    [Senate Hearing 118-589]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-589

                   AN EXAMINATION OF PRISON LABOR IN AMERICA

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE
                              AND COUNTERTERRORISM

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 21, 2024

                                   __________

                               Serial No. J-118-67

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            www.judiciary.senate.gov
                                www.govinfo.gov

                                       _______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    59-497                    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

             Subcommittee on Criminal Justice and Counterterrorism

                       CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey, Chair
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     TOM COTTON, Arkansas, Ranking
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota                 Member
    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
    PADILLA, ALEX, California            JOHN CORNYN, Texas
    OSSOFF, JON, Georgia                 MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
                                         TED CRUZ, Texas
                                         JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
                     Lynda Garcia, Democratic Chief Counsel
                     Drew Hudson, Republican Chief Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    Booker, Hon. Cory A..............................................     1
    Cotton, Hon. Tom.................................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Armstrong, Andrea................................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    36
        Responses to written questions...............................    84

    Lehman, Charles..................................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    44

    Turner, Jennifer.................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    51
        Responses to written questions...............................    87

    Winn, Terrance...................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    82

                                    APPENDIX

    Items submitted for the record...................................    35

                         AN EXAMINATION OF PRISON LABOR
                                  IN AMERICA

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2024

                          United States Senate,
                      Subcommittee on Criminal Justice
                                  and Counterterrorism,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 2:36 p.m., in
    Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Cory A. Booker,
    Chair of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Booker [presiding], Padilla, Cotton, and
    Kennedy.
        Also present: Chair Durbin.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY A. BOOKER,
              A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Chair Booker. All right. We're going to begin now that
    Senator Cotton is here, and I want to say good afternoon. I'm
    really grateful that you all are here for really an important,
    I think, constructive discussion. Welcome to our witnesses
    who've traveled here to provide testimony to this Subcommittee.
    I'm particularly grateful to Ranking Member Cotton for his
    perspective on this important topic relating to labor in
    prisons.
        Most Americans really are shocked that they learn that the
    13th Amendment, which formerly abolished slavery in our
    country, excludes incarcerated people. It's called the
    Exception Clause, which was approved by our very Senate
    Judiciary Committee in 1864. The language of the Exception
    Clause lives on not only in our Federal Constitution, but also
    in 16 State Constitutions.
        Today, almost 150 years after ratification, we're here to
    discuss the legacy of this clause and how it impacts the
    treatment of incarcerated workers in our Nation's prisons and
    jails.
        This hearing is intended to shed light on the real issues
    facing the workforce that lives behind bars, not to end the
    opportunity to work in prisons. I want to emphasize that. I was
    grateful in reading the testimony of all of our witnesses about
    how everybody understands that work in prisons is a--it could
    be a very important part of rehabilitation preparing people for
    life outside of prison, and, frankly, to help lower recidivism
    rates.
        And I'm glad that from reading the testimony of all four
    witnesses, there seems to be some accord in that it should be
    in our goal, really, a collective goal in our society, that
    people in prison develop the professional skills that set them
    up for success once they're released. But they can only do so
    within a humane system that honors human dignity.
        This goal, I know, is shared by Republicans and Democrats
    alike because for my 25 years in my professional life, I've
    worked with people on both sides of the aisle on these issues,
    and the reality is that most people that go to prison actually
    come out.
        We saw some draconian measures at times where people said,
    why should we have Pell Grants for people in prison? Well,
    every dollar we try to take away from investing in education
    actually cost taxpayers much more than that in terms of
    recidivism rates. Empowering people to take responsibility and
    to learn skills is something we support.
        What I'm excited about also is that in Red States and in
    Blue States, Nebraska, Utah, Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee,
    Vermont, Colorado, they've passed initiatives to remove the
    Exception Clause language from their constitutions. It's
    amazingly popular with voters. We want our founding documents
    to reflect the democratic ideals that unite us as Americans,
    and that's why the Federal Government too should look at and
    make the necessary fixes that Red and Blue States, Republican
    and Democratic voters alike, are doing to address the problems
    currently within our system of prison labor.
        It's the language, this language, that allows incarcerated
    workers to be denied the same protections every other workers
    enjoy. Under current law, virtually every single worker in our
    country is guaranteed certain protections against exploitation
    and abuse.
        The Government guarantees American workers that their
    workplace also will be safe, and hazard free, and that they
    will not be discriminated against in the workplace, and that
    they will receive a minimum wage for their labor. I've been
    excited. Recently, we've seen bipartisan legislation from this
    Committee to stop gender discrimination and recently, age
    discrimination in the workplace.
        While we have laws that protect workers across the country,
    and the Judiciary Committee in a bipartisan manner is doing
    even more on that, these laws do not reach the people who work
    within the walls of our Nation's jails and prisons. There are
    close to 1.2 million people incarcerated in this country, and
    today, around 800,000 of them have a job.
        Incarcerated Americans contribute to our economy by working
    jobs that touch many products and goods that we all use and
    purchase. They produce and process foods that we eat. They work
    in factories, manufacturing, license plates, traffic signs,
    uniforms, and furniture, much of which bears the sought-after
    ``Made in America'' label.
        They also provide critical public services by fighting
    wildfires, repairing, and maintaining roads, and responding to
    natural disasters, and they work in prison facilities to help
    maintain the operations. Most of us have no idea how this labor
    contributes to our Nation's economy.
        Incarcerated workers around the country produce more than
    $2 billion in goods and over $9 billion a year in services
    maintaining the prisons in which they live. Yet, an
    incarcerated worker can earn an averagely hourly wage of
    literally a few cents per hour to half a dollar.
        In 7 States, incarcerated workers are paid nothing for
    their labor. They also lack a minimum health and safety
    standards in their workplaces, and cannot refuse to work even
    if they are injured or sick, facing harsh disciplinary
    consequences I know we'll clear about today, if they should.
        I want to acknowledge that this topic may make some of us
    uncomfortable. Many of us bristle when we hear words like
    slavery, and that the fact that we are causing folks to work
    who do not want to. I'm keenly aware that we are at a point in
    our Nation where we can objectively analyze; does this reflect
    our values, our collective values, as a country?
        We know that it's hard to reconcile a lot of the practices
    with the democratic ideals of our country, but we must face it
    together so that we ultimately can address it. Our prisons
    should reflect the best of who we are, they should reflect our
    values, and they should, in my strong opinion, be places that
    are not just for punishment, but for rehabilitation, and for
    creating roads of redemption.
        I believe the ideals of redemption are very much a part of
    our Nation's core values and help us create a safer, stronger
    nation by ensuring that incarcerated people receive workplace
    protections, that they're compensated fairly, and they're not
    retaliated against.
        If they decline work, we can create a system that reflects
    those values and builds the vocational skills necessary for
    people to have successful reentry, thereby improving public
    safety.
        I look forward to having a productive and constructive
    conversation. This extraordinary panel, I'm grateful that
    you're here. And with that, I'll turn to my Ranking Member of
    the Subcommittee, my colleague from Arkansas, Tom Cotton.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COTTON,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

        Senator Cotton. Well, unlike Senator Booker, I don't think
    many Americans would be surprised or shocked that the 13th
    Amendment allows prison labor. It's been there from the very
    beginning. It's just as much a part of our constitution as is
    any other provision.
        I do suspect though at this hearing we're going to hear
    more from Democratic Senators and their witnesses unfairly
    attacking our prison systems and the outstanding men and women
    who serve in them. They might even compare prison work programs
    to slavery. This is a vicious and ugly smear against the very
    skilled, brave men and women who work and serve in our prisons
    as law enforcement and correctional officers.
        Such talk may be fashionable in faculty lounges, in
    Washington, DC cocktail parties, but it's wholly divorced from
    the reality on the ground in our prisons. Prisons are dangerous
    places full of dangerous people. Given nothing to occupy their
    time, prisoners will usually regress back to doing what they
    were sent to prison for in the first place. Idle hands are the
    devil's workshop.
        Reducing idle time has always been a key policy objective
    for prison labor programs. Almost 100 years ago, this very
    Committee held hearings on prison labor just like this one. The
    Committee issued a report finding that prison work programs
    help maintain order inside prisons. This Committee,
    ``Unanimously conceded that idleness in prisons breeds disorder
    and aggravates criminal tendencies,'' and concluded that,
    ``Prison work prevents prison violence by replacing idle time
    with productive activity.''
        But it's not just about filling otherwise idle time. This
    Committee's 1930 report also found that prison jobs help
    prepare inmates for life on the outside by teaching them,
    ``habits of industry.''
        Our prison work programs have come a long way since 1930.
    Today, many prisons partner with technical college that gives
    inmates the opportunity to receive job skill certificates. Many
    offer pre-apprenticeship opportunities as well. Some programs
    even allow inmates to work for private employers at market
    wages, giving them the opportunity to pay off victim
    restitution, meet child support obligations, and save money for
    life after prison.
        Contrary to what we'll probably hear today, there's nothing
    illegal or unconstitutional about prison labor, even for little
    or no pay, nor is there anything immoral about it. Prison labor
    is a way for inmates to give something back to the society they
    wronged. American society doesn't owe criminals restitution.
    Criminals owe our society restitution, and if that means
    scrubbing toilets, mopping floors, or picking up the garbage,
    then so be it.
        In summary, prison jobs help keep the peace, teach inmates
    job skills and work habits, and fulfill the original objectives
    of prison. Most prison officials would tell our Committee just
    that, which is why I wish we had a representative from a prison
    here today to speak about these programs.
        I had invited a respected representative of the Arkansas
    prison system to testify, and he had agreed, but after seeing
    the amended title of this hearing, which for a few days last
    week, equated prison labor to slavery, he chose not to attend.
    That's very understandable on his part, but it's also
    unfortunate for us. If the Democrats were not interested in
    pursuing an ideological agenda, we might have learned something
    today.
        In any case, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
        Chair Booker. Thank you, Senator Cotton.
        We will now introduce and swear in the distinguished panel
    of witnesses. The witnesses will give their opening testimony
    and Senators will have 5 minutes for questioning. I'll briefly
    introduce the majority witnesses, and then I'll ask the Ranking
    Member, Senator Cotton to introduce the final witness.
        Our first witness is Terrence Winn. At the age of 16, Mr.
    Winn was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole and
    ultimately served 30 years of imprisonment. After the U.S.
    Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v.
    Louisiana resulted in his eligibility for parole.
        Mr. Winn was incarcerated in the Louisiana State
    penitentiary, commonly known as Angola, where he worked on the
    cotton fields of Angola, in culinary services, and as a nurse's
    aide. Since his release, Mr. Winn has become an advocate for
    prison reform, and serves as the executive director and founder
    of the Louisiana nonprofit, Priorities, Intentions Practical
    Exchanges, or PIPE.
        Our second witness is Jennifer Turner. Ms. Turner is the
    principal human rights researcher in the human rights program
    at the American Civil Liberties Union.
        For more than 16 years, she has conducted documented
    research and advocacy on human rights violations in the United
    States with a focus on the criminal legal system, policing,
    economic injustice, and racial injustice in the United States.
        She led a multi-year human rights investigation on
    incarcerated labor and is the primary author of ``Captive
    Labor,'' a report co-published by the ACLU and the Global Human
    Rights Clinic of the University of Chicago Law School,
    documenting the exploitation of incarcerated workers. Ms.
    Turner's a graduate of New York University Law School where she
    was a Root-Tilden-Kern scholar, and Yale University.
        Our third witness is Professor Andrea Armstrong. Professor
    Armstrong is a 2023 MacArthur Fellow, and the Dr. Norman C.
    Francis distinguished professor at Loyola University, New
    Orleans College of Law, where she teaches in the related fields
    of constitutional law, criminal law and procedure.
        She is a scholar on incarceration law and brings much
    needed transparency to incarceration practices in the United
    States. She integrates law, history, public health, and the
    arts in her efforts to educate broad audiences about the human
    costs of incarceration. Professor Armstrong is a graduate of
    Yale Law School, the Princeton School of Public and
    International Affairs, and New York University.
        I'll turn to Senator Cotton now to introduce the final
    witness, Mr. Charles Lehman.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you.
        Charles Lehman is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute where
    he works on the Policing and Public Safety Initiative and as a
    contributing editor of City Journal. His work has appeared in
    outlets, including The Atlantic, The Wall Street Journal,
    National Affairs and National Review.
        He has discussed public safety policy before the House of
    Representatives and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and at
    colleges such as Carnegie Mellon and Cornell. He's a 2023 and
    2024 Robert Novak Fellow with the Fund for American Studies.
        Before joining the Manhattan Institute in 2021, he was a
    staff writer at The Washington Free Beacon. He's originally
    from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He now lives outside Washington
    with his wife and sons.
        Chair Booker. Thank you very much. And now I'm going to ask
    all the witnesses to please rise and raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses are sworn in.]
        Chair Booker. I'm going to mark that everybody said yes.
    Let the record show that is the affirmative, and you all can
    sit down now. And you will each have 5 minutes for your opening
    testimony, starting with Mr. Winn, and then proceeding to your
    left, my right.
        Mr. Winn.

