U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–255 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–608

THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

COMMISSION ON SAFETY AND ABUSE IN AMERICA’S PRISONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

June 8, 2006

Serial No. J–109–83

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma, Chairman 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

MARY CHESSER, Majority Chief Counsel 

MARK KEAM, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Page

Coburn, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma ........................ 1

Durbin, Hon. Richard J. a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ......................... 2

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51

Feingold, Hon. Russell D. Feingold, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement ................................................................................. 53

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 72

WITNESSES

Gibbons, John J., Commission Co-Chairman, and former Chief Judge, U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Newark, New Jersey .......................... 12

Katzenbach, Nicholas de B., Commission Co-Chairman, and former U.S. Attorney General, Princeton, New Jersey .............................................................. 7

Maynard, Gary D., Commissioner, and Director, Iowa Department of Corrections, and President-Elect, American Correctional Association, Des Moines, 

Iowa ....................................................................................................................... 10

Morial, Marc H., Commissioner, and President and Chief Executive Officer, 

National Urban League, former Mayor of New Orleans, and former Louisiana State Senator, New York, New York ....................................................... 5

Nolan, Pat, Commissioner, and President, Prison Fellowship’s Justice Fellowship, and Member, Prison Rape Elimination Commission, Lansdowne, Virginia ....................................................................................................................... 8

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Responses of Nicholas Katzenbach to questions submitted by Senator Coburn 24

Responses of John J. Gibbons to questions submitted by Senator Coburn ........ 28

Responses of Gary Maynard to questions submitted by Senator Coburn ........... 33

Responses of Marc Morial to questions submitted by Senator Coburn ............... 38

Responses of Pat Nolan to questions submitted by Senator Coburn .................. 40

Responses of John J. Gibbons, Nicholas Katzenbach, Gary Maynard, Marc 

Morial, and Pat Nolan to questions submitted by Senator Feingold ............... 42

Responses of Gary Maynard and Pat Nolan to questions submitted by Senator 

Kennedy ................................................................................................................ 47

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Gibbons, John J., Commission Co-Chairman, and former Chief Judge, U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Newark, New Jersey, statement ....... 54

Horn, Martin F., Commissioner, New York City Department of Correction, 

New York, New York, statement and attachments ........................................... 56

Katzenbach, Nicholas de B., Commission Co-Chairman, and former U.S. Attorney General, Princeton, New Jersey, statement ........................................... 70

Maynard, Gary D., Commissioner, and Director, Iowa Department of Corrections, and President-Elect, American Correctional Association, Des Moines, 

Iowa, statement .................................................................................................... 74

Morial, Marc H., Commissioner, and President and Chief Executive Officer, 

National Urban League, former Mayor of New Orleans, and former Louisiana State Senator, New York, New York, statement .................................... 76

New York Post, David Seifman, December 21, 2004, article ............................... 78

Page

IV

New York Times, Paul von Zielbauer, August 22, 2003, article .......................... 79

Nolan, Pat, Commissioner, and President, Prison Fellowship’s Justice Fellowship, and Member, Prison Rape Elimination Commission, Lansdowne, Virginia, statement ................................................................................................... 80

(1)

THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF 

THE COMMISSION ON SAFETY AND ABUSE 

IN AMERICA’S PRISONS 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:01 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Coburn, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Coburn and Durbin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COBURN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Chairman COBURN. The Committee will come to order. We do 

have one more vote, and what we will do is I am going to start with 

an opening statement. Senator Durbin is still on the floor. What I 

will do is adjourn the hearing after my opening statement. We will 

have gotten that out of the way. When we finish this next vote, 

which is supposed to be at 3:15, then we will get rolling. 

First of all, I want to thank all our witnesses for being here and 

testifying and the effort that they have put forward. I will not read 

my statement into the record but, rather, make it a part of it. 

As a practicing physician, one of the things that I know is what 

happens in prison affects all of us. It affects us on the outside because the vast majority of people that experience incarceration are 

back among us. And if that is a positive process, it is great. If it 

is a negative process, it is terrible. And so the idea that we have 

a discussion about what is good and what is bad is very important 

for this country. 

The second thing I know is that this country has to make a 

major change in how it treats drug-addicted felons, non-violent. 

The fact is we know with good treatment two out of every three 

people who go through a good, qualified drug treatment program 

will be free and stay free of dependency. That is not a strong characteristic of many of our prisons today throughout the country, and 

it is something that, if we really want to make a difference in people’s lives, we have to address. 

Another wonderful thing about that is when we do that, we each 

save ourselves money because the cost of drug treatment and incarceration, separate from regular incarceration, is about one-half to 

two-thirds the cost of regular incarceration. So it is my hope that 

this is the start of a discussion. 

2

I am very appreciative to the Commission for their hard work. 

We are not going to take everything at face value. We are going 

to look at this hard. And I know Senator Durbin is of the same 

mind to look at it and to make recommendations. This will not be 

the only hearing that we will have on this subject, and I am sorry 

that we are having a hearing at this late date. But it is, nevertheless, very important, with 2 million people incarcerated in this 

country. Some of them are our family members. Some of them are 

people that we love. Some are people that we know of. Some made 

bad choices. Some continue to make bad choices. 

The final thing I would say is mental health and mental illness 

is a significant component of a large number of people in our prison 

system today. Mental health parity outside of prison is something 

that has to happen in this country because I believe we could forego lots of the incarcerations if, in fact, we treated mental health illness as we treat every other illness in this country. So I am a 

strong advocate of that, and I believe that we can accomplish a lot 

in terms of prevention in the future for those that could be incarcerated, as well as better, more up-to-date scientific treatment for 

those that are incarcerated today. 

With that, I will end my statement. Have they called the vote? 

They have not, have they? And I would ask your forbearance until 

Senator Durbin gets here. This just happened today. I apologize. I 

know there are a lot of people in the room, but I think we have 

to hold up. I do not want your statements prior to Senator Durbin 

being here, if you would. And we will adjourn until after the 3:15 

vote. So relax. 

[Recess 3:05 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.] 

Chairman COBURN. The Committee will reconvene. It gives me 

great pleasure to recognize my co-Chairman on this Subcommittee, 

Senator Durbin from Illinois. I have made an opening statement. 

I would recognize you at this time. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and it is 

an honor to be a co-Chairman, which does not happen often around 

here. I am honored that you would give me that opportunity. 

I am pleased to have this opportunity to work with you on the 

Corrections and Rehabilitation Subcommittee. This is a first for 

this Subcommittee and this Congress. It is an important hearing 

about a subject we rarely discuss on Capitol Hill. Most of us in 

Congress and most Americans do not spend a lot of time thinking 

about the conditions in the prisons across our Nation, but we 

should. We should because, in the words of the Commission on 

Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons, ‘‘What happens inside jails 

and prisons does not stay inside jails and prisons. The conditions 

in our jails and prisons directly affect millions of Americans who 

are incarcerated or work in the corrections system. They are also 

indirectly affecting family members, relatives, and friends. They affect the public safety and the public health of America.’’ 

As the Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky once reflected, ‘‘The 

degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.’’ 

3

I would like to welcome the members of the Commission who will 

be presenting their report at this hearing. It reminds us that we 

need to judge our civilization from time to time—and this Commission did so—by entering our prison system. The Commission spent 

a year listening to experts across the Nation and from all viewpoints, covering many aspects of this complex world of corrections. 

Now they have laid down a challenge to all of us: to take a hard 

look at what is going on in our prisons. 

