[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS AND INMATE REENTRY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 13, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-95
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://oversight.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
31-401 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
Darrell E. Issa, California Ranking Minority Member
Jim Jordan, Ohio Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Justin Amash, Michigan Columbia
Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Jim Cooper, Tennessee
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Mark Meadows, North Carolina Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Ron DeSantis, Florida Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Dennis A. Ross, Florida Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Mark Walker, North Carolina Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
Rod Blum, Iowa Val Butler Demings, Florida
Jody B. Hice, Georgia Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Peter Welch, Vermont
Will Hurd, Texas Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama Mark DeSaulnier, California
James Comer, Kentucky Jimmy Gomez, California
Paul Mitchell, Michigan
Greg Gianforte, Montana
Sheria Clarke, Staff Director
William McKenna, General Counsel
Sean Brebbia, Senior Counsel
Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 13, 2017................................ 1
WITNESSES
The Honorable Mark S. Inch, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
Oral Statement............................................... 6
Written Statement............................................ 9
The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Justice
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Ms. Diana Maurer, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S.
Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 25
Ms. Jennifer Doleac, Assistant Professor of Public Policy &
Economics, Director Justice Tech Lab, University of Virginia
Oral Statement............................................... 41
Written Statement............................................ 43
Ms. Cynthia W. Roseberry, Executive Director, Council for Court
Excellence
Oral Statement............................................... 69
Written Statement............................................ 72
Mr. Glenn E. Martin, President and Founder, JustleadershipUSA
Oral Statement............................................... 84
Written Statement............................................ 86
APPENDIX
Representative Darrell Issa Statement for the Record............. 138
October 3, 2017, Democratic Bicameral Letter to the Federal
Bureau of Prisons submitted by Mr. Clay........................ 139
October 27, 2017, Federal Bureau of Prisons Response Letter
submitted by Mr. Clay.......................................... 144
Follow-up Response from Mr. Inch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, to
Mr. Grothman................................................... 146
Follow-up Response from Mr. Inch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, to
Mr. Comer...................................................... 147
Follow-up Response from Mr. Inch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, to
Ms. Watson Coleman............................................. 148
Response from Mr. Inch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, to Questions
for the Record................................................. 149
OVERSIGHT OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS AND INMATE REENTRY
----------
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trey Gowdy [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gowdy, Jordan, Amash, Gosar,
Massie, Walker, Blum, Russell, Grothman, Hurd, Palmer, Comer,
Mitchell, Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Clay, Connolly, Kelly,
Lawrence, Watson Coleman, Demings, Krishnamoorthi, Welch,
Cartwright, and DeSaulnier.
Chairman Gowdy. Good morning. The committee will come to
order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
I will recognize myself for an opening statement, and then
the gentleman from Maryland.
First of all, welcome to our witnesses. Thank you for being
here.
A criminal justice system that is both fair and perceived
as fair, that is both respected and worthy of being respected,
is one of the foundations of our country. Next door, even as we
are meeting here, the Deputy Attorney General is appearing
before the Judiciary Committee. Last week, the head of the FBI
appeared. Two weeks ago, the Attorney General himself appeared
at Judiciary.
So while Judiciary does have principal jurisdiction over
matters related to our justice system, Chairman Goodlatte and,
frankly, Ranking Member Cummings deserve our appreciation and
gratitude for recognizing that this issue cuts across several
aspects of government, and a hearing in this committee could be
and, hopefully, will be constructive as well.
Our justice system must both be fair in reality and
perceived as fair. Our justice system must be proportional. It
must protect the innocent. It must punish those who have not
conformed to societal norms, with those societal norms being
reflected and codified in what we call the law.
Fair, even-handed, proportional, just, equal in intent and
application, those are expectations. Those expectations are
lofty. Some might argue they are aspirational, but I would
rather aspire to fairness and fail than set any lower standard.
Part of our justice system includes correction,
rehabilitation, and acknowledgment that the vast majority of
those who are incarcerated will be out, back in society. So for
the benefit of all--society as a whole, those who are likely to
come in contact with those former incarcerated folks, and those
formerly incarcerated themselves--we must find a common
sensical plan rooted in fact and evidence for reentry, for
assimilation, for rejoining an ordered community and avoiding
the tyranny of recidivism.
It is in all of our interest these reentries be successful.
It is in all of our interest these transitions back into
society are successful. Those leaving incarceration for reentry
into society will often find society has changed. Anyone
reentering society, even after the shortest of absences, will
find things have changed dramatically.
Speaker John Boehner was not in prison, although he may
have felt like it when he was the Speaker of the House. He
recently reentered society after a lifetime of public service.
And hearing him tell stories of clicking on the wrong Uber ride
and sharing a ride with lots of different people that he did
not intend to share the ride with, hearing him tell stories of
not being able to find the latch that opens the gas tank on his
car because he hadn't driven in years, those may be funny
stories because he is a quick learner, and he had people to
help. Imagine having to get a job to pay your restitution.
Needing clothes for an interview. Needing a ride to an
interview. Knowing how to interview. And dreading the whole
time when the question comes up of ``Have you been arrested or
convicted?''
I doubt anyone will ever accuse me of being soft on crime.
To the contrary, there would be very few Members of Congress
ever who have sent more people to prison. As much as I believe
in law and order and respect for the rule of law, we also have
a deeply held conviction that paying your debt to society pays
the debt.
We are a nation of second chances. We love redemption
stories. It would be nice if our criminal justice system
produced more of them.
With that, I would yield to my friend from North Carolina.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Families are the building blocks of communities. It is hard
to imagine anything more disruptive to a family than losing a
parent or a spouse to incarceration. To have a loved one
removed from your life and sit in a prison must be an
overwhelmingly difficult experience for both the inmate and the
family.
I can still remember as a young child, being the son of a
pastor who was also a prison chaplain, still sitting on the
bunks of those inmates, in many cases hearing the sad stories.
Now make no mistake, I firmly believe that when people break
the law, there must be consequences, and incarceration is
oftentimes the appropriate consequence.
However, the justice system and the Bureau of Prisons also
have a responsibility to help rehabilitate that person and help
the inmate have a successful reentry back into our communities.
This makes sense from both a public safety perspective and
borne out of compassion for our fellow citizens.
Because what is clear is that virtually all of the inmates
in Federal prisons are going back and returning to their
communities and their families. When they are released, the
question should be asked. Will they be better, or will they be
worse?
See, redemption has always been an American ideal. We need
former prisoners to integrate back into society, restore
stability to their families, and contribute to their
communities. Inmate release preparation and programming is
essential to developing and restoring hope--hope that they will
never return to prison, hope that they will find a job, hope
that they will one day be able to support their family, and
hope that they will build a good life after prison.
For that reason, rehabilitation and reentry efforts must be
real, and they must be effective. Three weeks ago, I spoke in
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, at a wonderful nonprofit
organization, the Winston-Salem Prison Ministry, doing a great
job. But the Bureau of Prisons must also make successful inmate
rehabilitation and reentry a priority. The Bureau must also
evaluate its programs and reentry decisions so that their
effectiveness can be measured based on evidence of success.
We have got to figure out what reentry and rehabilitation
strategies work best. Does release to a halfway house improve
an inmate's chances at successful entry? Are some halfway
houses more effective than others at assisting inmates to
succeed? Would placing more inmates directly into home
confinement reduce recidivism? Do certain education or life
skills tend to lead to more successful inmate recovery?
These are all questions I look forward to discussing today.
I believe that evidence-based assessments are essential to
determine what programs work, especially those that work well
at reducing recidivism and what programs simply do not work
very well.
I am grateful for all the witnesses here today. Appreciate
your expertise. Reducing recidivism and improving inmate
reentry services is a challenge, but it is one we must all be
committed to achieving.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from North Carolina yields
back.
We will now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you, Chairman Gowdy, for calling today's
hearing to discuss the Fair Chance Act and other ways to
address barriers faced by formerly incarcerated individuals.
This is a very important hearing to me because I live in a
neighborhood where many of these people return, and I see what
they go through. While they may spend time in prison, they find
that there are so many barriers to their moving forward that
they remain in prison in a sense until the day they die.
Congressman Walker, I want to applaud you for what you said
and what you do in this area, and you said some very important
words. You said whatever we do with regard to these folks, we
have to be--it has to be real, and it has to be effective.
These are people's lives.
They come home, can't get a job. Can't do anything. And in
many instances, not trained to do anything and coming into a
world which is not the world they left. So, therefore, this is
a critical hearing and the latest in our committee's efforts to
examine these questions.
I also appreciate this opportunity to hear from the new
Director of the Bureau of Prisons, General Mark Inch, and we
welcome you to our committee. Study after study has shown that
finding and keeping a job is the single most significant factor
for reducing recidivism and for helping formerly incarcerated
individuals successfully reenter our society.
I used to run voluntarily a reentry program, and we found
that if we could get a person a job and could direct them away
from the corners that sent them there, and get them more
involved in their families and give them some kind of support
group, they were usually successful. Steady and meaningful
employment is a proven way to give these people a real second
chance and to increase the contributions they make to our
communities.
Unfortunately, many people who have paid their debt to
society are never given a fair chance at getting a job. You try
not having a job for a month or 2 months or 3 months. Try it.
And no source of income. Try it. And you got to feed three
children. Try it.
And every door that you knock on, people are saying, uh-oh,
yes, you may have served your time, but we got to put a bar up.
So you can't get past this bar because now you have this
record. Many employers automatically screen out these
applicants, even those who are highly qualified. These
individuals never make it to an interview.
The Fair Chance Act is a bipartisan legislation that I
introduced with Representative Darrell Issa to address these
challenges in the Federal Government. In the Senate, Senator
Cory Booker and Senator Ron Johnson have shown strong
bipartisan leadership on this bill, and the Homeland Security
and Government Affairs Committee approved the bill earlier this
year by voice vote. And again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for
all you have done to try to push this along.
Our bill allows Federal agencies and contractors to ask
about criminal histories at the final stages of the hiring
process after a conditional offer has been made, rather than
automatically screening people out from the beginning. It does
not require any agency or contractor to hire anyone if they
don't want to, and of course, it includes important exceptions
for national security, law enforcement, and positions for which
criminal history information is required by law.
Unfortunately, we are not at the forefront of these
efforts. We are actually lagging behind. Already 30 States and
more than 150 cities and counties have instituted, and I quote,
``ban-the-box'' policies. These include States ranging from
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Indiana, and Utah.
That is right, I said Utah.
In addition, companies like Walmart, Koch Industries,
Target, Home Depot, Starbucks, Bed, Bath, and Beyond have
embraced ban-the-box, as well as the number-one employer in
Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University and Hospital, where we have
about 30,000 employees. They have made it a part of their
mission to address this issue in this way.
I want to thank Glenn Martin for being here today to
discuss the proven success of ban-the-box policies. Mr. Martin
is a leading advocate for the formerly incarcerated, and he
knows firsthand what it is like to face barriers to reentry.
We must also face the reality that our Federal prison
system is not doing enough to prepare inmates for reentry. That
is very, very important. There is a bipartisan consensus in
Congress and among States that we must do more in this area.
Recent reports from the Department of Justice Inspector
General, the Government Accountability Office, and the Charles
Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections have raised alarming
concerns about the lack of sufficient services and a failure to
track and measure the effectiveness of existing services.
If the system is providing ineffective service in areas
such as employment skills training, postsecondary education,
healthcare, and substance abuse treatment, Federal inmates will
have great difficulty readjusting to life outside prison when
they are released.
I am also concerned about the recent reports of closures of
Federal residential reentry centers, or halfway houses, and the
cutbacks in other transition services, including at a Baltimore
location. We need to know more about the reasons for these
closures. If the Bureau of Prisons is not tracking data on
these services or measuring their effectiveness at reducing
recidivism, then it cannot know if its programs are working or
if cuts are, indeed, justified.
We cannot do our work effectively and efficiently if
information is not available or does not exist. I am heartened
that the Bureau agreed to implement many recommendations to
improve reentry services and better track their effectiveness.
I look forward to hearing from Director Inch, Inspector General
Horowitz, and Ms. Maurer about the progress of that
implementation.
I also want to thank Cynthia Roseberry for her work on the
Colson task force. I am particularly interested in the task
force's recommendations to improve BOP oversight, including the
creation of a new performance, accountability, and oversight
board.
Finally, I am troubled by the decision by the Trump
administration earlier this year to reinstitute the use of
Federal private prisons. Following a critical Inspector General
report documenting numerous health and public safety issues,
Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates announced that the
Department would end the use of these facilities in August of
2016, but Attorney General Sessions reversed this decision.
Director Inch, I look forward to hearing from you and your
views on these topics and your plans for the Federal prison
system. I know Chairman Gowdy shares many of these concerns,
and I look forward to continuing a productive and open
communication to ensure the transparency, the accountability,
and the effectiveness of our Federal prisons.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Maryland yields back.
Before I introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses, I
do want to acknowledge that there is precedent, and I
understand the precedent and I understand the rationale behind
it, for some Government witnesses, particularly in the past,
have had single panels as opposed to what we have this morning.
So I want to thank all of the Government witnesses that in the
past may have had a single panel. I do understand the rationale
behind it.
What I have fully learned in 7 years of being in Congress
is that the Members benefit from single panels. The attendance
is better. Therefore, the issue is more fully developed. The
issues are more fully developed.
So I want to thank all the witnesses for coming and for
allowing the Members to have a single panel, which is
infinitely better for the issue.
With that, I will introduce you en banc from my left to
right, and then I will administer an oath, and then we will
recognize you individually for your opening statement. And to
the extent you can, keep it within 5 minutes. Just keep in
mind, we have your full opening statement. So nothing you
wanted us know will not be known. It will just be communicated
in writing, as opposed to orally.
We are fortunate to have the Honorable Mark Inch, Director
of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Equally fortunate to have the
Honorable Michael Horowitz, Inspector General for the
Department of Justice; Ms. Diana Mauer, Director of Homeland
Security and Justice at the Government Accountability Office;
Ms. Jennifer Doleac, assistant professor of public policy and
economics at University of Virginia's Batten School and the
director of Justice Tech Lab; Ms. Cynthia Roseberry, executive
director of the Council for Court Excellence; and Mr. Glenn
Martin, president and founder of JustLeadershipUSA.
If I could get you to all please stand and raise your right
hands, I will administer the oath, as we do for all witnesses.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
[Response.]
Chairman Gowdy. May the record reflect the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. You may take your seats.
With that, and again, with the reminder that we have a
lighting system to help you--green means go, yellow means speed
up. Try to get under the light before it turns red.
With that, we would recognize Director Inch.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK S. INCH
Mr. Inch. Good morning, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member
Cummings, and members of the committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and
to discuss the mission and the operation of the Federal Bureau
of Prisons. I am humbled to serve as the agency's ninth
director, and I look forward to being part of what the Bureau
does for our Nation and for the corrections profession.
