[Senate Hearing 118-568]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-568
LEGACY OF HARM: ELIMINATING THE ABUSE
OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 16, 2024
__________
Serial No. J-118-62
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.judiciary.senate.gov
www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
58-785 WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina,
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota Ranking Member
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JOHN CORNYN, Texas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey TED CRUZ, Texas
ALEX PADILLA, California JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
JON OSSOFF, Georgia TOM COTTON, Arkansas
PETER WELCH, Vermont JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
LAPHONZA BUTLER, California THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Joseph Zogby, Majority Staff Director
Katherine Nikas, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Durbin, Hon. Richard J........................................... 1
Graham, Hon. Lindsey O........................................... 2
WITNESSES
Boyd, Roy........................................................ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Questions submitted with no response returned................ 75
Davis, Nicole.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Goodwin, Gretta L................................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Responses to written questions............................... 76
Peeler, Katherine R.............................................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Responses to written questions............................... 78
APPENDIX
Items submitted for the record................................... 37
LEGACY OF HARM: ELIMINATING THE ABUSE
OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2024
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room
G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Whitehouse, Coons,
Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker, Ossoff, Welch, Butler, Graham,
Grassley, Hawley, Kennedy, Tillis, and Blackburn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chair Durbin. This meeting of the Senate Judiciary
Committee will come to order. Today the Committee will address
the solitary confinement in Federal prisons and immigration
detention facilities. Twelve years ago, in 2012, I convened the
first-ever Congressional Hearing on solitary confinement. I'm
disappointed to report that, more than a decade later, the
overuse of solitary confinement remains a stain on our Nation.
I would like to turn to a video that depicts the impact of
solitary confinement on those who've experienced it.
[Video is shown.]
Chair Durbin. One of the men who appeared in that video you
just saw was Anthony Graves, a witness at my 2012 hearing. His
testimony will stick with me for the rest of my life. Mr.
Graves spent 18 years on death row, 16 years in solitary
confinement, and then he was exonerated and released. Mr.
Graves' testimony gave us a glimpse into the impact of solitary
on the human mind. At the time of our hearing, Mr. Graves had
been out of prison for 2 years, but I can remember very vividly
that he was not free from the ravages of his time in solitary.
Prolonged exposure to solitary confinement can be as
profound and permanent as traumatic brain injury and can result
in psychological and physical disabilities. And let me remind
you, the vast majority of the people who are in solitary
confinement will one day be released. Research by experts and
testimony from countless people who have spent time in solitary
documents how it worsens preexisting medical and mental health
conditions and creates conditions that didn't previously exist.
I held a follow-up hearing 2 years ago, after my 2012
hearing. We heard from Damon Thibodeaux, whom you saw in the
video. Mr. Thibodeaux tragically died in 2021 from COVID-19. He
spent 15 years in solitary confinement before he was exonerated
and released in 2012. He told us, ``I do not condone what those
who have killed and committed other serious offenses have done,
but I also don't condone what we do to them when we put them in
solitary for years on end and treat them as subhuman. We are
better than that. As a civilized society, we should be better
than that.''
Mr. Thibodeaux was right. We should be better. As the late
John McCain, our former colleague and friend who spent over 5
years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said, ``It's an awful
thing, solitary. It crushes your spirit, weakens your
resistance more effectively than any form of mistreatment.''
After my hearings, the Obama administration took some
important steps to reduce the use of restricted housing in the
Federal prison system. Unfortunately, under the Trump
administration that progress stalled, and the rate of
individuals in solitary steadily increased. BOP Director Peters
told this Committee this is one of her priorities, but
unfortunately, as I have pointed out numerous times, numbers in
solitary in the Federal system are higher today than they were
2 years ago. This is deeply disappointing.
We are seeing the same alarming pattern in ICE detention
facilities. In the last 5 years alone, ICE has placed people in
solitary confinement over 14,000 times, with an average
duration of 27 days. In 2023, of those detained in solitary in
ICE facilities, an estimated 56 percent had mental health
conditions, up from 35 percent in 2019. Tragic stories of
lengthy detention in solitary have surfaced. Last month, a man
died in the ICE facility in Tacoma, Washington, after he was
held in solitary for almost the entirety of his 4 years in ICE
detention. Individuals who violate our criminal immigration
laws must be held accountable, but they should be detained in a
humane manner that does not violate fundamental human rights.
We in Congress can't just blame it on the executive. We
must look in the mirror and acknowledge our obligation to
eliminate the abuse of solitary. That's why I reintroduced the
Solitary Confinement Reform Act with Senator Coons and the
Restricting Solitary Confinement in Immigration Detention Act
with Senator Schatz. I hope my colleagues will join me in
making these bills the laws of the land. I now recognize
Senator Graham.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY O. GRAHAM,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I think this
hearing really should be entitled, The Effect on the American
People of Catch and Release. You know, I'll be glad to talk
with you about solitary confinement and traditional detention
and what effect it may have on people, but I imagine it's a
tool that most jailors need, to protect not only the population
of prisoners but probably the individual itself.
But in terms of ICE detention, that this--that 1 percent of
the people detained, according to the GAO, are put in such
conditions--what I want to point out to the American people:
there is no detention, effective detention, when it comes to
illegal immigrants coming to our border. There are about 40,000
bed spaces, and we're talking 3 million encounters. The catch
and release program is just one of the greatest pull factors.
Eighty-something percent of the people in the alternative
detention program never show up. So, really, I think the
problem America faces from detention is the lack of it, when it
comes to people coming across our border. And the price of this
policy by the Biden administration is pretty darned high.
The Ibarra case, the gentleman accused of killing Ms. Riley
in Georgia--apprehended in September 2022, released on parole;
2023, charged with a crime in New York; October 2023, charged
with stealing from Walmart; and now faces charges of killing
Ms. Riley. This is one example of a parole catch and release
program completely out of control. You probably saw the example
of a couple of cops being beaten up by a gang of thugs. All of
those people, for the most part, were supposed to be in ICE
detention, and New York didn't detain them, and they are out on
the streets beating up cops, and they run to California.
Encounters in Fiscal Year 2023: 2.5 million. We're on track
now to do over 3 million, at the rate we're going, and again,
there's 40,000 bed spaces. So, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we
have a hearing about the effect of fentanyl on the country.
We're the only Committee really of jurisdiction that hasn't had
a hearing about fentanyl. I suggest we have a hearing about the
catch and release phenomenon that's leading to Americans being
killed and injured from policies that--totally out of control.
When it came to Mr. Ibarra, I asked a question: on what
basis was he paroled? Under the law, you can only be paroled
for two specific reasons: if you have a unique humanitarian
need or you have a particular benefit to the country. An
individual analysis. We got the report back. Do we have it? The
analysis of why he's paroled--do you have his parole file? I'm
going to introduce that in the record, and I'd like unanimous
consent to introduce the actual document in his case.
There's absolutely no indication of why he was paroled.
There's no indication anybody did an individual analysis, as
required by law. Just says the guy was paroled. This is a
symptom of a greater problem. And, Mr. Chairman, I think what
we need to be talking about more robustly than we are is the
effect on the American people of having a catch and release
program with no limits. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Senator Graham, we've had oversight hearings
for all of the law enforcement agencies responsible for
fentanyl and other crimes committed in this country, and on a
bipartisan basis members have had ample opportunity to ask
questions. Fentanyl is a serious, serious problem. A recent
briefing, last week or the week before, with Anne Milgram, the
head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, just made that
point, as clear as could be, to me, and I will not resist any
efforts to have hearings on fentanyl or any other narcotic
threatening our country.
When it comes to the issue of immigration and border, what
I suggest is the idea of a Bipartisan Committee. Perhaps we
could pick someone like the Senator from Oklahoma, Republican
Senator, to be the spokesman for their side. We'll have Chris
Murphy from our side and Kyrsten Sinema, as well. Let them come
up with a bipartisan proposal for changing the laws at the
border and making sure that we do everything we can to bring
order to the situation.
I would suggest that, in earnest, were it not for the fact
that we did exactly that. At the suggestion of Senator Graham
and other Republicans, we put together this Bipartisan
Committee and asked them to produce reforms for the border that
relate to the executive branch as well as to our own branch of
government. Unfortunately, when we made that suggestion, a
Presidential candidate named Donald Trump said, stop it. I
don't want anything done on this issue before November. And so
he said if there're people who want to blame me for this, go
ahead and blame me.
I blame him. And I blame him for the lack of effort for a
bipartisan solution to a problem which requires that. It's a
serious issue. You've raised it many times. I think we
should've used that bipartisan bill as the platform to do
something about it. I hope that you'll reconsider your
position.
Senator Graham. Mr. Chairman, I promise I won't hold the
hearing up but respond very quickly, if I may, just for a
second?
Chair Durbin. Sure. Of course.
Senator Graham. Thank you. As to the parole problem, on
average, the Obama-Trump years was about 5,000 per year
paroled. We're talking about 800 to a million people paroled.
You don't need a law to fix that. That's a discretionary
decision. That's a policy choice by the Biden administration.
President Biden hints that he may do something dramatic on the
border. Well, the first thing he could do, Mr. President,
President Biden, is stop abusing parole.
Hopefully I'll have the file here, in a minute, and I can
introduce into the record how the man that was paroled that
wound up being charged with killing Ms. Riley--there is
absolutely no analysis under the law as to why he was paroled.
I want the American people to know that this man, facing
charges, was detained by our system, paroled out, and without
any analysis as to whether or not he deserved parole. That goes
on hundreds of thousands of times a year, and you don't need a
law to fix that. You need a president to fix it, because he's
the one that caused the problem. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. And, for the record, President Biden
supported the bipartisan bill, which was stopped by Donald
Trump and his followers. I hope that you'll reconsider that
position.
Today, we welcome four witnesses. Our first is Gretta
Goodwin, the Director of Homeland Security and Justice at the
Government Accountability Office, which recently issued reports
on the use of solitary confinement in Federal prison and
immigration detention. Joined by Nicole Davis, Executive
Director of the Talk2Me Foundation, incarcerated for more than
13 years in a Federal prison, in FCI Danbury in Connecticut.
We also welcome Dr. Katherine Peeler, Assistant Professor
of Pediatrics at the Harvard Medical School and Medical Expert
for Physicians for Human Rights. She worked with Physicians for
Human Rights on an exhaustive report about the overuse of
solitary confinement in Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Ranking Member Graham, would you like to introduce your
witness?
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sheriff Roy Boyd
we're honored to have as our witness today. He's the sheriff of
Goliad. Did I get it right, Sheriff? A county in Texas. He's a
seventh-generation Texan and has over 3 decades of experience
in law enforcement. He has been a member of the Unified Command
for border security operations in Texas since 2008. He started
an Operation Lone Star Task Force, which has 30 participating
law enforcement agencies, local, who have come together to
fight transnational criminal activity across Texas. Thank you,
Sheriff.