Most of us take the trash out and put it in the alley. I do at my 

home in Springfield. I do not want to know what happens from 

that point. I just want to know that after the truck leaves, the cans 

are empty and ready for more. We have to view our prison and incarceration system much differently. People who are removed from 

our neighborhoods and our towns and society because of wrongdoing are coming back. Most of them will return. And what will 

they return to? Will they return to a productive and different life 

or to the same mistakes that led to their initial incarceration? 

Some say that part of the punishment is to deny them the most 

basics—whether it is education, mental health counseling, whatever it may be—efforts to remove their addictions. And yet we 

know that if we do not deal with some of these fundamentals, they 

are likely to return to prison. But something else is likely to occur, 

too. There is likely to be another crime committed before that happens, another victim before that happens. And so it is penny-wise 

and pound-foolish not to really look at those in prison as people 

likely to someday be free and likely to someday be in our neighborhoods and towns again. 

I am glad Illinois has made prison reform a high priority. I want 

to thank our Governor, Rod Blagojevich, for several innovative programs that he started, such as the creation of the Model Meth Prison and Reentry Program. We could spend a whole hearing on meth 

and what it means to my State and what it means in terms of incarceration. This new unit, which is going to be funded from Federal and State sources, is modeled after other successful programs 

and many other innovations. 

Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, because the witnesses 

have been patient, I would like to ask that the remainder of my 

statement be made a matter of record. 

Chairman COBURN. Without objection. Thank you, Senator Durbin. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Durbin appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman COBURN. Let me introduce our panelists, if I might. 

The Honorable John Gibbons is Director of Gibbons, Del Deo, 

Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, a member of the firm’s litigation department and head of its alternative dispute resolution group and 

founder of the Gibbons Fellowship in Public Interest and Constitutional Law. He was formerly Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, and a member of that court for 20 years. He 

has authored approximately 800 published opinions. He was also 

formerly a professor of constitutional law and other subjects at 

Seton Hall University Law School. He is Past President of the New 

Jersey State Bar Association, a life member of the American Law 

Institute, and a fellow of the American Bar Association. He is a 

4

former member of the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association and former Chair of its Committee on Fair Trial and Free 

Press, and also a former Director of the American Arbitration Association. He is also Trustee Emeritus of the Practicing Law Institute, a Trustee Emeritus of Holy Cross College, and a Trustee of 

the Fund for New Jersey. Welcome. 

Nicholas Katzenbach we have known for a long time. A distinguished career of public service began when he joined the United 

States Army Air Force. During the Second World War, he was captured by enemy troops and spent 2 years as a prisoner of war in 

Italy and Germany. After the war, he attended Princeton University and then Yale Law School, becoming editor-in-chief of the Yale 

Law Journal. He also received a Rhodes scholarship and studied at 

Oxford University for 2 years. Early in his legal career, he was Associate Professor of Law at Yale University and also Professor of 

Law at the University of Chicago. He joined the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and was promoted to Deputy Attorney General in April 1962. In that role, and working closely with 

President Kennedy, he was responsible for securing the release of 

prisoners captured during the Bay of Pigs raid on Cuba. He also 

oversaw the Justice Department’s efforts to desegregate the University of Mississippi in September 1962 and the University of Alabama in June 1963, and worked with Congress to ensure the passage of the 1964 civil rights legislation. President Johnson appointed him Attorney General of the United States in 1965, and he 

helped to draft the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He then appointed him 

Under Secretary of State and one of a three-member commission 

charged with reviewing Central Intelligence activities. He also 

chaired the 1967 Commission on Crime in the United States. After 

President Johnson decided not to run for re- election, Mr. Katzenbach became General Counsel of the IBM Corporation, where he remained until 1986. He is currently Non-Executive Chairman of the 

MCI Board of Directors. 

Gary Maynard I am familiar with. I appreciate him being here. 

He is an Oklahoma native. He is Director of the Iowa Department 

of Corrections and President-Elect of the American Correctional Association. He has worked for more than 34 years in the field of corrections, beginning his career as a psychologist in El Reno Federal 

Reformatory in Oklahoma. Before assuming his position in Iowa, 

Gary Maynard held similar positions in the Oklahoma, Arkansas, 

and South Carolina corrections systems. He received the Courage 

and Valor Award from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections 

and the Roy Wilkens Award from the NAACP. For 32 years, he 

was a member of the Army National Guard, retiring as Brigadier 

General. In the course of his service, he received the Legion of 

Merit from the United States Army and is a member of the Hall 

of Fame of the U.S. Army Artillery and Missile Officer Candidate 

School in Fort Sill, Oklahoma. He has a master’s in psychology 

from Oklahoma State University. I am an alumnus of that university as well. 

Mr. Marc Morial is President and CEO of the National Urban 

League, a position he has held since May 2003. Before becoming 

head of the Urban League, he served two distinguished 4-year 

terms as the mayor of New Orleans, becoming one of the most popVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:04 Oct 12, 2006 Jkt 030255 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\30255.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
5

ular and effective mayors in the city’s history. Under his leadership, crime plummeted by 60 percent, the police department was 

reformed, new programs for youth were begun, and stagnant economy was re- energized. During that time, he also served as President of the United States Conference of Mayors in 2001 and 2002. 

Prior to becoming mayor of New Orleans, he served for 2 years in 

the Louisiana State Senate, where he was recognized as ‘‘Conservationist Senator of the Year,’’ ‘‘Education Senator of the Year,’’ and 

‘‘Legislative Rookie of the Year’’—that is not an honor I am going 

to get here, I don’t think—for his outstanding accomplishments. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman COBURN. He has a J.D. from Georgetown University 

Law Center and an Honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Xavier 

University. 

Pat Nolan is a friend, well-known to me for a long time. He is 

President of Justice Fellowship, the reform- oriented criminal justice arm of Prison Fellowship Ministries. He is the author of ‘‘When 

Prisoners Return,’’ which describes the important role the church 

can play in helping prisoners get back on their feet after they are 

released. His opinion pieces have appeared in numerous periodicals, including the Los Angeles Times, the National Law Journal, 

and the Washington Times. He is a much sought after speaker on 

issues of justice and faith. He was selected by Governor Geringer 

of Wyoming to be the speaker at his annual prayer breakfast in 

2002, and he has testified on several occasions before Congressional committees on prison work programs, juvenile justice, and 

religious freedom. Earlier in his life, Pat spent 15 years in the California State Assembly, 4 of those as the Assembly Republican 

Leader. He was a leader on crime issues, particularly on behalf of 

victims’ rights, and was an original cosponsor of the Victims’ Bill 

of Rights. He was given the Victims Advocate Award by Parents of 

Murdered Children and named Legislator of the Year in part for 

his work on behalf of Vietnam veterans. Then as part of an FBI 

sting operation, he was prosecuted for a campaign contribution he 

received and pled guilty to one count of racketeering. He served 25 

months in Federal prison and 4 months in a halfway house, and 

that experience changed the course of his life work forever. 

Let me welcome you all, and do you have an order that you want 

to talk? I think, Marc Morial, I would love—since you have a time 

constraint, I believe if we would allow you to go first, and then followed by Attorney General Katzenbach. We just want to accommodate you to make sure that you make that flight. 

Mr. MORIAL. Train. 

Chairman COBURN. Train. 

Mr. MORIAL. Go Amtrak. 

STATEMENT OF MARC H. MORIAL, COMMISSIONER, AND 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL 

URBAN LEAGUE, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW ORLEANS, AND 

FORMER LOUISIANA STATE SENATOR, NEW YORK, NEW 

YORK 

Mr. MORIAL. First of all, let me thank you. 

Chairman COBURN. Is your mike on, Mr. Morial? Punch the button on it. Is it on? OK. There we go. 