I'm also honored to speak on behalf of the nearly 39,000
Bureau staff, corrections professionals who support the
agency's law enforcement mission. These dedicated public
servants are on the job 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
operating Federal prisons that are safe, cost-effective, and
humane.
It is through their hard work and dedication that the
Bureau has earned its excellent reputation. This is an agency I
have admired for years from the other side of the Potomac.
Chairman Gowdy and Ranking Member Cummings, I want to thank
you for your support of the Bureau. Our mission is
challenging--protecting the safety of the public, our staff,
and inmates, while also providing inmates with skills needed to
successfully return to the communities.
Our prisons hold tens of thousands of drug traffickers,
many weapons offenders, and other dangerous individuals. We
house nearly 23,000 gang-affiliated inmates who pose a threat
in and outside our facilities. More than 40 percent of our
inmates classify as high and medium security, due in large part
to extensive criminal histories, severity of the current
offense, and the histories of violence. Yet and still, our
staff answer the call to duty every day.
I also wish to thank the Office of the Inspector General in
the Government Accountability Office for their hard work. Their
audits, along with the Bureau's own internal auditing process
and the regular accreditation audits by the American
Correctional Association, are critical to ensuring that we
remain focused on performing corrections to nationally
recognized standards.
I come to the Bureau with a great appreciation for our
mission. I have a well-developed set of principles about our
individual responsibilities as corrections professionals. I
applaud the Bureau's philosophy that all staff are correctional
workers first. I am convinced that this philosophy is a
critical element in the long-term effectiveness and success of
the agency.
One of the things I love about the corrections profession
is the selfless service demonstrated by those who choose this
career. They dedicate their lives to helping and protecting
others, yet receive little recognition and even less praise.
Every day, Bureau staff run into situations from which others
would run away so that they can ensure the safety of the
public, the staff, and the inmates for whom they are
responsible.
As the leader of the country's premier department of
corrections, I am committed to ensuring the Bureau of Prisons
staff exhibit the highest ideals of our corrections profession
through the shared values, established standards of individual
and institutional performance, and commitment to the character
and competence of our profession. And we've put those qualities
to the service of our stakeholders, the public, victims, and
inmates.
I've spent these first 90 days on the job learning as much
as possible about the Bureau. Although I'm not new to the
corrections profession, I am impressed that all of the prisons
I now oversee today are accredited by the American Correctional
Association, as were the prisons I oversaw in the military. And
all of our prisons are PREA compliant as well.
I've already begun reviewing our major policies and
procedures, and I'm poised to start identifying both strengths
and weaknesses. My initial focus is on public safety and inmate
reentry and also overall agency efficiency and effectiveness.
The thorough work by and of the OIG and the GAO is certainly an
important guidepost to me in this process.
The Bureau looks forward to continuing to support the law
enforcement efforts of the Department of Justice and the
administration and fulfilling our critical role in the broader
public safety efforts of the Federal, State, and local law
enforcement professionals.
Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and members of the
committee, this concludes my formal statement. I'd be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Inch follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Gowdy. Thank you, Director.
Inspector General Horowitz?
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Cummings, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me
to testify at today's important hearing.
The BOP is the largest Department of Justice component by
number of employees, even larger than the FBI, and has the
second-largest budget at the DOJ. Moreover, it now consumes 25
percent of the Department of Justice's budget compared to 18
percent 20 years ago. Yet despite the budget growth, the
Federal prison system remains over capacity, particularly at
its high-security institutions.
Given the BOP's size and its critically important
responsibilities, the OIG has conducted and continues to
conduct substantial oversight of the BOP and its programs. For
example, we've recently issued reviews and audits of the BOP's
management of its aging inmate population, the monitoring of
Federal contract prisons, efforts to interdict contraband,
implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, efforts to
address the increasing costs of Federal inmate healthcare, use
of the compassionate release program, and management of Federal
Prison Industries, just to name a few. And throughout our work,
the BOP has taken our reports seriously and has been responsive
to our findings.
Let me briefly discuss our oversight of BOP programs that
are intended to prepare inmates for release from prison and
back into the community. Whatever one's view is of the Federal
sentencing laws, whether you think they're fair, too harsh, or
too lenient, there should be agreement that it is critical for
the BOP to have effective programs for transitioning Federal
inmates back into society.
The reality is that once an inmate completes their
sentence, absent unusual or unique circumstances, the BOP must
release that person from prison so they can return to our
communities. That's true whether--whether they've committed a
violent crime or a white collar crime, whether they were
sentenced to a long prison sentence or a short prison sentence,
and whether they acted dangerously in jail or received good
time credit.
The need for effective transition and reentry programs is
demonstrated by a recent U.S. Sentencing Commission report,
which determined that nearly half of the Federal inmates
released in 2005 were rearrested within 8 years of their
release for committing a new crime or for violating their
supervising conditions--their supervision conditions.
The OIG has conducted several reviews that identify ways
the BOP can improve the management and administration of its
reentry programs. The OIG's recent review of the BOP's release
preparation program found significant deficiencies that the BOP
needed to address and which the BOP has told us since our
report that it has, in fact, undertaken.
Another BOP reentry program involves the placement of
inmates in residential reentry centers, RRCs, also known as
halfway houses, and in home confinement while serving the
remainder of their sentence. Pursuant to the Second Chance Act,
all Federal inmates are eligible for RRC and home confinement
placement. RRCs provide a supervised environment that supports
inmates in finding employment and housing; completing necessary
programming, such as drug abuse treatment; participating in
counseling; and strengthening ties to family, friends, and
community.
The BOP spends about $360 million each year on RRCs and
home confinement costs, yet a recent OIG review found
significant issues with how the BOP was managing its RRC
program. Once again, the BOP has been responsive to the
recommendations we made and has reported to us on the steps it
is currently taking to address them.
Another area where we recently reviewed--that we recently
reviewed involved BOP's management of inmates with mental
health issues. Our review identified several issues of concern,
including that BOP mental health staff did not always document
inmates' mental health disorders, and therefore, the BOP was
unable to accurately determine the number of inmates with
mental health issues.
In addition, we were concerned that BOP was using
restrictive housing to house inmates with mental health
conditions because those--that housing could negatively impact
further their mental health treatment and, research shows, come
out of those units further disabled and further ill-equipped to
return to their communities.
We also were concerned because we identified several
instances where the BOP released inmates directly from
restrictive housing units into communities, and we were
particularly concerned about that.
Again, the BOP is responding to our recommendations, and we
look forward to reviewing them as we hear about them.
That concludes my prepared statement. I'd be happy to
answer any questions the committee may have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Horowitz follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Inspector General.
Ms. Mauer?
STATEMENT OF DIANA MAURER
Ms. Mauer. Well, good morning, Chairman Gowdy and Ranking
Member Cummings and other Members and staff. I'm pleased to be
here today to discuss the findings from our oversight efforts
of offender reentry programs at the Bureau of Prisons.
Every year, thousands of Federal inmates complete their
sentences, leave prison, and reenter society. The hope is they
will reunite with family, become employed, and rejoin their
community as a peaceful, law-abiding member. And preparing
people for this reentry is one of the main goals of the Federal
correctional system.
It's also one of the most difficult to accomplish. And as
was already mentioned, one recent study found that nearly half
of former Federal inmates were rearrested within 8 years of
release, and about a quarter were reincarcerated.
Now people who have served time in Federal prison face
significant challenges. They often have less education, less
employment history, and less family support than the rest of
society. They also have to contend with various penalties and
disadvantages after completing their sentences. And as we
reported in September, these collateral consequences can limit
many aspects of a person's life, such as employment, education,
housing, and access to Government benefits.
Our analysis found 641 Federal collateral consequences that
can be triggered by a Federal nonviolent drug conviction. Over
three-quarters of these consequences last a lifetime, and 80
percent lack a prescribed way for a person to obtain relief
from the consequence.
Now, of course, GAO is not taking a position on whether we
have the right number of collateral consequences. That's--
that's not our role. But we did interview 14 stakeholders from
across the criminal justice spectrum, including judges,
prosecutors, and victims' rights advocates. And we heard a
striking consensus. Thirteen of 14 agreed on two key points.
First, they believe the Federal Government should take
action to mitigate collateral consequences and, second, doing
so could reduce the likelihood that people with prior
convictions reoffend. They also agreed that any review of
collateral consequences should factor in the paramount goal of
public safety. Many of the stakeholders we spoke to believe
that reexamining the current mix of consequences, their
duration, and the ability to seek relief could have a positive
impact on recidivism.
And breaking the cycle of recidivism is what successful
reentry programs are all about. Over the past several years,
we've seen increased focus on reentry at BOP. For example, BOP
created a Reentry Services Division and developed a list of
reentry programs.
However, when we looked at that list, we found that BOP
could not clearly demonstrate whether the reentry programs were
actually working. And in response to our recommendation, BOP
has developed and begun implementing a plan to evaluate these
programs.
BOP has also made great strides determining the cost of
home confinement. BOP used to charge a flat rate that was
simply half the cost of local reentry--residential reentry
centers, or RRCs. But in response to our recommendation, BOP
has issued 184 solicitations with a separate service line-item
for home confinement services. As a result, BOP is now better
positioned to weigh the cost and benefits of home confinement.
But they still need to take action on two of our
recommendations that really get to the very heart of this
morning's hearing. Two years ago, we found something all too
common in Federal programs. BOP was tracking program outputs,
not outcomes. Specifically, they had detailed data on the
number of inmates in RRCs and home confinement, but BOP was not
tracking the far more important outcomes from placing people in
RRCs and home confinement, and it lacked measures to know how--
to know whether those outcomes indicated success. So it's still
unclear how these programs affect recidivism.
BOP has recently made progress implementing our
recommendations. They started taking track--steps to track how
individuals do during and after their time in an RRC, including
surveying residents to get their perspectives on their
experiences. While these are encouraging steps, they're still
in the early stages, and we'll be monitoring BOP's progress
until they fully implement our recommendations.
In conclusion, we all hope the thousands of people who
leave Federal prison every year are able to rejoin their
families and gainfully contribute to their communities as law-
abiding citizens. Continued attention and focus from the Bureau
of Prisons, continued congressional oversight, and full
implementation of recommendations from GAO and the Inspector
General will help make that more likely.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify this
morning. I look forward to your questions.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Mauer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Gowdy. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Ms. Mauer.
Professor Doleac?
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER DOLEAC
Ms. Doleac. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and
other members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to
testify in this hearing about prisoner reentry.
I'm an assistant professor of public policy and economics
at the University of Virginia. I'm also the director of the
Justice Tech Lab, which works to find effective, scalable
solutions to criminal justice problems.
In addition to my roles at UVA, I'm a senior social
scientist at the Lab at D.C., a research group in the mayor's
office here in the District, and a nonresident fellow in
economic studies at the Brookings Institution. I'm also a
member of the Poverty, Employment, and Self-Sufficiency Network
organized by the Institute for Research on Poverty at the
University of Wisconsin.
To each of these roles, I bring my expertise in the
economics of crime and discrimination. In recent years, I've
been particularly focused on the issue of prisoner reentry. In
addition to a number of ongoing studies testing the impacts of
new interventions on reentry outcomes, I've studied the effects
of ban-the-box policies, also called fair chance policies. This
is the topic I'll focus on today, though I'll note that the
views I express here are my own and don't represent those of
any of the organizations I'm affiliated with.
Two-thirds of people who are released from prison will be
arrested again within 3 years. This high recidivism rate
signals our collective failure to help this group successfully
reintegrate to civilian life. The question facing policymakers
is what we can do to facilitate more successful reintegration
and break that cycle of incarceration.
Those who go through the criminal justice system face a
wide array of challenges that make this task difficult. Those
challenges include low education, limited and interrupted work
histories, lack of stable housing, and high rates of substance
abuse, mental illness, and emotional trauma. All of these
factors help explain why this population has trouble finding
stable employment upon release from prison.
Ban-the-box aims to increase access to jobs by prohibiting
employers from asking job applicants about their criminal
histories until late in the hiring process. The hope is that if
some people with records can get their foot in the door, those
who are a good fit for the job will be able to communicate
their work readiness during an interview before the employer
runs a background check.
But work readiness, the ability to show up on time every
day and do a good job, is difficult to discern from a job
application and even from an interview. Employers clearly
believe that a criminal record is a negative signal about work
readiness, and they're also worried about negligent hiring
lawsuits and bad press that might result from hiring someone
with a record.
Unfortunately, ban-the-box does not do anything to address
the reasons employers might be reluctant to hire someone with a
criminal record. It just tells them they can't ask. Since many
employers still don't want to hire people with criminal
records, especially those with recent convictions, they may try
to guess who has a record when they aren't allowed to ask up
front.
In the United States, young black men without college
degrees are much more likely than others to have a recent
conviction that might worry an employer. And so employers who
want to avoid interviewing people with recent convictions may
simply avoid interviewing applicants from this group. As a
result, we might see ban-the-box hurt this group more than help
them. Indeed, this is what has happened.
In the written testimony I submitted to this committee, I
summarized the empirical evidence from the best studies on this
topic, as well as the broader literature on how information
affects discrimination in the labor market. The evidence can be
summarized as follows.
First, delaying information about job applicants' criminal
histories leads employers to discriminate against groups that
are more likely to have a recent conviction. This hurts young,
low-skilled black men who don't have criminal records.
Second, the best evidence suggests that ban-the-box does
not increase employment for people with criminal records and
might even reduce it.
Third, these findings are consistent with empirical
evidence from other contexts, such as drug testing and credit
check bans. Studies consistently show that removing information
about characteristics that disadvantage protected groups
actually hurts those groups more than it helps them. In the
absence of information, employers do not simply assume the best
about people. They try to guess who has the characteristics
they're trying to avoid. Rather than reducing discrimination,
this approach effectively broadens it to the entire group.
Finally, effective approaches to this policy problem are
likely to be policies that directly address employers'
concerns, such as investing in rehabilitation, providing more
information about applicants' work readiness, and clarifying
employers' legal responsibilities in the hiring process.
Overall, the academic literature provides strong evidence
that despite the best intentions, ban-the-box has not helped
people with criminal records and has harmed young, low-skilled
black men without records, who already struggle in the labor
market for a variety of reasons. Based on this evidence, I urge
this committee to reject the Fair Chance Act and focus on other
policy options that are likely to be more successful.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Doleac follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Gowdy. Thank you, Professor.
Ms. Roseberry?
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA W. ROSEBERRY
Ms. Roseberry. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and
members of the committee and staff, thank you for inviting me
to participate in today's oversight hearing on the Federal
Bureau of Prisons and reentry.