Chair Durbin. If the witnesses would please stand to be
sworn in. Raise your right hand.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Chair Durbin. Let the record reflect that all four
witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Ms. Goodwin, you
may proceed with your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF GRETTA L. GOODWIN, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND
JUSTICE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Goodwin. Chair Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and
Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to
discuss the use of restrictive housing in BOP and ICE
facilities. Federal correction and immigration detention
facilities can place individuals in restrictive housing in
certain circumstances. This type of housing generally consists
of one-or two-person cells that isolate individuals from the
general population. Numerous studies have reported that time
spent in isolation can cause detrimental health impacts such as
anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and self-
harm or suicide. In recent years, BOP and ICE have placed
thousands of people in restrictive housing.
My statement today will discuss the extent to which BOP has
addressed recommendations from prior studies and BOP and ICE
manage and oversee their use of restrictive housing. Two
studies made 87 recommendations to BOP about its management and
use of restrictive housing. In 2014, an independent contractor
selected and paid for by BOP issued 34 recommendations. In
2016, the Department of Justice issued 53. The majority of
these recommendations have not been fully addressed, and some
are nearly a decade old.
Last year, BOP awarded nearly $8 million to a new
contractor to conduct another comprehensive assessment. Earlier
this year, we issued eight recommendations to BOP about their
restrictive housing practices. BOP and ICE can both benefit
from improving their operations. We found that BOP does not
have adequate and timely oversight to ensure that prisons
correctly identify problems, such as staff not following
policy. We also found that BOP placed individuals in its
special management unit disproportionately by race. Black
individuals were 38 percent of the total Federal prison
population, yet they represented 59 percent of the population
in this unit. In our interviews with people incarcerated in
this unit, we heard similar information. BOP is aware of this
disparity but hasn't evaluated why it's happening.
ICE has policies for managing its operations, but
information used for oversight is inconsistent. For example,
detention facilities provide ICE with supporting documentation
that help determine the appropriateness of placements, yet we
found that this documentation was vague and didn't always
contain sufficient details explaining why someone was placed in
restrictive housing. Also, ICE's data system for tracking
placements didn't always identify vulnerable populations, such
as individuals with mental illness or others who may require
additional attention. Without identifying all known detailed
vulnerable noncitizens, ICE is limited in its ability to
conduct oversight of their treatment and care.
Our prior work has also shown that BOP and ICE were neither
routinely nor comprehensively analyzing complaint data, which
means they may be missing opportunities to identify potential
patterns of noncompliance or areas for improvement. We analyzed
summary information for over 1,000 complaints submitted by
those in BOP units. These included complaints about staff
misconduct, being denied access to rec time, and being denied
or provided inadequate amounts of food and hygiene products
such as toilet paper, soap, or sanitary products.
We've reported that ICE did not have reasonable assurances
that its field offices were investigating or resolving
complaints in a timely manner. For example, one unit referring
complaints to ICE field offices indicated that, for certain
noncriminal complaints, they didn't hear back from the field
offices 99 percent of the time.
We've made several recommendations to BOP and ICE, and
they've agreed with them. Implementing our recommendations is
essential to helping both BOP and ICE improve oversight of
restrictive housing operations, ensure compliance with relevant
policies, and meet their directives to provide safe, well
managed, and humane conditions of confinement. Chair Durbin,
Ranking Member Graham, and Members of the Committee, this
concludes my remarks. I'm happy to answer any questions you
have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Goodwin appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Ms. Goodwin. Ms. Davis.
STATEMENT OF NICOLE DAVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TALK2ME
FOUNDATION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Ms. Davis. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and
Members of the Committee, good morning.
Chair Durbin. Good morning.
Ms. Davis. It is with profound honor that I testify before
you. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and the Members of the
Committee, for holding this hearing on ending the abuse of
solitary confinement and for inviting me to testify. Thank you
also, Chairman Durbin, for repeatedly drawing attention to the
torture of solitary confinement--from hearings on solitary, to
conducting prison visits, to questioning officers about
solitary--and moving us closer to ending this horrific
practice.
My name is Nicole Davis, and I am the founder of the
Talk2Me Foundation, for kids whose parents are incarcerated,
and the executive director of the Sisters of Support House, a
safe house for women to keep them from being harmed. It is with
profound honor that I stand before you today to shed light on
the torture of solitary confinement in Federal custody and urge
the Senate, House of Representatives, and the President to pass
the End Solitary Confinement Act.
My firsthand experience in BOP custody revealed the true
horror of solitary confinement. Locked away multiple times
during my 13 and a half years of incarceration, I suffered
deeply once. I spent nearly a month in solitary when I first
arrived at Danbury Correctional Facility, because of
overcrowding. Another time, I endured almost 3 months because
my sister allowed me to hear my daughter's voice on a three-way
call after she had been in a terrible accident.
Regardless of the reason I was there, each stint left me
traumatized: anxious, breathless, and deeply depressed. I
feared for my safety, witnessed abuse happening while locked in
solitary. I repeatedly heard multiple officers tussling with a
woman in her cell while she screamed for them to get their
hands off of her. I would think to myself that if I had to be
here, I didn't want to live. I truly felt like I had nothing
left to live for. I cried all night until I felt sick.
Listening to the women inside the SHU scream and cry out for
help every night brought tears to my eyes because I was one of
them.
I also was scared an officer was going to come in the cell,
harm me, even rape me. I made it out of solitary confinement
alive. Sadly, many don't survive solitary. Nearly half of all
BOP custody deaths by suicide occur while in solitary. Till
this day, I can never shake what happened to the young woman in
the cell down from me who was crying out for help. She
continued, saying she was going to kill herself if they didn't
let her out. I called for a staff member or a doctor to come
check on her. A doctor came, but they didn't get her the care
she needed, and they left her in the SHU. She died by suicide,
and the officer came to take her body out of the cell.
I am still traumatized by the time in solitary confinement.
Even after a decade of freedom, the scars of solitary haunt me.
Solitary confinement is not a place to put human beings. I am
testifying before you today to urge the Senate, along with the
House of Representatives and the President, to enact the End
Solitary Confinement Act. This Act follows best practices in
youth and mental health facilities, as well as model programs
in adult correctional facilities, to ban solitary in all forms
of Federal custody beyond 4 hours, because we know even a short
period of time in solitary causes substantial harm and could
lead to death or worsen safety for everyone.
The Act would instead allow alternative forms of separation
without isolation and with access to 14 hours of daily out-of-
cell time, involving meaningful human engagement and
programming aimed at addressing the reasons why a person needs
to be separated. These types of alternative forms of
separation, like the CAPS and PACE programs in New York City
jails, the Merle Cooper Program in New York State prisons, and
the RSVP program in San Francisco jails, have been
significantly proven to reduce violence and better support
people's health and well-being.
For example, the RSVP program included people who had
carried out assault, sexual assault, and other violent acts and
led to zero violent in-jail incidents over a 1-year period and
reduced re-arrests for violence in the community by 83 percent.
As someone who has endured the torture of solitary confinement,
I know that we need the End Solitary Confinement Act
immediately.
In closing, I stand before you not as a survivor--not only
as a survivor but as a voice for the countless individuals who
have endured and are right now enduring the agonies of solitary
confinement. I urge the Senate and the House and the President
to enact the End Solitary Confinement Act in order to stop
torture, improve safety, and save lives. Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Davis appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Ms. Davis. Sheriff Boyd.
STATEMENT OF ROY BOYD, SHERIFF, GOLIAD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE,
GOLIAD, TEXAS
Mr. Boyd. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I'm here
today to testify about inmate segregation within the confines
of a county jail in the State of Texas. All county jails in
Texas are subject to the rules of the Texas Commission on Jail
Standards, which oversees and enforces the regulations set
forth by processes put in place by the Texas legislature. As
the sheriff of Goliad County, I am responsible for the
operation of a jail authorized to hold no more than 48 inmates
at a time. Other counties like Harris or Dallas hold thousands
of inmates on any given day; however, regardless of the size of
the facility, all county jails in the State of Texas must
comply with the exact same regulations.
Since this Committee is discussing what is referred to as
solitary confinement, I'll provide you with some of the
information about classification of inmates as required by
Chapter 271 under Title 37, Part 9 of the Texas Administrative
Code. Under this code, each sheriff is to develop and implement
an objective classification plan, which must be approved by the
Texas Commission on Jail Standards.
In Texas, inmates shall be classified and housed in the
least restrictive housing available without jeopardizing staff,
inmates, or public, utilizing risk factors which include the
following: current offense or conviction, offense history,
escape history, institutional disciplinary history, prior
convictions, alcohol and/or drug abuse, and stability factors.
Classification criteria cannot include race, ethnicity, or
religious preference. Custody levels and special housing needs
shall be assessed, to include minimum, medium, and maximum
custody levels and the replacement and release of inmates to
and from special units, including protective custody,
administrative separation, disciplinary separation, and mental
and medical health housing, including known pregnant inmates.
With regards to segregation of inmates, the following are
the rules which jails in the State of Texas must comply with.
Female inmates shall be separated by sight and sound from male
inmates. Inmates assigned to a detoxification cell shall be
transferred to a housing or holding area as soon as they can
properly care for themselves. The status of persons confined to
a violent cell shall be reassessed and documented at least
every 24 hours for continuance of status.
Inmates who require protection or those who require
separation to protect the safety and security of the facility
may be housed in administrative separation. The status of
inmates placed in administrative separation shall be reviewed
and documented at least every 30 days for continuance status.
Inmates housed in administrative separation shall retain access
to services and activities unless the continuance of those
services and activities would adversely affect the safety and
security of the facility.
Single cells may be utilized for disciplinary or
administrative separation. Inmates in administrative separation
shall be provided access to a day room for at least 1 hour a
day. Inmates in disciplinary separation shall be provided a
shower every other day. The Goliad County Sheriff's Office is a
participating member of the ICE 287(g) program; however, our
facility is not authorized to house Federal inmates, including
ICE detainees. As such, under our agreement with ICE, the
Goliad County Jail classifies and houses inmates under the
rules and regulations of the Texas Jail Commission standards.
Unfortunately, there is much misunderstanding and false
information about the role of law enforcement in housing of
inmates. As the sheriff and chief law enforcement officer of
the county that I serve, it is my responsibility to provide a
safe environment for the people who have been ordered to remain
in the Goliad County Jail. Once someone is arrested by law
enforcement, the sheriff is responsible for housing that
person. I do not have a say about the bond that they receive or
the amount. This is done by a magistrate. I do not have a say
about whether an inmate remains in jail or is released. This is
a decision of the court.
These lawful powers remain under separate government
authorities to prevent the violation of rights of the persons
arrested and placed in jail. As a sheriff and public servant,
it is my belief that every person is made in the image of God
and shall be treated fairly, in accordance with the rules and
regulations and laws as provided by the Texas legislature. That
concludes my statements, and I'll be happy to answer any
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd appears as a submission
for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Sheriff. Dr. Peeler.