                      STATEMENT OF TERRANCE WINN,
             PRISON REFORM ADVOCATE, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA

        Mr. Winn. Hello, and thank you, everyone, for the
    opportunity to address you today.
        My name is Department of Corrections number 296659 or
    Terrance Winn, a native of the plantation known as Angola, by
    way of Shreveport. Angola is also known as the Louisiana State
    Penitentiary, an 18,000-acre prison larger than the Island of
    Manhattan.
        My name change took place on December 25, 1989, when I was
    a 16-year-old kid and took the life of Jeffrey Owens, and
    attempted to take the life of Dejuan Lewis. For my actions, I
    was arrested and taken to Shreveport's Juvenile Detention
    Center where Judge Gallagher ordered that I be tried as an
    adult.
        I was immediately taken from juvie and left in a one-man
    cell at the Parish jail for my crimes. Judge Hamilton gave me
    life without the possibility of parole, plus 25 years to be
    served at hard labor. I heard my mother cry when the judge read
    the sentence, but I promised her and myself that one day I
    would come home.
        I was eventually transferred to Angola, at the time, one of
    the bloodiest penitentiaries in the world. Upon entering the
    gates of that former plantation, one sees a beautiful manicured
    lawn. There are flowers and open fields. For one second, I
    thought maybe this wouldn't be so bad. That second didn't last.
    Within a few days, I was transferred to the infirmary where a
    doctor is in charge of determining if a person is fit to work
    the fields.
        As a 17-year-old, the doctor confirmed that I was fit to
    work. I had never worked a day in my life when I found myself
    walking out of a gate, rifle was pointed at me, next to a guy
    that I didn't know. The line was made up of 125 men. When the
    last guy came through the gates, we were counted by the guards
    and the field foreman got on this horse and gave an order,
    ``Walk it out.''
        The field is backbreaking work. Every day we would walk for
    miles in excessively hot weather, and work sometimes bent over,
    on our knees, without breaks for hours. We would go in to eat,
    then out again until the day was finished.
        Working in the fields, I was forced to goose pick, that's
    picking grass with your hands. I was forced to dig ditches. I
    was forced to cut the levy with a hoe while officers on horses
    looked over us holding rifles. There were a few occasions when
    the field warden decided to bring the line in early from work.
    Those rare occasions happened when one of the horses would fall
    due to the oppressive heat.
        If a man fell over, we kept working. If you got injured,
    you kept working. Nothing took precedence over going to work. I
    witnessed tool fights that led to the death of a man and kept
    working. I suffered back a back injury at the age of 25, an
    injury I live with today, and I was forced to work until I got
    so tired of suffering that I chose to be sent to the hole.
    That's the dungeon or administrative segregation.
        I spent 30 years of at Angola. Twenty-five of those years I
    spent was spent working in the field. I received 75
    disciplinary writeups for aggravated work offense. This means
    in layman terms, refusing to work. I mostly refused to work
    because of the physical pain, more so than out of a rebellious
    nature.
        I admit though, every time I was told to pick cotton, I
    refused to do it. Every time, I chose to go to the dungeon.
    $0.02 cents an hour, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. That is the
    pay that decided that makes us human and not slaves.
        Those $0.02 cents never made me feel better than how I know
    my ancestors felt. I felt humiliated every time I had to use
    the restroom in the field, every time a horse defecated in my
    path as I walked to a work site, every time a guard refused to
    let me use the restroom with threats to write me up, every time
    a white field foreman called the whole line ``Ns'' or ``Boys,''
    and every time a guard took their anger out on me while I
    worked.
        Was the modern version of slavery better than better for me
    than it was for my ancestors? $0.02 cents is what separates
    17th century slavery and 21st century slavery. The dungeon
    replaces the whip as punishment. The dungeon is a place of
    humiliation where you are stripped of all your possessions and
    placed in a jump jumpsuit. You can only have a toothbrush and
    toothpaste, nothing else. Just you and your thoughts, and the
    sounds of people losing their minds, or fighting, or being
    beaten to death.
        After 25 years being forced to work in fields, I was
    assigned as a tier walker. A job that forces you to be an
    inmate guard. The job requires me to walk up and down the
    extended lockdown tiers for hours, making sure that no one was
    trying to commit suicide. You become a security guard and a
    mental health worker, while being labeled as a rat.
        I also attended the culinary school of arts in Angola, and
    once I completed the course, I became a kitchen worker. My last
    job was a nurse's aide, a job that changed my life forever,
    taking care of people who were dying and could no longer take
    care of themselves. Showing care and compassion for guys in
    their final days. That truly changed me.
        Thirty years of incarceration at hard labor. I never made
    more than $0.16 cents an hour. It would've been easy to come
    home and never look back, but when I was released, I found my
    old neighborhood plagued with violence and a lack of resources.
        So, I immediately knew what I needed to do. I founded my
    organization, PIPE, Priorities, Intentions, And Practical
    Exchanges. Our mission was and remains today to make life
    better for our community members, especially our youth, while
    working with former incarcerated people in their reentry
    process.
        Post-incarceration syndrome is real and our people need
    support. I still think about my family all those years serving
    time with me. I think about the families of people who are
    incarcerated today. All of them directly impacted as well. My
    goal during the work I do is to keep our communities safe and
    thriving. I believe we can create a system that does not simply
    punish perpetrators, but works with them while investing in our
    community and taking care of victims.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Winn appears as a submission
    for the record.]
        Chair Booker. Thank you, Mr. Winn. Ms. Turner.

             STATEMENT OF JENNIFER TURNER, PRINCIPAL HUMAN

                      RIGHTS RESEARCHER, AMERICAN
               CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK

        Ms. Turner. Chairman Booker, Ranking Member Cotton, and
    distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
    American Civil Liberties Union, I thank you for the privilege
    of testifying before this Subcommittee today.
        Incarcerated labor has a long and problematic history in
    the United States rooted in racial oppression. The roots of
    modern day prison labor programs can be traced to the end of
    the Civil War and the passage of the 13th Amendment to the
    Constitution, which outlawed slavery and involuntary servitude
    except as punishment for a crime.
        Given this gaping loophole, States turn to incarcerated
    labor as a means of partially replacing chattel slavery in the
    free labor force slavery provided. Today, our Nation
    incarcerates over 1.2 million people in State and federal
    prisons, and two out of three of these incarcerated people are
    also workers.
        In most instances, the jobs these people in prisons have
    look similar to those of millions of people working on the
    outside. They work as cooks, janitors, and groundskeepers, or
    in laundries and factories.
        Outside the prison walls, incarcerated people provide vital
    public services such as repairing roads, fighting wildfires, or
    clearing debris after hurricanes. They cultivate and harvest
    crops, some on penal plantations situated on land that was
    originally the site of slave plantations.
        But there are two crucial differences. Incarcerated workers
    are under the complete control of their employers, and they've
    been stripped of even the most minimal protections against
    labor exploitation and abuse. From the moment they enter the
    prison gates, they can be forced to work.
        More than 76 percent of incarcerated workers report that
    they're required to work or face additional punishment, such as
    solitary confinement, denial of opportunities to reduce their
    sentence and loss of family visitation. Illness, injury,
    disability, or physical inability to work often does not
    relieve them of work duties.
        U.S. law explicitly excludes incarcerated workers from the
    most universally recognized workplace protections, including
    health and safety laws. Incarcerated people sometimes work in
    dangerous industrial settings or hazardous conditions that
    would be closely regulated and monitored if they were not
    incarcerated.
        Workers are assigned work in unsafe conditions without the
    standard training or protective gear provided in workplaces,
    outside prisons. In numerous cases, we documented nationwide
    serious injuries and deaths could have been prevented with
    proper training, machine guarding mechanisms, or personal
    protective equipment.
        Incarcerated workers are not covered by minimum wage laws
    and are paid on average $0.13 cents to $0.52 cents per hour in
    non-industry jobs. More than 80 percent have maintenance jobs
    that support the operation of the prison facilities and are
    compensated at the lower end of prison pay scales. In seven
    States, incarcerated people are paid nothing at all for most
    jobs.
        Even if an incarcerated worker earns pennies, these low
    wages are not theirs to keep. Across the country, prisons
    deduct as much as 80 percent from incarcerated people's
    paychecks for room, and board, and legal financial obligations.
        In the federal prison system, 59 percent of the wages
    earned by incarcerated workers employed in the Federal Prison
    Industries Program was deducted by the Federal Government.
    Prison systems charge incarcerated people, exorbitant costs for
    basic necessities like phone calls home, decent food, hygiene
    products, and medical care.
        Families, many of whom are impoverished themselves, spend
    an estimated $2.9 billion a year on commissary accounts and
    phone calls. Over half of these families are forced to go into
    debt to afford the cost of a relative's conviction and
    subsequent incarceration.
        However, someone is profiting in the American prison
    system. Incarcerated workers produce real profits for State
    prisons and State governments, the primary beneficiaries of
    forced prison labor. Nationally incarcerated workers produce
    more than $2 billion a year in goods and commodities, and over
    $9 billion a year in services for the maintenance of the
    prisons where they're warehoused.
        The captive labor system of American prisons hides the
    staggering cost of our country's bloated prison system. The
    promise of providing incarcerated people with transferrable
    skills and work experience for their eventual reentry into
    society often proves illusory.
        In reality, the vast majority of work programs in prisons
    involve menial and repetitive tasks that provide workers with
    no marketable skills or training. Prison industries jobs, and
    vocational training programs are declining.
        Studies show that people who had some savings when they
    leave prison and got jobs after their release were less likely
    to recidivate than those who did not. We all have an interest
    in prison work being something beyond pure punitive
    exploitation. Yet, despite the potential for prison labor to
    facilitate rehabilitation, the existing system very often
    offers nothing beyond exploitation.
        It does not have to be this way. Work in prisons could be
    truly voluntary, conditions could be safe, jobs could provide
    incarcerated people with marketable skills and vocational
    training that will help them to find employment after release.
    Incarcerated workers should be paid a fair wage that enables
    them to save for the future, support their families, and sets
    them up for successful reentry.
        To move in this direction, we first must end forced labor
    without exception by repealing Federal and State Constitutional
    exception clauses, and guarantee incarcerated workers the
    standard labor protections available to other workers in the
    United States, including minimum wages, overtime pay, health
    and safety standards, unionization and collective bargaining,
    and protection from discrimination and retaliation.
        These recommendations are incorporated into the legislation
    led by Senator Booker and the ACLU has endorsed each of these
    bills.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and provide
    background and context for the Subcommittee's important work.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Turner appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Booker. Thank you very much, Ms. Turner. Mr. Lehman.