My perspective and understanding of the Bureau of Prisons
comes from my experience as a Federal public defender, private
criminal defense attorney in Atlanta and Chicago, as project
manager of Clemency Project 2014, as executive director of the
Council for Court Excellence, and as a member of the Charles
Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections, a nine-person,
bipartisan, congressional blue ribbon panel led by former
Congressman J.C. Watts Jr. and former Congressman Alan Mollohan
and supported ably by the Urban Institute.
My comments are my own and not as a representative of any
entity about which I speak.
Since the sevenfold increase in its population in the
1980s, the Bureau of Prisons has been operating at crisis
levels for decades. People of color and people from poor
communities, not unlike the one in which I was reared, Mr.
Cummings, are largely part of the population in the world's
largest incarcerated population.
Despite recent reductions in population, overcrowding
continues, spreading the staff thin, with staff members
performing duties outside of their expertise. As a result, the
Bureau of Prisons has not lived up to its goal of
rehabilitation, missing the opportunity to improve public
safety.
As my former fellow Colson task force member John Wetzel,
the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections,
would say, public safety is a logical consequence of good
corrections policy. Returning citizens need effective reentry
programming, but BOP policies and practices have not kept up
with best practices in the field. ``One size fits all'' does
not work. Efforts must be, one, data driven; two, evidence-
based and individualized with measurable outcomes; and three,
transparent.
Data-driven efforts. Coordinated consistency in standards,
practice, and data collection are essential to BOP's success.
Crafting goals and measuring outcomes are accomplished by the
collection of data. The Federal corrections system must also
standardize assessment protocols and case management practices.
As project manager of Clemency Project 2014, I witnessed
the havoc wreaked by inconsistency throughout the system in
something as simple as the coding of the statutes of
conviction. As a practitioner, I have experienced firsthand how
inconsistency in policies such as those where access to
programming and client visitation and correspondence negatively
impact reentry.
It is critical that agencies within the Federal corrections
systems work collaboratively to facilitate smooth transition
home. The BOP must consistently coordinate with RRCs. Recently,
one young woman who was scheduled for release to a halfway
house had secured employment, only to be told that there was an
error in her release date for several months. And other
families report extended stays because of errors in release
dates.
The current system lacks the highly coordinated cross-
agency data-sharing platform and procedures that can improve
the transition process. Critical information like completion of
mental health evaluations is not always passed from the BOP to
halfway houses through the supervision, leading to less
effective reentry planning and support. D.C. Code offenders
experience more difficulty because they are not housed close to
D.C. before their reentry.
Evidence-based. Although the evidence shows that
individualized treatment and programs can improve outcomes,
BOP's own study shows that out of its approximately 16,000
available programs, only a handful are evidence-based.
Evidence-based individualized programming would allow the BOP
to establish priorities and make data-driven decisions like
resource allocations and ways to maximize time outside of
facilities for successful reentry. Educational, occupational,
and other programs can respond to changes in demand through
proper allocation.
Recent reports of videoconferencing only has daunted some
of the hopes of those who are incarcerated and their families.
If BOP were to focus on the evidence that connections with
families increases successful reentry, BOP could ease
visitation difficulties without compromising security and
expand programs designed to enhance family bonds, including
those between incarcerated parents and children.
As a 20-year defense lawyer, you might find it surprising
to hear me say that I'm concerned about the safety of the staff
at the BOP as well. They want to engage in professional
corrections efforts. Evidence-based individualized program
benefits BOP staff. If public safety is a natural outcome of
good corrections policy, then safe working conditions result
from the proper resource allocation that evidence-based
individualized programming provides.
Evidence-based program must begin at day one. The BOP
mantra ``reentry begins at one--at day one'' is belied by the
fact that the effects of incarceration are not measured.
Through CP 2014, I came to understand that returning people to
society after long incarceration without evidence-based
individualized programming is like sending someone to an alien
planet.
One gentleman who was released reported being confused when
someone told him they would call him on their BlackBerry.
Another woman reported that she experience indignity because
she didn't know how to wash her hands. When she was first
incarcerated, sinks were not automatic.
At most, we should send people home better. At least we
should not make them worse. We also owe it to the victims of
crime to make the people who committed crimes and served their
sentences better before we send them home. If we take the
extreme measure of removing someone from society because of
their crimes, we should also take on the responsibility to
first do no harm, especially since most hail from and return to
marginalized communities.
Far too often, measures like the mechanism to ensure
effective implementation and assessment, it's not clear, for
example, that all individuals are receiving the appropriate
support and treatment consistent with best evidence on what
works to reduce recidivism. For example, studies have shown
that under certain circumstances, halfway houses can be
ineffective or even harmful to a person's prospects for
reentry. The right individuals, those who stand to gain from
halfway houses, should matriculate through them.
The Colson task force has recommended two oversight bodies.
One would provide advice on the best corrections practice to
ensure accountability and compliance, and the other would be a
high-level working group to oversee and coordinate
implementation of the reforms. The task force also recommended
developing better system-wide performance measures that would
be shared with the public. We need to know what's going on
inside our prisons.
And lastly, as reentry must start on day one, reentry
doesn't end on the last day of custody. The myriad of
collateral consequences that NACDL has counted, more than
5,000, must relate--most relate neither to the conduct for
which people were convicted, nor to public safety. Looking
through the lens of public safety, a working group could
identify those found to unnecessarily impede successful reentry
as candidates work for appeal. Once we send a person to prison
and they come out, we should stamp their receipt paid-in-full.
This concludes my remarks. I look forward to your
questions.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Roseberry follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Gowdy. Thank you, Ms. Roseberry.
Mr. Martin?
STATEMENT OF GLENN E. MARTIN
Mr. Martin. Thank you. Good morning.
Thank you, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and
members of the committee and staff.
I'd like for you to describe in one word the last person
who sold you a pair of sunglasses or a pair of glasses. You
might say ``man.'' You might say ``woman.'' You might say
``young.'' You might say ``old,'' ``funny,'' ``enthusiastic.''
Seventeen years ago, I left prison after serving 6 years,
and I searched for a job. I visited 50 different employers.
When I exited prison, I left with a quality liberal arts degree
and about $100,000 in fines, fees, restitution, and child
support.
The third employer I visited, his name was Michael. And
after two interviews, he said to me, ``You're the perfect fit.
You're very articulate. I think you'll be able to sell
sunglasses and glasses better than anyone else I've
interviewed. I'm going to offer you the job.''
Within 2 hours I arrived at home after the second interview
to a voice message saying that he hadn't noticed that I put
that I had a felony conviction on my application and that he
was rescinding the job offer based solely on the criminal
conviction. I should have applied for that job as a father, a
brother, a son, a qualified job seeker. But those identities
were taken from me because in America, everyone who stands at
sentencing in a criminal court is sentenced to a lifetime of
punishment.
The fact of the matter is that we have a ceremony that
brings people down in that moment, and we have no equal
ceremony to bring people back up. We have left 70 million
Americans in that moment.
When I was released, policies like ban-the-box, policies
like the ones the Fair Chance Act would promote did not exist.
Today, I run an organization with over 50 staff positions and
over 370 formerly incarcerated alums of our training seminars.
Not once have I asked staff or trainees about their criminal
history during the initial application process. I never needed
to.
I assess someone's preparedness based on their experience
and on something far more meaningful and powerful, their
humanity. But I am the exception, and because of that, because
most employers cannot or will not see past a person's worst
moment, the 6-plus million people who are currently under
correctional control in this country will face the same
barriers to reentry that I faced.
One in three black men will relive the setbacks I was
forced to endure, despite their best efforts at building
towards redemption. We know reducing recidivism means
eradicating these barriers, something that ban-the-box and the
Fair Chance Act can help us to achieve.
But Jennifer Doleac, despite lacking lived experience and
the cultural competency needed to design and interpret her own
research, wants to tell you what you should do to help us. In
her research, Ms. Doleac says that the ban-the-box policy
increases discrimination in employment. She blames these
policies for creating what we've known to exist in our country
since its founding, racism.
Ms. Doleac argues that casting aside the scarlet letter of
criminality hurts black people because then employers will just
assume that all of us have something to hide. Her argument
seems to rest on the idea that killing ban-the-box policies
will help the few black men who have not been branded,
shackled, and caged in our justice system because their
comparative goodness will allow them to stand out.
This argument against ban-the-box and the Fair Chance Act
urges you to set aside these ideas--set these ideas aside so
that the ``good and well-behaved black men'' might succeed,
while the millions of us who have been marginalized by decades
of tough on crime policies are discarded like trash. Well, the
piece of trash you see sitting in front of you now helps 50
people build families, strengthen communities, and contribute
to our tax base in America.
Discarding qualified and motivated job seekers is not
justice. That's not how to make America great again. This
exclusion fundamentally contradicts the values enshrined in the
document you are sworn to defend and uphold.
The Fair Chance Act and ban-the-box policies work. They are
part of the solution that will help all of us. They are crucial
pieces of holistic reform needed to reduce recidivism and to
start undoing decades of bad policy that have led to our
current state of mass incarceration. They are the first steps
in building a smarter and safer justice system.
More importantly, to me and millions of others, ban-the-box
was started by formerly incarcerated people in a storefront in
Oakland, California, and made it all the way to the halls of
power. The power of this policy as a tool to educate and
inspire employers and policymakers is immeasurable. I urge this
Congress to consider the Fair Chance Act before you adjourn and
to hear and elevate the often-ignored voices of the people who
have been most impacted by that law in your guiding
deliberations.
I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you for the
opportunity.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Martin.
I usually ask my questions last. So I would ask the
indulgence of my colleagues on this side. There is another
hearing next door that I am expected at.
Professor Doleac, I received a phone call over the weekend
from Cory Booker, who is very interested in this bill. He took
a little different approach than one of your former panelists--
or one of your current panelists in critiquing your research,
but I think the underlying questions are the same.
So why don't you take a minute and explain to us why you
think what is being proposed has the opposite impact?
Ms. Doleac. So there have now been two very good studies
looking at the impacts of the unintended consequences of ban-
the-box and two studies looking at the impacts of ban-the-box
on people with criminal records. Both meet the very high,
rigorous standards of the academic literature here where the
primary concern is isolating the effect of the policy from
underlying and completely separate economic trends and other
factors that might be driving employment outcomes.
The main concern about ban-the-box is that if employers
don't want to hire people with criminal records and we tell
them they can't ask, then they are going to try to guess. And
because having a criminal record is so highly correlated with
race and, especially a recent conviction, with age and having--
whether you have a college degree, in the United States, it's
pretty easy to statistically discriminate against young black
men who don't have college degrees.
And you know, with all due respect to Mr. Martin, the
evidence simply contradicts what he thinks is going on. The
idea that--that our research is simply revealing that racial
discrimination is a problem, of course, racial discrimination
is a problem. But before ban-the-box, more young black men were
getting jobs than were after ban-the-box. This seems to have
reduced--reduced employment for this group and not helped them.
Chairman Gowdy. All right. Well, I am in a very unusual
spot among Members of Congress, which is I am open-minded. I
haven't made up my mind. I have watched men leave State and
Federal prison and desperately try to get a job, and the only
job they could get in my hometown was washing other people's
cars.
And thank God for William Hunt and other people who took a
chance on these guys that have already paid their debts to
society. I am not talking about people convicted of violent
offenses. I am not talking about people being convicted of
crimes against children. I am not even talking about bad check
writers and others who have a hard time rehabilitating
themselves. I am talking about nonviolent drug offenses.
And we say, okay, you have served your sentence. You have
got to go get a job. You have got to meet your societal and
familial obligations. And they can't.
So let us assume your research is correct. Let us assume
there is a reason you are a professor and I am not. That you
are smarter and that you know how to do studies and interpret
other people's studies. Let us just assume that. I don't think
there will be any contradiction on any of that.
What do you propose? What would work? For those of us who
don't want--we just passed a bill on evidence-based rulemaking
not a month ago. Congress, I think almost unanimously, passed
a--passed a bill that we are going to use evidence and facts
upon which to base our policies. And what you are arguing is if
you do that, you won't take this approach.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are right.
What approach works?
Ms. Doleac. Great question. So, so what this policy is
hoping to achieve is that we're hoping that by preventing
employers from asking about a criminal record, they won't care
about the criminal record anymore. That's really the goal of, I
think, everyone in this room. We want employers to be willing
to hire people with criminal records, and the question is how
do we--how do we help them do that?
So, so the real goal is to try to figure out what employers
actually care about, what they're worried about when they see
the box checked on a job application, and then find policy
interventions that can directly address those concerns. If
employers are worried about work readiness, if they're worried
that--that, you know, the average person coming out of prison
has much higher rates of substance abuse and mental illness and
is very likely to be rearrested in the near future, finding
ways to--to really invest in rehabilitation so that they don't
have those associations with a criminal record anymore.
That's going to take time. That's the longer-term goal of,
I think, everyone here, and it's going to take investment of
real resources. In the shorter term, I think the best way to
reach the goal that ban-the-box and the Fair Chance Act would
have reached in helping those who are qualified for jobs get
jobs is finding ways to provide additional information about
their work readiness to employers.
One--one policy intervention that's been tried in a few
different places, and it seems very promising, and research
evidence is supporting that it's having the effects we hoped
for, is employability or rehabilitation certificates. So if you
have a criminal record and you can go in front of a judge and
argue that you've been rehabilitated, there have been very nice
audit studies showing that if you send out job applications
randomizing if you have a felony conviction or a certificate of
rehabilitation or no conviction at all, those with the
certificate are called back at equal rates as those without any
conviction.
I've heard that those are extremely difficult to get. That
can be changed. That's obviously something that is adjustable.
But the very--the basic idea of providing more information
rather than taking information away seems far more promising.
Chairman Gowdy. Well, I am out of time. I hope you will
continue to do your research. You know, most of us live in a
world of anecdote. We don't have the luxury of doing studies.
I can tell you in my own life, including with one of your
panelists, the very first time I met Inspector Horowitz, he
told me something that I otherwise never would have known.
Never would have known. It wasn't an important thing.
But the fact that he was willing to tell me something that
I really wasn't entitled to know, he went up 10 stages in my
mind just because he was willing to tell me something. It
actually had the opposite--it made me trust him, like him, want
him to get the job even more.
Has there been any research into that? Into people who say,
you know what, you are going to find this out at some point,
let me be the one to tell you. Because I can imagine employers,
even if it is the law, human nature being what it is, may
wonder at the end, why didn't you tell me this up front?
Is there any--is there any--and I know you are not a
psychologist, but is there any research into how the listener
hears information volunteered from the very person that it
could hurt being the one who volunteers it?
Ms. Doleac. I don't know of any research on that.