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE R. PEELER, MD, MA, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
OF PEDIATRICS; MEDICAL EXPERT, PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS,
HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Dr. Peeler. Chair Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, Members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
I'm here to testify about the health effects and impacts of
solitary confinement. The use and misuse of solitary
confinement is widespread in the United States. Solitary
confinement causes severe and long-lasting mental and physical
health harms, and it can amount to torture. I lead an
immigration lab about the immigration detention conditions in
the U.S. as they pertain to the health of those detained. My
most recent study about solitary confinement in Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, or ICE, detention was published this past
February and informs much of what I will discuss today.
No one should be in solitary confinement. It helps no one,
hurts everyone, and better, proven alternatives exist. Solitary
confinement syndrome is well known in the medical literature
and is characterized by symptoms such as anxiety, panic
attacks, difficulty with memory, hallucinations, and paranoia.
While many of the acute symptoms may improve once a person is
no longer confined, longer-lasting medical issues remain,
including post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and
difficulties with social interaction.
The effects in ICE solitary confinement are no different.
In our study, we analyzed ICE data about the use of solitary
from 2018 to 2023. During that time period, we found that ICE
placed people in solitary confinement more than 14,000 times.
The U.N. threshold for torture with respect to solitary
confinement is anything greater than 15 days, because it is
recognized beyond that window that many of those severe
symptoms that I just mentioned become less reversible.
The average duration of ICE solitary confinement, in our
study, was 27 days--almost two times longer than the UN's
threshold for torture. Our review of the data also show that
use of solitary confinement was indiscriminate. One immigrant
was placed in solitary for 29 days for ``using profanity'' and
another for 38 days because they refused to get out of bunk
during count.
The other portion of our study consisted of interviews of
26 individuals who had been in solitary confinement in ICE
detention. They described anxiety, depression, paranoia while
in solitary--all consistent with the past literature that I
just cited in other settings. More than 50 percent of those who
we interviewed required mental health care while in solitary
confinement. Unfortunately, 23 percent had to wait more than a
month to be seen by a mental health care provider, and another
23 percent were never seen at all.
Access to medical care for serious physical health issues
was inadequate. Individuals who experienced chest pain and head
trauma waited up to a week to be seen by a medical
professional. And, finally, numerous people reported to us
being placed in solitary confinement when needing medical
isolation for infectious illnesses. Solitary confinement is not
an appropriate way to medically isolate an individual.
However, alternatives to solitary confinement do exist.
They are more humane. They achieve detention facilities' safety
goals. They improve the health of all, including those who work
in these settings. For example, the North Dakota Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation undertook a program that
resulted in an almost 75 percent decrease in the use of
solitary confinement during a recent 4-year study period. By
tightening their discretion about who might need solitary
confinement and training their staff about how to de-escalate
someone who needed separation, they achieved this incredible
decrease in solitary confinement. Importantly, both
incarcerated persons and staff members reported improvements in
their health and well-being, enhanced interactions with one
another, and less exposure to violence following the program,
not more.
I want to close with a recent example that rings true with
what our research found. And you've heard his name already
today by Chair Durbin. Charles Leo Daniel was a 61-year-old man
from Trinidad and Tobago. He suffered from severe mental
illness, and he died just last month at an ICE detention center
in Tacoma, Washington while in solitary confinement. In his
most recent stint, he had spent almost 4 years in solitary.
This is not how we should care for those with mental illness.
Solitary confinement unquestionably leads to severe detrimental
health effects, and what's more, sensible alternatives exist.
My asks to you are this: pass legislation eliminating
solitary confinement completely and, until then, drastically
limit its use in the United States. Reallocate funding within
jails, prisons, and detention systems to proven alternatives to
solitary confinement, with a focus on assisting the underlying
issue in a humane and productive manner. Thank you for holding
this hearing, and thank you for shining light on this important
issue.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Peeler appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Dr. Peeler. Each Senator will have
5 minutes to ask questions, and I'll start. Dr. Peeler, I would
agree with almost everything you've said, save one particular
point. I visited a maximum detention facility in Illinois, and
I asked if I could go into the area of isolation or solitary
confinement, and I spoke to five of the inmates. Four of them I
could describe, but in the interest of time, I will focus on
one.
He was a white male individual who looked to be about 35
years old. I asked him how long he was in. He said, originally
20 years, now 50. I said, how did it go from 20 to 50? He said,
I told them that if they put anybody in the cell with me, I'd
kill them, and I did. They put someone in there, and I killed
them.
I thought to myself, Durbin, get real. This individual
cannot share a cell with anyone. I wouldn't want to. No one
would want to. So, there has to be some alternative for those
who need to be isolated for their own sake and the sake of the
guards and the other inmates.
Having said that, I do believe that the examples that
you've given and the ones that I've seen otherwise show the
abuse of this practice in the extreme. To think that
individuals are incarcerated and isolated for months, if not
years, at a time is unthinkable. Why is it, if we have strong
reactions against physical cruelty, we don't have any strong
reaction against mental cruelty? And this is certainly cruel to
even a person who would be described as normal, let alone those
suffering from mental illness. Ms. Goodwin, is there any
particular recommendation you'd like to point out, of the 87
that you've made to the Bureau of Prisons, that you think would
make a difference?
Ms. Goodwin. Thank you, Senator Durbin. So, of those 87
recommendations, there are about 54 that remain open. Some of
them do speak to the need to reexamine whether solitary
confinement is the way to go. BOP itself is on record as saying
it might not be the best way, particularly in terms of reducing
recidivism. So, we stand by the recommendations that we made,
and we've been paying attention to the--you know, the open
recommendations and working closely with BOP to see how they
plan to meet those. But there are some that speak to looking
for alternatives to solitary confinement, looking for some way
to--because there are people who do need to be contained and
confined, and so--asking BOP to think through ways that they
might use alternatives to solitary confinement, alternatives to
restrictive housing.
Chair Durbin. Ms. Davis, did you have visitation by
counselors or ministers or chaplains or anyone during the
period of your isolation?
Ms. Davis. No. Thank you----
Chair Durbin. You need to turn the mic on.
Ms. Davis. Thank you for that question, Senator Durbin. No,
I did not. No one came back there to check on me.
Chair Durbin. How long were you in solitary----
Ms. Davis. The first time I was in, I was in there 30 days,
due to overcrowdings on the compound. There was no beds.
Chair Durbin. And then subsequently were you incarcerated
in similar fashion?
Ms. Davis. Yes.
Chair Durbin. For how long a period of time?
Ms. Davis. A year and a half.
Chair Durbin. Could you tell me the general nature of the
offense that led to your isolation?
Ms. Davis. Well, I was airlifted to Danbury, because that's
where I was designated to do my time. And the first time that I
came there, I was put in solitary confinement because, once
again, there was no beds available for me to be in. So, they
put me in segregation housing.
Chair Durbin. What about the subsequent time, for a year
and a half? What----
Ms. Davis. Because they said I made a three-way calling,
three-way phone call.
Chair Durbin. A three-way phone call?
Ms. Davis. Yes. That's the time when my daughter was in a
terrible accident, and when I called home to speak with my
sister, she switched over and made the call to the hospital
where my daughter was at, so that is considered a three-way
calling, and it violated BOP rules.
Chair Durbin. Did you ask for any counseling, medical
counseling or otherwise?
Ms. Davis. Yes. Once I was released out of segregation
housing, I went to my counselor, Ms. Bidwell, and she told me I
had to fill out a call-out to speak with a counselor, and when
I did that, no one ever answered my call-out.
Chair Durbin. Dr. Peeler, you mentioned North Dakota, I
believe. It appears that they have done, on a statewide basis,
some reforms that have virtually eliminated solitary. Is that
true?
Dr. Peeler. The program that I looked at looked at several
prisons within North Dakota, and they have drastically reduced
it by about 25 percent. I'm not sure if it was across the
entire State or not, but in the two main men's prisons--the
study did not include the women's prison--solitary confinement
has been drastically, drastically reduced.
Chair Durbin. I would just say, before I hand it off here,
that this is frustrating for me. I've been involved in this for
12 years. An article by Dr. Atul Gawande inspired me to get
into this issue. I cannot understand how States are showing
such leadership in this area and we are failing so badly. I'm
going to call on Director Peters, clearly, to explain why she
has not implemented the GAO recommendations and hold her
accountable for that. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Davis, what
prison are we talking about here?
Ms. Davis. Danbury Correctional, FCI.
Senator Graham. And that's in what State?
Ms. Davis. What did you say?
Senator Graham. What State?
Ms. Davis. Danbury, Connecticut.
Senator Graham. Okay. And you were isolated for a year and
a half for making a three-way phone call?
Ms. Davis. Yes.
Senator Graham. Okay. Thank you. Sheriff Boyd, tell me
about the 287(g) program. Local law enforcement works with the
Federal Government how?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir. We are a participating member of
287(g), and what that is, is, at the Goliad County Sheriff's
Office, this allows us to enter into the Federal computer
system, identify somebody who is a criminal alien, and then
actually go into the system to have a detainer placed upon
them. So, at the sheriff's office, I have one of the deputies--
Virginia Escojido is trained by ICE in order to go in and
perform that function. What we do is we identify individuals
who are illegal aliens who have already been arrested on
criminal charges and are in jail. There is a misunderstanding
that that is something we do in the field, and we cannot and we
do not. It's only for those people who are inmates within the
jail that are identified as illegal aliens and are potentially
eligible for an ICE detainer.
Senator Graham. So, what's a sanctuary city or county? How
do they differ from what you do?
Mr. Boyd. In Goliad, we enforce the laws provided to us by
the legislative body in the State of Texas. Basically what you
have in a sanctuary city is a governmental body that decides
that they do not wish to enforce the laws that have been passed
by the----
Senator Graham. So, in a sanctuary----
Mr. Boyd [continuing]. Legislative body.
Senator Graham [continuing]. City or county, they'll have
somebody detained, they'll find out they're in illegal status,
they refuse to cooperate with the Federal Government to get the
person detained or issue a detainer. Is that correct?
Mr. Boyd. That is correct.
Senator Graham. Okay. Here in Texas, I'm sure you have a
lot of encounters. Is illegal immigration a problem for Texas
law enforcement?
Mr. Boyd. Much like that chart that you put up there a
while ago, that showed over 400 percent increase in
apprehensions, Goliad County Sheriff's Office, prior to the
current Presidential administration, arrested on average 77
people a year. Last year, we arrested 482 people. And so our
number one charge is, of course, drugs, which is tied to the
open border. And then we also have quite a few people that come
to jail for smuggling and engaging in organized criminal
activity. It has had a tremendous impact on the communities
throughout south Texas, including ours.