6

Mr. MORIAL. Let me thank you, Chairman Coburn and Senator 

Durbin. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today, 

and it has been a great pleasure to be a part of this very important 

process. 

Corrections is a tough profession and a poorly understood one. 

Corrections officers often work long shifts in tense, overcrowded facilities, without enough backup, support, or training—stressful conditions that take a toll on them personally as well as professionally. Many wardens run aging, understaffed, and outdated facilities and deal with a work force which experienced officers are 

likely to leave the profession for better paying, less stressful jobs 

just when they are ready to become good mentors to new recruits. 

And those who manage entire systems deal with ever-growing 

numbers of prisoners, comparatively fewer resources, and, indeed, 

for all of their hard work, corrections professionals receive very little positive recognition. 

These pressures on the labor and leadership of our prisons and 

jails cause stress, injury, and illness among the work force and contribute to a dangerous, very dangerous culture inside. Because the 

exercise of power is an important part of the job of a corrections 

officer, it is natural that in situations where officers are under 

stress, inexperienced, and undertrained they will be more inclined 

to abuse that power. In facilities where the culture has devolved, 

rules are not enforced, prisoner-on-prisoner violence is tolerated, 

and antagonistic relationships between prisoners and officers often 

erupt into overt hostility and physical violence. In many places, 

this kind of tension is exacerbated by racial and cultural differences between prisoners and the staff. This conflict and violence 

not only harms staff and prisoners, but the families and communities that officers and prisoners return home to as well. 

In the 1960’s, my home State of Louisiana, by the State Department of Corrections’ own admission, gained a reputation for running ‘‘America’s bloodiest prison,’’ Angola, the maximum security 

prison in Louisiana. I do not know which prison today carries that 

distinction, but I can say with some confidence that it is no longer 

Angola State Penitentiary in Louisiana. Reforms there began decades ago, but the most dramatic changes were accomplished over 

the course of the last 10 years when the fundamental institutional 

culture of the prison was profoundly transformed. Prisoners at Angola are treated with dignity and respect by everyone who works 

in that facility, and the prisoners are equally expected to treat staff 

that way. Prisoners have been given hope through education and 

morally centered programming and responsibility through meaningful employment. And the fair and reliable enforcement of the 

rules for both prisoners and staff means—and I underscore this—

less violence. Prisons that add punishment on top of the sentence—

those that are run in ways that stamp out hope and kill the spirit 

of people—will be violent places. In contrast, prisons that reward 

the best in those who are incarcerated, institutions that treat prisoners with basic human dignity and respect, are much more likely 

to be places where violence and abuse are the rare exception and 

not the rule. 

Institutional ‘‘culture change’’ may sound like a soft approach to 

combating violence behind bars, but this Commission heard overVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:04 Oct 12, 2006 Jkt 030255 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\30255.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
7

whelmingly that when one changes the culture, one changes the 

entire institution. There are clear, concrete steps that every institution can take, and many are taking them, to create a safer environment for both prisoners and staff. Congress can support the National Institute of Corrections, Institutional Culture Initiative that 

is currently providing prison and jail managers with tools and 

training to change the culture of their institutions. But the NIC 

cannot do it alone. Managers and wardens need support at the 

local, State, and Federal level to be able to make change over time, 

and they need the resources to hire a qualified and diverse staff. 

Officers need training that emphasizes ways to resolve conflict 

without force and communication skills—particularly the ability to 

communicate across cultural, racial, and now language differences, 

which are so common in many facilities across this Nation. 

These are just some of the very important recommendations of 

this Commission. I hope that today’s hearing does not represent 

the end of this Commission’s work or the end of this Congress’ attention to this matter but, rather, the beginning as we talk about 

and we seek to find ways to advance the important recommendations contained in this report. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morial appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Morial. 

General Katzenbach? 

STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS DE B. KATZENBACH, COMMISSION 

CO-CHAIRMAN, AND FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 

Mr. KATZENBACH. Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, it is a real 

pleasure to be back before this Committee after all these years. Although its personnel has changed, it is a wonderful Committee. 

I would not want you to think that my interest in prisons is new. 

As Attorney General I brought before this Committee proposals 

later enacted into law to ease prisoner reentry into society and got 

bipartisan support for their enactment. Indeed, I remember perhaps the strongest advocate for the attention to the problems of 

prisons at that time and to their personnel was a conservative Republican from Nebraska, Senator Roman Hruska. It was not then 

a partisan issue, and in my view it need not be today. My coChair—Judge John Gibbons, a lifelong Republican—agrees. 

My own interest did not begin with my time in the Justice Department. During World War II, I spent 27 months in Italian and 

German prison camps, and while that experience is very different 

from being in prison as a result of criminal activities and convictions, there are some similarities. You know, until one really experiences it, I think it is hard to appreciate what the loss of freedom 

entails: boredom, frustration, the tedium of idleness, the fear of the 

unknown that one cannot control. Most importantly, the need for 

enforceable standards and independent oversight of prison conditions—in that case through the Geneva Convention and the Swiss 

Government—cannot be overstated. 

When I was in the Department and chaired the Crime Commission, there were about 200,000 persons in prison. Now there are 

8

more than 10 times that many, and that is just on any given day. 

Over the course of a year, the number of Americans who spend 

some time in jail or prison exceeds 13.5 million. We spend more 

than $60 billion annually on corrections, but problems of public 

safety and public health persist. 

The Commission chose to focus on problems of safety and abuse, 

both within prisons—the safety of both prison officials and prisoners and the abuse of prisoners by guards and by other prisoners—and outside prisons, especially in the surrounding communities where prison officials live and those communities to which 

prisoners return. When people live and work in facilities that are 

unsafe, unhealthy, unproductive, or inhumane, they carry those effects home with them. 

Over the past year, we investigated these problems by listening 

to corrections officials, criminal justice experts, medical experts, 

lawyers who litigate for improved conditions, court-appointed monitors, and prisoners themselves. We found a surprising amount of 

agreement among these groups as to the nature of the problems 

and as to how they might be solved. For all the hard work of corrections officials—most of which the public never hears about—

there is still too much violence in prisons and jails, far too little 

medical care, a culture which too often pits officers against prisoners and prisoners against each other, and far too little support 

for the men and women who work in the tiers and pods and for 

those who run facilities and entire systems. 

It is not only wrong, but it is incredibly shortsighted not to talk 

honestly about what is going on behind bars and whether our approach to incarceration serves our country’s best interests. Our failure to do so puts at ever- increasing danger the health, safety, and 

well-being of all of us. 

What has personally given me the greatest pleasure and satisfaction has been the fact that a Commission of 20 persons from differing backgrounds, experiences, and political preferences could 

agree on so many recommendations to deal with problems of safety 

and health and fair treatment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Katzenbach. appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman COBURN. Thank you, General. Pat? 

Mr. Nolan? 

STATEMENT OF PAT NOLAN, COMMISSIONER, AND PRESIDENT, PRISON FELLOWSHIP’S JUSTICE FELLOWSHIP, AND 

MEMBER, PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION, 

LANSDOWNE, VIRGINIA 

Mr. NOLAN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Senator Durbin. 

Chairman COBURN. Good afternoon. Your mike is not on. Would 

you mind punching that little button? There we go. 

Mr. NOLAN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Senator Durbin. 

I am Vice President of Prison Fellowship and the President of their 

criminal justice reform arm, Justice Fellowship. In addition to serving on this Commission, I am also Speaker Hastert’s appointee to 

the Prison Rape Elimination Commission. 