                     STATEMENT OF CHARLES LEHMAN,
              FELLOW, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Lehman. Thank you, Senator, and thank you to the
    Committee for the opportunity to address you.
        As you're aware, there are some 1.2 million people in
    American prisons today. Ninety-five percent will eventually
    return home. A key question for today's hearing is whether
    their work in prison will prepare them for that return.
        I am an analyst to public policy. I am not here to speak to
    the legal or normative merits of prison labor. Rather, I want
    to make a simple argument. Prison labor makes offenders more
    employable post-release and thus less likely to re-offend.
    Consequently, prison labor should be viewed as part of
    rehabilitation, not an impediment to it.
        Many criminals re-offend. Among a cohort of prisoners
    released in 2008, two-thirds were rearrested within 3 years.
    Reducing recidivism benefits offenders, taxpayers, and society
    at large.
        The relationship between crime and employment is not
    straightforward. Nonetheless, some evidence indicates that
    employment conditions affect recidivism risk. One study of 4
    million prisoners found that those released into worse labor
    market conditions are more likely to re-offend all else equal.
        Data on 1.7 million California releasees repeats this
    finding, specifically showing employment in construction and
    manufacturing reduced recidivism. Why might employment reduce
    recidivism? Most obvious reason is that licit wages discourage
    criminal employment. Research finds that more money reduces
    risk of property but not violent crime, consistent with a model
    in which property crime and work substitute.
        Beyond the simple relationship, employment might impose
    pro-social norms, relieve social pressures, or simply limit
    opportunities for offending. The employment-recidivism
    relationship is particularly important in the context of
    incarceration. Incarceration's effect on recidivism is complex.
    Nonetheless, when incarceration causes recidivism, it is likely
    by making the offender less employable.
        One widely set analysis of Texas data found that
    incarceration caused significant increases in re-offending,
    reduced subsequent employment and earnings, and increased
    dependence on public welfare. Analysis of a cohort of Hungarian
    offenders provide similar evidence on prison's effect on
    employment.
        Why does incarceration reduce employment? Most obviously, a
    criminal record scares off employers. In one recent survey of
    nearly 1,000 U.S. businesses, less than 40 percent were willing
    to hire someone with a criminal record. If employment prevents
    recidivism, and if prison can increase recidivism by reducing
    employment, crime control policy must help those returning from
    prison to get jobs.
        How can we do this? One populous solution is to make it
    harder for employers to discriminate against offenders. Many
    States have implanted policies that automatically expunge
    records and prohibit asking applicants of their criminal
    background. Unfortunately, these policies do not have their
    intended effects and could harm otherwise disadvantage non-
    offenders.
        Research on Massachusetts ``Ban the Box'' law found that it
    actually decreased ex-offenders employment. The laws also
    increased discrimination against Black men. Our research has
    further found that ``Ban the Box'' reduced young Black men's
    employment by 3 percentage points, and increased the employment
    gap between white and Black applicants. The evidence is
    similarly pessimistic for ``clean slate'' laws.
        Our recent comprehensive analysis examining three different
    clean slate initiatives finds that expungement has essentially
    no effect on employment on average. Policymakers therefore
    shouldn't prioritize making offenders employable.
        Few interventions are as obvious for this purpose as giving
    people jobs in prison. Evidence supports this approach. One
    analysis of 77,000 Indiana and Tennessee prisoners employed by
    private firms found that participation in prison work is
    associated with significant reductions in recidivism at the one
    and two year marks compared to a matched control group.
        Another following a cohort of 6,000 offenders released in
    Minnesota found that those who worked were 24 percent more
    likely than controls to find a job, worked more hours, and had
    higher total wages, and the number of hours working was
    significantly associated with lower recidivism rates.
        There's also benefit to prisoners working outside the
    prison walls. Evidence suggests that work-release prisoners
    being moved to low security facilities and being allowed out to
    work during the day improves employment outcomes and reduces
    recidivism for property, but not violent offenders or finding
    consistent with literature previously discussed.
        Other evidence comes from abroad. Research on Italian
    offenders found that among those serving more than 6 months,
    additional unskilled work reduced the reincarceration rate by
    between 3 and 10 percentage points.
        Another analysis found that incarceration in Norwegian
    prisons caused a steep reduction in re-offense, about 29
    percentage points, driven entirely by those who did not work
    prior to their incarceration. That group also saw an increase
    in future employment and earnings. To this last, some objected
    Norwegian prisons are not like American prisons. The former
    generally regarded as unusually humane. The latter is unusually
    inhumane.
        Bracket the fact that evidence from other nations and from
    U.S. States indicates that prison labor reduces recidivism. The
    basic problem of this view is that it assumes the quality of
    U.S. prisons cannot be affected by policy. There's much we
    don't know about what works in prison employment. This is a
    general problem. Most federal rehabilitation programming is not
    evidence-based.
        Any reforms to federal prison labor practices should
    incorporate a commitment to research on what works. That said,
    the evidence suggests that having incarcerated people work
    makes them more employable and less likely to re-offend. On
    this basis alone, we ought see prison labor as part of the
    rehabilitation equation.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lehman appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Booker. Thank you, Mr. Lehman. Helpful testimony.
    Professor Armstrong.