Anecdotally, I've heard that the guidance that individuals
coming out of prison are given is generally to be upfront. When
they get the interview, to be upfront about their criminal
history and to explain, you know, what happened and what
they've learned from it and the steps they've taken to change.
But I don't--I don't know of any research on that. So ----
Chairman Gowdy. All right.
Ms. Doleac.--at this point, just anecdotal.
Chairman Gowdy. I really mean it when I say this is my last
question, all right? Negligent hiring is a civil cause of
action in some States. So for employers who don't want to wait
on the Government, who want to do it themselves, what
protections are afforded them when plaintiff's attorneys, as
they do from time to time, find even an isolated incident where
an employer didn't ask and something--something bad happened,
and they are confronted with a negligent hiring case?
How do we protect those employers that want to--that want
to do what Mr. Martin and Ms. Roseberry are advocating for?
With or without us doing it, they want to do it. How do you
protect them from civil causes of action?
Ms. Doleac. I don't think we have a really clear answer to
that yet. It's another area where these employability or
rehabilitation certificates seem very promising. You know,
these are court-issued certificates that say this person has
been rehabilitated and is no longer a risk. And so to the
extent that a negligent hiring lawsuit is accusing an employer
for putting their customers and other employees at undue risk,
if the worst happens and someone that they hire who has a
criminal record commits a violent crime on the job--I think
that's the worst nightmare of any employer--then they can take
that certificate and say, look, I did everything I was supposed
to do. This judge said that this person wasn't a risk. There is
no way I could have known.
So thinking of creative solutions that, in effect, shift
the risk from employers to the courts or to government I think
is probably the best way to deal with this negligent hiring
concern. And it's not just the legal liability, but it's also
worries about bad press. Even if they know that they wouldn't
actually lose a lawsuit, they could face very negative media
attention that could put them out of business, and that--that's
the catastrophic risk that employers are worried about.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Maryland?
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Now come on, let us not kid ourselves. The elephant in the
room is racism, and it is a big elephant. Now, Mr. Martin, I
don't have it at my hand--I wish I did. But I have read studies
where it showed that a white person with a record had a better
chance of getting a job than a black man without a record. Are
you familiar with that?
Mr. Martin. I'm not only familiar with that study, I ----
Mr. Cummings. Can you keep your voice up, please?
Mr. Martin. Sorry. I'm not only familiar with the study, I
served as the project manager on the study. It was the audit--
the largest audit study ever conducted in America to date, when
that research happened. The principal researchers were Bruce
Western and Devah Pager of Princeton at the time.
And we visited 3,500 different employers in the entry-level
labor market. We actually hired young men--white, black,
Hispanic--to serve as job seekers. And so we sent them out into
the labor market with resumes that were manufactured by us that
showed some evidence of them having involvement in the criminal
justice system.
And after visiting 3,500 different employers and doing
thousands of audits, yes, the finding was that a white person
with a criminal record has a better chance of getting employed
than a black person without a criminal record who is similarly
situated with respect to their employment history. And you
know, the question by Chairman Gowdy about how do we respond to
employer concerns about liability? Those concerns are
legitimate. I've done many focus groups to really dig in on
what employer concerns are, and liability ranks number one.
But for instance, the New York City Bar Association was
able to draft a piece of legislation that gives employers
rebuttable presumption when they consider the EEOC guidance and
New York State's anti-discrimination law, which somewhat
mirrors each other, essentially saying that you should be
giving qualified job applicants a chance to explain evidence
rehabilitation, how long since the criminal conviction, what
have they done since the criminal conviction to rehabilitate
themselves, and so on. So there are other policy prescriptions
that we can have in place to respond to employer concerns.
Certificates of relief I would totally discount,
particularly because they are so difficult to get, and to
suggest that we can sort of easily change that, I've doing this
work for 17 years, much of it legislative reform, many bills
that I have drafted and advanced in legislatures myself, it is
not easy to change those pieces of legislation. I have not been
successful with one in my 17-year career, to be quite frank.
Mr. Cummings. You know, as you were talking, I couldn't
help but think about years ago, when I--maybe about 3, maybe 4
years ago, I visited Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. And
so I drove up, and I noticed they had this security firm
checking everybody out. They were better--to me, they were just
as good as the Secret Service.
And so I asked the guy, I said, ``Is this a new firm?'' And
it was a firm which was established by former inmates, and all
the employees were former inmates, and they were doing a hell
of a job.
You know, Mr. Martin, how important is it to be free of the
stigma of a criminal record when applying for a job? How
important is that?
Mr. Martin. Thank you for that question.
Thirteen years after exiting prison, I was invited to the
White House to meet with senior policy advisers to the then-
President. And after 2 months of background checks and
everything else it takes to get into the White House, when I
got to the White House, I find out that my 21-year-old
conviction meant I couldn't enter the White House.
And while most formerly incarcerated people may not ever
get invited to the White House, I was struck that day by what
the implications were for a person who is 21 years away from
his conviction, invited to the White House, has done work to
help so many people at places like the Fortune Society
supported by Member Maloney and others, couldn't get access to
that place. And I wondered what it meant for the men and women
who were exiting prison that day who were trying to get a job
at the local Starbucks or McDonald's or somewhere else.
The fact of the matter is that we have created an entire
underclass of citizenship in this country, and this Government
has a responsibility to respond to that.
Mr. Cummings. And how important is ban-the-box policies in
reducing recidivism? You know, I heard Ms. Doleac, and she
doesn't seem to feel, based on her research, that this is--that
it helps. She says it hurts. I mean, I just want to know your
response to that.
Mr. Martin. Sure. Well, first of all, we need to parse her
research because if I give her research credit, then it's only
one small section of job seekers with criminal records where
she found evidence that they're being hurt by this. There are
many other categories where she actually admits that those
folks did better as a result of the policy.
But I don't want to lose the fact that we would not be
having this discussion again today if formerly incarcerated
people did not create this ban-the-box policy in Oakland,
California, as a way to educate policymakers about the
importance of creating job opportunities for people with
criminal records. I cannot understate what it means to want to
apply for a job, to know that you're qualified, and to have the
chilling effect of the question about the criminal record on
the application.
Remember, we--there are things that we actually cannot
measure, and it doesn't mean that they're not important. But
you cannot measure the job seeker who has a quality 2-year
liberal arts degree that he or she learned--or earned in prison
as a result of Pell Grants, when they were eligible actually
not applying for a job because of the fact that we live in a
country where the labor market doesn't create access for job
seekers who have a criminal conviction.
We can't measure that, but it should be important to this
country. The chilling effect alone of the criminal record would
be removed if we had this ban-the-box policy in place.
Mr. Cummings. In 2015, I first introduced the Fair Chance
Act with then-Chairman Issa and Senator Booker and Senator Ron
Johnson. This bill would codify the existing OPM rule that
prohibits Federal agencies from requesting criminal histories
for certain nonsensitive jobs until after conditional offer of
employment.
Mr. Martin, do you think that OPM's current guidance has
had a positive impact on ex-offenders?
Mr. Martin. I think it's had a positive impact. You know,
granted, my response here is anecdotal. I've spoken to people
who have found the courage to apply for jobs based on the fact
that this policy is in place. I also recognize that efforts
made by the Federal Government, the Federal Government speaks
with a megaphone and sends a very strong message to States and
cities, where the majority of people in this country are
actually incarcerated and under correctional supervision.
And so if for no other reason alone, a message from the
Federal Government about the importance of qualified job
seekers having a chance to compete for employment, I think it
was President Bush that said it well during the 2004 State of
the Union address that this is the land of second chances, and
we should give an opportunity for people to turn their lives
around and be contributing members of society.
Mr. Cummings. It would be--it would be political or
legislative malpractice if I didn't ask this question. In the
African-American community, there is a term that I hear over
and over again, ``the prison industrial complex.'' There is a
belief that there are folks who are making money and trying to
create private prisons or whatever in their neck of the woods
so that they can keep the economy going.
And we have, of course, seen some 60 Minutes stories that
bear some of that out. But I just want your comment and then
yours, Mr. Inch, on that.
Mr. Martin. You know, prisons throughout the '80s, '90s,
and early 2000s were the most effective stimulus program for
rural communities that lost industries. The fact of the matter
is that many governors across the country promised prisons to
communities that were losing other industries.
I have a brother--I grew up in poverty. I grew up on public
assistance, single mother, two brothers. My older brother
fought in four tours of duty, active, in war. Ultimately became
a correction officer for 10 years and is now a U.S. Marshal. My
brother is one of the 3 million people who benefit from the
criminal justice system that we've currently created because it
propelled him from poverty into upper middle class.
I think that, yes, there are private prisons that exist
that benefit from the incarceration particularly of people of
color and who have--in the past, there is much evidence of them
promoting policies that have led to increased incarceration and
mass incarceration. But I don't want to lose sight of the fact
that the perverse incentives that have led to that
commercialization of punishment exists and started in our
Government-run prisons and jails.
And so everything has grown alongside each other. While we
have said we are working to end mass incarceration, the fact of
the matter is that we have grown everything--probation, parole,
electronic monitoring, you name it. And so the footprint of the
criminal justice system has disproportionately impacted people
of color, yes. But it also disproportionately impacts
particularly poor white Americans.
When you compare us to any other country in the world,
white Americans are equally disproportionately impacted by mass
incarceration in the criminal justice industrial complex.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Inch, and then I thank you very much. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Inch. Ranking Member Cummings, just so I can have
clarification, are we talking the private prison industry or
the array of our Federal prison system?
Mr. Cummings. Both.
Mr. Inch. Both. Okay, thank you, sir.
One can certainly look--and I'll focus really on those
private prisons we use and then the array of 122 Federal
installations. One can look over time and location and see that
the placement of the facilities was based on a variety of
reasons that may have been above and beyond the most effective
and efficient use of that particular facility.
If I were speaking only as a practitioner, only as a
practitioner, which, you know, would be inappropriate for all
the decisions that go into the placement of Federal
installations, we certainly look at the population base of the
location to ensure large enough population base to hire not
only the correctional officers, which would be an entry level
to the facility, but also the technical psychologists and the
like of the facility. That's a consideration.
There's a consideration of placement. Certainly, it's
already been mentioned here and was mentioned in opening
comments, the aspect of connection with families, the
importance of that. In my opening comments, I talked about
victims. There's victims of crime. There's victims among us,
staff, and there's the forgotten victims, which are the
families of the offenders.
So the placement where visitation can be facilitated with
the inmate population, certainly that's an aspect, too. There's
even logistics reasons.
All that has to be balanced with other considerations that
are placed at least in the Federal system in which then the
money is certainly authorized and the placement decided. So I
can only speak then from the practitioner.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back. The chair will
now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate
all of you being here, sincerely, and the topic of this
hearing.
Prior to Congress, I ran a think tank for 25 years, and
this is one of the areas that the last 2 or 3 years that I was
there we were focused on. And looking at the material and
particularly the release preparation program, one of the things
that I didn't see was a concerted effort to help inmates
achieve either a high school diploma or a vocational degree or
an associate's degree that would really--it would do two
things, Mr. Martin. It would prepare people to enter the
workforce, but it also gives them that ceremony.
I mean, it is--I really appreciate what the chairman has
said about, you know, you don't want to be soft on crime. But
at the same time, when someone has paid their debt, that debt
is paid, and they ought to be able to reenter society.
Ms. Roseberry, I was looking at the information in the
Colson task force report, and the thing that I didn't see in it
was recommendations for a program to help inmates achieve a
high school diploma or another degree. And when you look at who
is in prison--again, back to what Mr. Martin said--it is
disproportionately poor people, regardless of color. And it is
disproportionately people who are high school dropouts.
And one of the reports shows that 68 percent of State
inmates are high school dropouts. And that is regardless of
race, gender. This is something I am more focused on finding
solutions, and I think the solution is before they go in the
prison door, and then unfortunately, we have got to focus on
how we get them out the prison door.
And looking at the Colson task force, one of the things
that I was looking for is one of the things that we have
suggested in Alabama, to this point to no avail, was to utilize
online learning programs. I mean, there are excellent
opportunities for people to achieve a high school diploma, to
get an associate or vocational degree, networking with
businesses who are prepared to hire these people when they come
out.
We are at a point in our economy right now where there is
competition for workers and particularly workers with certain
skills. But also--and going back to the Colson task force, I
had the great privilege to know Chuck Colson, a godly,
wonderful man--to integrate into that these faith-based groups
that can help prepare them for reentry. Do you want to comment
on that?
Ms. Roseberry. Yes. First of all, I'd like to say with
respect to your comment about the front end, you're absolutely
right. If we're talking about, for example, ban-the-box
creating the presumption that African-American men have more
connections with the criminal justice system, perhaps the
solution is to stop overpolicing those communities and
incarcerating those individuals to begin with.
But the Colson task force did look at the fact that the
Bureau of Prisons staff were spread thin by virtue of
overcrowding, and we made the recommendation that because we
found waiting lists, for example, for GEDs to be years long and
the opportunity to be eligible for programs to be put on the
back end of the serving of a sentence, and also for lifers,
there was no eligibility. We made the recommendation that the
Bureau of Prisons incentivize participation in these programs--
of course, after reallocating resources--so that those programs
could be provided to everyone.
Also in our recommendation that programming be
individualized, be evidence-based, data-driven, and
individualized, you would see that folks who needed educational
programming would have an opportunity to get it by virtue of it
having been identified for them.
Mr. Palmer. Let me address that. There was a report from
the Alliance for Excellence in Education that reported on
underserved students. They are disproportionately poor,
regardless of race. There is over 1,200 of those schools. In
New York, there were 199 of them. These are schools that have
very high dropout rates.
And again, going back to the dropout rate and then the
information from the Bureau of Prisons, it shows that inmates
who leave prison who do not have a high school diploma, their
recidivism rate is 60.4 percent. So when I talk about on the
front end, this is outside of the purview of the Bureau of
Prisons, obviously. It is all about how do we put more emphasis
on helping particularly young African-American males stay in
school? That is a pathway to a better future.
But for those who are incarcerated, I really believe we
ought to look at a way to incentivize. If I may, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Horowitz, you were talking about there is no incentive for
them to enter the program. To incentivize by looking at if
these inmates who have not committed violent felonies who are
going to be paroled, that if they achieve a high school
diploma, they are eligible for an earlier release. If they
achieve an associate or vocational degree.
That creates an incentive, Mr. Martin. It gives them a
goal. It gives them a vision for a future that, frankly, I
don't think exists right now in our prisons. Would you like to
comment on that, anybody?
Ms. Roseberry. I'd just like to reiterate that the task
force did recommend incentivizing these programs, even for
those who are serving life, and suggested that the reward for
them could be better confinement conditions, et cetera. And for
others who have a release date, that the release date would be
moved back with good time.