Senator Graham. Back to the Ibarra case. This individual's
facing murder charges in Georgia. He was apprehended, paroled
in September 2022; has a law enforcement engagement in New
York, I think in October of that year. So, we've finally got
the file, and it says--I can introduce the entire file, if
you'd like, and I'll just--this one little sentence, here:
``Parole due to detention capacity at central processing center
in El Paso, Texas.''
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Graham. Now, that's what his file shows. He wasn't
paroled because he had a unique benefit to the country or they
had a humanitarian need, as the law requires. He was paroled
because of capacity problems.
Ms. Peeler, in one of your reports, I think you--or
recommendations you made to ICE--have you made recommendations
to ICE?
Dr. Peeler. We did. We made recommendations to ICE in our
report, Senator.
Senator Graham. Okay. And one of them said they should
require a presumption of release from ICE detention for people
that have been--reported existing vulnerabilities, including
but not limited to people with serious medical conditions,
mental health conditions, disabilities, LGBTQIA people, and
survivors of torture and/or sexual violence. So, you recommend
a presumption that they should be released, that category, but
not limited to that category?
Dr. Peeler. Senator, I've been asked to talk about the
health effects of solitary confinement, and given that the
effects are extremely detrimental, particularly for vulnerable
populations--and that ICE has directives protecting those
populations--it would be an improvement for their health for
them to be presumptively----
Senator Graham. But we----
Dr. Peeler [continuing]. Released.
Senator Graham [continuing]. Should--in this category but
not limited to this category, there should be a presumption of
release?
Dr. Peeler. I believe----
Senator Graham. Not a----
Dr. Peeler [continuing]. That would improve----
Senator Graham [continuing]. Presumption----
Dr. Peeler [continuing]. The health of that population.
Senator Graham. Not a presumption of, you know, not being
put in isolation but just being released? Is that what you're
recommending?
Dr. Peeler. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Wow. So, mental health problems--real
quick, Sheriff. How many people involved in the criminal
justice system have mental health problems, and if they weren't
controlled in some fashion, they would be a harm to themselves
or others? Is that a common problem you face?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir, it is. I think one of the problems that
we need to look at from both the State and maybe the Federal
side is the fact that we generally lack the space for people
who are in need of mental health to go to actual mental health
facilities. And those people are being shoved in the criminal
justice system, which they should not. But on the other side, I
will tell you that--from a law enforcement perspective, I will
tell you that the vast majority of people that I see suffering
from mental health, that mental health issue is actually the
side effect of the drug abuse that they've partaken in, which
of course goes right back to the open border issue that we have
and the drugs that are flowing in at the hands of the Mexican
cartels.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to
note for the record that when we start talking about
undocumented persons committing crimes, et cetera--immigrants
commit crimes at much lower rates than U.S. citizens. And also,
regarding the drug problem, fentanyl coming into our country,
most of those drugs are coming in through the--by U.S.
citizens. So, you know, it would be good if we can deal with
facts. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for noting that we actually
had a bipartisan bill that dealt with the border issues, which
a former President said, kill it, so it was killed--why we need
comprehensive immigration reform.
So, getting on to the subject of solitary confinement,
Professor Peeler and others, thank you all for testifying. I
think it is very clear that the effects of solitary confinement
continue far beyond the time of the confinement. And I believe,
Ms. Peeler, you noted a report that you did on this issue, and
you made two recommendations that I'd like to have you talk a
little bit more.
One was for DHS to publicly commit to ending solitary
confinement and issue directives on that commitment. And the
second was to require all facilities to report within 24 hours
when someone is put into solitary confinement. So, is this
basically to, one--everything that you all have testified
regarding solitary confinement--there must be alternatives, and
you did note that North Dakota used one of these alternatives,
but was it also to point out how extensively solitary
confinement is used within DHS? Can you talk a little bit more
about these two recommendations you made?
Dr. Peeler. Senator, yes. Thank you so much. Solitary
confinement is certainly widespread in ICE detention. It is
used for disciplinary means, often for very minor infractions,
despite stated guidelines for its appropriate use--or use, I
should say, as directed by ICE at this time--as well as it's
used for administrative segregation; for medical isolation,
which I discussed already, which is not how medical isolation
looks in the outside world; theoretically for protecting
vulnerable populations, although, again, when people ask for
protection, they're not generally asking for solitary
confinement; and for other reasons. And so as a result, because
it is so detrimental to health, we have asked that it end
entirely in ICE detention.
With respect to the timeline, as it stands right now, ICE
is supposed to report up within its chain of command, when a
person with vulnerabilities has been placed in solitary
confinement, within 72 hours--and 72 hours is a very long time
for someone to be in solitary confinement who already has
preexisting vulnerabilities--and not until 2 weeks for all
others. And that is an extremely long period of time. And so we
have asked that the timing of notification be much sooner, so
that people can be reassessed and, ideally, taken out of
solitary confinement or provided other alternatives as needed.
Senator Hirono. So, DHS could approve or go ahead with
these two recommendations, then, especially the reporting one,
which would indicate to us how frequently solitary confinement
is used. What was the reason that they did not take up your
recommendation for a quicker timeframe for notification?
Dr. Peeler. I can't speak to their decisions for why they
did or did not do certain things at this time. But I would
certainly hope that they take up our recommendation, because as
we've even seen in our own data, the information that we
requested via Freedom of Information Acts does not always
necessarily align with other data that they have, and so
there's many discrepancies, as also noted by Ms. Goodwin in her
GAO report. So, the more data that we have, the quicker
timelines that we understand what's going on, the faster we can
help people improve their health.
Senator Hirono. I think that in any situation where there
are persons in confinement and there're those who have power
over them, that regardless of what kind of criteria, what
prohibitions, what limitations we impose, it is very difficult
to make sure that that is actually happening. So, Ms. Goodwin,
you noted that the GAO had made 87 recommendations; 54 of them
remain open. Can you indicate, of the 54 which are open, which
are the ones that you think are most important for
implementation?
Ms. Goodwin. Thank you, Senator. So, the 87 recommendations
weren't made by GAO. They were made by an independent
contractor----
Senator Hirono. Thank you. I----
Ms. Goodwin [continuing]. With BOP----
Senator Hirono [continuing]. Stand corrected.
Ms. Goodwin. And then we issued a restrictive housing
report, earlier this year, where we put eight recommendations
on the table. And they're about finding alternatives to the use
of restrictive housing, making certain that, you know, whatever
BOP does do when they make those decisions, there is some kind
of analysis and evaluation of the effectiveness of them.
Senator Hirono. So, my time is running out. Is BOP aware of
the North Dakota situation or what they did there, as testified
to by Ms. Peeler?
Ms. Goodwin. That, I'm not sure. That would be a question
for BOP.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator. Senator Welch.
Senator Welch. Thank you. Ms. Davis, you said you were in
solitary for a year and a half for a three-way phone call?
Ms. Davis. Senator Durbin and Senator, I want to correct
that. I was in solitary confinement for 87 days for the three-
way call, but in the total amount of me being incarcerated
throughout my time, it was a year and a half.
Senator Welch. So, literally, it was a three-way phone call
that----
Ms. Davis. Yes.
Senator Welch [continuing]. It involved talking to your
daughter, who was in the hospital?
Ms. Davis. Yes.
Senator Welch. You know what? That is, like, shocking, so
it's almost--can you explain it more? It's hard to believe it.
I mean, that's so shocking.
Ms. Davis. It happens all the time, Senator. If you make a
three-way phone call, they will put you in the SHU for a
disciplinary hearing until DHO come to see you, and----
Senator Welch. Just----
Ms. Davis [continuing]. Once----
Senator Welch. All right. Thank you. Can you describe what
it was, day to day, in solitary? Did you have books?
Ms. Davis. Yes, you can have books in there. You can have
magazine. My day to day was sitting there, writing letters to
my family, to let them know that I was in there, and----
Senator Welch. And who did you--did you see anybody during
the time you were in solitary?
Ms. Davis. Only person that I seen was the officer.
Senator Welch. And how often was that?
Ms. Davis. When they come past to give us mail, as well as
serve us the food.
Senator Welch. And did you have any--were you in a cell
where there were adjoining cells and you could even talk loudly
enough to have interaction with a fellow inmate?
Ms. Davis. Yes. The cells are side by side, and one time I
did get a roommate, where I can talk with her. But, yes, I did
have corresponding with the other ladies from screaming from
cell to cell.
Senator Welch. So, how did you end up feeling, and how did
it affect you after 87 days in solitary?
Ms. Davis. I felt like I had nothing to live for, because I
didn't understand why I would be in the SHU for such a long
period of time. I was depressed for a long time.
Senator Welch. Okay. Dr. Peeler, the medical consequences
and psychological and emotional consequences of solitary are
well known, right, and universally the opinion is it's
extremely damaging to the person in solitary?
Dr. Peeler. In short order, yes.
Senator Welch. All right. And aside from the situation that
Senator Durbin described, where a person is so violent that--
absolutely has to be segregated, for the safety of others, the
use of it, as I understand it, is oftentimes to control the
behavior of a person, right?
Dr. Peeler. Yes, Senator.
Senator Welch. And often----
Dr. Peeler. We found many instances for minor infractions,
where people are placed in solitary, similar to what Ms.
Davis----
Senator Welch. And, Sheriff, you mentioned something that I
know is true, and that is that the mental health situation--the
prisons are the last resort. People who have serious mental
health issues end up in prison, and they oftentimes have
behavior challenges, correct?
Mr. Boyd. That's correct. I firmly believe that if we, as a
country, did a better job of identifying and helping people
with their mental health, that many of them would not end up
incarcerated, because the mentally ill do not need to be in
jail. They need assistance.
Senator Welch. You know, I'm in agreement with you. I was a
public defender. I agree with that. I think you're right. And
you don't have the resources, and then it becomes the last
resort, where people who have a mental health issue--you can't
control them. And I don't know if it's out of frustration or
safety, but they go in solitary confinement and it gets worse.
I mean, the real question I have is whether there should be
a ban in effect--with very, very severe limitations for the
Durbin situation that we heard about--on the use of solitary
confinement. And I'll ask you to answer that, Dr. Peeler, but
it really comes, Sheriff, from my experience being similar to
yours--that you're asking the jails and the criminal justice
system to deal with mental health. So, Dr. Peeler, do you want
to respond to that?
Dr. Peeler. Senator, yes. So, as it pertains to the health
effects of those in solitary, I think, you know, the reason why
the North Dakota program was seemingly so successful is that
they--what they did is they sent correctional officers from
North Dakota over to Norway, to study their program. They came
back and were so amazed at how much better the health and
safety of people were there that they immediately came back
and, before they implemented any other reforms, they
functionally took everyone out of solitary who was there
administratively. That was the first thing they did.