I bring a unique background to this work. As the Chairman mentioned, I served for 15 years as a member of the California State 

9

Assembly, 4 of those as Assembly Republican Leader. I was prosecuted for a campaign contribution that I accepted, which turned 

out to be part of an FBI sting. I pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering and served 29 months in Federal custody. 

The best way to describe being imprisoned is that I felt like an 

amputee. I was cutoff from my friends, my family, my work, my 

church, and my community. And then, with my stumps still bleeding, I was tossed into a roiling cauldron of anger, bitterness, despair, and often violence. 

In prison, inmates are completely defenseless. They are deprived 

of the usual ways we protect ourselves. They do not choose here to 

sleep or live, they have no choice of their companions, they cannot 

avoid going in dark places, and they are prohibited from arming 

themselves for self- defense. 

Because prisoners are deprived of the ability to defend themselves, the Government has a responsibility to protect them from 

violence and harm. No sentence, no matter how terrible the crime, 

includes being threatened, beaten, or raped while in the custody of 

the Government. 

Sadly, many prisons fail in their responsibility to protect their inmates and staff from violence. At the Commission’s hearings 

around the country, we heard many accounts of violence and abuse 

behind bars. These were reports not just from prisoners and their 

families, but from line officers and correctional administrators as 

well. But, on the other hand, we also heard many accounts of many 

facilities where prisoners and staff are healthy and safe. Plainly, 

there are practices and policies that make for safer prisons. 

The clear consensus among the experts is that to prevent violence in prison we must: reduce crowding; increase access to meaningful programs and activities; encourage a climate of mutual respect between inmates and staff; increase the transparency of the 

institutions by increasing accessibility to outside agencies and volunteers; identify at-risk prisoners and predators, and classify them 

accordingly, and separate them; make better use of surveillance 

technology; and strengthen family relationships by placing inmates 

close to their families, encouraging family visits, and lowering the 

cost of phone calls. 

How do we hold administrators of institutions plagued by violence accountable for adopting the reforms that are proven to make 

prisons so much safer? One important way Congress can help is to 

develop a uniform system for collecting data on violence in prison. 

Currently, there is no way to track the number of assaults by prisoners on other prisoners, by prisoners against staff, or the use of 

excessive force by corrections officers. This prevents us from comparing levels of violence in different facilities and systems around 

the country, or tracking trends over time. For instance, in the year 

2000, one State with 36,000 prisoners reported just 17 assaults. 

Three States reported zero assaults among prisoners statewide. 

Zero. Now, that just is not credible. And we are confronting this 

same issue of the lack of credible statistics on the Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission. 

Without accurate numbers we cannot hold prison administrators 

accountable for the safety of their staff or inmates. We end up 

fighting over anecdotes—pitting good stories against bad ones. 

10

More importantly, it means that successful corrections leaders are 

not recognized and rewarded, and that dangerous institutions do 

not get the attention and the reform that they so desperately need. 

Corrections administrators need accurate information to monitor 

safety, and the public needs it to hold them accountable. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nolan appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Nolan. 

Mr. Maynard, on behalf of Senator Grassley, he had every intention of being here and had a schedule change at the last moment, 

so I am offering you his regrets for not being here, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GARY D. MAYNARD, COMMISSIONER, AND DIRECTOR, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND PRESIDENT-ELECT, AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION, DES 

MOINES, IOWA 

Mr. MAYNARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin. 

I am the Director of the Iowa Department of Corrections and 

President-Elect of the American Correctional Association, but I am 

not speaking for those organizations today. I am here speaking as 

a member of this Commission. I want to discuss the medical and 

mental health issues in our prisons and jails and bring to your attention the reality I see in facilities across the country. We know 

how to secure prisoners behind walls, but the physical and mental 

health problems they bring with them are not so easily secured. 

These health problems quickly become problems for corrections officers, for other prisoners, and for surrounding communities. And the 

burden of solving these problems cannot rest solely with State and 

local correctional agencies. 

Prisoners are probably the least healthy group of Americans. 

They are ill with some of the most destructive diseases—ranging 

from diabetes to HIV, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis—and at far 

higher rates than other Americans. Every year, as many as a million and a half people are released from jail and prison to our communities carrying a potentially life-threatening infectious disease. 

In California, a Federal judge recently appointed a receiver to run 

the prison medical system after learning that every 6 or 7 days a 

prisoner dies unnecessarily from inadequate medical care. 

And correctional facilities are filled with people who have a mental illness. At least 16 percent, or 350,000, and maybe twice that 

number, are mentally ill. You have heard it said many times over 

because it is true: prisons and jails have become America’s de facto 

psychiatric hospitals. I am not here to tell you that the mentally 

ill prisoners should not be held accountable. I am just saying that 

prisons and jails—try as we might—are not good places to help 

people cope with or recover from serious mental illness. In facilities 

around the country today, we are struggling to deal effectively with 

mentally ill prisoners. And we are releasing mentally ill prisoners 

without the necessary supply of medications and without any clear 

pathway to treatment. That threatens public safety and almost 

guarantees that those individuals will fail, commit new crimes, and 

reincarcerated. 

11

These are difficult problems, but they are not without solutions. 

We need real partnerships between correctional agencies, departments of public health, and health care providers working in the 

community. The health care challenges in prisons and jails are 

public health problems, and they demand public health solutions. 

We have come to a point where the doctors in some prisons and 

jails practice under licenses that restrict their work to correctional 

settings. They would not be permitted to provide care to you or me. 

Congress should find ways to encourage public health partnerships 

because they have been demonstrated to work and help correctional 

facilities hire only fully qualified medical staff. 

When we must incarcerate someone who is mentally ill, we need 

properly trained and caring staff to treat the person’s illness. And 

we must avoid isolating mentally ill prisoners in high-security segregation units where their mental state deteriorates and their suffering increases. 

Money alone will not guarantee these crucial reforms, but without adequate funding for correctional health care, we have no hope 

for real change. Some correctional systems ration services by requiring prisoners to pay to see a nurse or doctor. Correctional systems that require medical co- pays by prisoners risk the spread of 

disease and the potentially high cost of delaying necessary care in 

exchange for a small cost savings. The Federal Government, along 

with State and local governments, should end the use of medical 

co-pays in correctional facilities. It will take tremendous political 

will to make that change, and the shift is much more likely to 

occur if we can also increase the financial resources available to 

States to pay for medical care in prisons and jails. 

One of the most important contributions Congress can make to 

improve the public health of this country is by changing Federal 

law so that correctional health care providers—just like every other 

public health care provider—can be reimbursed by Medicaid and 

Medicare. If I ran a public hospital system rather than a correctional health system, my facilities would be entitled to Federal reimbursement for the medical and mental health care we provide to 

persons who are low-income or elderly. The public health depends 

on seeing prisons and jails as part of the public health system. 

Medicaid reimbursement is a key part of that system. We have a 

responsibility to provide decent health care to people who are not 

free to seek medical care on their own. 

In conclusion, in over 30 years of working in corrections, this opportunity to participate with the Commission on Safety and Abuse 

in America’s Prisons has been the best opportunity for others and 

me in my profession to have a public voice, and we thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maynard appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Maynard. 

Judge Gibbons, welcome. I have seen a lot of you lately at different hearings. Welcome. Please share with us, if you would. 

12

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. GIBBONS, COMMISSION COCHAIRMAN, AND FORMER CHIEF JUDGE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 

Judge GIBBONS. Chairman Coburn and Senator Durbin, I would 

like to— 

Chairman COBURN. Turn your mike on. 

Judge GIBBONS. I would like to first apologize for my health 

problem. I am coughing. Is it on? 

Chairman COBURN. Now it is. Thank you. 

