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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

51–223 PDF 2010

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS OVERSIGHT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 21, 2009 

Serial No. 111–89 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 21, 2009 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 3 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 5 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Dennis A. Cardoza, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

Mr. Harley G. Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department 

of Justice, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14 

Mr. Reginald A. Wilkinson, President & CEO, Ohio College Access Network, 

Columbus, OH 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 45 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 47 

Mr. Philip Fornaci, Director, DC Prisoners’ Project, Washington Lawyers’ 

Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 49 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 53 

Mr. Richard A. Lewis, Senior Manager, ICF International, Fairfax, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 156 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 159 

Mr. Stephen R. Sady, Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender, Portland, OR 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 165 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 167 

Mr. Phil Glover, Legislative Coordinator, American Federation of Government 

Employees, Johnstown, PA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 186 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 190 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 219 

(1) 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS OVERSIGHT 

TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 

room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert 

C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Conyers, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, 

Gohmert, Poe, and Goodlatte. 

Staff present: (Majority) Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief 

Counsel; Jesselyn McCurdy, Counsel; Karen Wilkinson, (Fellow) 

Federal Public Defender Office Detailee; Joe Graupensperger, 

Counsel; Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member; (Minority) 

Caroline Lynch, Counsel; Kimani Little, Counsel; Robert Woldt, 

FBI Detailee; Kelsey Whitlock, Staff Assistant. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will now come to order. 

I would like to welcome you today to the oversight hearing on the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Subcommittee will examine a number of topics related to the responsibilities of the prison. And one 

of the topics I am particularly interested in hearing our witnesses 

discuss today is the Federal Prison Industries program. 

The Federal Prison Industries, or FPI, inmate work program also 

known as UNICOR, is very important for public safety, prison 

management and cost-effectiveness, by assisting in rehabilitation 

and post-release employment prospects of former offenders. The objective of FPI is to encourage the rehabilitation of offenders by improving their work skills and work habits while they are incarcerated. 

All able-bodied inmates are required by Federal law to work. 

About 85 percent of the work in prisons constitutes assigned jobs 

for which they earn about 12 to 40 cents per hour. FPI inmates can 

earn up to $1.15 an hour. To be eligible for this program, or even 

be on the waiting list for the program, an inmate must be of good 

conduct and have graduated from high school or be currently making progress toward acquiring a GED. 

No more than 40 cents an hour can be earned by an inmate who 

has not graduated from high school or acquired a GED. Thus, it is 

a great incentive, not only for good order and decorum in the prison, but also for educational achievement. 

2 

Therefore, it is no surprise to show that the FPI graduates are 

35 percent less likely to reoffend and 14 percent more likely to be 

employed 1 year after release. Inmates who have participated in 

FPI are 24 percent less likely to recidivate as long as 12 years after 

their release than those who had not participated in a work program. 

But limiting the losses of FPI jobs is not simply an academic exercise, but it is also vital to maintaining safety and order within 

the prisons, rehabilitating the offender, keeping the public safe and 

saving the taxpayers money. 

However, over the last 8 years, the number of inmates participating in the FPI program has declined significantly. As recently 

as last year, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization 

Act eliminated the mandatory source requirement for purchases of 

FPI products by the Department of Defense. 

On July 15, the Bureau of Prisons announced that it has begun 

closing FPI factories at 14 prisons and scaling back operations in 

four others. According to BOP, the FPI has lost $20 million this 

year, and BOP officials expect that 1,700 inmates will lose their 

jobs as a direct result of the factory closings. 

Fewer inmates in FPI means not only less efficient and less safe 

prisons, but eventually more victims of crime from prisoners released without the FPI experience. 

Another topic I am interested in hearing from the BOP is the implementation of the Second Chance Act. In 2008, Congress passed 

the Second Chance Act to provide resources to the BOP and to 

State and local governments to better address the growing number 

of ex-offenders returning to communities around the country. The 

law directs the BOP to asses inmate skills upon entry to prison, 

generate a skills development plan and ensure that priority is 

given to a high-risk prison population. 

I am pleased to hear that BOP is currently in the process of developing the Inmate Skills Development Strategy, which is required by law in order to ascertain prisoner skills upon incarceration and provide programming based on that assessment. 

I would like to hear more about the skills assessment and how 

the bureau plans to assist inmates to make a smooth re-entry back 

to society. 

The Second Chance Act authorized the BOP to begin an inmate’s 

transition into the community up to 12 months before their release 

date. The act authorized BOP to begin releasing inmates to halfway houses, as early as 12 months before the end of their sentences, with the understanding that, after the completion of a halfway house program, individuals would transition to home confinement or gradual release programs for the remainder of their sentence. 

I am interested to learn how this is progressing, as it would not 

only be better for inmates to transfer, but could substantially relieve prison overcrowding. Of course, the BOP is required to consider public safety in making releases to half-way houses or other 

community supervision programs, and the new authorities do not 

diminish their responsibility. 

Considering that it costs a little less to house inmates in halfway houses toward the end of their sentences, and that it helps 

3 

them re-enter society successfully, I look forward to hearing how 

the BOP is utilizing their new authority to address costs and improve re-entry success. 

Another important area of authority given to BOP is the area of 

drug treatment. When offenders do not address their alcohol and 

drug addictions, it often results in these individuals becoming repeat offenders. The bureau’s Residential Drug and Alcohol Program 

provides drug treatment and after-care services for offenders who 

are convicted of non-violent crimes. 

As incentive to encourage inmates to participate in drug addiction treatment while they are in prison and to recognize the impact 

of the program, the BOP has the authority to give a year off the 

sentence of an eligible offender who successfully completes the program. However, I understand that BOP does not give offenders the 

full year of sentence reduction, and I am interested in understanding why inmates are not benefiting from the full reduction of 

their sentence. 

There have been also criticisms of how the BOP determines eligibility for the program within its discretion. I am also interested in 

understanding how BOP determines who is non-violent and, therefore, eligible for the program. 

Other important implementation and management issues will be 

discussed by our witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony. 

For today’s oversight hearing, we have three panels of witnesses. 

The first panel will consist of our colleague, the gentleman from 

the 18th District of California, Congressman Dennis Cardoza. The 

bureau’s director, Harley Lappin, will testify in the second panel 

with two of his colleagues from BOP. And the final panel will include advocates of Federal prison issues and a representative from 

the correctional officers union. 