And then they really reassessed how they were placing
people into solitary confinement who were there for potential
behavioral escalations or for safety reasons. And they
implemented a kind of an improved version of restriction. So,
people might be separated, but they would be separated for not
22 hours a day, or maybe they would be separated--they would be
separated the entire time, but they would have more time
outside of their actual solitary confinement cell--all of which
led to better health outcomes and all of which generally
improves the safety of the system in which they're in.
Senator Welch. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you
all.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Welch. Before I recognize
Senator Tillis, I would like to ask Ms. Davis and Ms. Goodwin a
question. When the director of the Bureau of Prisons was before
us in February and I asked her what steps she would take to
immediately reduce the use of restrictive housing, she stated
that almost 40 percent of the people in restrictive housing
have chosen to be there voluntarily and that BOP is actively
working to integrate them with the general population. Is that
your finding, as well, Ms. Goodwin, the GAO?
Ms. Goodwin. So, we're not familiar with that number. What
we know is there are about 7--at the time of our report, there
were about 700 people in protective custody. About 678 of them
were there voluntarily. They asked to be, for numerous reasons.
Maybe they were afraid for their life. Maybe there was a gang
fight or something, and they wanted to be put in protective
housing.
But what's important here, I think, is while someone
might've asked for protective custody, I can't imagine that
they asked to be put in the SHU. And so when we talk about
finding alternatives, this is one of the things that we are
asking BOP to pay attention to. And this is also part of those
87 recommendations, because, you know, there are 11,600 people
in restrictive housing, in general. Of those, 700 were in
protective custody. That's not 40 percent.
And then if you look at just the 700, 600-plus, 678 of
them, asked to be there. They asked for some kind of--to be
isolated, for many reasons. Maybe they were afraid of their
lives, for whatever reason. But we don't think that they asked
to be put in the SHU. So, they----
Chair Durbin. Understood.
Ms. Goodwin. So, they didn't ask to be isolated in the way
that they are.
Chair Durbin. Understood. Ms. Davis, I'm going to come back
to you after the others have had a chance to ask. In respect to
Senator Tillis, who waits patiently, time and time again, I
recognize you.
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, I am here
to ask a brief question, but I also wanted to--last week, some
of y'all may have described my comments as a rant on the All
Cops Are Bastards run, but I want to thank Senator Butler,
because she heard what I've been saying for about five
different meetings: I just want it off the website. And to her
credit, she worked with the people at Act Blue.
They've erased the website that was raising money on the
concept that all cops are bastards, so I wanted to publicly
thank Senator Butler for doing that. I don't like coming to
this meeting and ranting, but that was something that just got
under my skin for about a year, and I'm glad to see that it's
been erased from the internet, best I can tell.
Chair Durbin. Senator, your rants are appreciated.
Senator Tillis. Thank you. Now, you know, I, years ago--
actually, I think I was a rank-and-file member in the State
legislature--I went to visit a close security prison in North
Carolina. And it was during a campaign, and we had a gentleman
there who I believe was running for Lieutenant Governor on the
other side of the aisle. We're meeting with Bureau of Prisons.
We're in a close security State prison, and we had this
gentleman say, you know, I don't think there are any bad people
in this prison. There're just good people who've done a bad
thing.
And I saw the warden of this particular prison. He sat
back. He said, sir, it's very true. There are good people in
this prison that did a bad thing. But there are a lot of people
in this prison that would kill you if you were in the same room
with them. And so I don't think anybody is here saying that we
need to eliminate solitary confinement as an alternative, or at
least I assume not. I'd like to confirm that. But we have to
get smarter on how we're actually dealing with people,
particularly people with profound behavioral health challenges.
So, Sheriff, tell me: what more do we need to do? I mean,
to what extent are these abuses bad people, you know, making a
bad decision, versus people maybe with not the appropriate
training or insight into some of these people in the prison
population who have to go into solitary confinement?
Mr. Boyd. One of the problems that we face all throughout
government is ensuring that we hire the proper people that are
going to make the right decisions and take care of the people.
As a sheriff, I feel responsible for the safety and welfare of
the inmates that are placed within my custody. I want them to
do as best as they can, get out, and go on and live a
productive life. But as you stated, some people are just not
going to do that.
I think that if you're looking at it from the Federal side,
to be quite honest with you, if you want to get the facts and
know what to do, then you don't need us sitting up here. What
you need is some actual prison guards from the Federal system
to come up here and testify about their experiences and why
they do the things that they need to do, because a lot of times
they will act and they will do things, and it will be looked at
from the outside, and that view will be completely wrong.
I know that, in the State of Texas, even if you do go into
separation cells and you're by yourself, you still have the
right to things like so much daylight per week, exercise every
day. You still have the right to your correspondence. You still
have the right to all the things that all the other inmates do,
unless you become so much of a danger that it's too difficult
for us to take you out of your cell without endangering other
individuals.
And so I think that, from a Federal side, if you wish to
look at a really good example of how to do things in a most
humane fashion, Brandon Wood is the director of the Texas
Commission on Jail Standards, and I think that they've done a
really great job of balancing that. And if the Federal policy
would mimic something like what the State of Texas has, you
would probably find far less heartburn over how things
function, if the Feds did the same as the State of Texas.
Senator Tillis. Sheriff, are you familiar with the CALEA
law enforcement certifications?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir. When I was the assistant chief at the
Victoria Police Department, we were CALEA certified.
Senator Tillis. Yes. Are there--I supported that for a
small town. We were one of the first towns in North Carolina of
our size to actually have our law enforcement officers CALEA
certified, because they're great on community policing, de-
escalation, those sorts of things. And is there equivalent for
Bureau of Prisons employees, some sort of certification?
Mr. Boyd. I do not know if there is something that goes
across on the Federal side, so I just can't say, Senator.
Senator Tillis. Okay. Well, we'll look into it, because,
you know, again, I think about the same challenge we have in
law enforcement--we're not necessarily having people line up to
do this tough job in prisons, and I don't know, I wasn't able
to listen to the testimony beforehand, but I still believe,
unless somebody can prove me with empirical data otherwise,
that solitary confinement is a necessary part of an escalation
with someone who's a ward of the Federal Government, in this
case who represent a danger to themselves or to others, but I
also think we always--we should always be pressing the envelope
to figure out a better, more humane way to do it.
But I'm not sure if anyone here has taken the position that
it should be eliminated entirely, but you'd be really hard
pressed to tell me why I would eliminate this as a tool,
because when you do that, it's like what we see in States that
decriminalize things. Check with Oregon. It's not working out
well. They're re-implementing. We need these tools, because not
everybody in those prisons are good people that did a bad
thing.
Mr. Boyd. May I say something real quick, Senator?
Senator Tillis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyd. So, I will tell you that if you completely ban
the separation of inmates into single cells, then what you'll
have is you will not be able to recruit prison guards, because
they will be killed by some of these inmates.
Senator Tillis. No doubt in my mind. Thank you, Sheriff.
Thanks, everybody.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Tillis. Senator Ossoff.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
our panelists. Ms. Goodwin, on the subject of reform, BOP
contracted a study in 2014 on solitary confinement and
restrictive housing practices. There was a 2016 DOJ report.
Between the two of them, 87 recommendations were made. Your GAO
report found that the Federal Bureau of Prisons has not
implemented 54 of those 87 recommendations. First of all, is it
your assessment that that's because of policy decisions that
have been made that diverge from the recommendations, or is it
a lack of administrative will or capacity to implement them?
Ms. Goodwin. Thank you, Senator. I think in some cases it's
policy decisions that the Bureau makes. In other
circumstances--and I think we talk about this in the report--
maybe BOP ultimately didn't agree with the recommendations,
particularly that the contractor made, but we--you know, when
we issued our 8 recommendations earlier this year, some of them
focused on: BOP really needs to address the outstanding 54, and
then we added some additional ones that focused on, you know,
understanding what their administrative remedy program looks
like and a number of others. And now they've contracted with
another entity, for $8 million, to conduct another assessment
of their program, and so that'll just be more recommendations
that they'll have to contend with.
Senator Ossoff. And I ask that question not necessarily
because all 87 of these recommendations need to be or should be
implemented, but it's a significant number of them that have
not been. Has BOP at least put in writing somewhere a
substantive explanation, justification, or assessment of each
one?
Ms. Goodwin. An assessment of each one? Of the remaining
54?
Senator Ossoff. Well, have they explained in a substantive
way, where they've declined to implement or where they've----
Ms. Goodwin. Oh. Yes.
Senator Ossoff [continuing]. Agreed to implement, why?
Ms. Goodwin. Yes. And we talk about that in the report,
because we asked them about all of them. And in some cases,
they might not have felt they were relevant. In some cases, you
know, policy decisions changed. And in other cases, they
might've felt it might've been too challenging, too difficult.
And in other cases, they might just not have agreed with the
recommendation.
Senator Ossoff. Okay. So, of those outstanding 87
recommendations from those two studies and from your own
recommendations at GAO, what would you identify as the top two
or three priorities that BOP should focus on?
Ms. Goodwin. Well, we submit that all of them are
priorities. If----
Senator Ossoff. Let's prioritize the priorities.
Ms. Goodwin. Well, the GAO ones. But we would ask--you
know, part of our 8 speak to their need to address the
remaining 54. And so all of them----
Senator Ossoff. I'd still like----
Ms. Goodwin [continuing]. I'm----
Senator Ossoff [continuing]. Respectfully to ask you to----
Ms. Goodwin. Which ones----
Senator Ossoff [continuing]. Highlight----
Ms. Goodwin [continuing]. Of the 50----
Senator Ossoff [continuing]. A couple of the most----
Ms. Goodwin [continuing]. The 63?
Senator Ossoff [continuing]. Pressing priorities, in your
view, please.
Ms. Goodwin. Okay. Well, we talk about, from our
recommendations, we are asking BOP to develop an extensive
approach and detailed outline of how they're going to address
the remaining ones. We're also asking them to look across all
of their facilities and think through where some deficiencies
might be--this speaks to one of the reasons why they're on our
high-risk list--evaluating existing programs, making
determinations and decisions about how effective they are, and
then finding ways to address and correct them.
Senator Ossoff. Evaluation and review are important. What's
the one policy change that you believe BOP could make today
that would have the most significant positive impact?
Ms. Goodwin. Probably asking them to make decisions about
how they're going to approach all of the open recs, make some
decisions about how they're going to--if they decide--well, let
me back up. So, BOP is on record as saying restrictive housing
might not be the best way, and there are some concerns about
what it might have on--the effects it might have on recidivism.
So, the biggest thing BOP needs to do is to do kind of an
internal analysis of their programs, what's important, what's
effective, and the ones that aren't, try to figure out ways to
make them better.
Senator Ossoff. I think I'm going to have my team follow up
with yours on this. And, you know, what I'd like to do--and
recognizing that evaluation, review, assessment on an ongoing
basis are important, you know, what I'd like, for our
engagement to end, is for me to have a sense of the one or two
specific policy changes that GAO deems most substantively
necessary in the short term.