Mr. Martin. Just briefly, two things. One, it was a
correctional counselor who said to me I should go to college
after I got my GED.
Mr. Palmer. You were a high school dropout?
Mr. Martin. Yes. And so I earned that GED. And while he was
looking at those test scores, said to me, ``You should go to
college.'' So as important as the degree was, you're right.
There was a bit of a moment where another human being in a
position of authority who was seeing hundreds of people that
day saw something in me that I might not have even seen in
myself in that moment. So there is the value of that and
everything else that comes from education.
There's also the piece about the conditions of confinement.
The fact of the matter is that facilities that have more
programs do better with respect to safety of correction
officers. Why? Because the people who are serving time there
want to take advantage of those opportunities, and also the
folks who may not yet be college ready or even ready to get
their GEDs have something to look forward to and to look up to.
I can't tell you how many people I helped to actually get their
own GED after being in college while I was incarcerated.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, there is a report--and I am sure
Mr. Martin and Ms. Roseberry, maybe everyone on the panel is
familiar with--from Pew, the Collateral Costs: Incarceration's
Effect on Economic Mobility. It is the very thing that Mr.
Martin has been talking about.
There is also an article that young black men without a
high school diploma are more likely to be found in a cell than
in a workplace. And I just want to emphasize that I think we
want to make sure that our society is safe, that law
enforcement is able to do its job. But at the same time, there
is a reality that we have got to recognize that most of these
people are going to reenter society, and I don't think we are
doing enough to prepare them for that.
And I yield back.
Mr. Russell. [Presiding] The gentleman yields back.
And the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the
District of Columbia, Ms. Holmes Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I very much appreciate
this hearing from the ranking member and the chairman.
I have a question for Mr. Inch, but I really also want to
get to these, what I see are some competing studies here
because I very much respect scholarship. I was a tenured
professor of law, and so I have got to somehow reconcile with
them.
Mr. Inch, the Bureau of Prisons is considered the best
prison in the world, and there are many thoughtful programs.
You hire people in the Bureau of Prisons who have advanced
degrees. In light of the quality of personnel at the Bureau of
Prisons, and I know I will be seeing you about D.C. inmates
shortly, until recently--this is before you came, people on
home confinement even were charged 25 percent of anything they
happened to make, imagine people who have just gotten out of
prison, to pay back to the Bureau of Prisons.
Some of that was gotten rid of before you came. But now if
you are in a halfway house, which is, of course, imprisonment,
you are still not released from prison, you are still charged
25 percent. I don't know why you don't just charge them 25
percent for being in jail.
How can you possibly reconcile charging people who happen
to get a job 25 percent of anything they make to give back to
you, the Bureau of Prisons, rather than to their children,
rather than to their families, and rather than to keeping
themselves out of jail?
Mr. Inch. Thank you, Congresswoman Holmes Norton, and I'm
sorry we had to delay our meeting.
Ms. Norton. That is quite all right. It was my fault.
Mr. Inch. It actually was a loss in my family.
So the use of RRCs, actually, this is something new I'm
learning. In the military corrections, we did not avail
ourselves of the Federal program, and I need to bound my
comments by of our 223 facilities, I've been to one during this
first 90 days. It was actually in Baltimore and really
appreciated the reception I received there, the insights, and
the contract provider that actually runs quite a few of our
residential reentry centers, they were kind enough to come up
as well.
The aspect specifically that you asked for in terms of ----
Ms. Norton. Paying 25 percent of it, if you happen to get a
job, which most people don't get one.
Mr. Inch.--25 percent if ----
Ms. Norton. What is the rationale, given how research-based
most of your policies are? What is the rationale? Because I got
to get to this ----
Mr. Inch. Yes. So the rationale--I'm sorry. Then the
rationale is real-life budgeting. The aspect that ----
Ms. Norton. Is what?
Mr. Inch. Real-life budgeting. That with employment ----
Ms. Norton. I see.
Mr. Inch.--that a portion of that employment actually has
to go to living expenses and all that. So, say, at the end of
the 4-month period ----
Ms. Norton. But he doesn't give 25 percent of his--25
percent of his salary to an outside party. So if he has got to
budget, wouldn't you rather him budget for his family?
Mr. Inch. Well, the aspect is--I would argue the aspect is
that real aspect of our budgeting upon then release from the
residential reentry center is, in fact, going to be for housing
and for food. And so building that into the budget during the
period of transition seems appropriate to me.
Ms. Norton. I don't understand that you have answered my
question, but I am going to see you shortly.
Look, there are--Ms. Doleac, I respect your study, and I
particularly respect studies that contradict one another in the
academic environment. And there is a study by Terry-Ann Craigie
for ban-the-box even with what are some of the findings you
have made. Now, for me, I am going to need more rationale than
I thought I would need for ban-the-box.
You say the best evidence--this is your testimony--suggests
that ban-the-box does not increase employment for people with
criminal records and might reduce it. I got to take that
seriously.
You also say, and again, I am reading from your testimony,
``While white applicants were called back at nearly the same
rate as before, black applicants were called back at a rate in
between the rates at which those with and without records were
called back before ban-the-box. This may help black men with
records, but it hurts black men without records.''
So my question for you is, do you believe your sample was
broad enough? And with the Craigie study, the study that I just
indicated, essentially her response was, look--I would agree
with her. Look, racial discrimination is even worse. So you got
to deal with racial discrimination. But as I see it, both forms
of discrimination are captured in your study, and you don't
find that anybody gets helped with ban-the-box.
Would you somehow reconcile what you are saying with what
she is saying?
Ms. Doleac. Sure. So just to clarify, the studies that I'm
talking about in my written testimony, there are actually four
different studies. So I'm not finding all of those things in my
own study. The--the evidence that ban-the-box reduces
employment or reduces employment for black men or, at the very
least, doesn't help them comes from two very nice studies now
that link criminal history records with employment records, one
in Massachusetts and one in Seattle.
The study in Massachusetts compares people who are affected
by ban-the-box when Massachusetts implemented the policy with
folks who--with a very similar control group that is not
affected by ban-the-box, and they find that employment falls
for individuals with criminal records after ban-the-box goes
into effect.
This is consistent with new qualitative evidence from a
graduate student at UC-Irvine, Dallas Augustine. She's been
spending the last couple of years talking to people coming out
of jail and prison and finding that, you know, what I think a
lot of us would know anecdotally. It's extremely frustrating to
go through a job process and build rapport with an employer and
get a conditional offer, maybe even work for a probationary
period, and then not get the job when they finally check your
criminal record.
And ban-the-box increases the likelihood that that happens
for anyone who actually does get their foot in the door. And so
to the extent that that discourages people and they just give
up and stop looking, you know, I think a lot of people would
rather know up front if they're not going to get the job
because they have a criminal record.
The study by Terry-Ann Craigie I know well. It's a working
paper. I think it at this point does not credibly isolate the
effect of ban-the-box from other employment factors. There is--
this is the main challenge that economists work very hard to--
to overcome is figuring out what the impact of a policy is
separate from the impact of just underlying economic trends and
other factors that might drive employment.
At this point, she has a treatment and control group, and I
think, to get a little bit wonky, the challenge is to show that
your treatment and control group look very similar before the
policy is passed so that you know you have a good
counterfactual. So you know you have a good idea of what would
have happened in a place that passes ban-the-box if the place
hadn't passed that policy.
At this point, her study is not able to show that. You
know, it's a working paper, still a work in progress. I'm sure
she'll figure that out.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have that study
introduced into the record, and I would like to say that the
notion has to be taken very seriously that ban-the-box ends up
with race being used as a proxy for discrimination. So I am
very interested in the kinds of research that your hearing has
uncovered and in further research into this area.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Russell. The gentlelady yields back, and without
objection.
Mr. Russell. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Kentucky, Mr. Comer.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My questions are going to be directed toward Director Inch.
Recently, there have been closures of some reentry centers and
a significant number of inmates whose referral dates to the
reentry centers have been shortened or canceled. What is
administration's commitment to reentry services going forward?
Mr. Inch. Thank you, Congressman Comer, for that question.
Of course, as I came on 3 months ago, it was at this time
where certainly in media and in the framework or what was being
presented was a perception of changing administration focus. I
can assure you that's not the case, certainly not in my first 3
months of experience.
We had a lot of learning in the RRC administration,
actually with the help of OIG and, of course, the good look,
the good recommendations that we received. The closing of the
16 facilities, which really the correct way to say it is the
not executing option years of contracts, or not renewing
contracts, really was dealing with the efficiency of the
system. Underused facilities or facilities that were of a
contracting type that it really wasn't the optimal.
We've done a lot of work to create a standard statement of
work in contracting. So we are looking to the efficiency of the
system. Those 16 facilities accounted for about 1 percent of
the bed space. Coupled with that perceptions that come was
bringing other RRCs back within capacity gaps that our
contracts added.
Mr. Comer. I am going to switch gears now. Next questions
are going to be about drug abuse. How big a problem is drug
abuse in the Federal prisons, and what are you doing to curb
drug abuse and addiction in the Federal prisons?
Mr. Inch. Thank you for that question.
So in my experiences in corrections, certainly again that's
been on the military side and then very active interaction with
professional organizations in corrections. The aspect of
decision-making is obviously influenced by--can be influenced
by addictions, drug, alcohol, other addictions. And so, as I do
an assessment of the Bureau's reentry programming writ large,
you know, the aspect of cognitive behavioral therapy with other
aspects, frankly, I'm very impressed with RDAP, the Residential
Drug Abuse Program. We have both nonresidential, residential
within the facility.
In my early visits to different facilities, I've made a
point to go to both English and Spanish-speaking RDAPs and am
impressed with the program both in my discussions with staff
and the inmates.
Mr. Comer. What role do residential reentry centers have in
inmates obtaining drug treatment?
Mr. Inch. Congressman, if it's possible if I could get back
with you specifically on that?
Mr. Comer. Absolutely.
Mr. Inch. I think it ties in with our new statement of
work, but I probably need to ----
Mr. Comer. Okay. No problem. My last question, how big of a
challenge is preventing drugs or other contraband from entering
into prisons, and what is the Bureau doing to prevent this?
Mr. Inch. Oh, thank you for that question.
It is a reality in the corrections profession since the
start to this day, of course, is the aspect of countering the
introduction of contraband. The seriousness of the type of
synthetics primarily, not primarily, but certainly the
seriousness of the introduction of synthetic drugs absolutely
affects safety. And so our commitment to both using
technological and procedural ways to address the introduction
of contraband is a daily commitment and effort within the
Bureau.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Russell. The gentleman yields back.
And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank all the panelists for joining us today.
We have had a fascinating discussion.
And I want to--I want to thank you, Ms. Roseberry, for
mentioning our Secretary of Corrections in Pennsylvania, John
Wetzel, who was appointed by a Republican governor and was kept
on by the succeeding Democratic governor. I know Secretary
Wetzel to be a very competent and capable head of our prison
system in Pennsylvania.
And I also appreciate your mentioning, Ms. Roseberry, the
importance of keeping correctional staff safe, and it is a
particular concern of mine. We have had some ugly incidents in
Federal prisons in Pennsylvania, and so I want to take it up
with you, Director Inch, if I may? I realize you are still
pretty new on the job, and maybe this is the right time to
catch you while you are still wrapping your head around the
process.
But this is something that I am very deeply concerned
about. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has previously testified
that the mission-critical staffing levels established by the
Bureau are the bare minimum employment levels necessary safely
to operate a prison.
Right now, the administration of the Bureau is mandating to
all facilities that they must lower their staffing levels to 88
percent of mission critical. First off, were you aware of that?
Mr. Inch. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright.
First, just bringing to attention the issue and in terms of
staffing levels, I am, yes, very aware of our staffing levels.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. So why is the administration
mandating reducing staffing levels to 88 percent of mission
critical, which is defined as the bare minimum employment
levels to safely operate a Federal prison?
Mr. Inch. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright.
So to--really to frame my answer, part of my first 90 days
was actually to go to Pennsylvania. I was able to go to the
regional headquarters that's in Philadelphia, to visit also
Lewisburg and Allenwood. The--I also took the opportunity--and
Mr. Don Williams was very gracious also to sit down with me and
give a personal anecdote. For those who may not know Don
Williams, his son Eric Williams was a Federal Bureau of Prisons
correctional officer who was killed in the line of duty. And so
I very much appreciated how gracious he was to meet with me.
So the aspect of staffing, as I've done staff recalls
throughout those facilities I've been to in these first 90
days, and that's 5 out of 6 regions, that is a consistent
concern of staff as well as the leadership of the facilities.
Though I cannot specifically answer on the process that
resulted in the mission-critical staffing positions by
facility, it is certainly a priority that I've already set is a
relook at our staffing numbers ----
Mr. Cartwright. Excellent. Excellent answer, and I want you
to relook at that because we are talking about the safety of
people like Eric Williams ----
Mr. Inch. Absolutely.
Mr. Cartwright.--and his coworkers. Now after the Federal
hiring freeze policy was implemented, a large number of Federal
Bureau of Prisons facilities are operating well below
authorized strength. Many of these same facilities will, in the
very near future, lose even more corrections officers and other
critical staff due to normal attrition--retirements,
relocation, things like that.
This situation leaves some institutions in a potentially
dangerous situation without the ability to resolve it by hiring
more staff. Does the Bureau currently have a plan to remedy
this, and if not, why not?
Mr. Inch. Thank you.
So in the current hiring freeze, my ability to gain waivers
back up to the cap, I believe it was January of 2017, we've
been very successful in obtaining our waivers, are in that
process. And with that process of achieving the waivers, of
course, from the front end, that starts the aspect of going
through, you know, initial training and the like.
But you're correct in identifying the importance of proper
staffing in our facilities for safety and the--I would argue
from a practitioner's, again, perspective is the challenge is
it's facility by facility. You know, you just can't cookie
cutter this because our facilities were built over a 100-year
period. And so the safe application of if we want to use the
term ``mission-critical positions'' does have an impact of the
facility as well as the type of prisoners and programs we have
at those facilities.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, I thank you for that. And I want to
just mention again. My other committee is Appropriations, and I
am on the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee. We
funded the Bureau's salaries and expenses funding level at just
under 99 percent of what you asked for. So I urge you to do
that relook on 88 percent of the bare minimum. By definition,
that is woefully inadequate.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Russell. The gentleman yields back.
And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin,
Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Sure. I will start with Mr. Inch, but anybody
else can jump in if they want to.
The first question, what percentage of inmates that you
release have jobs within a month of their release?
Mr. Inch. Mr. Grothman, I don't have that statistic with
me, but I'll work with staff and get that figure to you, your
staff.
Mr. Grothman. Hmm, does anybody know the answer to that
question?