I will now recognize the esteemed Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Judge Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

This is important that we have this hearing. We have not had 

one in a while. And oversight is such an important responsibility 

and, perhaps, one of our most important functions. 

The Federal Bureau of Prisons, or BOP, was established in the 

1930’s to provide better care for Federal inmates, to professionalize 

the prison service, and to ensure consistent and centralized administration of the Nation’s Federal prisons. 

Today, the BOP consists of 115 corrections institutions and 28 

community corrections offices. Administration of the BOP is handled by regional offices, and the headquarters uniquely provides 

oversight and support to bureau facilities and community corrections offices. As many of you know, the community corrections offices oversee residential re-entry centers and home confinement 

programs. 

Presently, the BOP is responsible for the custody and care of 

more than 204,000 Federal offenders. BOP employs approximately 

36,000 employees, who have the mutual goal of protecting public 

safety by ensuring that Federal offenders serve their sentences in 

a safe, secure and efficient facility. 

In addition to securely maintaining Federal facilities, the BOP 

also has programs that help to reduce the potential for future reVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Jul 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\072109\51223.000 HJUD1 PsN: 51223
4 

cidivism. Federal inmates are encouraged to participate in a range 

of educational, vocational and faith-based programs, including the 

Life Connections and Threshold programs. 

Under the Second Chance Act, Congress imposed new requirements on the BOP to facilitate the successful re-entry of offenders 

back into their communities. Among those requirements are the establishment of recidivism reduction goals and increased collaboration with State, tribe or local community and faith-based organizations to improve the re-entry of prisoners. 

BOP is currently developing an Inmate Skills Development 

Strategy as required by the Second Chance Act to assess prisoner 

skills upon incarceration and provide programming based on that 

assessment to fill skills deficits and address other re-entry needs. 

I and other Members of the Subcommittee look forward to hearing about the present and future results of these efforts, or, in 

some cases, the lack or failure of efforts as required. In that regard, 

we really appreciate Representative Cardoza being here today. 

We know this is a matter of personal interest to you, especially 

after what has occurred at the prison. And I just really appreciate 

you taking such a personal interest, and I am grateful for that 

input. 

There are, obviously, many problems that still exist within the 

Federal prison system. According to the union that represents 

many BOP correctional officers, Federal facilities are becoming increasingly overcrowded with offenders. 

Further, the BOP system is currently staffed at about 87 percent 

level, which is much lower than the 95 percent staffing levels of the 

mid-1990’s. This overcrowding and alleged understaffing is creating 

dangerous situations for some Federal facilities. Anecdotal evidence 

from correctional officers alleges a rise in inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-officer assaults. 

I think Representative Cardoza will address that, as well. One 

recent assault against a correctional officer was widely reported, 

and that is the one I anticipate hearing Representative Cardoza 

talk about. 

Although other officers quickly responded in that case, the 

wounds Officer Rivera received were terrible, and to which he later 

succumbed. We look forward to hearing more about that incident. 

I understand the BOP has reviewed the suggestions, and has implemented some additional safety measures for correctional officers 

that followed Officer Rivera’s death. 

Since we as a Nation ask BOP correction officers to secure our 

Federal prison facilities and the dangerous offenders housed within 

them, Members of Congress, as representatives of the citizens, 

must ensure that the BOP has the resources it needs to accomplish 

this mission. 

We also know that, for the sake and safety of American citizens, 

recidivism must be reduced. We also know that mentoring and follow up after prison has helped create dramatic reductions in recidivism when it has been allowed by faith-based groups. Now we are 

told by BOP such follow up is prohibited by BOP policy, which cannot be changed until unions agree to it. 

The Second Chance Act requires the follow up be permitted. So, 

it will be important to know for sure whether it is BOP, unions, 

5 

or both, or some other factor, which is intentionally violating the 

law and causing untold crimes against Americans by refusing to 

utilize the required and proven method of reducing recidivism. 

I look forward to hearing from the BOP officials and representatives of correction officers, and also from the other witnesses. 

Again, thanks again, Congressman Cardoza, for being here. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

We have been joined by the Chairman of the full Committee, the 

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Judge Gohmert. 

I think this is an important hearing—and I am happy that we 

are here starting off with our colleague, Dennis Cardoza—which is 

an overcrowding problem that I hope will be addressed right off the 

bat. 

The Bureau of Prisons has a number of problems. I am sorry I 

did not catch both of the opening statements. But the prison medical facilities; the inability to get formulary discounts on drugs; the 

violation of proper staffing of the prison facilities; the whole idea 

of private prisons, whose cost-effectiveness is now being called into 

question, since nobody is measuring it; the fact that some legal defender groups have to sue to get health care for men and women 

that are incarcerated—all these are problems. 

I am interested in finding out from my colleagues about whether 

the faith-based programs include the Muslim faith, which in the 

African-American incarceration, there is a huge number of converts 

there for some reason. I have never quite understood how that happens, or why it is happening. And I am not criticizing it at all. 

The failure of the Bureau of Prisons to enforce and implement 

existing procedures—so, we have got a lot of problems. I am so 

proud of the Committee for taking this up, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for joining us 

today. 

Our first witness will be Representative Dennis Cardoza, serving 

his fourth term in Congress representing California’s 18th District. 

He serves as Chair of the House Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture. He also serves 

on the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy and Research, and the 

House Rules Committee. 

He is testifying today, because of his intense interest about problems at Atwater Penitentiary in his district. 

Mr. Cardoza? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS A. CARDOZA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Chairman Conyers, 

Mr. Gohmert and all the Members of the Committee. 

Thank you for having me here today to discuss an issue of such 

significant personal and professional importance to me: congressional oversight of our Federal prison system. 

As you know, just over a year ago, two inmates viciously attacked and killed Correctional Officer Jose Rivera at the Atwater 

6 

Penitentiary in my congressional district. Officer Rivera was a 4- 

year veteran of the Navy, had completed two tours of military duty 

in Iraq. 

He began his career at the Bureau of Prisons as a correctional 

officer on August 5, 2007, and was in his probationary year, when 

he was senselessly murdered by two inmates in the housing unit 

he was supervising. 

This tragic event rocked our community to its core, sparking outrage and shedding additional light on significant funding shortfalls 

plaguing our Federal prison system. 