Judge GIBBONS. I would like to reiterate what General Katzenbach said at the outset of this hearing: ensuring safe and humane 

and productive prisons and jails is not, and must not be, a partisan 

matter. 

Witness after witness before our Commission spoke of the closed 

nature of prisons and jails and the danger to the health and safety 

of all of us when there is insufficient oversight. A former prison 

warden told us: ‘‘When we are not held accountable, the culture inside the prison becomes a place that is so foreign to the culture of 

the real world that we develop our own way of doing things.’’ Our 

jails and prisons require the sort of external oversight systems that 

we demand for every important public institution, be it our public 

hospitals, our public schools, or our publicly traded corporations. 

Too few U.S. correctional systems are monitored by an independent Government body with enough authority and funding to 

regularly inspect conditions of confinement and to report findings 

to lawmakers and the public. Now, the Federal Government has an 

excellent model. The Office of Inspector General within the Department of Justice inspects Federal correctional facilities and answers 

to the Attorney General and Congress, rather than to the Bureau 

of Prisons. The office does an admirable job in maintaining its independence, and everyone, from the Bureau of Prisons to the public, 

benefits as a result. Congress, exercising the authority conferred on 

it by the 14th Amendment, should actively support a similarly 

independent and strong authority in every State. 

The Federal courts have played a historic role in watching over 

America’s prisons and jails, shedding light on and remedying many 

of the most dangerous conditions and abuses. Indeed, we heard 

from a number of corrections professionals that they welcome—and 

sometimes quietly invite—lawsuits: they are often the only way to 

shake free the resources needed to make prisons safe and effective. 

The courts’ role in prison oversight should in no way be impaired. 

The Department of Justice’s activity in overseeing correctional 

facilities, through civil rights investigations and litigation, has diminished significantly in recent years. In fiscal years 2003 and 

2004 combined, the Department of Justice’s Special Litigation Section initiated only six investigations and filed only one civil case in 

Federal court addressing conditions in prisons and jails. This diminished activity is not the result of diminution of the problems in 

our penal institutions. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 brought down by nearly half the number of Federal cases by prisoners alleging constitutional violations. Now, in part, that was the Prison Litigation Reform Act goal—to reduce what were deemed to be frivolous lawsuits. But the PLRA has proven to be a crude weapon: meritorious 

13

lawsuits are suppressed at a greater rate than non-meritorious 

ones. The Commission recommends that the PLRA be amended to 

ensure that those individuals who suffer some of the worst abuses 

like rape, medical neglect, and physical violence have a meaningful 

way to achieve accountability. 

First, Congress should eliminate the requirement in the statute 

which bars the courthouse to prisoners, such as victims of sexual 

assault, unless they can prove a physical injury. 

Second, Congress must eliminate provisions that discourage prisoners from going to court and from having lawyers when they do 

go to court, such as the filing fee for indigent prisoners and the restrictions on attorneys’ fees. 

Third, Congress should remove provisions that discourage consent decrees, such as the requirement that correctional agencies 

concede liability as a prerequisite to a settlement. 

And, finally, Congress should relax the ‘‘exhaustion rule,’’ which 

requires prisoners to fully exhaust all administrative processes, regardless of whether those processes are actually meaningful. As 

some courts have interpreted it, the PLRA bars the courthouse forever when a prisoner misses a single administrative deadline. 

We must hold out a genuine hope for humane treatment in our 

prisons and jails and be willing to let courts and other institutions 

shed light on how we treat the millions of people we incarcerate 

and the hundreds of thousands who work inside the corrections institutions. The Commission on Safety and Abuse and the Vera Institute look forward to an ongoing dialog on these issues with 

Members of the United States Congress. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Gibbons appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman COBURN. I thank each of you for your input. I have 

been through the report and found it very interesting. I am going 

to ask each of you to—I see this divided into three areas. There is 

a Federal responsibility, there are certainly State responsibilities, 

and then there is the organizational responsibilities of the institutions that certify and evaluate prison practices. 

Could each of you go to each of those three areas? What is the 

No. 1 thing you see that the Federal Government ought to be active 

in? You have pretty well outlined what you think, Judge Gibbons, 

but Federal, then State, and then associational. In other words, as 

we start to look at this, what is the most important? I think both 

Senator Durbin and I have a keen interest in seeing some changes 

take place. But as you see it, General Katzenbach, what is the No. 

1 priority that should be there for Federal? What is the No. 1 priority for State? And what is the No. 1 priority for the associations? 

Mr. KATZENBACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for such a simple 

question. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman COBURN. I am trying to make this easy. I am a doctor. 

Mr. KATZENBACH. I think as far as the Federal Government is 

concerned, I think the No. 1 priority in my view would be the modeling that it can do and the help that it can serve in assisting those 

people in the States that really want to run a better prison. And 

you have that in the academy, which is like the FBI Academy, and 

14

I think it needs more help on that. And I think that would be a 

major part, and the other part I think is also what it can do as far 

as health is concerned, which is such a big problem and a very expensive problem. And I recognize the difficulties of that. 

As far as the States are concerned, I think the single most important problem is getting people who are willing to try to change the 

culture within those prisons, and I think that really requires an effective oversight system. Now, it may be that the Federal Government can help on oversight as well, but I think the States should 

be creating effective oversight because that opens the doors and it 

gives—you know, keeping it secret, keeping it quiet only helps 

those who are not doing anything good, who want to keep what is 

going on out of the public eye. I think the good people can take advantage of oversight, and I think that is the most important thing 

from the State’s point of view. 

I have forgotten what your third one was, frankly. 

Chairman COBURN. It was the association, American Correctional— 

Mr. KATZENBACH. Well, I think they have done some very good 

jobs in terms of establishing standards. The difficulty is that there 

are more words in it than there is reality, and that is, again, an 

oversight question. It is a question of putting—they have done tremendous work under tremendous difficult circumstances, and it is 

very valuable work. And I think it is up to the States and to private groups as well to try to make that much more of a reality than 

I think it presently is in terms of not very many prisons are, in 

fact, approved, certified by them. And that would be a big help, to 

have more of those people, if you really had a good system for inspecting and for measuring. That is about as good as I can do. 

Chairman COBURN. That is very good. Thank you. 

Pat Nolan, please. 

Mr. NOLAN. Yes, Senator, I think at the Federal level I think 

uniform standards, reporting standards of statistics is just crucial. 

There just are at the present time a patchwork of statistics, and 

it ends up, you know, with us fighting over anecdotes. So I think 

having that baseline so you can compare. 

I also think just the bully pulpit that you folks have, the opening 

statements of both of you, if we could just try to get the public to 

realize this is all of our problem, it is not just an in-prison problem—Senator Durbin’s statement about the trash. Frankly, as a 

legislator, I frankly thought, Sent them to prison, we can forget 

about them. And that was a big mistake that I made. These people 

are coming out. And also, as a religious person, our brothers and 

sisters, we have to care about them. They have lives. They are children of God, too. So I think alerting the community to what is at 

risk, you can play—like holding this hearing is a tremendous step 

forward. 

As far as the States go, I absolutely believe that oversight and 

changing the culture to one of respect and caring about the future. 

And, you know, the State of California does not have—you know, 

the ACA has terrific standards. The State of California just ignores 

them. In fact, the ACA meeting was picketed by the guards’ union 

in California because they advocated standards in California. That 

is just, you know, my former home State, but there needs to be 

15

some move on the State level to say we will have our prisons pass 

muster by these standards the ACA has developed so carefully. 