Let's just talk a little bit about protective custody.
There are, as I understand, about 700 individuals in BOP
facilities who are in protective custody. That is, there's a
real or perceived threat to that individual's safety. You
identify some potential alternatives. In some cases, however,
is use of special housing or isolation or solitary confinement
the only practical solution?
Ms. Goodwin. Not the only practical--well, in some cases,
yes. For the 700 that are in protective custody at the time of
our report, 22 were there because there were some major
violations or there were some concerns about their safety. The
other 678 were there voluntarily, for fear of whatever might
happen to them. The concern here is, for those 678--and even
for the 22, but for those 678, I don't think that they wanted
to be placed in the SHU.
When they asked for protective custody, I don't think--and
we, of course, can't confirm this, because we didn't talk to
678, but I don't think that they wanted to be isolated that
way. They just wanted to find a way to be protected. And so
part of the spirit of the recommendations speak to: there's got
to be another way than to put people in a cell and lock them
away, if they're asking for protective custody. So, BOP, can
you figure out what----
Senator Ossoff. Yes.
Ms. Goodwin [continuing]. That could look like?
Senator Ossoff. That's an important one. I have no doubt
that few, if any, of them want to be placed in the SHU, having
visited----
Ms. Goodwin. Yes.
Senator Ossoff [continuing]. One of these Special Housing
Units. It's not a place I think anyone would wish to be placed.
I would like, Mr. Chairman, to ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record the statement which was submitted by the
Council of Prison Locals 33 from Mr. Frank Bailey, with their
views on the subject matter of the hearing.
Chair Durbin. Without objection.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Ossoff. And I want to thank each of the witnesses
and you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this. Obviously, some very
significant human rights and security issues at stake in this
discussion. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much. Senator Coons is on the
way. I'm going to ask a question or two, in anticipation of his
arrival. Dr. Peeler, in my lifetime there has been a pretty
dramatic change in the attitude of most people toward mental
illness and mental health. We went so far as to amend the
hospitalization insurance legislation, the Obamacare, to cover
mental illness, addiction, as well as physical illness. And it
was a bipartisan effort.
I've seen evidence, as well, of people who are much more
open and conversant about mental challenges. I watched a lot of
basketball over the last few months, and I'm sure a number of
people have, too. I couldn't get over how many colleges were
asking young people watching the game to come to their college
and suggesting that they offered mental health counseling as
part of the services of the university. That's all encouraging,
from my point of view. It's an indication that things are
better.
When it comes to mental health and mental issues in
incarceration, we draw an interesting line. If I said, well, I
want to be sure to contain this prisoner, so I want to be able
to beat him with a stick at least once a day, people would say,
are you crazy? Physical cruelty like that is unacceptable in a
civilized society. You only do it when--a matter of self-
defense, that sort of thing. But if you say to somebody, I
incarcerate you for 80 days in isolation or in SHU, people say,
well, sometimes that has to be done. Can you differentiate
physical aspects of cruelty with mental aspects?
Dr. Peeler. Senator, mental health is part of overall
health. So, as you just eloquently stated, there's been a real
kind of recognition of that in the past many years and decades,
that you really can't separate the two. One cannot have
complete whole health, as defined by the WHO, without also
having optimal mental health. And so whether or not someone is
being physically beaten or, you know, functionally mentally
beaten, it is bad for one's health. And so they are
equivalently bad, and they will lead to worse health outcomes
overall, as I indicated, both short-term outcomes as well as
long-term outcomes for that person.
Chair Durbin. And the reality is, as Dr. Gawande's article
reminded me, the majority of these people will one day be
released back into society. Ms. Goodwin, I think, used the term
recidivism. I think you're the first person to say the word at
this hearing, but that is part of the conversation, as well.
Does that experience of isolation mean that the person is
likely or less likely to be able to assimilate themselves back
into society? Is that not a consideration?
Dr. Peeler. Senator, so, you know, I recently went to a
talk by another expert on prisons and jails and health, in
general, who has studied the Norway system extensively. And one
of the things that she said I had not heard but I thought was
really interesting is that apparently if you go into Norway, a
person will say to you, if you just kind of ask the general
populace what they think about the jail and prison system in
Norway--they'll say, people go to court for a sentence; they go
to prison to become better neighbors. And so I believe that if
we continue to harm those who are in our prisons and jails and
ICE detention systems, we are making it drastically harder for
them to function in society, and it is not surprising that they
would then have higher recidivism rates.
Chair Durbin. Ms. Davis, you've lived it. What's your
thought on the subject?
Ms. Davis. Can you repeat that again, Senator?
Chair Durbin. I just would like your reaction to this idea
of how a person is treated in prison and what it means when
they get out of prison, as to what their life is like.
Ms. Davis. Solitary confinement, Senator, is torture. Any
amount of time in solitary, whether it's 1 day, 2 days, or an
hour, is devastating. Upon me being released from prison, I had
this shaking when an officer would come up to me, because I was
placed in a halfway house, and I felt that same feeling as I
was in the SHU. I was traumatized.
Chair Durbin. Did you have any counseling, either in prison
or after your release?
Ms. Davis. Yes, I had counseling after I was released.
Chair Durbin. And did it help, I hope?
Ms. Davis. It did. It did. It gave me the opportunity to
gain a great relationship with my kids, because my kids was
always wondering, you know, what was going on with me. I would
wake up through the middle of the night, just sweating, and I
would tell them the story of how the prison operated and how I
was placed in the SHU. I would just tell them what took place
with me for 13 and a half years of incarceration, and that's
why it's so important to me, with lived experience, to end
solitary confinement.
Chair Durbin. Thank you for coming today and testifying. I
see Senator Coons has arrived.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
your forbearance. There is a Foreign Relations Committee
business meeting, the first, really, in months. Senator Booker
is also there and is eager to join this and will try to come in
just a few minutes, if possible. It's become quite testy but
ultimately, hopefully, productive.
And I'd like to thank all the witnesses for your testimony
today. Ms. Davis, in particular, I want to thank you for your
personal and powerful testimony about your experience. It
cannot be easy to revisit the trauma that you underwent. Your
fortitude and your commitment to advocacy is a demonstration of
how incarcerated people in our country, those who have endured
and survived mistreatment in incarceration, have so much to
offer the rest of us as we try to reform our systems.
I also want to specifically thank you, Chair Durbin, for
being a great partner and a real leader in moving the Solitary
Confinement Reform Act. It makes clear what we've long known,
which is that solitary confinement does little to achieve its
stated goals but can lead to lasting psychological damage that
makes us all less safe and increases recidivism. As the co-
chair of the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus with Senator Cornyn,
I'm cognizant that properly addressing solitary confinement
implicates important questions of officer safety, and I'm
committed to working with law enforcement and correction
officer organizations, in particular, on any legislation that
we might move forward.
My hope is this hearing helps us begin to find a bipartisan
path forward, because this really is not and should not be a
partisan issue. In fact, in 2022, two quite conservative
groups, Right on Crime and the Texas Public Policy Foundation,
issued a call to reform Federal solitary confinement. And many
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle helped address
juvenile solitary confinement as part of the First Step Act,
but the harms of this practice are hardly confined to youth, as
you have testified, Ms. Davis.
So, there are things we agree on here. I hope that we will
find the will and the strength to re-engage in criminal justice
reform that can impact so many adults who are incarcerated and
whose treatment while incarcerated causes real harm. Ms. Davis,
you've testified that solitary confinement doesn't just cause
devastating harm, can lead to death; it also makes it more
likely someone will harm someone else. That's consistent with
the studies cited by the Right on Crime paper that recidivism
is higher among people with the same risk profile who are
subjected to solitary confinement. Can you just say more; help
me understand why this would be?
Ms. Davis. Thank you, Senator. I think that ending solitary
confinement--I think that we need to come up with some type of
alternative program instead of solitary confinement, so
therefore the incarcerated people can get the help that they
need, because it only just continues to inflict harm when you
place one in solitary confinement. It's not helping them. It's
only harming them. It's torture. It's literally--it's torture,
being inside solitary confinement, no matter how many days it
is.
Senator Coons. Ms. Goodwin, one of the Right on Crime
paper's key recommendations is the need for greater
transparency, for data about the Bureau of Prisons' practices.
What did your report find about the Bureau of Prisons' publicly
available data, and how could improving transparency help
ensure better compliance with best practices?
Ms. Goodwin. Thank you, Senator. So, one of the things that
we found, just in terms of BOP--wasn't routinely analyzing the
data that they had or comprehensively looking at it. And being
a little more transparent helps everyone. It helps the
officers, in terms of better understanding what the policies
are, so that they don't find themselves out of compliance. If
you're a person who's incarcerated, you have a better
understanding of what the policies are, what might or might not
put you in restrictive housing. So, they're some of the things
that we've been looking at.
Senator Coons. And reforming solitary confinement--it's
challenging; it's important work. I recognize it can place some
additional burdens on law enforcement officers. From your
review, Ms. Goodwin, what are the biggest challenges that staff
and officers might face in making and implementing reforms, and
how could Congress or BOP or other agencies actually assist in
a reform process?
Ms. Goodwin. Well, in terms of the reform, I mean, you
know, we've got the First Step Act. BOP--our understanding is
that the director of BOP is committed to making changes to the
use of restrictive housing, so waiting to see what those new
policy might look like--and then, of course, we will always be
there to review and do a report to look to see how well they're
applying and adhering to whatever policies there are.
The director, as we know, has said that the use of
restrictive housing or restrictive housing, in general, might
not be the best way. And so we know that she and her staff are
looking to see what alternatives might look like. And so if
there are going to be alternatives, we want to make certain
that, before they move in that direction, whatever they're
wanting to do, there's some evaluation of it; there's some
input from the people who are going to have to, you know,
implement it.
Senator Coons. Well, let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, again,
by thanking you and by just reflecting, Ms. Davis, that what
you experienced and what you testified to is also what study
has proven, which is that, when misused, when overapplied,
solitary confinement is torture, and it imposes horrifying
impacts on the individual that doesn't produce positive
benefits for society. It is a lose-lose all across the board.
So, in the interest of our values and in public safety, let's
continue our bipartisan criminal justice reform journey and do
more to reform solitary confinement. Thank you for your
testimony today. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Coons. Before I recognize the
next Senator, I would like to say for the record what I've said
other times. I really believe it's valuable for every Member of
Congress, the House and the Senate--as we spend so much time
discussing incarceration and penalties and crime--that you at
least take advantage once every 2 years to visit a correctional
institution and see with your own eyes what's going on. It's an
eye opener. It has been for me, and I continue to go that
direction. I'd like to include Norway on the next visit. It'd
certainly be worth our while. Under the early arrival rule,
Senator Blackburn, you're recognized next.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
that. And, you know, many of us do visit prisons. And one of
the things that repeatedly comes up is the number of repeat
offenders and how difficult soft-on-crime policies have made it
on our local law enforcement agencies and the judicial system--
and also the effect of fentanyl on communities. When you look
at those that are incarcerated, the number that are there
because of drugs and mental health issues--those are issues we
should be doing a deeper dive on. And, Chairman, Senator Graham
mentioned how he was surprised we were taking our time today to
talk about solitary confinement, when we should be talking
about H.R. 2, a border security bill.