In response to this tragedy, a grassroots-led community organization was formed in my home community of Atwater, to advocate on 

behalf of correctional officers at the United States Penitentiary 

Atwater and around the country. I am proud to report that the 

Friends and Family of Correctional Officers now has over 1,000 

members. 

Last night, during a telephone town hall meeting I had with my 

constituents in Merced County, the issue was raised, and it demonstrates that the tragedy still remains high in the minds of my 

constituents. 

While it is unclear whether Officer Rivera would be alive today 

were the institution fully staffed, I think we can all agree that Congress has a responsibility to ensure a tragic event like this never 

takes place again in our Nation’s prisons. 

Congress simply can and must do more to provide the Bureau of 

Prisons with greater resources and to ensure our correctional officers have the tools and the training they need to safely and efficiently do their jobs. 

Across the Nation, staffing levels are decreasing while inmate 

populations are steadily on the rise, leaving correctional officers 

vulnerable. Over the last 20 years, the inmate population of the 

Federal prison system has increased by nearly 250 percent, while 

staffing has increased by less than 125 percent. 

In my district, in Atwater, the Atwater Penitentiary is operating 

at 86 percent of the necessary staffing levels to watch over an inmate population 25 percent over capacity. Nationwide, the inmateto-staff ratio is 4.9 to one, as contrasted with the 1997 number of 

3.7 to one. 

While I understand our correctional officers will always be subject to a certain level of risk, I strongly believe that increases in 

staffing levels will significantly reduce this threat. During my tenure in Congress, I have advocated for adequate funding for the Bureau of Prisons and sufficient resources for our Nation’s correctional officers to perform the difficult and dangerous work they do. 

Finally, I believe we are coming to be on the right track. Last 

month, the House passed the fiscal year 2010 CJS bill. It provides 

an increase of $481 million above the fiscal year 2009 level for BOP 

salaries and expenses. These additional funds will enable the Bureau of Prisons to hire over 1,000 additional correctional officers 

and activate two newly constructed prisons. 

I have regularly communicated my concerns regarding the status 

of these facilities to Director Lappin. In particular, I have highlighted my concerns about inmate assault levels, overcrowding and 

understaffing in our prison facilities. Last July, I introduced legisVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Jul 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\072109\51223.000 HJUD1 PsN: 51223
7 

lation to provide all Federal correction officers with stab-resistant 

vests to help our correctional officers from future inmate assaults. 

Without delay—and I thank him for it—Director Lappin responded by enacting policy changes to provide all correctional officers with stab-resistant vests, to give local penitentiaries greater 

control over inmates, and to supply penitentiaries with additional 

staff during evening and weekend watch. While not perfect, this is 

certainly a step in the right direction. 

Last month, I wrote Director Lappin, highlighting my concerns 

with the findings of the recently released Department of Justice 

Board of Inquiry Report, the official review of operations at USP 

Atwater leading up to Officer Rivera’s death. The report reveals 

numerous concerns, including insufficient staffing levels, inadequate training of staff, a lack of accountability for inmate offenses 

and other issues which, had they been properly addressed by the 

previous warden, may have prevented the death of Officer Rivera. 

I would like to just share with the Committee that I had sent 

this prior warden a letter of my concerns, and it had never been 

addressed when—and I repeated calls to this warden, and did not 

get action. The new warden is doing a much better job. 

While I continue to be concerned with the insufficient staffing 

levels and overall safety levels at USP Atwater, Director Lappin 

has assured me that operations have substantially improved under 

the leadership of the warden I just spoke of, Hector Rios. I will continue to monitor the operations at our penitentiary in Atwater, and 

will keep the Committee updated. 

The last issue I would like to raise is regarding non-lethal weapons for correctional staff. 

In April of 2009, I introduced legislation that directs the Bureau 

of Prisons to conduct a pilot program to determine the effectiveness 

of issuing pepper spray to correctional staff. The bill also directs 

the GAO to report to Congress on a pilot program and to report on 

tools to improve officer safety in Federal prisons. While this bill is 

not a silver bullet solution for the problems affecting correctional 

officers in our Federal prisons, I believe it takes important steps 

to determine whether our correctional officers have the tools they 

need to effectively do their jobs. 

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for inviting me 

to testify today. I look forward to working with you to explore practical solutions to ensure that our Nation’s prisons and our communities are safe. I am happy to answer any questions you might 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cardoza follows:] 

8 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS A. CARDOZA, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


DC-1.eps
9 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. And I thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. And the director will be testifying right after 

you, so perhaps he could answer some of these questions. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from Michigan? 


DC-2.eps
10 

*The information referred to was not available to the Committee prior to the printing of this 

hearing record. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could we ask the distinguished colleague of ours 

from California, if he feels like it, to submit both the letters he has 

written to both of the wardens—— 

Mr. CARDOZA. I would be happy to. 

Mr. CONYERS [continuing]. And any responses he may have received? 

Mr. CARDOZA. I would be happy to submit those to the Committee. 

Mr. SCOTT. And they will be made part of the record.* 

The gentlelady from California? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just note, first, I am sorry I was slightly 

delayed, but I had the benefit of reading the written testimony. 

And I appreciate Congressman Cardoza’s advocacy for his district, not only in many other ways, which I am very familiar with 

as chair of the California Democratic Delegation, but for his constituents who are employees in this important Federal facility, that 

their safety should be in our minds. And I wanted to note, Congressman Cardoza is well known as an advocate for his constituents. And once again, he shows that. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. GOHMERT. I will look forward to seeing those letters. You 

know, it is our job to have oversight. And I really—you know, we 

always say thank you for holding this hearing, but this is critical 

that we do adequate oversight over something so important. 

But for you to have seen the need before the terrible event happened with Officer Rivera, and had called that to people’s attention, I know is of no comfort to you to say ‘‘I told you so.’’ But 

thank you for your sensitivity. 

And the bill, I was not familiar with the bill that you had introduced before, but I sure would be interested in seeing that. I would 

like to work with you in any way we could on it. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Gohmert. 

I will tell you that it is always dangerous for—you know, I ran 

a small business. And when you do not listen to your staff, you are 

going to get yourself in trouble, whether you be a small business 

owner or the warden of a prison. 