And you asked for one, but I would add another, and that is the 

funding of medical and mental health. The pot is empty for them, 

and their lives are totally dependent on the prison authorities for 

their care. You do not have the option— 

Chairman COBURN. Well, let me go to my State. My state has $1 

billion that they are trying to figure out how to spend right now. 

Why is that not a State responsibility in a State prison? 

Mr. NOLAN. Oh, well, I agree, except that as Mr. Maynard pointed out, all the public institutions—the poor and the elderly are entitled to Medicaid reimbursement except if they are in prison. 

Chairman COBURN. Well, they are also entitled to vote except if 

they are in prison. So the question I have for you is: Is that a Federal responsibility to supply health care to States when the States 

are running surpluses and could, in fact, take care of the health 

of their prisoners? 

Mr. NOLAN. You know, first of all, the first responsibility is on 

the State, but the first responsibility is on the State not to send 

mentally ill people to prison. You know, we have incarcerated so 

many of the people that are mentally ill, and they are crying—you 

know, it becomes a slippery slope. They are arrested for worshipping the newspaper rack in front of Denny’s, and literally in L.A. 

County they call it ‘‘mercy bookings.’’ Mercifully, they take them off 

the street, but the place they take them is jail because there are 

no acute care beds for them and the L.A. County Hospital will not 

accept them. So they end up in jail. The L.A. Sheriff runs the largest mental health facility in the world. And the deputies don’t 

want—these people are sick. They are not criminals. And yet then 

they have a record, and it just escalates from there. 

So the State could not save money, but the money would be better spent treating them in acute mental health beds, get them stabilized on their meds, not in prison making criminals out of them, 

and, frankly, putting them at risk because they are abused. I saw 

it. I saw the abuse of these mentally ill people by the other prisoners. They are taken advantage of, and it makes a correctional administrator’s job virtually impossible to be dealing with criminals, 

but also mentally ill people. 

Chairman COBURN. Mr. Maynard? 

Mr. MAYNARD. Mr. Chairman, I think as we have been talking, 

the medical and the mental health issues are areas that States are 

not able to deal with. I think there needs to be some Federal support into the medical costs. The medical costs are rising tremendously, as are the pharmaceutical costs. And when those costs rise, 

they have to be met because of the law and just for doing the right 

thing, and money comes out of operations, which reduces staffing 

and so on. I think the Bureau of Justice Statistics, funding them 

to do more data collection, more research. The National Institute 

of Corrections, funding them, they do excellent training for corrections. They have for years. They are limited funding. I think that 

would be most helpful. 

As far as States, I am not sure other than what States are doing 

now. I think if they had overall guidance, I think they would probably do a better job. 

16

Organizational responsibilities, I think the accreditation process—I have been involved in accreditation of corrections for over 25 

years, and I have seen the organization as a whole across the country improve because of the work of people to try to meet certain 

standards. And without those standards, they do not. We have 

about less than half of the prisons in the country are accredited. 

That was not the case 15 years ago. And that has all been a voluntary movement on the part of corrections professionals. I think 

we should really support that effort that people are doing voluntarily. 

Chairman COBURN. Judge Gibbons, you pretty well summarized 

the Federal side of that. Anything to say about the State side or 

the associational side? 

Judge GIBBONS. Well, one thing I can say about the States is 

that they will react to Federal prodding. 

Chairman COBURN. I already got your message. 

[Laughter.] 

Judge GIBBONS. If the Federal Government establishes standards, the States will have to comply with them, whether at State 

expense or otherwise. One particular problem that jumps out at me 

when I go to these prison facilities—it is essentially a State problem—is that they are dealing with an aging population and that 

the cost of health care particularly for that aging population is becoming a staggering burden. There are institutions where internally they are training prisoners to run hospice centers for the 

dying because the population is so old. 

Now, Senator, you said, well, isn’t that a State responsibility? 

Why should Medicaid take care of some of those expenses? Well, 

you could say that about the whole Medicaid program. What is the 

justification for carving out of a Federal health program this very 

vulnerable aging population that has expensive medical care? Or 

else they are just going to die. 

But I think what my essential message is, Federal standards for 

the operation of correctional facilities will inevitably improve the 

situation. 

Chairman COBURN. Thank you. I want to give plenty of time to 

Senator Durbin. I just want to come back and talk on that issue 

a little bit on recidivism rates, because that is the key to a lot of 

this cost. 

Senator DURBIN. Let me just say that I have been in the Senate 

for 10 years, on this Committee for 8 years. To my memory, this 

is the second time we have ever had a hearing on corrections. On 

the Senate Judiciary Committee, the second time. We do not want 

to talk about this. It goes back to Mr. Nolan’s point and the one 

I made earlier. Take these dangerous people away and do not tell 

us anything about it. Keep the costs low and don’t talk about it, 

please. You know, they are paying a price, and they do not deserve 

a second thought. 

Yet the reports suggest 95 percent are coming out, will be released. I do not know what current recidivism rates are. Does anybody have a current number? 

Mr. NOLAN. It is about 66 percent stay there for 20 years. 

Senator DURBIN. So two out of three of those released are headed 

back. So the obvious question that I raised in my opening stateVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:04 Oct 12, 2006 Jkt 030255 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\30255.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
17

ment is: Is there an intervention with that incarceration that can 

stop the second crime from being committed, the second victim 

from being created? And it strikes me—and I thought about this 

when I worked at the State level and the Federal level. One of the 

things going in, there are just a myriad of problems that have created the criminal mind. One of them is lack of self-esteem. And 

what I read in your report, not at length but certainly good reference, is that the educational courses in prisons have been diminished dramatically. It used to be that you would go to prison and 

pick up a skill or a GED, and I take it from what you say here that 

that is not the case very often anymore. And so they are emerging 

from prison with few skills, if any. 

I might just give a salute to Congressman Danny Davis of Illinois, who has focused more on this issue than any Congressman I 

know, because the West Side of Chicago, because of all the great 

faith-based operations there, has many more returning incarcerated people than other places. But the point he has found and I 

have found is that, absent some new skill or education, they return 

to the streets in the same or worsened condition. They have sharpened their criminal skills, but no other skills, and their criminal 

connections. 

Second, you have people with mental illness, and, Mr. Maynard, 

you made the point that my Director of Corrections made in Illinois, that he had no idea that he was getting into the business of 

running a mental health institution, which he is. And the numbers, 

from 16 to 54 percent, suggest the magnitude of this issue and how 

inhumane it is for us to take people who are ill and to put them 

in this vulnerable predicament. We would no more think of taking 

an innocent person suffering from a disease and abandoning them 

on an island for a long period of time to fend for themselves than 

we would—than we should in this situation. And so that lack of 

mental counseling, mental health counseling and help really makes 

a significant difference. And then the physical illnesses and diseases, whether they were sick going into the prison, a million and 

a half come out each year sick, if I heard the testimony correctly, 

with serious and communicable diseases. 

And now let’s move to the issue of addiction. If you are an addictive person with an addictive mind and an addictive temperament 

going in a prison, what is the likelihood that you will be cured of 

that during your incarceration? Slim to none, I think, and sadly 

there still are narcotics coming into prison to deal with this. 

So now it comes back in our direction. Federal and State legislative leaders, as well as executive leaders, are we prepared to face 

the public criticism of putting resources into prisons that we have 

just described— education, mental counseling, health care, dealing 

with addictions, saying to the public, if we don’t spend the money 

here, you may be the next victim when they are released? 

Now, Mr. Nolan, you have been in this business. This is a tough 

political task. There were times not too long ago when we were debating whether or not to even give exercise equipment to prisoners 

because it was ‘‘a reward,’’ or let them watch television, another 

‘‘reward.’’ So let me ask you: Come to our world for a moment here 

and talk about this. Mr. Maynard? 