[No response.]
Mr. Grothman. Within a month of when they were--people
were--I don't know how you can solve a problem if you don't
have the data.
But okay, next question. Among those people who get jobs,
what type of jobs do they get? I mean, I was told--I was a
legislator for a long time in Wisconsin, and we were told for a
while that there were certain kind of tough jobs that, you
know, employers were--would grab anybody coming out of prison
to take because they couldn't find people to take these
unpleasant jobs.
But could somebody comment on the type of jobs the average
person coming out of prison is getting? Mr. Martin?
Mr. Martin. Thank you.
In my experience, particularly while I worked at a public
interest law firm speaking to not just formerly incarcerated
job seekers, but also employers who were interested in hiring
them, typically they're low income. They're high turnover.
There are no benefits. Retail ----
Mr. Grothman. That is not answering what type of jobs they
are getting.
Mr. Martin. I was getting there. I'm sorry.
Mr. Grothman. Okay.
Mr. Martin. Retail, construction, hospitality. However, I
think the caveat there is that things change when the labor
market gets tighter. So when it becomes a job seeker's labor
market, I find that people have better opportunities. I also
find that when people are credentialed, then employers are much
more willing to consider a qualified applicant who has, say, a
driver's license that has a certain credential that allows him
to drive a truck.
If that person has a clean CDL is the name I'm looking for.
Sorry, a clean CDL license, for instance, an employer is much
more willing to give them consideration and puts less emphasis
on the criminal record. But traditionally, it's the sort of
jobs that I just mentioned in those industries.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Next question, I guess I wouldn't know
how you would know this if you don't know what is going on in
your own system. But do you know which State systems do the
best job of getting people a job within 1 month after they
leave incarceration? Does anybody know?
I mean, to me, it should be easy for the Federal Government
to know what to do because we have 50 States out there who are
operating things different ways. Does anybody have--take a shot
at which States do a good job?
Ms. Doleac. Well, I don't know the answer to that question,
but I think the real issue here is that the data that we would
need to answer the questions that you're asking don't exist. We
don't have data on--we don't have certainly at a national level
criminal history data linked with employment data. And so we
don't even know how many people in the United States have a
criminal record, much less where they live or what jobs they
have when they can get them.
Mr. Grothman. Well, it is kind of appalling, isn't it? We
have got all these universities, all this graduate student
stuff, and we don't even know the--I mean, it is kind of almost
pointless to even have the hearing unless we know the answers
to those questions. We should know, you know, the percentage of
people who leave Federal prison, a month out of prison, what
job do they get?
We should know, we got 50 States, and this doesn't work in
Tennessee or this does work in Iowa or whatever. And given the
sea of money that is floating around here and the sea of money
that we send to our colleges and universities to do studies, I
just find it shocking that we don't have the most basic data
that you need before you even address this problem. Isn't that
kind of amazing? Kind of amazing.
Ms. Doleac. Could I comment on that?
Mr. Grothman. Yes.
Ms. Doleac. I mean, I think that the--this is a challenge
for the Federal Government. Honestly, the data would need to be
collected and--and investment needs to be made at the Federal
level. I know the Census is working on this. They have people
who are spending a lot of time and money trying to look at
these datasets. This is not--not ----
Mr. Grothman. But even they don't because they are not
going to break it down by State, okay? We should say X number
of people were released from Illinois State prison system last
year, and X percent had a job 30 days after they got out. We
should have that information, but apparently, we don't.
Looking--there have been some criticisms of the people,
number of people in prison, and I want you to comment on this.
I was just playing around because you have got everything on
the Internet, and the murder rate kind of was really kind of
wonderful like in the '50s in this country, and then it began
to skyrocket up to the '80s. And then we began to put more
people in prison, and the murder rate dropped again.
Is it possible one of the reasons we had such a drop in the
murder rate from the early '80s to, say, 2013 or whatever is
because we put more people in prison? That it wasn't entirely a
bad thing to have more dangerous people in prison. Is that
possible? Is that one of the reasons why the murder rate
dropped so much in this country, more bad people were in
prison? Anyone care to comment on that?
Mr. Martin. I'll take a swing at it. I live in New York,
where we've cut our jail population in half in the last 20
years. We've cut our prison population by 28 percent, and our
crime rate, particularly our violent crime rate, is down to
levels of 1961. So I think that actually contradicts the idea
that you put more people in prison, you get more public safety.
Having said that, I think your question was a little bit
more nuanced about who we actually put in prison. I think that
if we had more data, we'd be able to tell a story about whether
locking up certain people for longer periods of time gets us
better outcomes. But there is some research now that said--that
says that there is the sort of law of sort of diminishing
effect. The longer you have a person in prison, the more
difficult time they have reentering society, and 95 percent of
the people who go to prison come home at some point.
Mr. Russell. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Jersey,
Mrs. Watson Coleman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Inch? Is it Inch? I am so sorry. I didn't hear them say
your name.
Mr. Inch. It is. Mark Inch.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Inch at a time. Okay. Is it true that
the majority of the prisoners in the Federal system are there
for nonviolent drug offenses?
Mr. Inch. Thank you for that question.
You know, during my opening statement, I identified the
categories by which we had Federal inmates and recognized about
40 percent we have at a custody grade of medium or high based
not only on their current conviction, but their histories of--
histories of criminal history.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. I am not sure you are answering. Could
you just answer my question?
Mr. Inch. Yes. So in terms of the actual statistics, my
staff can provide your office the exact statistics ----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Do you have any sense that the
majority of the prisoners that are in the system are there for
nonviolent drug-related offenses?
Mr. Inch. There's a philosophical aspect here is drug
trafficking a nonviolent or a violent crime?
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Okay. I can't have a colloquy with
you. I am just going to ask you questions. You answer me
questions.
Mr. Inch. Yes. Okay. That's ----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So I am just going to ask you, however
you categorize those prisoners in your system, if you can't
answer that question, could you please, through our chairman,
supply that information?
Mr. Inch. Yes, I'll certainly supply the exact statistics
of our inmate population.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Okay, thank you. All righty. Thank
you.
What is your feeling about the change in the
administration's position with regard to the use of private
prisons?
Mr. Inch. Okay. Thank you for that, that question as well.
So within the Federal system, when I was in the military
and doing military corrections, we did not use private prisons.
So do not have an informed opinion from that experience.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Okay.
Mr. Inch. But I am obviously aware that we do use private
prisons as one of the tools kind of in our toolbox addressed
primarily to low inmates, alien low, though, of course, we also
use a private facility for D.C. inmates.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
My understanding is that there are other sort of entities
and partners who look at this and observe this situation,
including the IG, who said that these prisons, these private
prisons are less safe, less secure, are more problematic for
the safety and security of not only the inmate, but the staff.
Do you have an awareness of that, and are you in agreement with
that?
Mr. Inch. So I'm certainly aware of the report, the
experience that we have on the Federal side with our contracts
and with the population. The challenge, and I believe the
report identified that, is the challenges of doing comparisons.
When you try to compare different types of inmate populations,
it's just an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So since you think that there are less
violent, less problematic inmates placed in the private
prisons, you would think that there would be less incidences of
insecure activity. So I am going to ask Mr. Horowitz what your
finding was?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, our private prison review, which
identified a number of the issues that you reference,
Congresswoman, caused us concern about BOP's oversight of the
contract prisons, as you know from the report. Concerns about
staffing that was going on at these private contract prisons
not meeting the contractual requirements. The contracts not
being reviewed for quality assurance purposes and those sorts
of things.
So we found very significantly that, at a minimum, if
private prisons were going to be used, BOP needed to do a
better job of overseeing them.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
You know, I have exactly one minute left. And this is an
issue, this whole issue of prison, prison reform, criminal
justice reform, reentry, making sure we have evidence-based
programs that we are moving our inmates through so that when
they come back--and the majority of them do come back--they are
ready, willing, and able to take on their positions as good
citizens.
Thank you, Mr. Martin. You are a fantastic witness. And
thank you for your work.
And Dr. Doleac, is that right, Doleac? Your work concerns
me, or your conclusions concern me because it is almost as if
let us not do anything that makes sense for those who are
vulnerable because that would just create greater
discrimination against those who are vulnerable but have no
record. And I say that has to do with the enforcement of the
law against discrimination, and we ought to be more diligent
and vigilant in that. And to do otherwise is to throw the baby
out with the bath water.
And Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that this is a
very important hearing that we need to explore from various
levels, from what is happening when you are in prison, how do
you divert from the prison, and what do you do on the way out?
And so I ask you, through my ranking member, that we devote a
whole hearing to that.
And I thank you very much, and I yield back because I am
over my time.
Mr. Russell. And I thank the gentlelady. And I think, given
the bipartisan interest in this matter, that we certainly could
use a lot more time for deliberation. And the gentlelady yields
back.
And the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida,
Mrs. Demings.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to all of our witnesses who are here with us
today.
First of all, I want to say I cannot agree more with my
colleagues who talked about the importance of education and
keeping persons from going to prison in the first place and, if
they do, giving them a fighting chance once they are released
from prison. As a former police chief, it is an issue that I
looked at quite a bit, and I have asked the question over and
over again, could reducing our prison population be as simple
as ensuring that our young men in particular have the ability
to graduate high school or receive an equivalent if they do
not?
We have also talked quite a bit today about information,
data, the importance of it or the lack thereof. You all know
that last year, the Government Accountability Office released a
report that basically said the Bureau of Prison lacks adequate
information to effectively evaluate its programs. And based on
the lack of answers that some of my colleagues were able to
receive this morning, it looks like the GAO office is correct.
Ms. Mauer, I would like to ask you, how effective do you
believe the Bureau of Prisons has been in collecting and
tracking key program data?
Ms. Mauer. Thank you for that question.
We found that that's tended to vary depending on the type
of program. As a general proposition, the BOP is very good at
keeping track of the number of individuals they have within the
system, where they're located, what their security level is,
sort of the basic, fundamental information you need to run a
correctional system.
However, where we--a common theme we found across a number
of our reports is that BOP and the Department of Justice have
often lacked the ability to assess the impact of their
programs. They don't necessarily know whether they're working
effectively. And we found that specifically when it came to
residential reentry centers and home confinement, as well as
reentry programming.
Mrs. Demings. Director Inch, do you agree with those--with
that statement?
Mr. Inch. Ma'am, I think it's a very compelling argument. I
do understand the difference between a measure of performance.
You know, we say this is what we do, and here is the facts, as
opposed to a measure of effectiveness. It's a very legitimate
comment.
Mrs. Demings. How important--or has improve in oversight
and accountability been part of your review of the major
policies within the Bureau of Prisons?
Mr. Inch. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Yes. You know, within my first 90 days, the taking a very
close look, especially within our Reentry Services Division, of
how we not only address programs and focus the priorities of
the program. I think the better way to describe it, though, is,
and I'm just starting to spiral into that. There's level upon
level upon level because of the complexity, frankly, of that.
But, yes, it certainly has my focus.
Mrs. Demings. Ms. Roseberry, as a member of the task force,
I know you all as well made several recommendations. How
important do you believe those recommendations are to the
overall success of what we are trying to do? And if you could
talk a little bit about your perception of those
recommendations that have been implemented or not?
Ms. Roseberry. Thank you for that question.
We think that our recommendations are integral to the
success of the Bureau of Prisons and ultimately to the citizens
who matriculate through them. We've not found that many of them
have been implemented up to this point specifically with
respect to programming and individualized assessments, which,
of course, has a direct impact on reentry.
We did find that one of the largest drivers of
overincarceration were the low level or the nonviolent drug
offenders and recommended that prison beds be reserved only for
those who are very serious offenders and that we use diversion
and other programs to provide corrections measures to people
who have committed infractions.
Mrs. Demings. I know one of your recommendations was to
establish an oversight board. Has that board been implemented
as of yet?
Ms. Roseberry. It has not. And as I mentioned in my
comments, transparency is an important part of our prisons. We
need to know what's going on in our prisons.
I recently spoke with a professor who'd studied both French
and American prisons who said to me that the only way we know
what's going on inside American prisons is if some lawyer files
a lawsuit or if a reporter takes a look at it. We deserve to
know what is going on inside our prisons.
Mrs. Demings. Director Lynch--or Inch, I am sorry, I know
that 90 days can be a short time or a long time depending on
where you are. But do you intend to implement this
recommendation to have an oversight review board?
Mr. Inch. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Actually, that particular recommendation isn't for the
Bureau of Prisons to implement. Certainly that would be a
departmental decision above me.
Mrs. Demings. What is your opinion of the oversight review
board and the purpose that it would serve?
Mr. Inch. So my initial impression seeing that, one, this
is my first hearing I've ever been at, and it's called an ----
Mrs. Demings. Congratulations.
Mr. Inch. Yes. And it's called an oversight committee. I
recognize I'm under oversight. The reports that I've certainly
read by--from the Office of Inspector General and from the GAO,
I find that they are very direct in their observations and very
detailed, and I value that. I would argue that's oversight, and
I can assure you my boss is involved in my life.
Mrs. Demings. So you have not ruled out that possibility?
Mr. Inch. I have personally not requested an additional
oversight mechanism, bureaucratic or otherwise, at this point.
Mrs. Demings. Okay. Thank you. I have run out of time.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Russell. The gentlelady yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms.
Kelly.
Ms. Kelly. Almost done. Director Inch, I wanted to know,
have recent cuts in halfway house services affected inmates'
ability to transition back to their communities at a facility
close to home?
Mr. Inch. Thank you again for the question on our
residential reentry centers, a very important part of our
program, and we are absolutely committed to it.
The reports, of course, of not executing option years or
contracts of underutilized RRCs got a lot of attention in the
past few months. That was primarily done for the efficiency of
the system. You know, we have a clear spend plan. And the
underutilized facilities are where we had facilities that were
of a contractual type that was, frankly, not efficient, and we
had other facilities within the region to pick up the
requirements. I assure you it was not to signal any less
commitment to the use of that program.
Ms. Kelly. Okay. And what is being done to ensure that
inmates are sent to prison facilities within a reasonable
distance of their home. I am from the State of Illinois, the
Chicagoland area, even though mostly in the south suburbs of
Chicago, and I hear that complaint a lot.
I am not just saying about Federal prisons, but a lot about
there is a lot of people from the Chicagoland area that get
sent downstate, and it is very difficult for their families to
visit and a lot of different things that go along with that.
Mr. Inch. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Well, I grew up in Wheaton, and you'd probably call me
downstate, too.
Ms. Kelly. No, I live in Matteson. So I don't ----
Mr. Inch. So, of course, with our array of Federal
facilities, and in Illinois, I believe we have five, I've
visited Thomson here in my first 90 days. But drawing back to
the general, the whole aspect of inmate designation, we have
consolidated that within the Bureau of Prisons, our designation
center is actually in Texas, Grand Prairie. That takes into
consideration absolutely the--well, a variety of aspects. But
as you would expect, being close to home is a positive.