And clearly, the prior warden did not listen to his staff, so they 

called their local congressman and started complaining about the 

situation in Atwater. When I wrote to him, and then I called him, 

he did not respond as well. 

And I have not always gotten my way as a congressperson, but 

I have never had a situation where the person that I was trying 

to make an inquiry with would not return my phone calls, when 

I directly placed those calls. 

I will tell you that after the incident, I called Director Lappin, 

and he was very responsive to me, and always has been since then. 

And I appreciate the working relationship I have with him. 

And the new warden is fantastic. I have met with him several 

times. The officers think he is moving in the right direction. And 

11 

we are very grateful for the change that Mr. Lappin has made at 

Atwater. 

And so, while I want to be critical of what happened in the past, 

I certainly understand the challenges the Bureau of Prisons have. 

And the whole purpose of this hearing, as the Chairman said, is 

to try and improve the situation for all concerned. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. POE. Just brief comments. Thanks for coming by and sharing 

these concerns with you. 

We have a lot of Federal prisons down in Texas, Southeast 

Texas, that I represent. And concerns that you have talked about, 

I think are universal to staff, the guards, the ones that do the hard 

work in those prisons. I think those are the toughest—that is the 

toughest beat in America—— 

Mr. CARDOZA. Absolutely. 

Mr. POE [continuing]. Guarding those Federal prisoners in our 

prisons, sometimes without any public support for the hard jobs. 

I have been through those prisons. I would not last as a guard 

on one shift. So, I admire those people who have chosen that to be 

their profession. And I totally agree. Congress has a responsibility 

to provide a safe workplace for those people. They are not exactly, 

you know, guarding jaywalkers. 

So, thanks for being here. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Our second panel for today’s hearing is the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons director, Harley G. Lappin. He is a career public administrator in the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the seventh director 

of the agency. He is responsible for the oversight and management 

of the bureau’s 114 institutions and of the safety and security of 

more than 200,000 inmates under the agency’s jurisdiction. He received a B.A. degree in forensic studies from Indiana University 

and a master’s degree in criminal justice and corrections administration from Kent State University. 

Mr. Lappin, it is good to see you today. 

TESTIMONY OF HARLEY G. LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. LAPPIN. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here. We appreciate the support of the Committee, and look forward to chatting 

with you about a number of issues today. 

Joining me to support me in responding to questions is Admiral 

Newton Kendig, who is the Assistant Director of the Health Services Division for the Bureau of Prisons. He oversees all of the medical services’ policies, budget and implementation for the 207,000 

inmates. 

To my right is Paul Laird, Assistant Director of our Industries, 

Education and Vocational Training, as well the Chief Operating Officer of Federal Prison Industries. And it is a pleasure to have the 

two of them joining me this morning. 

Good morning again, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member 

Gohmert, Chairman Conyers, and other Members of the SubVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Jul 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\072109\51223.000 HJUD1 PsN: 51223
12 

committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss a variety of issues that present significant challenges for 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

All of our programs, services, and operations are affected by the 

number of inmates we are required to confine and the number of 

staff we have to provide these programs and services. In recent 

years, the growth in the inmate population has far outpaced BOP 

bed space, capacity, and staffing. 

Correctional administrators agree that crowded prisons result in 

greater tension, frustration and anger among the inmate population, which leads to conflicts and violence. And we are confining 

an increasing number of inmates who are more prone to violence 

and disruptive activity, and more defiant to authority. 

In order to reduce crowding, we must do one or more of the following: construct additional institutions and fund the necessary positions and other operating costs; expand inmate housing at existing facilities; contract with private prisons for additional bed space; 

or reduce the number of inmates or the length of time inmates 

spend in prison. 

Higher levels of crowding and reduced staffing limit our ability 

to prepare inmates for re-entry into the community. Many inmates 

are being released without the benefit of programs that enable 

them to gain the skills and training necessary to reintegrate successfully. 

As an example of the problem we were facing, for the last 2 fiscal 

years we have been unable to meet our statutory mandate to provide residential drug abuse treatment to all eligible inmates. The 

waiting list for other inmate programs continues to grow, as our 

staffing levels remain lower than necessary to maintain adequate 

programming opportunities for inmates. 

We have other challenges that have significant impact on Bureau 

operations—health care, for one. We provide quality, medically-indicated health care services to all inmates in accordance with proven standards of care. 

However, not all medical services that inmates desire are deemed 

medically necessary. In order to provide consistency and maximize 

cost-effectiveness, elective health care services are provided to inmates on a case-by-case basis. 

Many Federal offenders come to prison having led unhealthy 

lives. These offenders have histories of drug or alcohol abuse, and 

have longstanding medical and dental concerns which they have 

neglected. As a result, inmates typically have greater health care 

needs than the average citizen. 

Through a variety of initiatives, we have been able to control inhouse health care costs to a significant degree. However, we rely 

heavily on contractual medical services, and it is primarily the rising cost of health care in the community and the cost of pharmaceuticals that are driving up our overall health care costs. 

Traditionally, Federal prisons have offered a wealth of inmate 

programs to provide opportunities for inmates to gain important 

skills and training. We want inmates involved in meaningful programs. We know that inmates who participate in Federal Prison 

Industries, vocational or occupation training, education programs, 

13 

or residential drug abuse treatment programs are significantly less 

likely to recidivate. 

Unfortunately, we have a limited number of jobs and program 

opportunities. Increasing crowding has made it difficult to keep all 

inmates working in full-day job assignments. 

Our most important re-entry program—or one of them—Federal 

Prison Industries, is dwindling rather than expanding. We operate 

FPI factories primarily at our medium-security and high-security 

institutions, where we confine the most violent and criminally-sophisticated offenders. Working in FPI keeps inmates productively 

occupied, thereby reducing the opportunity for violent and other 

disruptive behavior. Work in FPI also teaches inmates, as you referenced earlier, valuable job skills and a work ethic, and it does so 

without the use of appropriated funds. 

FPI’s worker levels and earnings have dropped significantly in 

fiscal years 2008 and 2009, due to various provisions of the Department of Defense authorization bills and appropriations bills that 

have weakened FPI’s standing in the Federal procurement process, 

along with administrative changes taken by the FPI Board of Directors. 

These changes, coupled with the downturn in the economy and 

the significant reduction of products needed to support the war effort, has had a serious negative impact on FPI. 