                   STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREA ARMSTRONG,

                             DR. NORMAN C. FRANCIS

               DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF LAW, LOYOLA UNIVERSITY

                     COLLEGE OF LAW, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

        Professor Armstrong. Good afternoon, Chairman Booker,
    Ranking Member Cotton, Members of the Subcommittee, and Senator
    Kennedy. Thank you.
        I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    And as Senator Booker mentioned, I teach in the areas of
    constitutional law and criminal law. I also research
    incarceration, law and policy. I have also visited and audited
    prisons and jails across the country.
        In March, 2024, Mr. Farrell Scarborough, an incarcerated
    worker at Louisiana State Penitentiary, died after falling from
    a flatbed truck and being crushed by heavy lockers. According
    to the incarcerated witnesses, there were no guard rails or
    safety straps on that truck.
        And unfortunately, Mr. Scarborough is not the only
    preventable death that has occurred in the incarcerated
    workplace. The Associated Press has documented deaths and
    significant injuries, including amputations of incarcerated
    workers across the Nation.
        In a 2021 law review article, ``Beyond the 13th,'' I
    discussed four key features of the American incarcerated labor
    system. Incarcerated people are forced to work for little, or
    even no pay, in some States, in dangerous working conditions
    with little value for themselves, their communities, or in
    fact, public safety.
        Today though, I just want to highlight two features of that
    system. One, the coercive context in which incarcerated labor
    occurs, and two, the lack of legal protection for incarcerated
    work conditions.
        So let's go to the first. When you are in the 24 hour a
    day, 7 days a week custody of your employer, employee
    discipline looks different. It can be much more severe. If your
    supervisor, who is also a prison guard, is not pleased by your
    work or your job performance, he can send you to solitary
    confinement. He can deny you visits with your children or with
    your spouse. These prison guard decisions are really difficult
    to challenge after the fact.
        The Prison Litigation Reform Act makes it hard to access
    federal courts, and even if you make it to court, legal
    doctrines defer to prison guard decisionmaking. The possibility
    of severe punishment can also deter incarcerated workers from
    advocating for their own safety.
        Refusing to work in dangerous conditions could even lead to
    new criminal charges and new sentences in some States. And we,
    the general public, have no idea because this forced labor
    occurs in spaces that lack independent oversight, transparency,
    and accountability.
        The second point I want to emphasize is that incarcerated
    workers are generally unprotected by existing employment and
    workspace law. Incarcerated workers, especially those who are
    working for the prison itself on prison grounds, are often not
    considered ``employees'' by federal agencies or by courts. This
    is in part because Congress has been silent on the matter.
        The lack of workplace protection is compounded by the lack
    of remedies for job-related injuries. This coercive context of
    incarcerated labor, combined with the lack of protection or
    remedies, makes incarcerated labor exploitative and dangerous.
        Working conditions behind bars can kill and injure
    incarcerated workers. It burdens families, it stretches staff
    and resources, and can undermine essential purpose of
    incarceration, namely, to ensure that crimes do not reoccur.
        But we can choose a different path. If the goal is better
    public safety through reducing recidivism, we can make
    incarcerated labor look like free labor, and that will better
    prepare incarcerated workers for future freedom. This could
    include measures to protect incarcerated workers and
    workplaces, easing access to courts and enhancing transparency,
    including data on work-related injuries and discipline.
        In conclusion, incarceration law and incarceration labor
    touches us all. Some of us send money to support a loved one
    behind bars because they only earn pennies a day. This hurts
    rural, poor, and minority communities in particular.
        Some of us buy goods from private corporations that were
    produced with prison labor. And prisons are also our
    institutions. They operate in our name with our tax dollars,
    and when incarcerated labor is exploitative, it undermines
    public trust and legitimacy of our criminal justice system. I
    urge this Subcommittee to treat these issues with the urgent
    attention that they deserve.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share my research, and
    thank you for holding this hearing.
        [The prepared statement of Professor Armstrong appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Booker. Thank you, Professor Armstrong.
        I'm going to defer to my colleagues who, I think, may have
    other places to go. And we'll start with Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Booker.
        Yes, indeed. We are excited about an--I'm not going to
    preempt the announcement, but some good news coming out of the
    Bureau of Reclamation at Department of Interior this afternoon
    for California water users. Okay, I'll leave it at that for
    now, but appreciate the flexibility here. And thank you to all
    the witnesses for participating today.
        You know, to help address the growing wildfire threat
    facing California, we have long relied on the Conservation Camp
    Program, which is our State Department of Corrections volunteer
    firefighting program. The incarcerated individuals who
    volunteer to join the conservation camp program have, at times,
    comprised of to 40 percent of the State's total firefighting
    force. So it's not insignificant.
        And I do want to make it a point to emphasize the voluntary
    nature of this program. It's voluntary, but so attractive that
    we've often see waiting lists for incarcerated individuals who
    want to participate in the program.
        Now, many participants in California's firefighting program
    have described the experience as valuable for building real
    life skills. And more than 300 formerly incarcerated
    firefighters have used these qualifications and actual
    certifications--it's not just the skills, the training and the
    experience, but certification--to go on to earn a job with Cal
    Fire, the State's firefighting force.
        I think this program can serve as a model for how we help
    incarcerated individuals develop useful skills and the
    necessary certifications to help them find meaningful well-
    paying work post-release.
        My first question is for Ms. Armstrong. How can we build on
    this model in California to help establish clear links between
    prison labor work and opportunities for employment post-
    release?
        Professor Armstrong. One of the most significant features,
    I believe, of the California system is the fact that legal
    roadblocks to people serving as firefighters upon release were
    removed, right?
        And so when we think about what happens behind bars, the
    things that people are trained for, it is also just as
    important to look at; are there barriers to them assuming those
    professions and vocations after the fact?
        The second thing that I would mention about the California
    program is something that I hear from other programs, and I
    believe Mr. Winn also mentioned today, which is being trained
    in the helping professions; teaching, tutoring, nursing. Those
    professions that help others can be life-changing in terms of
    the rehabilitative potential of prisons. Thank you.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. And sort of a follow up
    question for Ms. Turner, can you speak to the issue of helping
    incarcerated individuals obtain the necessary certifications
    themselves to actually utilize the skills they're developing in
    post-release work?
        Ms. Turner. Yes. Thank you for your question, Senator. Yes,
    this is an important feature of vocational programs that will
    be successful and set people up for success upon release. But
    the reality is that more than 80 percent of incarcerated
    workers are engaged in maintenance work. That isn't setting
    them up for those jobs.
        But, certainly, the path forward requires us to expand
    these vocational programs, to expand job opportunities that can
    directly lead to work opportunities after lease, including
    direct lines to employment, letters of recommendation, skills
    training in industries that are projected to increase in the
    workforce.
        The reality is that many, even of our vocational programs,
    are in areas of work that are declining. Legislative oversight
    of prison industries programs in Texas and Mississippi, for
    instance, found that they were training people in jobs that are
    little to no job prospects such as garment industry,
    manufacturing, or farm work. But there are examples of programs
    and opportunities here to provide people with the training that
    will set them up for gaining stable employment after they're
    released from prison.
        Senator Padilla. So I know there's different types of
    vocational programs. You see examples----
        Ms. Turner. Absolutely.
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. In States across the country.
    Coming back to California for a second. Now, California takes
    steps to ensure that the wildfire work which comes with risks,
    it's not easy, it can be dangerous, so it's important to make
    sure that the program is truly voluntary. We're not forcing
    inmates to perform this work.
        But how often are incarcerated individuals recruited to
    work jobs, and how do we make sure that they are not being
    forced to work? Can you comment on what policies and safeguards
    should be in place to ensure that it's truly voluntary and not
    forced labor?
        Ms. Turner. Sure. So currently nearly all States in the
    federal prison have compulsory work programs and there are
    clear punishments levied against people who are unwilling or
    unable to perform the job assigned to them, including solitary
    confinement, denial of good time credits, or opportunities to
    reduce their sentence, and denial of access to call home or
    have family visitation. We need to end these punishments.
        We also need to amend the 13th Amendment and State
    exclusion clauses that permit forced labor and slavery for
    people convicted of a crime. But the implementation is
    important as well, ending punishments that are levied against
    people for inability or refusal to work, and ensuring that when
    people are unable to work because of a disability, infirmity,
    age, will receive permission not to perform the job assigned to
    them, including people with disabilities.
        And we need to comply with existing federal disability
    laws, which most prisons are not doing so with respect to job
    assignments for people with disabilities.
        Senator Padilla. Okay. Thank you.
        Ms. Turner. And I just wanted to add, California is not
    alone in using incarcerated workers to fight wildfires. It's
    one of at least 14 States that does so. And not all these
    programs are fully voluntary, and we have seen serious injuries
    and deaths result from this work, both for non-incarcerated and
    incarcerated workers.
        But when people are desperate to support themselves and
    need to support themselves while incarcerated and facing legal
    and financial obligations--that $1 an hour, for instance, in
    California is a very powerful incentive. And we see some States
    truly rely on incarcerated workers to perform this work.
        Including for instance, Georgia, one-third of counties rely
    on incarcerated firefighters to respond to motor vehicle
    accidents, wildfires, and house fires, and these workers are
    not paid a cent for their work.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I appreciate the
    accommodation.
        Chair Booker. Thank you very much. Senator Cotton.
        Senator Cotton. Ms. Turner, in your opening statement you
    called the so-called Exception Clause of the 13th Amendment,
    ``a gaping loophole.'' Do you believe that is a loophole?
        Ms. Turner. I do. I do. It is the foundation of prison
    labor programs today, and it led to the labor programs we have
    today that we have truly have forced labor.
        Senator Cotton. So you think loophole implies it was
    unintended, or accidental, or omission. You think the people
    who drafted the 13th Amendment and ratified it didn't know what
    they were doing?
        Ms. Turner. Oh, I think it was absolutely intentional, and
    it allowed for the use of incarcerated people to replace this
    free slave force provided by chattel slavery. And we saw in
    some States, for instance, in Texas, following the passage of
    13th Amendment, the State of Texas purchased 10 plantations and
    began running them as prisons, some of which still run today.
        Senator Cotton. Did prisons use labor before the 13th
    Amendment was passed?
        Ms. Turner. Yes. So it was just continuing a longstanding
    practice. It wasn't replacing anything.
        Ms. Turner. It expanded. It expanded. It allowed for the
    expansion of prison labor programs, and in fact, became so
    lucrative that it led to passage of laws such as the Black
    Codes that encouraged the reincarceration of Black men on
    specialist charges to continue to work in prisons and to
    provide profit for prisons both in the North and in the South.
        Senator Cotton. So, and it's your testimony that we need to
    have a constitutional amendment to repeal that clause?
        Ms. Turner. Yes----
        Senator Cotton. Okay okay.
        Ms. Turner [continuing]. There's no place for forced labor
    in the United States.
        Senator Cotton. Mr. Lehman, as I already mentioned in my
    opening remarks, in 1930, this Committee, ``unanimously
    conceded that idleness in prison breeds disorder and that
    prison jobs help maintain orders in prison by reducing idle
    time.'' Does modern day research back up that assertion from
    almost 100 years ago?
        Mr. Lehman. In generally, yes. Although I think it's an