In my initial statement, I talked about one of our
stakeholders being victims, and I divide the victims between
victims of crime, and there is aspects of what we do that it
relates to those victims. Victims among us. That's the staff
and inmates that are victims. And what I would call, personal
term is forgotten victims, and that's the family members of the
offenders.
And so having very strong bonds between the offender and
their family. Sometimes there's reasons why that can't be, but
is important. So, but we look at programs, custody grade,
health requirements. We have four levels of health
requirements. It's quite complex. But the aspect of being close
to family, that's one advantage of our Federal system of 122
facilities is it improves that capability.
Ms. Kelly. So, I mean, is it a very low percentage of
people that aren't within the 500 miles or a great distance
away, or do you feel like you have a handle on that issue?
Mr. Inch. So I feel we have a handle. But allow me to get
back with--to staff on the exact statistics of the number of
inmates that are within 500 miles, recognizing if they are
outside that, there's often a very good reason for that.
Ms. Kelly. Did you want to say something?
Ms. Roseberry. Yes. I'd like to just say that, you know, to
these poor and marginalized communities, 500 miles might as
well be 2 million miles away from home.
Ms. Kelly. I know. That is a long way.
Ms. Roseberry. And also with respect to D.C. Code offenders
who are housed within the Bureau of Prisons, they are typically
farther away than 500 miles.
Ms. Kelly. Okay. Thank you.
And I think my colleague from Wisconsin brings up a good
point. I would like to know which States, you know, we feel
have best practices. And when I think about Illinois, and you
said you were from Wheaton. So there is something called the
Safer Foundation, I don't know if you guys are familiar, that
help people coming out of jail get jobs, and they seem to do a
good job at that. And it seems like we need to study and
research and analyze, you know, what is working because, I
mean, it is ridiculous the amount of people we have in jail and
the reasons, you know, they are in jail.
I think about the State of Washington and Colorado and what
people are allowed to do there. Then we have people in jail,
you know, for, you know, smoking marijuana. Now, you know, in
some places, it is okay to do it.
So, but I do think we need to look at each State and look
at best practices and what can be duplicated. Some things
can't. Like in Illinois, we have ban-the-box, which I think is
excellent that we did that. So, you know, that helps. But I
think we definitely need to take a closer look and hear
recommendations from you.
I yield back.
Mr. Russell. The gentlelady yields back.
We do appreciate the panel being here today, and with six
of you, obviously, we have been indulgent a little bit on time.
So I appreciate you doing that, but you are not done yet. I
have my own sets of questions.
But I am grateful. I think everybody here not only is
committed to helping solve the problems. It might come from
different viewpoints or angles.
And General Inch, thank you for your continued service to
our country not only in your previous life, but now you are
doing something easy like taking on the Bureau of Prisons. So
we are grateful to your continued selfless service, and welcome
to your first hearing.
It seems to me that coupled with recidivism,
overincarceration, my State, in Oklahoma, we have one of the
highest rates of incarceration per capita. But we also have, at
least with State agencies, a ban-the-box provision, where we
have tried to address and look at this. But I think coupled
with that is--is our judiciary branch and its examination on
how we look at sentencing. You know, we seem to have an
incarcerative justice system rather than a restitutive justice
system.
And until we address that--and then, as lawmakers, many
times, I think we--wanting to be tough on crime and all of
these things, I think ofttimes we tie the hands of the equal
branch of Government being the judiciary, where judges can have
latitude in their courts. Not every case is the same. Not every
background is the same. Not every propensity for future
criminal behavior is the same, even though the crimes might be
identical. We have to take that on as well as a part of that.
I think, if I may start with you, Mr. Martin, and thank you
for your work in highlighting these issues, you know, as a
business owner that manufactures firearms, I have even made a
hire where we had somebody with a criminal record, which is--
you know, can be risk taking and complicated, given what we
manufacture. You know, I am thinking as from an employer end,
okay, say we have a ban-the-box provision, but then it is like,
``Okay, Mr. Russell, tell me about your work history in the
last 5 years.'' And then I am like, ``Well, you know, I haven't
been working in the last 5.'' ``Well, why not? Where have you
been?''
I mean, so how do we--yes, we have a ban-the-box type of
provision. But at the same time, we also are kind of placing
the applicant in a situation where really the applicant is
going to have to divulge what has been going on if they are in
that first 2-year at-risk period trying to come out and look at
employment. Could you address that?
Mr. Martin. Sure. So here is where I give credit for--to
the Second Chance Act and the sort of reentry infrastructure
that it's created around the country because programs like
Safer, Fortune Society, a number of others around the country
are in the business of helping job seekers understand how to
have that conversation with employers. If you asked me if I
were an applicant now for a job just out of prison, yes, I
would take ownership over the conviction, but I'd spend a lot
more time talking to you about what I've done since then by way
of evidence of rehabilitation, whether it was drug and alcohol
treatment programs or, in my case, access to a liberal arts
degree or those sort of things.
So we're not going to solve all of the problems with ban-
the-box, and I'm actually glad you brought up the fact that a
conservative State has moved forward with ban-the-box because
there's actually a number of more conservative States that have
done so. But I think that, you know, we got here through a
million cuts, and it's going to take probably just as many
antidotes to get us out of this. And one of them is ban-the-
box, but another one is investing--continuing to invest in
reentry programs through the Second Chance Act that do the job
of preparing people for that interaction.
And what I don't want to get lost in this conversation is
something that the chairman said before he departed, which is
let's talk about human beings and how they operate, right? Like
we can look at the research, we can look at the data, but we
also know that we have done a great job of dehumanizing the
people that go into the system, whether it's violent,
nonviolent, and everything else on the spectrum.
And that continued interaction between prospective employer
and prospective employee, I think ultimately we will look back
and realize that we have done a lot to rehumanize those folks,
even if it means that every single person doesn't get the job.
Because people will--I visited 50 different employers. I
guarantee you that maybe a third of them I probably wasn't even
qualified, but just very desperate for a job opportunity. But
at the same time, the interaction, I don't want to devalue the
value of that.
Mr. Russell. Well, thank you for that. And I do have some
additional questions as we close out, but I will go ahead and
yield back and recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And let me first associate myself with the ranking member's
beginning comments. I am afraid that historians will look back
in our policy towards corrections and look at it like Michelle
Alexander expressed in The New Jim Crow, that this is a period
clearly driven by policy that had a lot to do with fear and
racism and the challenge this country continues to have. And
all, based in my opinion, on one very important political TV ad
in a presidential campaign of which the author of, Lee Atwater,
apologized on his deathbed.
So in that context where we have come to realize that we
have made a mistake, I think, in a bipartisan way, Mr.
Horowitz, having spent a lot of time in my previous job in
California knowing that we were going to have a Supreme Court
decision that said that we had to let 45,000 of our almost
200,000 State inmates out, knowing that the system was driving
the State towards bankruptcy at that time, knowing that all the
outcomes were bad, having spent time in various State
correctional facilities and talked to people who would tell--
who had worked there for 35 years and told me with pride what
the department used to be like when they had vocation programs.
When, jokingly, people would want to get in a vocational
program that was in a prison, and they would have to tell them
the only way they could get in was to get arrested and
sentenced to that facility. And then talking about how policy
and politics changed those institutions.
And then because of that decision, we were required to
change, and so far the history that we have done, based on
everything I have heard from the panel today, is implementing
evidence-based research, making sure that when those inmates go
back to mostly urban counties that they have transitional
housing, that they have behavioral health, that they have
vocational training. And lo and behold, our recidivism rate is
going down.
So how do we share that information? Part of what changed
California was Washington State. So how does the Federal
agencies look at what other countries and specifically what
other States have done for 20, sometimes longer. In Washington
State, we would bring their Institute of Public Policy down and
tell California, its neighbor who was supposed to be so
innovative, what we needed to do to change. And we pretty much
just copied what we already knew worked in Washington State.
So how are we sharing all this robust information in a
nonpolitical, objective, and here is the real point, and doing
it in a quick period of time? I am actually sort of shocked
that California has done it as quickly as it has because
changing those cultures is seems to me to be the largest
obstacle. So can you tell me a little bit about how we share
what should be obvious?
Mr. Horowitz. That's an excellent question, Congressman,
and something we've been doing more of, and I think it's
incumbent on the BOP to do more of, what we've talked about
today. There are 50 State correctional systems out there, and
frankly, many of them are far ahead--excuse me, far ahead of
the Federal system.
One of the things our teams have been doing as we've been
doing these reviews, and I know GAO does this as well, we're
going to the largest State systems to see what they're doing,
California generally being among them. But we've got Texas,
Florida, Georgia, New York. I can go on and mention several
other States that are both in more conservative parts of the
country, less conservative parts of the country, and you see
them moving forward on reentry programs.
Some of the programs the congressman just mentioned,
Oklahoma, other States that are moving forward in the way that
I think the Federal Government has not done a good job of
recognizing, realizing are out there, and need to do. And we're
certainly committed continuing to do that, whether it's on
reentry, whether it's on preventing contraband. We've looked at
also--I'll just add, we haven't talked much about this--Federal
Prison Industries. Giving people a vocation.
We did a review on this a couple of years ago and the
dramatic drop at the BOP in the use of the Federal Prison
Industries. And study after study will tell you that giving
inmates who've never had the kind of training we've all talked
about, vocational skills is critical. Yet that program has not
been sufficiently supported, and I'm not sure, frankly, the
fault is entirely on the BOP.
I think there's a lot that needs to be discussed about that
with Congress as well. That has been troubled and challenged
because of various laws, funding, et cetera, but I don't--I
don't think anyone would disagree that if people go to jail
without a skill, it's in all of our interests to get them a
skill.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chair--
Mr. Chairman. I apologize for that. I yield back.
Mr. Russell. The gentleman yields back.
And if I may, before I recognize the ranking member, Ms.
Mauer, do you have some comments along that line as well?
Because I know you all have been working hand-in-hand on a lot
of that?
Ms. Mauer. Yes, absolutely. I definitely agree with what
the Inspector General said. In the reviews that we've been
doing at GAO on things like solitary confinement, correctional
officer safety, overcrowding, we were looking predominantly at
the Bureau of Prisons. But as part of our audit work, we also
looked at what the States were doing, and we found that that
was valuable and insightful information.
I'd also like to give a shout-out at the Federal level to
the Federal Interagency Reentry Council. You know, GAO doesn't
typically issue reports where we talk strictly about good news,
but we had a report about 3 years ago that looked at positive
examples of interagency coordination, and that interagency
council was one of four across the Federal Government that we
highlighted as exemplary in terms of its best practices at
coordination.
It brought together all the different Federal agencies who
have some role in reentry. So I'd like to mention that as well.
But I think the broader issue is definitely one I'd like to
agree with, which is that there are a lot of innovative
practices that are going on at the State level that can be
instructive for the Federal prison system.
Mr. Russell. Thank you for that.
And the chair now recognizes the ranking member for his
additional comment.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
I just--I want to go back to something, Mr. Chairman, if
you don't mind. The halfway houses, it is my understanding that
there is some efforts to cut back on halfway houses, and can
you explain the rationale with regard to that, Mr. Inch?
You may have already said it. Maybe I was out of the room,
but I didn't--I don't remember hearing it.
Mr. Inch. The--I did, but certainly saying it again. There
is absolutely no intent to cut back in the program. It's an
essential program to our system and reentry. The 16 facilities
that were certainly reported in the media really was an aspect
of creating efficiencies within the system.
These were aspects of not renewing option years or
contracts that were not efficient in areas where we had
capability in other facilities. Coupled with that, and this
was, again, based on the Inspector General report, was that we
need to do a better job of managing our contracts with the
RRCs. So those 16 does not signal any lessening of our belief
of the importance of the program, and I'm committed to running
it very efficiently and to the capacity that is necessary for
the population.
Mr. Cummings. Well, the Baltimore RRC is the largest such
facility on the east coast.
Mr. Inch. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. And, but the occupancy has fallen sharply due
to recent BOP cuts. The facility was given essentially no
notice to prepare for these cuts. Now this facility is
struggling to meet its costs.
Director Inch, can you explain the decision to cut services
at the existing RRCs, such as Baltimore facility, and does the
BOP intend to close more RRCs?
Mr. Inch. Again, thank you for asking that question. It's a
very fair ----
Mr. Cummings. Is that--that is where you visited, right?
Mr. Inch.--question, and I did visit it. And I have
personal knowledge on that.
Mr. Cummings. Okay, good.
Mr. Inch. So, first, is it our intent to cut back on our
program? Absolutely not. Specifically with the Baltimore
facility, very impressed with the facility and the contract
provider that runs that facility and others and fully recognize
that that particular organization, of course, actually built a
new facility to run their programs, and I think it's very well
structured.
So the overbuilt capacity, and frankly, because we had poor
management controls at a time, we overfilled the contractual
capacity. So we have in that particular facility, fully within
the statement of work of the contract, we have brought it back
down to that number. I suspect this is probably not an
appropriate area to talk about actual contracting stuff.
Mr. Cummings. No.
Mr. Inch. But I'd be happy to come by your office later --
--
Mr. Cummings. Yes, please do. Please do.
Mr. Inch.--and really talk. But you know, I think that is a
great facility, and I really ----
Mr. Cummings. I think so, too.
Mr. Inch.--appreciate the work they do.
Mr. Cummings. All right. Let me close by saying this. I
want to thank all of you for what you have had to say today,
and I think that, you know, as I listen to the testimony, I
think we all--we need to get back to the human side of all of
this because it is extremely painful. It is extremely damaging
to so many people.
And by the way, it is just not the former inmates. It is
their families that suffer too, big time. And so we can look at
statistics here and statistics there, but let us not forget the
human element of all of this, you know? And I often tell my
children whatever happens to you, whatever has happened to
you--good, bad, or ugly--before this moment prepares you for
this moment. And you know, as I am sitting here, I just
remember I taught in the penitentiary, State penitentiary. I
taught inmates that had very long sentences.
But I know, Mr. Martin, going back to something that you
said, they had a sense of hope, and they got--I mean, these
guys got degrees. Then we have Goucher, which is one of our
small State colleges in Maryland, that has a program which I
think President Obama started experimenting with using Pell
Grants so that they could get their college degrees.
And when we went to visit them, we discovered that a lot of
the inmates were just so excited because there were inmates
that were already going through the program in their second or
third year, and then other ones were saying you know what,
we're going to do everything in our power to get in the
program, too. So that, too, when we think about things like
public safety, I mean the people have a sense of hope, and they
can see an avenue to getting to where they have got to go.