Last week, we began the process of closing or downsizing 19 FPI 

factories, resulting in the loss of approximately 1,700 inmate jobs, 

which is nearly 10 percent of the FPI inmate workforce. Additionally, FPI has reduced the number of work hours for many of the 

inmates, a practice that began several months ago to further reduce costs. 

In order to increase inmate opportunities to work in FPI, new 

authorities are required to expand product and service lines. Absent any expansion of FPI, the BOP would need additional resources to create work and training opportunities for inmates to 

prepare them for successful re-entry into the community. 

Again, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert, it is a pleasure to be here. We look forward to answering questions you may 

have of us. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lappin follows:] 

14 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARLEY G. LAPPIN


HGL-1.eps
15 


HGL-2.eps
16 


HGL-3.eps
17 


HGL-4.eps
18 


HGL-5.eps
19 


HGL-6.eps
20 


HGL-7.eps
21 


HGL-8.eps
22 


HGL-9.eps
23 


HGL-10.eps
24 


HGL-11.eps
25 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Director Lappin. 

First, let me ask a question on—I guess it is a medical question. 

There is a barbaric practice in some institutions, requiring the 

physical restraint of women who are in labor. Now, what is the policy of the Bureau of Prisons? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Our policy is not to restrain women who are in labor 

or in the process of delivering of child. This has been the case for 

many years. 


HGL-12.eps
26 

There are, obviously, exceptions that Dr. Kendig can reference. 

But this has not only been an issue for the Bureau of Prisons, but 

corrections in general. And so, we make it a practice not to restrain 

female offenders who are in labor. 

And, in fact, I happen to be the chair of the standards committee 

for the American Correctional Association. And the American Correctional Association recently took this up, as well. 

Many institutions—not only Federal, but State and local—are accredited. They have recently passed a new standard addressing this 

issue and giving direction as to, if, in fact, there is a need for a restraint, that there would be an appropriate medical authority who 

would provide guidance regarding what restraints, if any, would be 

allowed. 

But, Dr. Kendig, why don’t you expand on that. I know you have 

done some checking here recently with our staff at Carswell, who 

probably oversee the majority of the women in the Bureau of Prisons who are pregnant and ultimately give birth. 

Admiral KENDIG. I did review with our clinical director at 

Carswell, which is our medical center for female inmates, and 

where the majority of our inmates who are pregnant are cared for 

by obstetricians, and then delivered in community hospitals. And 

they did confirm with me that, during delivery, they do not use any 

kind of custodial restraints. 

Any restraints that would be medically indicated would be for inmates who may be mentally ill and psychotic during delivery. That 

would be very, very unusual. And we would use restraints in accordance with medical protocols. They would not be custodial in nature. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

On medical care, what oversight do you have to make sure that 

inmates are getting the appropriate medical care? 

Admiral KENDIG. All of our facilities are accredited by the ACA, 

the American Correctional Association. And they have performance-based standards for medical care that are used to assess the 

health care that we deliver. 

We also have our facilities classified as care one, two, three, or 

four, based on their ability to provide medical care, with our care 

four facilities being our medical centers, care one being healthy institutions. The care two, three, and four facilities, where the majority of our chronically ill inmates are housed, are accredited by the 

Joint Commission. 

And then, internally, we have a Program Review Division with 

standards, that goes in to see if we are implementing the policies 

and the clinical practice guidelines that we have established nationally. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are all of the institutions up-to-date on their accreditation? 

Admiral KENDIG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Let me add one thing. There is also an Administrative Remedy Program in the Bureau of Prisons, by which an inmate can complain or provide a grievance to the warden, and it 

would work its way up through the Regional Director, and ultimately to the Central Office. That, too, alerts us to concerns that 

inmates have regarding medical care. I know that Dr. Kendig gets 

27 

involved in responding to those and agreeing with the inmates in 

some cases where it is warranted. 

Admiral KENDIG. We also have performance-based standards for 

chronic diseases, such as hypertension, HIV infection, diabetes, 

where we actually look at outcome measures to see how well we 

are doing in managing those chronic illnesses. And we also have a 

Peer Review Program where we send out regional medical directors 

and dentists to do peer review, to look at the competencies of our 

practitioners. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think one other, if you do not mind. A lot of 

changes have occurred in this area that I think are noteworthy. 

At one time, Dr. Kendig, or someone like him, was the only medical director in the Bureau of Prisons. But based on his direction, 

we now have clinical directors who are supervised by Dr. Kendig 

in each of the regions, who are providing direct oversight to decisions made at the local level by our doctors. 

Could you expand on that, as well? 

Admiral KENDIG. The regional medical directors are another set 

of eyes and ears for me, and they are going out and making staff 

assistance visits and looking at the kind of things I just mentioned—looking at performance-based outcomes and looking at the 

competencies of our practitioners. 

Mr. LAPPIN. But I wanted to make a point in my opening statement specific to, you know, what care is provided. And I wanted 

to make a point in there that we try to—we provide what is medically indicated. 

Without a doubt, we have individuals in our populations who 

want care provided that we determine is not medically indicated. 

They don’t like that. They complain about that. 

On the other hand are some things that we do not see the need 

to do. And it is one reason why I wanted to point that out. Sometimes the concerns are raised by folks who want something that we 

do not believe is medically indicated to provide as well. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. I have some other questions. 

But let me defer to the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

And thank you for your testimony. 

We have heard this morning, and we have read previously, we 

are significantly understaffed for correction officers in our prisons. 

Why is that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, let me say that, first of all, our number one 

priority right now in the Bureau of Prisons is increasing the number of staff in our institutions who directly supervise inmates. And 

unlike many State operations, State prison operations, just so you 

know, all of our employees who work in institutions are law enforcement personnel—all trained to be correctional officers at any 

given time. 

Now, granted, a portion of them have specialty areas, whether 

they are doctors or nurses or P.A.s, or case managers or counselors—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, my time is so restricted, I was really wanting to get right to why we are so understaffed. 

28 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think, over the course of the last 4 or 5 years, with 

a shift in priorities, we have seen a slower funding flow for providing additional staffing. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So, you are saying the funding has not been there 

to hire the additional officers. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have not had the available funding to fill as 

many positions as we would like to fill. It was not that long ago, 

I think someone referenced, that we were staffed at 98 percent. 