    undervalued question. The Minnesota study, I said it earlier,
    finds that there's a strong association between the fraction of
    time that's spent working and the level of misconduct
    declining.
        That study cites prior research including, I believe, a
    study of the federal prison employment system, then called
    UNICOR, which finds that compared to matched controls, people
    who work are less likely to engage in misconduct in prisons.
    And the causal story is pretty straightforward. If you're
    working, it's hard to engage in misconduct.
        Senator Cotton. Okay. And the Committee back then also
    found that prison jobs help inmates acquire, ``the habits of
    industry.'' Is that still the case today?
        Mr. Lehman. Yes. And I think the strongest finding in the
    evidence is that prison labor, even unskilled prison labor--and
    this goes back to the study of Italian workers--even unskilled
    prison labor increases labor force involvement, increases
    wages, increases earnings following incarceration. That to me
    says if it does nothing else, prison labor is a way to improve
    people's labor market outcomes after they leave prison.
        Senator Cotton. Okay. Senator Booker has a bill that would
    require prisons to pay inmates the same federal minimum wage
    that law abiding American workers outside prison are entitled
    to receive. I want to explore the financial pressures that
    Americans face today, thanks to Joe Biden's inflationary
    economy. Do prison inmates have to pay for rent or mortgage?
        Mr. Lehman. Not to the best of my knowledge, Senator.
        Senator Cotton. Pay for grocery bills?
        Mr. Lehman. I don't believe so, Senator.
        Senator Cotton. Car payments?
        Mr. Lehman. No, sir.
        Senator Cotton. Insurance payments?
        Mr. Lehman. No, sir.
        Senator Cotton. Gas to drive to work?
        Mr. Lehman. Not to the best of my knowledge.
        Senator Cotton. Any other daily expenses that most law
    abiding American citizens have to worry about?
        Mr. Lehman. With certain conspicuous exemptions in some
    States in general, no, prisoners are not responsible for those.
        Senator Cotton. Okay. If prisons were forced to pay inmates
    those higher wages, probably a lot higher than what the current
    minimum wage is, given other democratic proposals, who is
    ultimately going to be paying for those higher wages?
        Mr. Lehman. In context where they're employed by the State
    or other public entities. The taxpayer ultimately funds those
    public entities. If they're employed by, indirectly, by private
    employers, then the people who are paying for those private
    employers. But that makes their labor much less competitive in
    that context.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chair Booker. Mr. Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Turner, I want to be sure I understand your testimony.
    You think prison labor should be voluntary? Is that the ACLU
    position?
        Ms. Turner. Yes. The majority of workers----
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. And do you think----
        Ms. Turner. I'm sorry, my microphone was off. If I may
    answer on my----
        Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am. Did you answer yes?
        Ms. Turner. My answer is that the majority of incarcerated
    workers wish to work, but it is vital that that work be truly
    voluntary, and that there is no place to force labor in the
    United States.
        Senator Kennedy. So that's yes?
        Ms. Turner. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. And you think that prisoners who do
    work are underpaid? Is that the ACLU position?
        Ms. Turner. They are underpaid or unpaid. In your State
    many of those workers are unpaid.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Let's take a maintenance worker,
    which I assume includes people working in the kitchen. What do
    you think the starting pay ought to be, in my State for a
    prisoner?
        Ms. Turner. Workers should be paid the minimum wage of the
    State where they live. And there are true fiscal arguments in
    favor----
        Senator Kennedy. Minimum wage?
        Ms. Turner. Minimum wage, yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you think prisoners should have a
    401(k)?
        Ms. Turner. My opinion is not what we're asking about. I'm
    here to provide information and context for the Committee.
        Senator Kennedy. Ma'am, do you think prisoners should be
    provided with a 401(k)?
        Ms. Turner. If I may answer, the reality is that if we paid
    incarcerated workers a minimum wage, it would have net fiscal
    benefits for the United States.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am, I'm trying to ask you about
    benefits.
        Ms. Turner. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you think they should be provided with
    a 401(k)?
        Ms. Turner. Workers should be eligible to earn into the
    social safety net. If they're paid minimum wage, workers will
    be able to earn into Social Security benefits to support
    themselves.
        Senator Kennedy. Is that a yes or no?
        Ms. Turner. That does not include a 401(k), but I'm talking
    about basic social safety net.
        Senator Kennedy. You think prisoners should be entitled to
    paid vacation?
        Ms. Turner. Workers should be entitled to workers'
    compensation when they're injured or maimed on the job, which
    happens all too often.
        Senator Kennedy. So they should be covered under our
    workers' comp law?
        Ms. Turner. Yes, absolutely. Prisoners----
        Senator Kennedy. Should prisoners----
        Ms. Turner [continuing]. Are working in dangerous
    conditions.
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Be allowed to unionize?
        Ms. Turner. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. You believe that too? Okay.
        Ms. Turner. It's vital that workers be able----
        Senator Kennedy. Should prisoners be provided with health
    insurance matched by their employer?
        Ms. Turner. Workers should be covered by workplace health
    and safety guarantees.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am, what about health insurance?
        Ms. Turner. Incarcerated people are already guaranteed a
    basic standard of healthcare, so they don't--that is already
    guaranteed by U.S. law.
        Senator Kennedy. So they don't have health insurance?
        Ms. Turner. They're already guaranteed that even though the
    medical care they receive is usually substandard and when
    they're injured on the job, they often receive substandard
    care. They are already guaranteed by law, basic healthcare
    protections while incarcerated.
        Senator Kennedy. Mr. Winn, just to when what crime did you
    commit?
        Mr. Winn. Second degree murder and attempted second degree
    murder.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Who did you murder?
        Mr. Winn. Jeffrey Owens.
        Senator Kennedy. Jeffrey Owens?
        Mr. Winn. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. Why did you murder him?
        Mr. Winn. I was a 16-year-old kid. Me and Dejuan had a
    confrontation, and Jeffrey was an innocent bystander.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. So you shot Jeffrey by accident?
        Mr. Winn. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. You intended to murder somebody else?
        Mr. Winn. I was defending myself against Dejuan Lewis.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. You shot at Mr. Lewis?
        Mr. Winn. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. And you missed?
        Mr. Winn. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. And you hit Mr.--what was his name?
        Mr. Winn. Mr. Jeffrey Owens.
        Senator Kennedy. Mr. Owens? Okay.
        Mr. Winn. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. Did Mr. Owens have a mother?
        Mr. Winn. I think everybody born in the world has a mother.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes. But was his mother alive----
        Mr. Winn. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. When you killed him?
        Mr. Winn. She's still alive.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Did Mr. Owens have a father?
        Mr. Winn. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. He was alive when you killed him?
        Mr. Winn. I don't know about his father's----
        Senator Kennedy. You never checked?
        Mr. Winn. I mean, as a prisoner in Louisiana, you cannot
    check on those type of things.
        Senator Kennedy. Did Mr. Owens have any brothers or
    sisters?
        Mr. Winn. Yes, he did.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. How many?
        Mr. Winn. I don't know.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. You mentioned that your mother cried
    when you were sent to Angola. Do you know how Mr. Owen's mother
    felt? Have you ever reached out to them?
        Mr. Winn. May I ask you a question, Senator?
        Senator Kennedy. Well, answer mine first.
        Mr. Winn. I would answer yours.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay.
        Mr. Winn. And you're asking me questions that an
    incarcerated person cannot answer. I don't know what Jeffrey
    Owen's mother did, but human anatomy tells me that yes, his
    mother had to cry because she lost a son that she brought into
    the world. His father, if he was living, he should have cried.
    His brother cried.
        Senator Kennedy. Did you ever reach out to Mr. Owens'
    family?
        Mr. Winn. Sir, you're a Senator from Louisiana? If a person
    like me that was incarcerated reached out to any person that's
    a victim, that's a sentence. You go to prison for that. And I
    was already in prison, so that's a different sentence.
        Senator Kennedy. So you couldn't----
        Mr. Winn. No.
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Even write?
        Mr. Winn. By law, you cannot reach out to the victim or the
    victim's family.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, I will tell you. I came today
    because I thought we were going to have a--and I hoped we were
    going to have a rational discussion based on empirical evidence
    on a very complex, nuanced subject. And frankly, I'm
    disappointed, you know, Ms. Turner, Professor. I just don't
    think these emotional arguments are at all productive in us
    trying to solve a problem.
        You know, people are in prison for a reason. I believe in
    free will. I get the impression that the ACLU position and the
    professor's position, I don't know about Mr. Winn's position,
    is that you feel sorry for these folks who are in prison. I
    wish they weren't there too, but they're there for a reason
    that really hurt somebody.
        In Mr. Winn's case, he murdered somebody. He actually
    killed somebody by accident. He meant to kill this person, and
    he shot this other person. He could have killed two. And I'm
    kind of disappointed in--we're going to solve this problem with
    emotional arguments from people who don't believe in free will
    and responsibility. That's just my point of view.
        But I thank you for being here, and I'll say this
    Professor. I was struck, Professor Armstrong, you keep talking
    about coercive context. That the prisoners are working in a
    coercive context. It's prison. Prison is a coercive context,
    and people are there for a reason. And I think you're in la-la
    land if you don't recognize that.
        Professor Armstrong. May I respond to that?
        Senator Kennedy. Sure, you can respond.
        Professor Armstrong. Thank you so much. So I think the
    point is in fact that it is prison, but it is when prison is
    combined with being forced to work in certain environments that
    it can lead to dangerous conditions. And so I think about----
        Senator Kennedy. But you have no empirical evidence of
    that.
        Professor Armstrong. Actually, I think that I do. So
    another life of mine is----
        Senator Kennedy. We can all cherry pick--I mean, people who
    work get hurt sometimes----
        Professor Armstrong. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Whether you're in prison or
    you're out.
        Professor Armstrong. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay.
        Professor Armstrong. So I agree. What I'm talking about,
    and I think is really important to remember, is that our
    incredible system of justice will sentence somebody to a
    certain number of years. But what they're not sentenced to is
    to lose a limb or to lose a finger because they're working on
    defective equipment. Equipment that isn't subject to the same
    rules, simply the location of a printing press, whether it's
    behind the wall or something that is out in the free world. Its
    location should not determine to what extent it is a regulated
    piece of equipment.
        Senator Kennedy. And you make a valid point. But I've read
    some of your writings and some of your work, and I just get the
    impression that that that you almost think we shouldn't have
    prisons. That people there is no free will that that people
    don't choose to commit crimes. And then if they do, they
    shouldn't be held responsible for them. And I just don't think
    that's--you're entitled to that opinion. It's America.
        Professor Armstrong. I don't think I've written that
    anywhere.
        Senator Kennedy. Your entitled to teach your kids that. But
    I don't think most fair-minded Americans agree with you, and
    that's just my opinion. I'm happy to have this discussion. I
    thank my friend, Senator Booker for calling it. But you all
    seem to forget the fact that we're talking about prison folks,
    and people are in prison for a reason, and they're there--no
    ma'am, Ms. Turner, I'm going to have my say. I understand the
    ACLU position. I'm glad you're not in charge because we'd have
    a lot more people hurt in this country.
        Professor Armstrong. I'd love to continue the conversation
    with you, Senator Kennedy.
        Chair Booker. You can continue the conversation with me.
    I'm grateful for my friend and his sincere questioning. I want
    to just jump right in on some of the things that he brought up.
    And let's just talk about the workers' safety rules that we've
    done for Americans. It's called OSHA.
        And there are certain things we've done that we think it's
    horrific if we don't do them to protect people from everything,