18

Mr. MAYNARD. Senator Durbin, the Federal Government has supported the reentry projects throughout the country, and they are 

going to prove to be effective in helping people stay out of prison 

when they get out, and that is going to prove to be cost-effective 

for the system. There is no question about it. And there are programs, in addition to education, but drug treatment programs, we 

have found that—we first thought that meth treatment was not 

going to be effective, and we were all concerned about it. But we 

have pretty well proven that there is effective treatment for meth 

addiction. 

Anger management, some of the domestic abuse issues, people 

who are in treatment are less likely to reoffend in those cases. 

Senator DURBIN. How common is that in the correctional setting? 

Mr. MAYNARD. We have, of course, the drug treatment; we have 

sex offender treatment; we have the— 

Senator DURBIN. Are you talking about one State or nationwide? 

Mr. MAYNARD. I am talking about one State right now, but I was 

just going to relate to—I think the majority of the State systems 

have those kinds of programs, but they continually fight to—when 

budget cuts come, education, unfortunately, is something I have 

seen that typically gets cut, chaplains and education and training. 

Senator DURBIN. Isn’t that the No. 1 indicator on recidivism—

education? 

Mr. MAYNARD. It is a strong one. People that come to prison that 

could not read and write and learn to read and write in prison, 

they are, according to the research, three times less likely to come 

back to prison. And the same way with GED, if they do not have 

a GED, and they get it—it is the self-esteem you talked about—

they are less likely to come back to prison. So those programs are 

cost-effective, and today, one thing that is encouraging is that most 

States are starting to look at evidence-based practices, where we—

in fact, in Iowa, my budget is predicated on being able to prove 

that if we are given these resources, we will cause a reduction in 

recidivism, we will cause these people to do better and not come 

back. So a lot of States are starting to move in that direction, and 

I think that is the kind of data that you can take to constituents 

and say here is why we do this, it makes sense. 

Senator DURBIN. Good. The results orientation. 

Mr. MAYNARD. Yes, sir. 

Senator DURBIN. I think that is good. 

Can I address another issue which you touched on in this report 

but I want to ask for a little amplification? I bring this up at hearings from time to time. These statistics are old, but I do not think 

they are out of date. I think they are still largely true, and it is 

about drug crimes and the people who commit them and the people 

who are incarcerated because of them. 

African Americans comprise about 12 percent of America’s population, but about a third of the drug arrests and about 65 percent 

of the drug incarcerations are African Americans. There is clearly 

an injustice built into those statistics. 

You in your report discuss diversity in terms of correctional officers. I am glad that you speak to the issue of correctional officers. 

I know a lot of them. It is not an easy job, and my hat is off to 

19

them because they do not get paid well, as you also note, and they 

risk their lives to keep peace in these correctional settings. 

But address for a moment this diversity issue as to whether or 

not the correctional officers reflect the diversity of the people that 

they are watching and whether there is an empathy there that 

does not exist because of it, because of this disconnect. 

Mr. MAYNARD. I could just say that—

Senator DURBIN. I am sorry Mr. Morial is not here or Hilary 

Shelton, who I know was also part of your Commission. But if you 

would— 

Mr. MAYNARD. I think it varies a little bit from State to State. 

I know my experience has been we typically have had more African-Americans in prison than an equivalent ratio of staff. Historically, prisons have been built in remote places, in rural areas, and 

typically been more white, a rural atmosphere, and difficult to recruit minorities to work in prisons from those areas. That has been 

the history. 

Senator DURBIN. Did you find any correlation to the conduct at 

a prison relative to good time, as to whether or not prisoners were 

rewarded with good time for a certain time served? I know that the 

State transfer used to be much closer to one-to-one in Illinois. I 

don’t know what it is today. But the Federal is much different. It 

is 1 day for 1 month, I believe. 

Is there any correlation between the conduct of prisoners and the 

good time that allows them to reduce their ultimate sentence? 

Mr. MAYNARD. I would think so. Most States have systems that 

give credits for work or credits for program completion. They give 

time off a sentence, either work time or good time. 

Senator DURBIN. But you would not know nationwide or through 

the correctional system whether that has an impact on what prison 

life is like? 

Mr. MAYNARD. I think so. Yes, sir. I think it would have an impact on encouraging positive behavior, yes, sir. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Nolan, you talked about vulnerable people 

in prisons, and you mentioned the mentally ill. Are there other vulnerable populations in prisons? 

Mr. NOLAN. Yes. In fact, the Prison Rape Commission has had 

on sexual violence quite a bit of testimony. People of slight builds, 

people with effeminate characteristics, people that are homosexual 

are viewed as targets. 

Senator DURBIN. Does age have anything to do with this? 

Mr. NOLAN. Oh, yes, definitely, and the trend to housing juveniles in adult facilities is troubling. They are by nature vulnerable, 

and so we think it is important that on entrance those factors be 

looked into. 

In fact, I was meeting with the management team of the Los Angeles County jail system. They just had the riots and several 

deaths there. And I said, you know, ‘‘You really need to classify 

these.’’ And the head of operations said, ‘‘Oh, we do.’’ And then the 

head of training said, ‘‘Well, we only classify them as a danger to 

us, not to each other.’’ You know, it was a revelation that even with 

them they had not even thought about that factor. 

If I could answer a previous one, as politicians, one of the things 

that is important that we emphasize is these things are not for the 

20

prisoners. This is for safer communities and fewer victims, as you 

said. That is the bottom line, and we need to hold everybody accountable. I learned this from one of my colleagues, a liberal in the 

legislature, John Vasconsellos, who changed the name of the Committee on Criminal Justice to Committee on Public Safety. And I 

said, ‘‘John, that is typical liberal nonsense,’’ you know. And he 

said, ‘‘No, no, Pat.’’ He said, ‘‘If we call it the Committee on Criminal Justice, the members and staff will view it as our job as building a stronger criminal justice system.’’ He said, ‘‘That system does 

not exist for stronger prisons. It exists to keep the public safer, and 

we have to hold it accountable for that. And if we change the language of discussion to public safety, how do we reduce the risk of 

harm to people?’’ 

So I would say, as far as your question about good time, there 

is no one-on-one correlation of that. It is really a changed life. Have 

we changed their value system, their structure? Have we changed 

them but for a very self- centered focus, to realizing that there is 

something more important than them, that the community and we 

believe God, you know, is more important. And if you change their 

focus of their life so it is not just focused on ‘‘gimme, gimme, 

gimme,’’ then a lot of other things fall into place. 

I think there are several factors, and I need to make clear: recidivism, the 66 percent is rearrested within 3 years of release. The 

reincarceration rate is 52 percent, so that is a distinction. 

Senator DURBIN. Still, that is high. 

Mr. NOLAN. So it is still high, but it is the rearrest that is 66 

percent. But if we have meaningful relationships with healthy, 

moral people—Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ‘‘To change someone, you must first love them, and they must know that you love 

them.’’ And programs cannot love people. People can. So the more 

people we have actually making a difference, the greater the density of loving moral people we pack around them, the better the 

chance they will make it. 

The second thing is job preparation, and I would commend to you 

the chief probation officer in St. Louis has set up a fabulous job, 

absolutely sensational. I could not design a better job on this, and 

he got the permission of the chief judge there, and the unemployment rate of the people under his jurisdiction is lower than the unemployment rate in St. Louis itself. That is working, it is changing 

lives, and it involves the community. 