Number one issue with the American people right now is what
is happening with that open border. Every town's a border town.
Every State is a border State, because of the effects of the
Biden open border policy. It is all intentional. It is what
they wanted, and it's what our colleagues across the aisle
continue to support: fentanyl racing into this country. We
should be looking at that, Mr. Chairman. None of us want that
in our communities. Look at the number of children that are
being exploited by cartels that are trafficking children, and
they're being trafficked into labor gangs. They're being
sexually exploited. These are things that are happening, and I
wish that we were putting our time into that.
Now, back when I was in the House, in 2007, I introduced a
bill, the CLEAR Act. And it would take some of those provisions
from the 287(g) program and give authority to local law
enforcement: when they apprehend somebody that is in the
country illegally, they can hold them. And then ICE has to
come, and ICE has to deport them and then reimburse that local
law enforcement agency for what they have spent.
So, Sheriff, I want to come to you. And thank you to each
of you for being here today. I appreciate it. I would like to
get your thoughts on legislation like the CLEAR Act that would
empower local law enforcement and then have ICE deport these
criminal illegal aliens and reimburse local law enforcement for
what they have spent and deny Federal law enforcement funds to
jurisdictions that will not comply with Federal immigration
law.
Mr. Boyd. Senator, what you're talking about is not
something new or revolutionary. We had that at one time. If I
remember right, it was somewhere around----
Senator Blackburn. 287(g).
Mr. Boyd. Well, even before then.
Senator Blackburn. Yes.
Mr. Boyd. Even before 287(g), in the 1980's and 1990's, we
had officers at the Victoria Police Department who were dual
commissioned as U.S. customs agents and local police officers.
And they had the authorities that you're talking about. And so
the restitution of those authorities is something that can be
looked at by Federal authorities. And so I think that we all
have to work together and do our part, because this open border
that we're facing right now and the surge of transnational
criminal activity is overwhelming us.
I heard one of the Senators earlier say that most of the
fentanyl is being brought in by United States citizens, and
that is not correct. If you lived down on the border like I am,
then what you'll find is that it's being brought here by
transnational criminal organizations. Some of the people that
work for cartels do live in the United States, but that product
is being shipped here by cartel members from Mexico into the
United States. They no longer are dependent on China for the
precursors to make fentanyl. They have now figured out how to
make it themselves. Those individuals in Mexico--some of the
smartest people you'll ever meet, and they will figure out
exactly what to do in order to generate a profit.
And I think that we need to look at the ability to deny
transnational criminal activity and organizations any ability
to make profit within the United States, because I don't know
if any of you have ever sat down with a sicario before. I have,
on multiple occasions. When you talk about solitary
confinement, as it's being called here--we call it separation
in the State of Texas--those people have to remain in
separation or they will kill somebody. It's not like the movie.
They're not professionals. They're sloppy, and they're mean.
And we have to deal with them in a manner that protects not
only our correction officers but also the fellow inmates that
are in the facility, because it doesn't matter if you're a
jailer or an inmate. You're made in the image of God, and I
have to protect you no matter what.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Sheriff. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator. And, Senator, at a
previous stage of the hearing, we had a similar request that we
deal with legislation that addresses border issues, and I, for
one, would like to remember that it was Senator Lankford's
effort that resulted in a bipartisan bill which many of us
actively supported.
Senator Blackburn. Mr. Chairman, as we know, that was not a
border security bill. It was an immigration bill, and H.R. 2,
which is a border security bill, landed in this Committee last
May. Last May. The first part of May.
Chair Durbin. Let me just----
Senator Blackburn. And----
Chair Durbin [continuing]. Say, Senator----
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. We should have a hearing on
that, whether we like it or not.
Chair Durbin. Senator----
Senator Blackburn. Let's take it up, and let's debate it
and look at what has transpired at this border. I talk to
parents every single week who have had a child impacted by
fentanyl and people that are seeing some of these labor gangs--
I am terribly concerned about these 85,000 children that HHS
and DHS can't find.
Chair Durbin. Well, we could go into all of these issues,
and we have in the past, but I will tell you that the
bipartisan effort by Senator Lankford, the chosen
Representative of the Senate Republicans, along with Senator
Murphy and Senator Sinema, was the first bipartisan effort that
moved us toward 60 votes, which is essential for passage in the
Senate----
Senator Blackburn. And it couldn't get----
Chair Durbin. It got----
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Where it----
Chair Durbin [continuing]. Four----
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Needed to go.
Chair Durbin [continuing]. Republicans, after they'd told
us----
Senator Blackburn. It was not----
Chair Durbin [continuing]. Point blank----
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. A border----
Chair Durbin. It----
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Security deal.
Chair Durbin. Well, I'll tell you, you're wrong.
Senator Blackburn. And I want----
Chair Durbin. You're wrong, Senator.
Senator Blackburn. Well, no, sir. I am not wrong----
Chair Durbin. And H.R. 2----
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. On that. It was an----
Chair Durbin [continuing]. Received no----
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Immigration bill.
Chair Durbin [continuing]. Democratic votes. I don't want
to go down these rabbit holes of----
Senator Blackburn. The American----
Chair Durbin [continuing]. Partisan----
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. People are expecting us to
do it. That's why they want a trial----
Chair Durbin. Well----
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. On Mayorkas. And I think it
is so wrong that----
Chair Durbin. You're giving me----
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Chuck Schumer is trying
to----
Chair Durbin. You're----
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Table----
Chair Durbin. You're----
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. This.
Chair Durbin. I can't keep up with all the issues you're
throwing at me, Senator. We came today to talk about solitary
confinement in Federal prisons, and I hope we can get back to
that subject. At this point, Senator Kennedy is recognized.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you all for being here. I'm sorry I was late. I was in another
Committee. I want to ask each of you this question, and if you
would, be mindful of the fact that I only have 5 minutes, so if
you could each maybe give me a 1-minute answer. If a bill
were--and I want to talk about prisons, Federal prisons in
general. If a bill were before the Senate to abolish solitary
confinement in Federal prisons, what exceptions, if any, would
you recommend that we include in that bill? Could we start down
here?
Ms. Goodwin. Senator, GAO would not make any
recommendations until we've had an opportunity to review the
bill.
Senator Kennedy. No--Okay. Yes, ma'am?
Ms. Davis. Thank you, Senator. At this time, I don't have
an answer for you.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Sir?
Mr. Boyd. I would recommend that you follow what the Texas
Commission on Jail Standards has done and follow the lead of
Brandon Wood and the outstanding leadership----
Senator Kennedy. And what----
Mr. Boyd [continuing]. That the State of Texas----
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Exceptions----
Mr. Boyd [continuing]. Has taken.
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. What exceptions did they
recommend?
Mr. Boyd. There are some exceptions within there for minor
infractions. There is a list of things that you cannot put
people in solitary confinement for. I don't have a
comprehensive list of it right now, but I'd be more than happy
to obtain that for you. So, we have over 600 points of
compliance at local jails in the State of Texas that we must
keep up, and so we work to ensure that we comply with all of
those. And separation cells are one of the many things that we
deal with, so--but I think if the Federal Government wishes to
look at what the State of Texas has done, I think it would be
beneficial, if there is a problem.
Senator Kennedy. Doctor.
Dr. Peeler. Senator, I am here to talk about the health
effects more so than the exceptions, but I would say that I
would recommend looking to the alternatives to solitary
confinement that already exist in multiple cities and States
and potentially understand what exceptions they use, to help
inform your policy changes.
Senator Kennedy. I must have asked a dumb question, because
I didn't get any answers. Let me try it another way. Are there
any instances, in the real world that we live in, that in your
judgment solitary confinement is appropriate? Doctor, we'll
start with you this time.
Dr. Peeler. Senator, your question builds off of what Chair
Durbin had actually said earlier about who might need solitary
confinement. I think for me, as a health professional, what I
find problematic is the current definition and use of solitary
confinement, of 22----
Senator Kennedy. Doctor----
Dr. Peeler [continuing]. Hours a day.
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. I appreciate that, but----
Dr. Peeler. I don't think that there are----
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Can you answer my question?
Dr. Peeler. Yes. Yes, sir. I don't think that there are
uses of solitary confinement in its current iteration of 22
hours a day, for anyone.
Senator Kennedy. Okay.
Dr. Peeler. I think that certain people----
Senator Kennedy. Thank you for----
Dr. Peeler [continuing]. Need to be separated.
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Being straightforward.
Dr. Peeler. Yes. You're welcome.
Senator Kennedy. I appreciate finally getting an answer.
It's Sheriff, right?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Sheriff, are there any circumstances, in
your experience, when solitary confinement is appropriate?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir. I'll give you a list of some of the
ones that are listed in the Texas Jail Commission. Interfering
with a head count in--which we're required to do twice a day.
Attempted----
Senator Kennedy. So, if someone interferes with a head
count, that--they should be in solitary confinement? They
should be----
Mr. Boyd. Yes. Yes, that's----
Senator Kennedy. Okay.
Mr. Boyd [continuing]. Something that----
Senator Kennedy. What--what else? I----
Mr. Boyd [continuing]. They can----
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Interrupted you. I just
wanted to be sure I understand. What else?
Mr. Boyd. Yes. So, attempted escape; possession of a
weapon; attacking jailors or inmates; destroying security
equipment within the facility. Those are all ones that are
listed in the code for the State of Texas.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Are there any other?
Mr. Boyd. Sometimes we use separation cells in order to
separate gang members during times of unrest. Sometimes we
utilize separation cells when somebody comes in initially, in
order to prevent them from talking with or intimidating----
Senator Kennedy. What do you----
Mr. Boyd [continuing]. Other witnesses.
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Mean by separation cells?
Mr. Boyd. It's a single-person cell. So, we will put them
in a single-person cell so that they cannot intimidate any of
the co-conspirators in a case. And I'll give you a good
example, being down on the border. Sometimes we'll arrest----
Senator Kennedy. Can I ask you this? Sorry to interrupt,
but I'm----
Mr. Boyd. No. Go ahead.
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Going to run out of time. I
apologize, here. If a person's put in a separation cell, is
that considered solitary confinement?
Mr. Boyd. There is no such term in the State of Texas. It's
separation cell, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Okay.
Mr. Boyd. So, I guess based off of the definition that's
been used here, I guess you would call it that, but we call it
separation cell under our law.