Mr. GOHMERT. In the mid-1990’s. 

Mr. LAPPIN. In the mid-1990’s. 

Over the course of time, with increased medical costs, with increased salaries and benefit costs, with increased costs associated 

with utilities, all of these things have absorbed a greater portion 

of our S&E budget. And consequently, we have had to reduce staffing to pay our staff more and to pay higher costs of health care, 

utilities, and other requirements. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, you probably heard the report that some are 

wanting the Gitmo detainees or other enemy combatants to be 

housed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

What concerns does that raise for you? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, we currently house over 220 or so international terrorists, so our staff are very capable. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So, you want them. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. No, I didn’t say that. [Laughter.] 

Let me be real clear. I did not say that. 

We will do what we are asked to do. And I am very confident 

that our staff can handle that mission. But right now—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. And there is no chance of anybody recruiting terrorists in the Federal prisons. Is that correct? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think there is always a risk of radicalization of any 

type—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Do you think? 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. In Federal prisons. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have put procedures in place, especially for the 

international terrorists that we currently house, to reduce the likelihood that that will occur. And that is through more restrictive 

and controlled management of those particular inmates. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Do you know how many terrorists have been recruited by terrorists in Gitmo? 

Mr. LAPPIN. No. 

Mr. GOHMERT. It is not happening. They are there for a reason. 

But let me ask you. I understand the Bureau of Prisons has resurrected the chapel library policy, which again will allow removal 

of religious books from prison chapel libraries. In the Second 

Chance Act, we specifically banned this policy. 

But the BOP has adopted rules which seem to ignore those 

guidelines and allow any officer to remove religious books with no 

notice to inmates, faith groups like Prison Fellowship, the publisher of the books or even the central office of BOP. 

Can you explain why that is? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, I really do not think our procedures allow that 

to occur without proper notice and review of the materials, not only 

by our religious services staff, but as well by our legal staff. 

29 

Mr. GOHMERT. So, you will be surprised to find evidence that 

that is happening. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, without a doubt, when this first began—let us 

reflect a little bit. Seventy-five years of collecting materials in our 

religious—our chaplains libraries without a lot of oversight. So, in 

the first review, there were documents found there that were not 

of a religious nature, some that were not inappropriate for prisons, 

but did not belong in prison. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I was talking about religious books. 

Let me also ask about Kevin Brady’s bill. Apparently, there are 

instances of cell phones being used to conduct activity that should 

not be going on. 

Do you have any position on the FCC permitting installation of 

devices to jam, to interfere with wireless communications within 

the geographic boundaries of the prison? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Without question, not unlike many State and local 

institutions, we are, too, challenged by the introduction of inappropriate cell phones. The Department of Justice currently is reviewing the legislation you referenced. It has not taken a position as 

of yet. I am sure it will do so in the near future. But right now, 

I am awaiting—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. So, you are—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am working with the department. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Till you are told what position to take, you do not 

have a position? Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Oh, yes. We like to do whatever we can to eliminate 

or limit inmates’ access or use of cell phones. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Because you are the witness. That is why 

I was asking you. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I know. But as far as the department’s position on 

that specific piece of legislation, the department has not taken a 

position as of yet. Certainly, I am advocating for us to do whatever 

we can to be able to control the introduction of cell phones or the 

use of cell phones by inmates in our institutions. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, where will that position that you would take 

come from? 

Mr. LAPPIN. From the Department of Justice. Ultimately—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. As they collect all of the input from 

other components of the department—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. DOJ tells BOP what your position will be. 

Mr. LAPPIN. No, we all have—all of the components will have 

input into that legislation, at which point the department will land 

on a position—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. For the Department of Justice. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, see, and that is what I was asking for, your 

input before this body, because whatever DOJ does is subject to 

being changed by law from this body. And that is why I was kind 

of hoping we would have your input here, not just at DOJ. 

So, your position is you would like to do whatever you could to 

control—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. There are a number of technologies out there. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. 

30 

Mr. LAPPIN. There are some that block the cell phone transmission. There are some that search and find the cell phone. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And so, there are a number of strategies. And again, 

the department—I am in favor of doing whatever technology we 

can—is allowable, I am in favor of. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN. The department just has not taken a position on 

that specific piece of technology, given the other concerns that 

there may be in the department with the use of that blocking technology. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Michigan? 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. 

Why do you have to—why do we have to pass a bill to allow you 

to do this, you know, intercepting these illegal phones? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is a violation of the Federal law right now to block 

a cell phone signal. 

Mr. CONYERS. Even in prison? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Even in prison. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, I want to disclaim any connection with legislation. [Laughter.] 

Maybe that was passed, Judge Gohmert, before I got here. 

[Laughter.] 

Let us talk for just a minute about all these pregnancies that are 

occurring in prison. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think this—— 

Mr. CONYERS. The pregnancies that are occurring in prison. 

Mr. LAPPIN. The majority—I do not understand the context. I assume you mean the women at the—the female offenders we have 

that are pregnant, the majority of them come to us pregnant. 

Mr. CONYERS. I see. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And so, when they enter, either going through the 

court proceedings or during trial, or sometime in advance, but they 

tend to come to us pregnant. 

And to give you numbers, in 2007, we—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, that is okay. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. We had 120 babies. 

Mr. CONYERS. But they are mostly—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. And to give you an idea. 

Mr. CONYERS. If they come that way—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Right. 

Mr. CONYERS [continuing]. That is understandable. Okay. 

Are there unions, collective bargaining among the staff, your 

staff in the prison? 

Mr. LAPPIN. All of our line employees can join the American Federation of Government employees. 

Mr. CONYERS. And what is the union and your staff’s relationship 

through the management? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have an agreement, a collective bargaining 

agreement. We have okay relations, for the most part. There are 

issues we agree on. There are issues we do not agree on. But we 

typically work through those successfully. 

31 

Mr. CONYERS. Good. 

I do not know if there is anything called ‘‘prisoner morale,’’ but 

what is it like in the slammer there? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, doing time is not easy anywhere. And we do 

assess—and again, it varies from location to location. And we actually do every 3 years an evaluation. It is called the Institution 

Character Profile, where we come in and interact with our staff. 