The third thing is a safe place to live. You know, people do not 

think about it, but, you know, when you are in prison, you have 

people guarding you. There is a violence there, but when you are 

out on the street, you know, where do you sleep at night? If you 

are sleeping under a bridge or in a park, you are vulnerable. And 

so having a safe place where they can live is important. Yet most 

neighborhoods do not want ex-offenders there, so we need to deal 

with that. 

And the fourth thing is treating addictions, and, unfortunately, 

a lot of systems play ‘‘okey-doke’’ with that. I was at the Virginia 

Reentry Committee meeting, task force meeting, and I said that 

less than 10 percent of inmates get treatment for addiction before 

they are released and that is a reality. And so one of the directors 

of Virginia said, ‘‘Well, we have drug treatment in every prison.’’ 

21

Well, he is begging the question. Yes, they have drug treatment, 

but only a tiny fraction of the prisoners get it that need it. So having it in prisons is different than making sure everybody with an 

addictive personality has the treatment to help them, to teach 

them the coping mechanisms to deal with that aspect of their life. 

And then one other thing, so many of the programs—for the 10 

percent that do get treatment, after they are released, they have 

to wait in the queue to get community treatment, 6 to 8 months 

before they get into a community treatment. Well, if you have that 

discontinuity, you lose all the benefit. 

So I would say those are the major things, but the key thing is 

relationship more than programs. We focus on programs. But it is 

linking them with good, moral people that are making it in life and 

that care about them. 

Senator DURBIN. Nothing works better than to have someone 

who cares. 

Judge, a last question the Chairman has been kind enough to 

allow me to ask. Talking about loving people, let’s talk about lawyers. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman COBURN. I believe that doctors think they are the least 

lovable. 

Senator DURBIN. I know. 

You appealed to our sense of fairness and justice, saying that 

those incarcerated should be able to have a day in court or a hearing or a review if they are being mistreated. Now, we also know 

that many of these prisoners have access to great law libraries and 

maybe computers these days—I am not sure—and file extensive 

briefs to the court about all sorts of things, some of which are meritorious, and some are not. All of them are not Mr. Gideon of Gideon

v. Wainwright, and many of them tax the system. 

Is there a way, is there a screen or a method to give justice 

where there is none today and yet not open the system up to the 

idle filings of those who are seeking attention beyond what they deserve? 

Judge GIBBONS. Well, there are ways. They have been operating 

for many, many years. We really did not need the PLRA to screen 

out frivolous cases. Federal judges were doing it regularly without 

the inhibitions that have now been placed in the path of often very 

meritorious prisoner cases. The problem with Federal judges getting rid of frivolous litigation to me has always been greatly exaggerated. 

Diverting from the subject matter of this hearing, now the big 

complaint is that Federal resources are being frivolously diverted 

to handling immigration appeals. And if the solution to the immigration crisis is to impose on asylum seekers these bars that have 

been imposed on prisoner litigation, that is going to be counterproductive. 

Chairman COBURN. I want to make sure everybody—I am very 

proud of what is, as a matter of fact, a lot of what you started, Mr. 

Maynard, in Oklahoma, and I want to read into the record some 

positive things that are happening in Oklahoma, because I think 

they lend credence to what this report says. Oklahoma is going to 

open an acute-care, 262- bed facility for our elderly prisoners and 

22

those with chronic and debilitating diseases. We have the Bill 

Johnson Correctional Center, which is a premier drug treatment 

center. That is all it does, prisoners with drug treatment. 

We have over 10,000 volunteers working in our prisons in Oklahoma, mentoring and assisting. And the history of Oklahoma is we 

were under court supervision at one time, and through great leadership and attention to it, that has changed. 

In Oklahoma, we have four areas of oversight, which I think are 

interesting. The Office of State Finance oversights it., the Fire 

Marshal oversights it, the Department of Health oversights it, and 

the Attorney General oversights it. So we have four separate oversights, as well as the legislature in terms of doing that. 

So I think the results of Federal intervention have borne some 

great fruit, and Oklahoma is going to do better, and we know that. 

We have a tremendous problem in terms of paying our staff appropriately and recognizing those needs. 

Judge Gibbons, you mentioned the meritorious versus the nonmeritorious, the data on that. Could you reference that to my Committee staff if we send you a letter on that in terms of the cases 

and the filings? You said that the meritorious have been blocked 

and the non-meritorious have not, and I would just like to have 

that information as we look at the PRLA. 

Judge GIBBONS. We will respond. 

Chairman COBURN. Thank you. 

One of the things that was cited—I served as a jail doctor for 4 

years as the Muskogee County Jail, and there was no question that 

some prisoners had significant needs. But how do you balance—if 

you do not even have a little, small co-pay, what we found is they 

did not want—all they had to do was complain of an illness, and 

they got out of the work detail that day. And, of course, when I was 

there seeing them, they were not ill. They were ill from work. So 

there has to be some balance in terms of your recommendations of 

how we do not get a secondary motivation for illness to display a 

requirement in that. And I know that you all have thought of that, 

and we will send you all these questions. We would love to have 

your individual responses on how we balance that so that we do 

not influence it inappropriately. 

There is a good balance that should not require a significant cost 

but still cost something, which is the same problem we have in our 

own health care system. We have tremendous overutilization in a 

lot of areas because there is not an appropriate skin in the game. 

So there has got to be an answer to that, and I will not spend any 

more time on that. 

I would just relate that we will be sending several sets of questions to each of you, if you would try to respond to those within 

2 to 3 weeks. 

I would commit to you, I am interested in us making a difference, one, in terms of treatment of mental health. As a physician, one out of every three patients I see as a primary care doctor, 

it is a mental health issue. One in three. 

No. 2, drug treatment we know works. We have to incentivize 

that. We have to pray for the rewards of that. 

No. 3, health care. We have got to—we do not have to just fix 

health care problems in our prison. We have to fix health care in 

23

America. We cannot afford what we are doing now. We are going 

to spend $2.3 trillion this year. We cannot afford it. And one out 

of three dollars does not go to help anybody get well. So we have 

got to work on that, and I think your suggestions have merit, and 

we need to look at how we do that. 

Then, finally, how do we incentivize to raise the level of compensation and professionalism within our prisons so that we meet 

the requirements that put forward something similar to what Pat 

Nolan has—how do you be a supervisor in a prison and love your 

prisoners? I mean, that is where we really want to be, because if 

that is felt and seen, it is modeled, and it changes lives. 

Senator Durbin, anything else? 

Senator DURBIN. No. Thank you. 

Chairman COBURN. I want to thank each of you for being here. 

We will discuss among ourselves where we go with followup on 

this, and I appreciate your time and your testimony. Thank you 

very much. The record will be kept open for additional statements 

for 1 week. 

The Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

24


30255.001
25


30255.002
26


30255.003
27


30255.004
28


30255.005
29


30255.006
30


30255.007
31


30255.008
32


30255.009
33


30255.010
34


30255.011
35


30255.012
36


30255.013
37


30255.014
38


30255.015
39


30255.016
40


30255.017
41


30255.018
42


30255.019
43


30255.020
44


30255.021
45


30255.022
46


30255.023
47


30255.024
48


30255.025
49


30255.026
50


30255.027
51


30255.028
52


30255.029
53


30255.030
54


30255.031
55


30255.032
56


30255.033
57


30255.034
58


30255.035
59


30255.036
60


30255.037
61


30255.038
62


30255.039
63


30255.040
64


30255.041
65


30255.042
66


30255.043
67


30255.044
68


30255.045
69


30255.046
70


30255.047
71


30255.048
72


30255.049
73


30255.050
74


30255.051
75


30255.052
76


30255.053
77


30255.054
78


30255.055
79


30255.056
80


30255.057
81

Æ


30255.058