Senator Kennedy. Well, if the prisoner's put in a
separation cell, does he have any contact during the day with
other prisoners?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, they'll have vocal contact. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. They'll have what?
Mr. Boyd. They'll have vocal contact. In a jail setting,
you're not going to have somebody that's isolated by sound.
They also have access to publications. They also get access to
phone calls, any of the correspondence that comes via the mail.
They get exposure to sunlight, and they get--they also get
exercise every day.
Senator Kennedy. Can I ask the other two witnesses the same
question? Ladies? Are there any circumstances where you think
solitary confinement is appropriate or necessary?
Ms. Davis. Senator, I just think that, with lived
experience, I think that no human being should be placed in
solitary confinement.
Senator Kennedy. Okay.
Ms. Goodwin. And, Senator, as you know, GAO--these are
policy decisions, and we evaluate any program with policies or
practices, but we don't opine on policy decisions. So, if it's
something that you all put forward as policy, we're happy to
review it.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry I went over.
Thank you----
Chair Durbin. Thank you----
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. For your indulgence.
Chair Durbin. Thank you for attending the hearing, Senator,
and your questions. And I'd just say, during the course of the
hearing we'll use many terms interchangeably, and they are
different, much different. Protective custody--you are
separated, as the sheriff has mentioned, sometimes by your own
choosing. I think what is different is, most people in
corrections and incarceration don't want to use the term,
solitary confinement. It has an odious connotation to it, and
so they use different terms: separation, administrative
separation, and the like.
I think how you're treated when you're in that cell is
different under different circumstances. Ms. Davis described
her situation to us earlier, and it was the classic solitary
confinement with 1 hour or 2 hours out of your cell and no
physical contact to speak of while she was incarcerated. That
is what I imagine it to be, no matter what the title may be.
Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, I can't tell you how grateful
I am for this hearing. To me, what's going on in the United
States of America is astonishing to me. I think Mr. Boyd is
correct. There are legitimate reasons, for the safety of
incarcerated people, to use isolation. It is fundamentally
understandable. But what is stunning to me is how widespread--
putting people in a space the size of a parking space for days
and days upon end is a practice that is so Byzantine, so
universally condemned by other peer nations, so torturous to
individuals. It is stunning to me when I talk to correctional
officers, when I talk to inmates, when I talk to families. It
is stunning to me that this practice goes on still in our
Nation at such a widespread level.
There is no excuse whatsoever for torturing individuals,
and often this is a case that is accelerated by us, because we
are underfunding institutions that could help add to the safety
of our correctional officers, the safety of inmates; that often
solitary is relied on as a practice that is so extremely
harmful to human beings and especially so to children. Ms.
Peeler, you, in your report, call it torture. And let's explore
that for a second. Is this some kind of left-wing idea that
putting people in these spaces is torturous, or is there
scientific data, study after study after study, that shows the
harm of solitary, under whatever name it's called or euphemism
is used?
Dr. Peeler. Senator, the torture definition comes from the
United Nations, and the reason why the U.N. Special Rapporteur
picked the time of 15 days is because there is a mountain of
scientific evidence that shows that after that period of time
in solitary confinement, many of the acute symptoms can become
irreversible.
Senator Booker. So, again, mountains of scientific
evidence. This is not up for debate, that it can cause
permanent harm to individuals. But what about brains that
haven't developed to the point of 25 years old? What about
youth brains or adolescent brains? What does it do to children?
Dr. Peeler. So, Senator, I haven't--although I take care of
children in the ICU very frequently, I haven't studied solitary
confinement, specifically, but I will tell you as a
pediatrician, the pediatric brain is in constant flux, and it
takes a lot of its information from its environment. And so----
Senator Booker. Nineteen-, 20-, 21-year-olds?
Dr. Peeler. Nineteen-, 20-, 21-year-olds are still
children. They still are developing their frontal lobe. And so
if their experience is one of torture----
Senator Booker. Does it make people--if I'm concerned about
the safety of my correctional officers, do people who are in
solitary confinement for a month or 2 months--do they come out
less dangerous to themselves and others or more dangerous to
themselves and others?
Dr. Peeler. They come out more dangerous, sir.
Senator Booker. Significantly more dangerous. This has been
studied, and we know it to be the truth. What happens to
suicide rates?
Dr. Peeler. Suicide rates are quite high for those who have
been in solitary confinement. Almost 50 percent of suicides, I
believe, in the BOP actually occur in solitary confinement. And
Mr. Daniel, who died recently in ICE detention--a recent study
following up of him show that there actually had been six or
seven suicide attempts in that same facility in the last few
months.
Senator Booker. ``I ended up losing my mind for 2 weeks,
even talking to myself. I thought about suicide. I still have
those thoughts now in Senegal. Anytime I hear a door, my heart
would start beating faster, like I was having panic, an attack.
I still don't feel like being in confined spaces.'' These are
people, years after being out of solitary confinement. The
post-traumatic stress stays with them. And we know that people
who are suffering from PTSD are a danger to themselves and can
be, under some circumstances, a danger to others. Is that
correct?
Dr. Peeler. Yes, sir.
Senator Booker. And so, Ms. Goodwin, the funding problems
we have when it comes to correctional facilities throughout the
United States or correctional facilities specifically for
immigration--is this an issue leading toward the usage or
overusage of solitary confinement?
Ms. Goodwin. So, when you're thinking about the Bureau of
Prisons----
Senator Booker. Yes.
Ms. Goodwin. Start there, and I'll talk about ICE. When
you're thinking about the Bureau of Prisons and GAO, we've
issued a number of reports talking about challenges with BOP
staffing and what that could look like, and of course it
affects all of the operations, and one of them, of course,
would be the use of restrictive housing. When you think about
ICE facilities, there is a concern about the facilities finding
enough locations and the appropriate amount of bed space for
individuals. So, both of them are concerns. Staffing is a major
issue, and the ability to find locations that would partner
with ICE to hold or to ensure that there are spaces for people
to be detained is another challenge.
Senator Booker. Right. And so, Mr. Chairman, who are we?
We're the United States of America, and we so savagely
underfund our prisons. Just in the last budgetary round, we cut
funding to our prisons even more, endangering correctional
officers, undermining their sworn duty, undermining legislation
that we have passed through this body that helps to lower
recidivism rates and keep people safer. Our First Step Act,
bipartisan--we have undercut it by underfunding the Bureau of
Prisons. But what should keep all of us up at night is the fact
that every single day there are practices going on in our
prisons that our correctional officers don't agree with, that
fundamentally amount to the kind of torture that we condemn
other nations for doing.
This is sick. This is unacceptable. And it's un-American,
that this practice goes on, widespread, and there are tens of
thousands and hundreds of thousands of people who are being
permanently affected, and their families are being impacted,
and our public safety is being undermined. This is outrageous,
that we talk about this as an ongoing problem in our country
and don't do the common-sense things that should get bipartisan
support, to stop these practices, to support our correctional
officers, to keep them safe, to keep our prisons not to be the
reflections of the darkest corners of our society--but our
prisons should be places that reflect our highest virtues, like
redemption, like second chance, like rehabilitation, like
public safety. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Booker. I'm fortunate to
be Chair of this Committee. I'm honored with that opportunity.
But there are sources of frustration, and this is one of them.
This is an issue which came to my attention just by random
reading, that article by Dr. Atul Dawande, which I recommend to
all of you--the impact of isolation on the human mind. And I
started this trek 12 years ago--12 years ago--through 3
different administrations, now. And I have to say there is no
appreciable progress that's been made. In fact, we've gone
backward in many respects. And I wonder if it is just a basic
economic issue which Senator Booker has raised: not enough
people to do the job and therefore some alternatives that are
not preferable are turned to because they're easier to do;
whether it reflects an attitude toward incarceration or the
people who are incarcerated, which we look the other way too
often; whether it's racism, and that part has been raised early
on in the course of this hearing.
But through various leaders at the Bureau of Prisons, of
both political parties, they have given me lip service about
doing something, but neither one that I've worked with has
really changed the situation. There's a frustration involved in
it. In a democracy, you've got to accept that as part of the
challenge. But I do believe that this is a special case. I
believe when it comes to corrections and incarceration, we
don't put a priority on it. These are people that we've walked
away from, and we assume that we'll never face them again. And
the honest answer is, yes, you will. You'll see them again at
some point in your life. America will see them. And in the
process, are we making their lives better?
Ms. Davis, you're amazing. The story you tell, 13, 14 years
in prison and coming before us today--I really thank you for
that. That took courage to come up here and tell your story,
and you did it. I appreciate that so very much.
Sheriff Boyd, I was just sure that I wouldn't like you at
all, but I do. I can't explain it. You know, I really respect
you. You're now my favorite Texas sheriff. I don't have a long
list, but you're at the top of it. Thank you so much for being
here today.
Dr. Peeler, thank you for your perspective. Being an active
pediatrician, in addition to having your interest in this topic
really is impressing me. And, Ms. Goodwin, you had a tough job
today, representing the GAO, walking that tightrope, not making
a policy endorsement but trying to be very honest and
forthcoming with us.
It's been a great panel. I see some friends from organized
labor here, representing correctional officers. You're usually
sitting at the table. Next time, you will be. I'm sorry we
didn't have enough slots today to bring you into the effort.
You may receive some written questions. If you do, I hope
you'll respond to them in a timely fashion.
Chair Durbin. With that, the hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
A P P E N D I X
Submitted by Chair Durbin:
AILA--American Immigration Lawyers Association--Solitary
Confinement--Statement........................................ 79
Frank Bailey CPL--Statement...................................... 83
FAST--Federal Anti-Solitary Taskforce--Solitary Confinement--
Testimony..................................................... 88
James Gilligan, M.D.--Statement.................................. 97
GAP--Government Accountability Project--Dana L. Gold, Esq........ 101
Professor Craig Haney--Testimony................................. 112
IACHR-PM--Update................................................. 120
Illinois Organizations Restore Justice, Uptown People's Law
Center, Chicago Lawyers' Committee--Civil Rights Letter Urging
End Solitary Confinement Act.................................. 150
Terry A. Kupers, M.D., M.S.P. Professor--Testimony............... 152
La Resistencia and Tsuru for Solidarity--Solitary Confinement--
Statement..................................................... 156
Bandy X. Lee, MD, M.Div.--Statement to the U.S. Senate........... 160
NIJC--National Immigrant Justice Center--A Heartland Alliance
Program--Solitary Confinement--Statement...................... 164
NIPNLG--The National Immigration Project......................... 170
Peeler--Solitary Confinement--Testimony.......................... 217
Dr. Pablo Stewart--Solitary Confinement--Testimony............... 267
Unlock the Box--Solitary Confinement--Testimony.................. 275
Submitted by Ranking Member Graham:
EARM View Encounter Summary...................................... 278
Submitted by Senator Ossoff:
Frank Bailey CPL Written Statement............................... 83
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]