    from the off-gassing of chemicals, to as you said, a printing
    press that might have unsafe safety features. When you go into
    prison, those basic worker standards that protect people from
    all kind of injury, do they apply in prison, Professor
    Armstrong?
        Professor Armstrong. So the general rule is we don't expect
    them to apply, especially for things that are happening behind
    the wire. Now, there are limited circumstances where a State
    which has adopted its own OSHA Act can in fact choose to cover.
        But even then, we see according to research by the National
    Employment Labor Project, that those States have also made a
    choice not to cover incarcerated workplaces. And so, it really
    does lead to this anomaly where the same activity, the same
    equipment, is regulated when it's outside, but not inside.
        Chair Booker. So what statutory protections in general are
    there for people that are behind bars when they're working?
        Professor Armstrong. Well, I don't think that we have a
    specific statutory protection, federal or State, for people who
    were working behind bars.
        Chair Booker. And so, again, I agree with some of the
    general statements from my colleagues that if you have done a
    crime, there should be a related punishment. But work in some
    environments, like Mr. Winn was describing, where there's no
    regulation for heat exhaustion, for access to water, or access
    to facilities, things that we would consider putting workers
    out in those conditions almost torturous to just a human being.
        That's why the advocacy that we're hearing is that there
    should be some kind of protections against that kind of extreme
    punishment. Is that right?
        Professor Armstrong. That's correct. And I would just
    mention two additional things. One, is thinking about the
    provision of safety gear, right? And so, for example, there are
    cases where people have fallen off of roofs because they didn't
    have safety belts, or toe holds, or knee pads. And so thinking
    about not just what rules govern the equipment, but also are
    they being provided with safety glasses and safety gear?
        I think the other part of it is really thinking about the
    ways in which what we sentence people to, we sentence them to
    years, not particular injuries, and certainly not to
    amputations.
        Chair Booker. Okay. And Ms. Turner, I just want to say that
    you tried to say a few things. I just want to give you an
    opportunity to more fully respond just for the record----
        Ms. Turner. Oh, thank you.
        Chair Booker [continuing]. To some of those issues.
        Ms. Turner. Yes. Thank you. Well, Senator Kennedy raised
    the issue of wages. He also raised the issue of victims of
    crime. And there's a true fiscal argument for paying
    incarcerated workers minimum wage. To pay them a fair wage
    would actually generate revenue over the long term, and it
    would benefit victims of crime who would be paid victim
    restitution.
        Currently, incarcerated people are saddled with debts for
    victim restitution. They're unable to pay back when they're
    released from prison, maintain those debts, and struggle to pay
    them back. If incarcerated workers are paid a minimum wage,
    they'll be able to pay restitution that will put money in the
    hands of victims of crime.
        It will also allow them to pay child support and support
    their families who are currently going into debt to support
    their loved one while they're incarcerated. It will allow
    incarcerated people to become self-sufficient and to have some
    savings to set them up for success upon release. Studies do
    show that some savings upon release sets people up for success
    and reduces recidivism. It allows them to gain stable housing,
    stable employment that in addition, generates tax revenue when
    this income is taxed.
        Chair Booker. And Senator Cotton came off very common
    sense. Well, we make a minimum wage for law abiding citizens,
    and they have to pay rent, they have to pay this. How do you
    respond to that? Really what sounded very logical.
        Ms. Turner. The reality is incarcerated workers are
    currently paid pennies per hour, and they don't even see that
    much. As much as 80 percent are deducted. And in the majority
    of States, room and board is one of those deductions.
        In the Federal PIECP Program, in which incarcerated workers
    are employed directly by private corporations and are paid a
    prevailing wage by law--it's a very small number of workers--
    but over two-thirds of their wages are deducted for room and
    board.
        The reality, too, is that incarcerated people are forced to
    pay incredibly extortion sums to stay in contact with loved
    ones, to buy warm clothing, medication, medical copays. And
    these fees buildup. And their family members who are already
    impoverished or struggling from the loss of the income from
    their loved one who's incarcerated, have to step into the
    breach. And more than half of them go into debt to support
    their loved ones in incarceration.
        Chair Booker. Right. And that's what I wanted to clarify. I
    want to shift to Senator Durbin in a second, but that
    incarcerated people actually do pay, are charged for rent.
        Ms. Turner. Absolutely.
        Chair Booker. They actually are charged for numerous things
    on top of that. And should they be making a minimum wage, those
    charges now seem much more rational. Yet, at the same time,
    from sanitary napkins to telephone calls. I've been stunned on
    my visits to prisons how much it costs to buy a tampon in
    prison, a bar of soap, or to call a child. It's, as you said,
    usury rates.
        And so this idea that paying minimum wage would be, in some
    way, giving them lavish resources is just not true. In addition
    to the fact that you are citing the evidence that from victim
    restitution, child support payments, and more, how many times--
    and I know this--where a man goes to prison and has children
    from a divorced or separated mother who has no help whatsoever
    and raises that child in poverty.
        I'm very grateful that I'm going to go back to--I will
    resume because I really--Mr. Winn, I thank you for enduring
    that. I want to give you some more chance to talk. But I do
    want take a break for the Chairman of the entire Judiciary
    Committee. And I'm grateful that he's here, and I want to let
    him have his questioning.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Booker, for this hearing. And
    thank all of you for attending. I apologize. I was down one
    floor with the Secretary of State, Blinken, talking about the
    situation in our foreign policy and these conflicts are
    maddening because I wanted to be here, too. And it's difficult
    challenge.
        I've tried in my time on the Judiciary Committee in the few
    years that I've been Chairman to have a focus on incarceration.
    Much of it stems from an article, which I read many years ago
    by a man named at Atul Gawande, a medical doctor who now is
    working in the administration.
        He wrote about the impact of incarceration and particularly
    solitary confinement on prisoners, what impact it has on them
    as human beings. Who have on many people. And I've kind of
    taken up that cause with some success, limited success. I wish
    I would've been more. But Mr. Winn, as I read your life story
    and what you've been through; 30 years of incarceration, is
    that right?
        Mr. Winn. Yes, sir.
        Chair Durbin. Starting at the age of 16?
        Mr. Winn. Yes, sir.
        Chair Durbin. And now, how long have you been out of jail?
        Mr. Winn. July the 1st, it'll be 4 years.
        Chair Durbin. Four?
        Mr. Winn: Yes, sir.
        Chair Durbin. And I see that you're actively involved in a
    project to try to help others that face that challenge?
        Mr. Winn. Yes, sir.
        Chair Durbin. Tell me about that.
        Mr. Winn. Oh, I have an organization called PIPE, which
    stands for Priorities, Intentions and Practical Exchanges. And
    we do wraparound services for guys that's incarcerated coming
    home. We also speak on parole board hearings. We assist in
    filing risks for guys, and we do letter writing campaigns.
        We do prayer vigils, and we also mentor kids that's facing
    incarceration or are on the trajectory of going to prison. And
    we try to recorrect the way that they're thinking so that they
    don't make the bad decisions that we made to go to prison. So
    we just offer them programming so that they could be better
    human beings and more productive human beings.
        Chair Durbin. What is the highest priority for the ex-
    offender? What are they looking for when they're finally
    released?
        Mr. Winn. Mostly a job. Nothing else really matters because
    you playing catch up. So the average person--no, everybody just
    coming home, they're trying to take care of themselves. They
    come home, a lot of them come home, if you're coming home on
    parole, you're coming home with a debt, a debt that never
    stopped. So you've got to pay parole fees.
        So you need employment to pay those fees so that you don't
    go back to jail. So then you need transportation. You need a
    phone for communication, to see that whether or not you have a
    job. And it's hard, especially where I'm from in Shreveport,
    where second chances are really not fitted for you. It's like
    if you've got that ex-offender on your back, you don't really
    get a job. So a lot of times we have to make our own jobs.
        Chair Durbin. Ex-offenders in Chicago have some helping
    hands. We have a Congressman Danny Davis, who's one of the best
    in terms of finding ways to give incarcerated people a second
    chance. Many of them flock to the neighborhoods around where he
    lives. Many of the churches there are dedicated to it,
    organizations as well.
        Some of these people basically need identification cards so
    they can prove who they are because they've been gone for so
    long, they don't have a driver's license, they don't have
    anything they turn to in that regard.
        And I think we ought to go out of our way, if they want it,
    to give high praise to those employers who employ the ex-
    offenders.
        Mr. Winn. Yes
        Chair Durbin. I've got some friends of mine who are real
    estate developers in Chicago who look like high rollers, who
    could care less about the little guy. And they're the first to
    offer jobs for these people. And I think they deserve
    recognition. Many of them probably don't want to advertise it.
    They just want to do it, and that's the most important part.
        Have you seen that kind of cooperation from businesses?
        Mr. Winn. It's certain businesses that does the same thing.
    You know, you really have to just put them a part of your
    network so that they could give them. But a lot of times, the
    job industry, I could speak specifically for Shreveport because
    New Orleans is--it's much better in New Orleans because New
    Orleans is more of a city of a second chance. But in Shreveport
    it's just becoming a part of understanding the needs of guys
    that's coming home.
        So most people get a yard mowing yards or a lawn service
    job. It's easier for you to get, or the trucking industry opens
    its arms to people. So guys will go try to get their CDLs if
    they can pass that test, because that test in Louisiana is kind
    of hard. But guys will go out their way to try to get a
    trucking job.
        Chair Durbin. Let me just say--my time is finished here and
    I want to wrap up--I've kind of had this position for many
    years, and I stated every chance I get. I believe that every
    Member of Congress every 2 years should do two things. Visit a
    foreign country.
        Mr. Winn. Yes, sir.
        Chair Durbin. Because I don't believe you come to
    appreciate your home until you leave it. And second, visit a
    prison.
        Mr. Winn. Yes, sir.
        Chair Durbin. Visit a prison. We make so many decisions,
    particularly in the Judiciary Committee about crime and
    enforcement of crime, enforcement of law, and that sort of
    thing, and how we're going to teach somebody a lesson or make
    our country more safer.
        And we're doing it based on an image we saw in a movie
    somewhere instead of actually visiting a prison, and sitting
    down, and talking to the women and men who are there. It'll
    change your attitude instantly.
        I'm glad I had a chance to have a conversation with you
    today. Thanks, Mr. Winn.
        Thanks, Senator Booker.
        Chair Booker. Mr. Chairman. Before you leave, I just want
    to share something for the record, and I just give you so much
    credit for it. I came here a decade ago and the Chairman
    generously put me under his arm, and let me work with him on
    criminal justice.
        Chair Durbin. That's a lot to put under your arms.
        Chair Booker. Yes, it's a lot.
        [Laughter.]
        Chair Booker. Brought me to the White House in the first
    weeks I was here to sit around a table with then President
    Obama. So from its peak, just over a decade ago when I walked
    in to the Senate, over the last 10 years, our prison population
    is now down in America, 20 percent, representing 40 million
    fewer people who've experienced prisons or jails annually. The
    Black incarceration rate has been halved in those 10 years, and
    Black men now are more likely to graduate college than go to
    prison, which is a reversal from a decade ago.
        And this, which again, I want to say for my Republican
    colleagues, often, you know, correlation, causation, who knows.
    But during that same time, crime rates fell farther in the
    States that experienced the deepest declines in incarceration.
        Your leadership has been extraordinary on that; the fact
    that amidst a busy day with a lot of significant things going
    on. Thank you for taking the time.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you.
        Chair Booker. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
        I want to jump back in, Mr. Winn, with you because I just
    didn't feel that your voice was coming through in the previous
    questioning about your experiences. And I appreciate that you
    sort of enduring that questioning, and with good nature.
        You clearly know that you committed an awful violent crime
