. Right now, my team is
assessing what that future need will be in terms of resources
for Residential Reentry Centers.
Mr. Biggs. So, there's been a long promise but much delayed
conditional maximum FTC calculator. What's the delay on that?
Is that happening? When can we anticipate that?
Is there a way for you to commit? I'd like you to commit to
get that up and running within the next 60 days. Tell me what's
going on with that, please.
Ms. Peters. So, Congressman, that was the case. It's now
the earned time credit calculator.
Mr. Biggs. Right. Projected earned time credit calculator.
Ms. Peters. It's fully operational. Any errors that we're
hearing about now are because of human input into the system,
not because the earned time credit calculator is broken. Then,
just recently in the last few months, we have expanded the
earned time credit calculator to do a full on projection so
that people can see if they behave in prison, if they stay in
programming and treatment, their earliest release date is X.
Mr. Biggs. So, thank you for that, and I'm going to leave
that topic for a second. We can maybe talk more about that
later offline. We've requested a number of items of information
and requested some recorded transcribed interviews with the
guard in Pensacola and the two wardens in Pensacola related to
the Galanis case.
We've not been able to have those interviews yet. Before we
finish today, I want to ask you for that commitment. There's
also a series of other items, and I'm going to run through
those real quickly.
We requested and subpoenaed information on the following.
We received less than fulsome responses to some of them. The
policies, procedures, and communications regarding Galanis'
application for CARES Act home confinement, we received a
little bit on that.
We expect more, all coordination between staff members of
BOP and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
New York, and DOJ in that case, again, the information
regarding the allegations of sexual assault and sexual
harassment perpetrated against Galanis by a BOP staff member.
Then I want to ask you--and then there's several other things.
I'll get to those in a second if I've got time. I want to ask
you, are you aware the requirements of the Prison Rape
Elimination Act? I'm sure you are.
Ms. Peters. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. What is the standard operating procedure of the
Bureau for women inmate reports being sexually assaulted by BOP
personnel?
Ms. Peters. So, we take all allegations of sexual assault
very seriously. They're referred to the Office of Internal
Affairs. If there's any suspicion of criminal misconduct, it's
referred to the Office of the Inspector General.
Mr. Biggs. So, is the only procedure at that point is a
referral to IA?
Ms. Peters. OIA.
Mr. Biggs. OIA.
Ms. Peters. Then OIG.
Mr. Biggs. There's no immediate movement of that personnel
from one area to another?
Ms. Peters. Oh, yes. There absolutely could be, yes.
Mr. Biggs. I want that as well, please.
Ms. Peters. Yes, so we do an assessment around safety, both
for the victim--safety for the victim and safety for other
individuals in the institutions.
Mr. Biggs. So, how quickly is it for an inmate to be
removed from the facility?
Ms. Peters. It's common practice for the victim to be moved
in short order or the employee moved in short order.
Mr. Biggs. So, when you say short order, what are we
talking about?
Ms. Peters. Sometimes it could be immediate, Congressman.
Mr. Biggs. OK. Let's see here. I want to see here. There
was a judge in Kansas. My time is expired. I'm going to send
you some written questions as well, OK, that we're going to
want answers to because I want to respect everyone's time here.
So, I'll send you some written questions. I would, again,
get back to the less than fulsome answers we received on the
request for documents and answers that we've sent. Director, I
would ask that you get your team on that right away, so we get
that information in and appreciate you being here today. With
that, this Committee is adjourned.
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you, members.
[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Sub-
committee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance can
be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.
aspx?EventID=117533.
[all]