We interview staff. We also interview inmates. And we get feedback from them on the conditions, how communication is flowing 

from the leadership or from line staff to the inmates, and vice 

versa. We look at the administrative remedies that have been initiated at those locations. 

So, it varies from location to location. I can provide you our program statement on that specific initiative to kind of give you some 

background. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. I do not need that kind of detail. 

But you might tell me a little bit about why so many of these 

people are petitioning to oust you. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Of what people? 

Mr. CONYERS. Not the people that are incarcerated. The people 

that work there in the prisons. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I do not know that it is that many. And I think you 

could ask—— 

Mr. CONYERS. You don’t know about that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Oh, I am aware that they are not pleased about the 

staffing levels in the Bureau of Prisons. And I think that is certainly one of the major issues. 

That is an area we do agree. I, as well, am not pleased with the 

levels of staffing. 

Mr. CONYERS. No, no. You do not agree with any kind of petition 

to kick you out—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. No, I do not. 

Mr. CONYERS [continuing]. Remove you. 

Have you heard of that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, I have, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I have, too. So, tell me about it. 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is about all I know. I know that some staff—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, you know it that they want to kick—don’t you 

talk with them at all? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, sure. I just mentioned an issue of concern—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, what do they say? 

Mr. LAPPIN. They—— 

Mr. CONYERS. What is their beef, in short? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think they are angry. They think that, in part, that 

it is my fault we have not gotten enough money to hire more people. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, we would defend you on that one. Is that 

about it? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Oh, I am sure there are other issues regarding the 

provision of protective gear for staff, other issues. But I—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Sure. 

Mr. LAPPIN. My guess is the primary issue of concern—— 

Mr. CONYERS. You can probably—— 

32 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. In my discussion with them is the issue 

of staffing. 

Mr. CONYERS. You could probably negotiate that out, could you 

not? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I would hope so. 

Mr. CONYERS. I hope so, too. You sound like a pretty effective director of the prison systems. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, how many terrorists are presently incarcerated in our systems? Just a number roughly. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have got about 347 total. Two hundred and fifteen or so are international terrorists. The remaining 130-some are 

classified as domestic terrorists. 

Mr. CONYERS. Domestic. Yes, right. 

And you do not have any problem with handling them. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Never without challenges. We have—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, of course. They have got a—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. They tend to be difficult—— 

Mr. CONYERS. I would imagine that there would be some challenges. 

Mr. LAPPIN. There are. The communication issues, managing 

communication. Given their tendency to convey things that are inappropriate, they get—— 

Mr. CONYERS. But you are on top of that. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Upset and angry. They go on hunger 

strikes—— 

Mr. CONYERS. That, too. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Which would bar us to intervene. 

Mr. CONYERS. But you can handle that. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have been successful so far in managing this 

group, I believe. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I believe so, too. And I have not heard any 

complaints about it. 

Now, could you take more, if more were given to you? 

Mr. LAPPIN. As I have said—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Not that you are looking for them. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Anybody indicted or convicted in Federal court, they are ours. And we will take as many of them as required. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. That is the spirit. [Laughter.] 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, sir. They are our responsibility. We will take 

them. 

Mr. CONYERS. Glad to hear that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

The gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here. 

I have seen a lot of jails and prisons in my days, being on the 

criminal court bench for 22 years. The one in Beaumont, Texas, the 

Federal prison, I want to commend the Bureau of Prisons for the 

work there, because of the prison industries. 

33 

That prison makes 20,000 helmets a year for our troops in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. I have toured it. I have talked to the inmates. I 

am very impressed with the whole procedure. It works. 

The inmates—you know, there is a waiting list to get on the list 

to work in the prison industries. They are real patriots. They have 

the American flag flying. I hope—I assume that is not a violation 

of FEC rules. 

But it works, and it works very well. And so, don’t mess it up, 

is my message. I know you are closing down some things with the 

FPI. And I am here to tell you, I think it works, and it works very 

well. So, be commended for that. 

As I mentioned earlier, I talked to the prison guards, and they 

are concerned about what everybody is talking about. They think 

they are understaffed. Their morale is not the best. And they are 

not dealing with, you know, a bunch of choir boys that are in prison, either. So, I think that is something the bureau has to address 

and figure out what that issue is. 

My concern is somewhat like Judge Gohmert’s concern. We have 

got some real bad guys in the Federal prisons. And they do not like 

America. They want to do us harm. And they need to stay locked 

up. 

But the problem is, they are converting folks to side with them. 

And radicalization in our Federal and State prisons is a big concern, because a lot of those people are going to get out. I mean, 

eventually, almost everybody gets out of a prison somewhere. And 

then they are loose in the country. 

And they have—you know, they went to prison with one philosophy. They come out, and they, you know, they hate America. Call 

them terrorists, or whatever you want to call them, but they want 

to do harm to us. 

What is being done to keep that from happening? I am not talking about the 347 outlaws. I am talking about the conversion techniques. What are we doing in prison to keep them from converting 

folks? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We put a number of controls in place to ensure that 

that is not happening, at least on a wide-scale basis and, if possible, one-on-one. But obviously, the one-on-one is much more difficult to manage and determine, given the fact we house inmates 

with two to a cell. 

But on a broader scale, the international terrorists are divided 

into categories. And our more higher concerned leadership, those 

that have the most influence, are managed in a very restrictive, 

controlled environment—at ADX Florence, for the most part. And 

as well as we listen to—live, most of the time—phone conversations, written communications and other. And they interact very 

little with other inmates, so that limits their ability to do that, obviously. 

Then you have got a second tier where we do not have to have 

them as restricted, but we want to control their communications. 

They are housed in communication management units where we 

can target, again, communication, both written and verbal, and 

oversee visits more adequately than in our general population facilities. 

34 

The third tier are folks that we are less concerned about, have 

the potential to radicalize, but we believe it is safer and allowable 

to house them in more of a general population type facility like you 

saw at Beaumont. But even at those facilities, we have provided 

training over the years to our staff as to what to look for. Even at 

those locations, there is increased monitoring of mail and phone 

calls and other initiatives. 

We have eliminated, for the most part, the provision of religious 

programs by other inmates. It is all overseen by a chaplain. Everything that is said, even that of a volunteer or a contractor, is overheard by a chaplain or another bureau employee. 