    at 16 years old. You were not tried as a 16-year-old. You were
    tried as an adult, and you got sentenced. Not for 30 years, you
    got sentenced to life until a supreme court advocated by
    Republicans and Democrats changed this idea that children
    should not have a lifetime imprisonment. And so you walked out
    after spending--coming in at 16, and then spending almost twice
    that time of your life behind bars.
        And you've dedicated your life, as many people I know in
    Newark, and he knows in Chicago, some of my most effective
    people in helping to lower recidivism rates are people who are
    like you, who come back with a determination to serve the
    lessons you learned, the struggles, the pain, the hardship, the
    shame that you went through.
        You are doing everything you can through your organization
    to try to make sure that others don't walk the same path as
    you. Is that correct, sir?
        Mr. Winn. Yes, sir.
        Chair Booker. Thank you. Now, there's one thing that's very
    clear to me, and I'm going to ask my colleagues about this as
    well, is that we, unlike prisons that we imagine in countries
    that we demonize sometimes, we don't believe in torturing
    prisoners. Is that correct, Mr. Winn? I said believe, not in
    actuality. We can discuss this in a second.
        Mr. Winn. Yes, sir. That's true.
        Chair Booker. No. Because I know that a lot of our peer
    nations call solitary confinement for juveniles torture because
    it is proven to have very negative effects on brain
    development. The majority of children like you were when you
    entered who commit suicide in prison, are those who have served
    time in solitary confinement. Our own psychological
    associations call it torture.
        And so for you to spend this time that you were, iterated
    to me, in the whole, as you called it, that I imagine as you
    said, hearing those screams and the challenges, I imagine that
    that was to you a very unbearable existence.
        Mr. Winn. Yes, sir. Oh, it was very unbearable. It makes
    you question yourself. Because the first time I was in the
    hole, which was for a work-related offense, and I was thinking,
    ``Man, how am I going to survive this?'' Because it was real
    dangerous at that time. But just those cells and people don't
    realize that being in solitary confinement, your mind tends to
    eat off itself because it's nothing to do. There's no one with
    you, you're by yourself.
        And so as a 17-year-old kid, you got to understand how to
    live with yourself because you really don't know yourself as
    17. So you're looking at walls, and these walls starting to
    close in, but you know, these walls aren't closing in, but they
    are closing in on you and you losing your breath and you have
    to call for help.
        And when security comes, it's like, ``What's wrong?'' You
    are like, ``Man, these walls are closing in.'' He's like,
    ``Man, you're losing your mind.'' And you know that you're--you
    don't think you're losing your mind, but in actuality, you are
    losing your mind because those walls aren't closing in, but
    they are closing in.
        Chair Booker. So this is a hearing on work. And, and I
    guess the reason why I'm asking you that is because this idea
    of the line between work, building skills, creating soft
    skills, and habits, all of the things I often know working with
    young people, that if they don't develop the grit, the
    determination, wake up at a certain hour, go to work. Those are
    very valuable skills. I think the other three folks have said
    that, and it prepares you for life.
        I guess I brought up the issue of solitary confinement
    because it seems like you're making a choice between two
    tortures is standing out in the heat without the proper rest or
    the proper hydration. Did you see visibly people pass out? Was
    it on a regular basis or every so often?
        Mr. Winn. Oh, this was like daily. The heat and the
    exhaustion, it's going to do something to you.
        Chair Booker. So you witnessed people, regularly, through
    the heat and the exhaustion passing out. They wouldn't stop the
    line. They would keep working. Only when a horse would pass
    out, they'd realize at that point, when that beast did that,
    this was a time to stop?
        Mr. Winn. Yes. And so in your calculation, because you went
    into solitary confinement because you refused to pick cotton in
    those conditions, am I right, that you felt like this was
    inhumane treatment and you are trying to decide what is worse;
    the hole or those work conditions?
        Mr. Winn. Yes, sir. Yes.
        Chair Booker. So then, so I will say, Mr. Lehman, again,
    your testimony, I was like cheering parts of it because I think
    you and I would agree. And again, you work for an organization
    that I've had a lot of agreement with at times, and your data
    is unassailable, that in the sense that and, I love that you
    pulled in Italy, and I think it was Norway.
        The Avera Institute takes groups over to visit some of
    these prisons to look at why they might have better recidivism
    rates than us and why they might have better--you weren't
    affirming here on the record that that kind of work versus--as
    I visit prisons, again, my faith is a foundation of who I am.
    So I think of the prodigal son, I think of in Matthew 25.
        So, I visit prisons all the time, and I see oversubscribed
    people trying to get into some of these work programs that are
    connected to it. I interview prisoners. What do you think about
    these works? But, but there must be for you a line between
    what's constructive, and what's dehumanizing, degrading, and
    potentially dangerous to your health.
        Mr. Lehman. I mean, almost certainly I would be sort of
    hard pressed to draw your bright line, Senator, but that seems
    reasonable.
        Chair Booker. Yes. And so I would imagine if I put you in
    charge--and God, you're thinking to myself, thank God you're
    not the President of the United States and didn't call me up to
    do this job. But if I put you in charge of the Bureau of
    Prisons, I imagine from the research that you've done, you
    would try to design programs--like we did in a bipartisan way
    in the First Step Act--that really are connected to the best
    evidence of what lowers recidivism rates.
        Mr. Lehman. Yes. And, you know, I'd underscore the First
    Step Act when it was passed, there was a review of literature
    commissioned by the criminologist James Byrne, by that I cite
    in here, to figure out which federal prison rehabilitation
    programs are evidence-based. And his answer was essentially
    none of them.
        Chair Booker. Right.
        Mr. Lehman. I agree. You want to pick--and, you know, I'm
    potentially more sympathetic than other people in the panel to
    the idea that menial labor, that helping to keep the prison
    clean has a rehabilitative function. I'm less persuaded by the
    importance of high wages.
        That said, yes, you want to order prison labor toward those
    benefits. There's a lot that we don't know. And I think there's
    a lot of space for bipartisan collaboration on the question of
    what can we know? Because in principle, Senator, left and right
    should be able to agree that work is a thing that makes people
    better, if it's good work.
        Chair Booker. Right. And I wonder, Professor Armstrong, do
    you sort of agree with what Mr. Lehman's saying? Where would
    you draw the lines? He doesn't want to draw any bright lines,
    but I imagine you would?
        Professor Armstrong. I think there's a lot of scenarios in
    which work can actually be something that is valuable and also
    can help create order and security within a facility.
        I think what's really interesting is in my audits and
    visits behind the wire, people actually do not want to sit in
    their cell for 23 hours a day by themselves. That is not what
    they want to do. Instead, the program that is the most
    oversubscribed at Angola is the one where they are training
    dogs to be helping dogs to assist folks with disabilities who
    might need additional work and assistance.
        So I think when we think about labor behind bars, one line
    that I would draw is, is there the possibility of that person
    being able to apply for a job to be able to have some agency or
    choice in which job they are training for or learning. And
    then, thinking about the connections between that and the
    market outside, as Mr. Lehman talked about.
        Chair Booker. And, Ms. Turner, I just want to get to this
    issue of recidivism, which you've studied, and want to give you
    an opportunity from your data when you look at educational and
    training programs, that they're one way to set people up for
    success.
        But I don't think we're considering how earning a wage and
    saving money while incarcerated is also a part of that in
    lowering recidivism rates. Can you talk about that combination
    between constructive work and actually making some of a wage as
    well?
        Ms. Turner. Yes, absolutely. And I do want to say that the
    studies on recidivism largely focus on the very narrowest
    category of workers; people employed in prison industries, jobs
    who account for only 6.5 percent of incarcerated workers
    nationwide. There really aren't studies showing reduced
    recidivism rates for the types of maintenance work, janitorial
    work, kitchen work, laundry work that the great majority, more
    than 80 percent of incarcerated workers are engaged in.
        Many workers are tasked with tasks like digging ditches and
    cutting grass, and that's not necessarily going to help them
    get employment after they're released in prison. And so it's
    important to distinguish the data here. And in fact, when we
    talk about forced prison labor, a great majority of this is not
    helping people. And people are earning very little, very little
    money. Pennies per hour, in 7 States, no money at all.
        But studies do show that gate money or some savings when
    people are released from prison, will improve outcomes for
    people. If people are paid minimum wage, not only are they able
    to support their families and be self-sufficient while
    incarcerated and their families won't be resulting in going
    into debt as more than half of families with a loved one do.
        But instead, we'll have some savings to pay first and last
    month's rent and have stable housing, be able to potentially
    start a business support themselves while they seek out
    employment and higher paid jobs that provide meaningful skills.
    Vocational training will lead to better employment. This is a
    reality. This is what the study shows. This is at least what we
    know so far. But both are vitally important.
        As it as it is now, workers not only cannot support
    themselves while they're incarcerated, but they leave prison
    saddled with debts that attach to their criminal conviction,
    legal, financial obligations that they can't pay while they're
    incarcerated, and struggle to obtain employment after the
    release.
        I also want to mention, we talked about licensing
    restrictions that bar people from employment. And California is
    one example where people working battling wildfires were
    initially barred because of their criminal conviction from
    working as firefighters.
        But the reality is that State licensing restrictions bar
    many formerly incarcerated people from engaging in work
    directly related to the work that they learned and took on
    while incarcerated. And these State licensing restrictions
    often aren't related to their crime of conviction.
        It's one thing to say you can't be involved as an
    accountant if you have a white collar embezzling conviction,
    for instance. But someone who's worked as a hospice aide in
    prison who's learned, who's worked for years tending to dying
    and sick incarcerated people may be barred in many States from
    achievement, from obtaining work as home healthcare aides or
    hospice nurses. And that's a problem as well.
        And while we look to the solutions that ensure people can
    succeed when they reintegrate into their families and their
    communities, we also have to consider ending these barriers to
    employment for people after they're released.
        Chair Booker. That's excellent.
        And Mr. Winn, you can give firsthand insights of
    distinguishing between work. You had said, I think very
    compellingly in your testimony, that your experience, you had
    working your fears, but you worked other jobs including a tier
    walker, a culinary school, and a nurse's aide.
        And you said something really profound in your testimony
    about the nurse's aide position. You said, I think you used
    words, had a transformative impact on your life. Can you
    explain that differentiation and the value of working jobs that
    have an impact on people after prison?
        Mr. Winn. When you working in the field, you don't feel
    like that has any value. You don't feel like you're going to
    get out. You know that you don't want to get out and do that
    anymore. When you working in culinary, you know that you're
    setting yourself up to get a good job after incarceration. When
    you get a nurse's aide, you would like for that--if you have a
    compassion for it, you would like for that to open up the
    doors.
        But like Ms. Turner said, in Louisiana being an ex-
    offender, you really can't get a job in that field even though
    you have the skills to do it. That door isn't open for you. But
    people in prison work, they try to get the skills that'll get
    them a good job when they come back into society.
        Chair Booker. And what do you say to Senator Cotton who
    said that cleaning toilets and mopping floors, that it seemed
    like he was trying to indicate that there's some kind of
    dignity in that, or it's important to do. And maybe we as
    Americas have no problem with thinking people who've committed
    heinous crimes would have to do that stuff. How do you speak to
    that?
        Mr. Winn. It's kind of hard to speak to it because he has a
    fixed mindset. But anybody that's open-minded know that that's
    kind of like a degrading job, but it's a job that people need.
    And so, you know, when you go in a hotel, you want to walk into
    a clean hotel room. So we know that someone that cleans
    toliets, cleans rooms, that's a job for them.