And I believe--and just one second, Mr. Chairman, I will be
finished. I believe that a lot of people are like going--our
inmates, our former inmates are like going in circles. They
come out, and they are on this circle, right? And they are
looking for an exit to get to where they have got to go. They
have dreamed dreams. They have said I am going to do better. I
am going to take care of my family. I am going to do all these
things.
And then when they get out, not only are they--as has
already been said, not only are they facing a new world. I
mean, in today's world, you can be in prison for 5 years and
the world has changed drastically. But they come out and face a
new world, but then they are not equipped to do anything. Many
are not educated.
So some kind of way, I think it was Ms. Roseberry said we
find a way to bring them down, but we don't find a way to bring
them up. After we bring them--I mean, you get them there. And
it is without a doubt, we become a part of the problem.
You know, you say you don't want recidivism. You don't want
recidivism. Well, you send somebody out--you send--you go out
there and not--and every employer turn you away. And let us say
you don't have more than a 10th grade education. Try that one.
And then, and please don't be black. Try that one. Or poor.
Try that one. And the next thing you know, you go--and so I
have people come to me almost every--we do jobs fairs in my
district. I have people come to me almost every week, probably
sometimes three times a week, and this is what they say.
They say, ``Mr. Cummings, Mr. Cummings, I can't get a job,
man. I can't get a job. I want to do for my family. I can't get
a job'' because of a record or whatever. And so all I am
saying--and these people--and I want to be clear because I know
some people will say, oh, he doesn't care about public safety.
I do care about public safety. There are some people that need
to be in prison and probably for a very, very long time.
And the public needs to be protected, but at the same time,
there are a lot of good people who make mistakes. All of us
make mistakes at some point. Some of us just didn't get caught.
And so, so we have got to figure out--figure this thing out.
Other than that, we are working against ourselves. We put
them in jail. Then they come out, and there is absolutely
nothing that they can do. So why is it that I see people at
2:00 in the morning selling drugs in 20-degree weather,
probably not making much money. I mean, that is a job.
And so I beg you, as the new guy on the block, new head of
the team, I hope that you will look at some of the things that
are being done, some of the really constructive things. And you
know, I want us to be effective and efficient in what we do.
You know, we can go, I mean, forever and forever and forever,
going in circles, and never achieving a damned thing except
going backwards.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all very much.
Mr. Russell. I thank the ranking member for his comments.
Along this theme of recidivism, one of the things that the
Federal system has come under criticism on has been with faith-
based educational and outreach opportunities. The States seem
to do much better and are more open-minded toward these
programs than we see in the Federal system or, by extension,
the private prisons that are allowed to accommodate Federal.
What--and this would really just be a general question for
those, but I would like to start with you, General Inch. Where
will this go? Because when you examine the recidivism rates for
these that have been engaged in these programs, whether it is
educational or to a degree or towards others, they are actually
much higher than the general, the general population. So they
are obviously working, to some extent.
Could you comment on that?
Mr. Inch. Thank you, Congressman Russell. Great question.
So drawing back from previous experiences in military
corrections, and I was the commandant of the disciplinary
barracks, which is the Department of Defense's maximum security
prison, we had a very robust volunteer program, both secular
and faith-based. And I saw great value in that.
The DB is kind of a one facility microcosm of what is now
122 facilities. And both through education programs, amazing
treatment programs, vocational training, I've certainly seen a
framework, and I would add in--and this harkens a little bit
back to the issue of cross-fertilization--I've been very active
in the American Correctional Association for much of my career
and only recently active in the Association of State
Corrections Authorities that do a lot of cross-fertilization of
these programs. So I'm very receptive to these programs.
In my second week, when I was in Dallas visiting our
regional headquarters, had the opportunity, for example, to go
to the Texas Offender Reentry Initiative. I believe Bishop
Jakes is--his church is the one that runs that particular one,
just to see and learn. And I'm open to doing like things.
Mr. Russell. Well, that is good to hear because I think,
you know, as we explore all the possibilities, we certainly
want to seize upon the things that work. None of them
necessarily are compelled any more than, you know, some secular
program. An inmate can choose not to get a GED completion, or
he can choose not to get college courses. There is a number of
things like that.
Mr. Horowitz, home confinement. Going back to the theme on
the restitutive justice vice incarcerative justice that our
Nation seems to be so enamored with, what is the maximum amount
of time a person can serve outside of prison once sentenced?
And maybe General Inch will know this, but--and then, whatever
the answer is, in your studies, I know in your report, you had
noticed an underutilization in home confinement. So could you
speak to that?
Mr. Horowitz. Do you want to give the numbers first?
Mr. Inch. Yes. Certainly on the statutory aspect of the
home confinement, it's 6 months or 10 percent of the sentence,
whichever is less. So that kind of bounds it in there.
When you couple that with the residential reentry center,
most programming that we target, though we can certainly take
it up to a year, is a 4-month target. The idea is that in that
4-month period, it provides the opportunity to make that
connection in the community and--and work to find a job, then
with that amount, of course, basic math is 4/4/4. That's the
three people participate in that program for one bed space of
the contract per year.
Mr. Russell. Okay. So ----
Mr. Horowitz. If I ----
Mr. Russell. Yes, please.
Mr. Horowitz. Just briefly on the underutilization issue,
BOP has three choices with regard to inmates whose sentences
are close to expiration. Keep them in jail and release them
straight into the community, send them to an RRC, or send them
to their home with an ankle bracelet so they can reconnect to
their community from home, as opposed to an RRC. That's
obviously far cheaper than either prison or an RRC.
Our concern in our study was--in our review was that it
seemed like the BOP's default was either keep people in jail or
send them to an RRC even if there wasn't a demonstrated need
for an RRC. And the result being that important bed spaces in
RRCs were being taken by people who were low need, low risk
instead of thinking ----
Mr. Russell. If you could pause just a moment? Whoever has
that, please silence the ----
[Telephone ringing.]
Voice. Sounds Irish.
Mr. Russell. Is that somebody here in the hearing? Yes,
please turn it off. That is disrespectful to the witnesses.
I am sorry, Mr. Horowitz. Please continue.
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you.
The problem we saw was that the BOP wasn't thinking about
who needed to be in which of the facilities. And so, in our
view, they were sending people to RRCs who really should have
been, it seemed to us, either staying in prison or going to
home confinement. And the consequence of using the RRC was to
take a valuable bed space for others who might need it, but
never could be considered for it because the bed space was
being taken by someone else in that position.
And frankly, and many of the studies show that low-risk
individuals like white collar offenders who don't need the
services of an RRC, sending them there with other individuals
who do could actually be more harmful than helpful to those
individuals, and so we were concerned about that as well.
Mr. Russell. Yes, they would see it as a delay to the
support base that they already have and don't have that need.
Ms. Maurer, would you care to comment on that as well?
Ms. Mauer. Yes, just very quickly. In some of our work, we
were looking at the role the Federal judiciary can play in home
confinement, and we found that there were instances where BOP
had worked on an arrangement with the pretrial and probation
services office at the Federal courts for the courts to provide
home confinement services that at the time of our review seemed
to be significantly less than what BOP was paying its
contractors to provide home confinement services.
That's an option that could be explored for additional
capacity and potential cost savings as well.
Mr. Russell. Well, thank you for that.
And I will now defer and recognize the gentleman from
Missouri. However, this will be the last member that I will
recognize out of respect to our witnesses and maybe their
comfort. And so, with that, I recognize the gentleman from
Missouri.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank the witnesses for your indulgence.
Director Inch, earlier this year, I joined several of my
House and Senate colleagues in writing to you to request
information about prison education programs, specifically the
Second Chance Pell program and the Roadmap to Reentry
Initiative. We received a response from BOP on October 27th,
and Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that these two
letters be made part of the official record of this hearing.
Mr. Russell. Without objection.
Mr. Clay. Thank you.
Director Inch, BOP's response indicated that some of those
initiatives have been abandoned. Can you elaborate which
initiatives have been eliminated and why?
Mr. Inch. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
I believe the aspect of that, and certainly this was prior
to my arrival, was the planning that had been done with the
idea of creating at central office level of a kind of a school
board type arrangement, probably about 40 people. The decision
was made prior to my arrival to not grow the central
headquarters by those numbers, to use that as a structure by
which to work our education program.
So, for me personally, as I look at it, I'm absolutely
committed to education. It's essential. It's important. You
know, when I think of the story of Mr. Martin, and it's not the
first time I've heard his story, it was absolutely inspiring
that when he had an opportunity to speak to all the State
corrections authorities last month and I was present, it was
very inspirational.
The importance of education I'm absolutely committed to. In
this first 90 days, in this first year, frankly, as we are
organized within our Reentry Services Division, I'll use the
assets, I'll understand the strengths and weaknesses. But my
commitment to education, you know, please don't worry about
that.
Mr. Clay. So creating a school district concept was rather
expensive, to say the least. And so I guess that it is about
resources. How would you stand up a program? And maybe you
could share with us how many resources you would need in order
to stand up some type of effective educational program?
Mr. Inch. Sir, very fair question. I probably would not be
able to do it any justice in my first 90 days.
Mr. Clay. Okay.
Mr. Inch. This will take, as in all the programs that I've
been observing and as I--though I'm not new to corrections, the
profession, at all, I am new to the Bureau of Prisons. So ----
Mr. Clay. Okay, that is fair. But now there was a person in
place to oversee BOP's educational services, and have you all
had--do you have a timeline for replacing Amy Lopez?
Mr. Inch. We do. The hiring process for our education
director is ongoing, nearing--nearing completion.
Mr. Clay. And so is that coming soon or ----
Mr. Inch. Yes, nearing completion. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clay. And you have replaced Amy Lopez?
Mr. Inch. With the position and--in our current structure
of how we supervise education, the senior person, that hiring
action is ongoing right now.
Mr. Clay. You know studies show that inmates who
participate in correctional education programs have 43 percent
lower odds of returning to prison than those who do not. Every
dollar spent on prison education saves $4 to $5 on the cost of
reincarceration. And so that should--should make you want to
direct resources to effective education program, and hopefully,
that is what your administration will be looking towards doing.
Mr. Inch. I'm absolutely committed to education.
Mr. Clay. Let me ask Inspector General Horowitz, are you
satisfied with BOP's progress to date on the recommendations
that were made in a report?
Mr. Horowitz. I--I'm sorry.
Mr. Clay. Go ahead. No, go ahead.
Mr. Horowitz. They are making progress. There are several
more steps they need to take to effect implementation. We will
continue to oversee it, but I will say that we have long had a
very good, close working relationship with BOP and them being
responsive to our recommendations. So we certainly look forward
to continuing.
Mr. Clay. All right. I see my time is up. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank the witness.
Mr. Russell. The gentleman yields back.
And my final question, General Inch, you are uniquely
suited, given your military experience, given your experience
in corrections and then now on this side. States have been
trying to deal with veteran incarceration a great deal, even on
the judiciary side. Do we have special courts that deal with
special sets of circumstances? Do we look at the types of
offenses and put that, you know, allowing once again our
judiciary branch to have a little more latitude?
Do you have any plans in your goals and objectives, as you
come in with this kind of understanding, to try to address some
of the issues? And then how we would reenter those veterans who
unlike in the military prison system, where they may actually
lose rights of an honorable discharge or different things, many
of them outside after being honorably discharged are still
entitled to their benefits and their decorations and things of
that nature. So they could reenter under a bit different
circumstances than if they were incarcerated in the military.
Have you given much thought to this or about the direction
to deal with that population?
Mr. Inch. Thank you, Congressman Russell. I have, and thank
you for your service as well.
So I was actually pleased to find out that we have piloted
a concept that in the corrections profession has been discussed
for several years, and that's having veterans housing units. I
had the good fortune, again in my previous life, but in
association when I attended an American Correctional
Association conference, that a facility--in this case, it was
in the State of Indiana--where I was able to see their program
and see how they ran their program.
I spoke with the inmates in their housing areas. So I'm
very interested in that program. I think, you know, in the
aspects of treatment ----
Mr. Russell. Would that be not the halfway houses, but
actually ----
Mr. Inch. No, that's inside the facilities.
Mr. Russell. Inside. So that you would ----
Mr. Inch. It would be an actual housing unit.
Mr. Russell. Kind of like the commonality of barracks and
routines and disciplines and that sort of thing?
Mr. Inch. So, anecdotal, it was when I spoke with the
inmates at that one facility in Indiana, actually a privately
run facility, that the inmates talked about the aspect of trust
and that they were then able to focus on their programming. And
several that had been in different environments in housing
talked about how that was different for them.
So I think there's a lot of validity in looking at that
concept. I'm always afraid to talk about that in the presence
of a social scientist that will bring out the metrics. She
intimidates me.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Inch. But that--but certainly, there is anecdotal
aspects that are worth pursuing.
Mr. Russell. And Ms. Doleac, you don't look terribly
intimidating, but intellectually, we may all find ourselves on
the wrong end, as the chairman has alluded to earlier. Would
you like to comment on any of that?
Ms. Doleac. No, I defer. I defer to the expertise of the
Director.
Mr. Russell. Okay. Thank you.
Well, I want to say, you know, how grateful I am. This is a
team effort. It is about our country. Mr. Martin, you bring out
the human element of it, and I agree with the chairman and the
ranking member that I think we forget that sometimes.
But this can't be the gift that keeps on giving. As people
pay their debt to society, it truly needs to be a forgiven
debt. But unfortunately, culturally, we have a lot of work to
do there. As people reenter, they have paid that debt. It just
can't be the gift that keeps on giving and puts them in a
difficult position.
And with that, I would like to defer to the chairman for
his comments.
Chairman Gowdy. Well, Congressman, I want to thank you for
filling in so ably for me while I was next door.
I want to thank all of our witnesses. It is a super
important hearing. I was bemoaning the fact next door that how
important this issue is and how little attention there is in
this hearing room. All of the attention is next door for
important reasons, but this is important also.
Professor Doleac, I want to ask you to do one thing I
couldn't do myself, which is you have access to the brain power
and the studies. If what is being proposed does not or cannot
accomplish what I think everyone agrees is the ultimate goal,
then what will work?
Because I think there is a lot of sensitivity, regardless
of politics, on helping people who have paid their debts to
society have a chance to go on and have a constructive life
that we all claim we want them to have. But if you can't get a
job, all the other obligations in life are really hard to meet.
So if this won't do it or can't do it, what can?
And with that, I don't want to single you out. Inspector
General Horowitz, from what I read, you have been busy lately,
too. So I appreciate you coming.
Everyone is busy. Everyone has very hectic schedules. I
appreciate your expertise. I appreciate your comity with the
committee and your collegiality and professionalism with each
other.
And I thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Russell. And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]