        But when you're coming from incarceration for doing for
    committing crime, right, that's not a job that you have asked.
    You have aspirations to come home and you want to do something
    more worthwhile?
        Chair Booker. And I imagine the sense of I am paying my
    victim compensation, I am paying for my children's well-being.
        Mr. Winn. Yes.
        Chair Booker. So if those were attached to a salary that
    was more commensurate with the work, I would imagine people
    would want to find that pathway to redemption through that
    work. Is that correct?
        Mr. Winn. Oh, yes. Because the average person does work
    working in Angola, that I can speak specifically about, because
    I did 30 years of my life there, when a guy moves from making
    $0.02 cents an hour to making, let's say, $0.16 cents an hour,
    a lot of those guys be saying, man, I'm going to save this
    little money to send my daughter something. I'm going to save
    this to buy my kids some tennis man. So don't ask me to buy you
    nothing from canteen because I'm not buying you anything. I
    want to send my mama something.
        So they'll save, save, save, save. It might take them a
    month to buy whatever it is, 2 months, 3 months to do it, but
    they feel a sense of being a man because now I can provide
    something to my kid or I can provide something to my mother.
    And that's big for a person in prison.
        Chair Booker. Thank you.
        Professor Armstrong, as we get ready to close, I just want
    to ask is there some points that you came here to make that you
    weren't able to make yet?
        Professor Armstrong. Thank you for that opportunity. So I
    think one thing that's really important is to understand the
    ways in which we kind of harm our own goals and our own
    intentions, right? So if the idea is that a person by the end
    of their sentence has paid their debt because that is what they
    are sentenced to, then when they leave the prison, they should
    be able to earn a living and return as someone's neighbor.
        So there was a reference, I believe, to programs in Norway.
    And what I think is remarkable about those programs is that
    they are really looking at who comes back to us as a neighbor,
    right? And so we can have debates about, you know, what an
    appropriate sentence is, but in no democratic and transparent
    society, do we sentence people to a term of years and then say,
    yes, but it's okay to kill them or to injure them, or for them
    to have amputated limbs, right? That can't be a part of our
    judicial sentence. And any sentence that would include that we
    would say is barbaric.
        And so it's worth thinking about the ways in which we can
    make incarcerated labor look as close as possible to free
    labor, and that will serve all of the goals and purposes that
    have been mentioned today. Thank you.
        Chair Booker. Mr. Lehman, I'm grateful for you taking time.
    I know this is not easy to come here but do you have any final
    words to say?
        Turn on your microphone.
        Mr. Lehman. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the
    opportunity. You know, I think that the reality that we have to
    deal with is that it is easy to wish that people can
    reintegrate into society. It's much harder to accomplish that.
        I talked about, in my testimony briefly, ``Ban the Box''
    laws or ``Clean Slate'' laws, and the surprising non-effect on
    employment following release. And a straightforward explanation
    for that is that it is not necessarily the criminal record
    alone that makes it harder for people to get jobs afterwards,
    that employers are seeing something different in ex-offenders.
    Similarly, it's great when vocational-led works. On average,
    vocational-led doesn't work. It's very hard to get vocational-
    led right in an incarcerated context.
        That doesn't mean that there aren't strategies. One
    strategy, you know, if I have 20 seconds for your attention,
    Senator, the thing I would recommend you think about is
    employment insurance for ex-offenders which in surveys increase
    willingness to hire them by 25 percent.
        And I think it's a totally underexplored policy idea. There
    are options on the table. They all start with admitting that
    the problem is a lot harder than removing impediments. It's
    about taking people who are often profoundly dysfunctional and
    trying to get them into a position where they're less
    dysfunctional. That's an extremely challenging problem. To be
    honest about that, there's really no room for success.
        Chair Booker. Thank you, Mr. Lehman. Ms. Turner.
        Ms. Turner. Thank you. I just want to underscore that
    prison labor is a unique arrangement. The employer is the
    jailer. The employer has complete control over incarcerated
    workers, and incarcerated workers are uniquely vulnerable
    workforce.
        They've been stripped of basic workplace protections. They
    have no say in the work assigned to them, and there's no
    oversight or regulation over workplace conditions. And this
    leads to predictably awful outcomes, including permanent
    disability and deaths.
        And we also have a tremendous lack of information and data.
    I spent years researching this, and we filed for Freedom of
    Information requests with every State Department of Corrections
    and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. And only about half of the
    States responded.
        The Federal Bureau of Prisons could not even refuse to tell
    us the number of incarcerated workers in federal prisons who
    are working maintenance jobs. We know a lot about prison
    industries programs, which as I've mentioned before, is about
    6\1/2\ percent of incarcerated workers job assignments. We know
    very little about how many people are working.
        We are extrapolating from surveys conducted by the Bureau
    of Justice Statistics. But there's really a need for more
    information about injuries workers sustain. For instance, AP
    filed FOIA requests for California Prison Industry Authority.
        We know that 600 injuries were reported over a 4-year
    period, but most of those records are redacted. We know a fair
    amount. We know a lot of people were injured suffered eye
    injuries because they weren't provided safety goggles. But we
    don't really know about everything that's happening in prison.
        We need both legal protections work, standard workplace
    protections, wage and hour protections, the right to unionize,
    and the end of forced labor. We need to end forced labor, and
    we need to protect these workers because what is happening
    today is for many workers, purely exploitative and violates our
    human rights commitments.
        Chair Booker: Thank you very much.
        So, Mr. Winn, this is how we're going to do this. You're
    going to say your final words. I'm going to say my final words,
    and then I'm going to submit for the record, unless there's an
    objection, and I don't see any of my colleagues objecting, a
    section of a documentary that I think will give more color to
    your words, frankly, and then, I'm going to gavel out.
        Chair Booker. Does that sound good, Mr. Winn? You, me,
    video, we're done.
        Go ahead, Mr. Winn.
        Mr. Winn. Okay. We need to separate punishment from
    exploitation because to sentence a person to life that's
    punishment. You exploit a person by sending them in the fields
    for no money because there are people behind those walls that
    are mothers and fathers. We understand it. Victims have been
    left, but those people behind those walls could work, pay the
    victims.
        That's paying the debt to society because we never factored
    that in. It's all about punishing, punishing, punishing,
    punishing. And it's all about let these big businesses get free
    labor from these guys in prison. But that's exploitation.
        But just look at it from a different angle. That the guys
    and the women in prison work, and they can pay the victims
    back. Let them and they can take care of their families. We
    need to understand that those are humans.
        But a lot of people don't look at it as those guys and
    women being humans. They're prisoners. So we dehumanize them in
    ways by just saying prisoner, instead of saying, Senator Cory
    Booker is now incarcerated. No. 413, whatever his number is,
    that's who it is so now don't have any emotional attachments to
    him. He's no longer a part of the human race.
        But we'll put a dog behind a cage. If we leave a dog in our
    car and go in the grocery store and come back with the windows
    up, we're going to incarcerate the person that left that dog.
    So we give more care and concern about that dog than we do that
    human being that's trapped inside of a cell when the
    temperatures are 110 degrees, and that tier doesn't get any
    ventilation, and he's falling out or he dies behind those bars
    because he committed a crime.
        So the crime takes more precedence over the human. So
    there's no human decency when you become a convicted felon. So
    we need to just start separating that punishment and that
    exploitation. And we need to start understanding, and
    realizing, and not forgetting the fact that those are human
    beings.
        Like Senator Kennedy was asking me about, do I think about
    the mother of the victim? Of course. So that's a punishment
    that I live with every day of my life that he would never
    understand. Because when you commit a crime, and you really
    change, and you're really remorseful for it, that's a
    punishment that you would never, ever overcome. So I live with
    a daily punishment that no one can see, that no one can
    understand, but a person that did it. So should I be punished
    for the rest of my life by society, also? Thank you.
        Chair Booker. You know, Mr. Winn, I felt uncomfortable when
    he was questioning you. And I think it's because exactly what
    you're saying. I've watched so many young men, young Black men
    at these terribly young ages get engaged in a world that just
    has them end up dead or has them end up in prison.
        And we deny them, as you said, it almost sounds like a--
    just their number. We deny them their humanity, and we reduce
    them to the lowest, worst day of their lives. That's their
    entire definition. That one moment that he replayed with you,
    that becomes the totality of their being. And we don't see the
    full human being.
        There's not a person in this vaunted Senate Chamber right
    now who hasn't desperately needed grace in their lives. And
    grace, by its very definition, is unmerited love and kindness.
    You didn't deserve this. And the quality of our grace in this
    country worries me sometimes because we don't extend it to even
    an individual like you who spent decade after decade after
    decade in prison for a heinous act you did when you were 16.
    The sum total of who you are is not that crime. You are every
    day working to define the totality of who you are and these
    ideals of redemption, these ideals of grace and rehabilitation.
        And ultimately, the quality that we manifest in our society
    is as much of a reflection of the people who are incarcerated
    as those who are doing the incarcerating us. What story are we
    telling about ourselves?
        And so, I just want to say in particular to you today, your
    voice here mattered. Your voice added a lot of clarity. You are
    a firsthand person to experience this at a time, as my
    colleague said, where most Americans do not go into prisons to
    see what's really going on, don't sit down to listen to people
    we incarcerate. Well, I don't believe there are any throwaway
    people.
        So I'm grateful for your presence here as I am for all
    three of the--all four of the witnesses. It is a very important
    conversation. And evidence suggests we could do a lot better
    toward empowering people to recidivate--excuse me, to return
    home and not recidivate. And that we could have a prison system
    that does not torture people, harm people, injure people, make
    them more likely to be sexually assaulted or discriminated
    against.
        That's what we're striving for. And anyone who looks at
    American prisons and jails today, and says this reflects the
    best of who we are and doesn't need any improvement, is just
    wrong, deeply wrong, and is implicated, in my opinion, as a
    barrier to trying to create more substantive evidence-based
    reforms.
        I want to play the video, please.
        [Video is shown.]
        Chair Booker. I want to thank the Ranking Member, Senator
    Cotton. I want to thank each of our Subcommittee Members who
    came today. I want to thank our Subcommittee Members that may
    be submitting questions for the record. I want to thank the
    witnesses for testifying today.
        I want to remind Members of the Subcommittee that questions
    for the record are due a week from today, Tuesday, May 28, at 5
    p.m. And I ask the witnesses, I know this is a burden with all
    that you-all do, but I ask the witnesses to respond to those
    questions. Not just in a timely manner, what it says here, but
    as thorough as possible.
        Chair Booker. All of you are extraordinary in your capacity
    to illuminate this situation. I ask you to do that.
        I want to again thank you for this hearing. I thought the
    conversation was constructive and meaningful.
        With that, I gavel out. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                                A P P E N D I X

    Submitted by Senator Booker:

     American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA), Prison Labor in
        America.......................................................    91

     Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), An Examination of Prison
        Labor in America..............................................   103

     The Center for Law and Social Policies (CLASP), The Unethical Use
        of Captive Labor in U.S. Prisons..............................   109

     National Employment Law Project (NELP), 2024 Report Incarcerated
        Workers Disasters.............................................   115

     Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), State Sanctioned Slavery
        Examining Forced Labor in Prisons.............................   144

     Worth Rises, An Examination of Prison Labor in America...........   154

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]