Mr. POE. Let me ask you this, since time is limited. Since you 

all keep statistics on everything, do you have any numbers or percentage about how many folks go to Federal prison, and when they 

leave they have been radicalized? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I do not. I mean, we know how—I mean, if you are 

talking about conversions, I think that is what some folks reference. 

Mr. POE. You are concerned about these folks. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, we are concerned about them. 

Mr. POE. Call it whatever you want to. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And there are probably isolated incidents we could 

provide you examples of, where folks have misbehaved in that way. 

And what we do is we transfer them to a more secure location 

where they are less—there is less ability to do that. 

But I do not know that we have—I will check—but I do not think 

we have numbers of identified inmates that have converted to terrorism. 

We do keep track of inmates who convert from one religion to the 

other. For example, about 5.8 percent of our inmates are Muslim. 

And that has been pretty static over the course of years. Those 

types of things we track. 

But on a given day, there are many inmates that switch religions. But we do have statistics on that. We can provide that to 

you. 

But, no, I do not think that we have—you know, we identify— 

we have isolated incidents of inmates we have identified who have 

radicalized, and some who we believe may have been influenced. 

But again, that is a very small scale. I will check to see what we 

have. 

Mr. POE. Please do. 

Mr. LAPPIN. But I do not think that we have statistics on that, 

given the infrequency of that occurring. 

Mr. POE. Please check on that and provide the information to the 

Chairman. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. POE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentlelady from California? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

In the 15 years I have been a Member of the Judiciary Committee, this is the first time I can remember that we have had an 

35 

oversight hearing such as this in the Bureau of Prisons. And it is 

something I think we ought to do frequently, because the role that 

the bureau plays is a very important one, although not one that is 

generally front in the minds of the American public. 

I have a couple of quick questions on staffing. You are understaffed. Your staff says so. You say so. 

Do you have a plan to get to where you need to be on staffing? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have had a plan for 4 or 5 years. And basically—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Could you send that to me, please? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It is pretty—what we have done is—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. No, just send it to me if it is in writing. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We will send you an overview of what we are doing 

to try to—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. And what the plan for the future is. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Provide as much—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. Funding for staffing as we can. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would like to know also, what percentage the— 

your staff is patriotic Americans. A lot of them are in the National 

Guard and in the military reserves. 

What percentage of your vacancies is related to deployment? Do 

you know the answer to that? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have about 240 currently deployed. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And are they backfilled? Or do those just go vacant? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It varies. If we have an institution that is hit extremely hard, they have eight, nine, 10 people on active duty at one 

time, we will try to—we come back and help backfill. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Is that in your plan that you are going to send us? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We can certainly provide that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would appreciate that. 

Mr. LAPPIN. At one time, just so you know, we had 600-andsome, at the peak. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would appreciate that, because we ought to make 

sure—obviously, those—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Sure. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Individuals need to come back from 

the war field with their jobs. But we need to backfill them while 

they are gone, so that there is not a vacancy. 

I want to talk a little bit about what is going on for inmates. And 

it relates to a couple of things. 

My experience in corrections, really, is in local government. For 

14 years, I was on the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County, 

and we had a county jail of about 5,500 people that we oversaw. 

And one of the things that we did—and the staff was the biggest 

cheerleaders for this—is to make sure that every single inmate had 

an opportunity to improve themselves while they were there. One 

of the police chiefs in San Jose when I was first elected said, if you 

want to do something about recidivism, teach the inmates to read. 

The average literacy rate is about second grade. 

And we did that. And when I left, about 65, 70 percent of the 

inmates were in parenting classes, literacy classes. And what we 

36 

found was that, when they got out, it had a very positive impact 

on their recidivism. 

But while they were in—and this is why the staff was so enthused—busy hands were not busy stabbing the correctional officers. They were busy learning whatever is they were learning. It 

really was—it helped keep peace in the institution. 

Furthermore, you need to keep those who are radicalizing from 

communicating. But you cannot beat nothing with nothing. And for 

those who would be radicalized, there has to be something else that 

is appealing to them. And the educational efforts are part of that. 

What percentage of your prison inmate population are in classes 

that are either literacy or literature, or parenting, or drug treatment, or any of those things that would allow them to improve 

themselves and be solid citizens when they get out? 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is a great question. Before I turn it over to 

Paul, let me tell you that we have been fortunate at the bureau for 

decades to provide a wealth of programs to the inmates, because 

we could not agree with you more. 

The busier they are in our institutions, the less likely they are 

to get in trouble during that period of incarceration. Without a 

doubt, those inmates who are involved in programs are less likely.. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes, but I would like—do you know the percentage, though? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have some percentages for you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay, I would like to hear that. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And secondly, we actually have done recidivism research, over the course of years, on the impact of an inmate getting 

a GED, getting a vocational certificate, working in prison industry. 

We can provide that to you, as well. But Paul, I think, has some 

numbers that he can provide to you. 

Mr. LAIRD. On any given day, about 53,000 Federal prisoners are 

participating in one or more educational programs, whether it be 

English as a Second Language, General Equivalency Diploma, vocational training, recreation or post-secondary education. It is 

about 25 percent of the bureau’s population. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Twenty-five percent participate in something. 

Mr. LAIRD. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And of their day, what percent of their day is 

used, consumed with those activities? 

Mr. LAIRD. It could vary. Some inmates are participating in multiple programs. Others may be enrolled in just one vocational training program which may, you know, take a couple of hours out of 

their day in addition to their work assignment, which would 

occur—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, if I can, I would like to get that information, 

because I assume we will have a follow-up hearing. You know, it 

is only 25 percent. What are your goals? 

I mean, we never made any of the participation mandatory, nor 

did we give credit for time served as a way to get out early. It was 

just an opportunity for individuals to be better people. 

And since, on average, according to your testimony—or one of the 

testimonies—your inmates are staying for 10 years. So, we are 

going to see them at home. And it is to our advantage that they 

come out clean, and not predators for me and my family. And I 

37 

think, you know, having them learn to do right should be part of 

this experience. 

So, I would like from you in writing, you know, what the plan 

is to allow those inmates, especially those that are going to have 

terms that are going to put them back in communities, to consume 

substantial parts of their time in improvement activities, whether 

it is drug treatment, education, parenting, literacy, philosophy, religious activities, should they choose that—obviously, that is a personal choice, not the government’s—and what the staffing implications are, both in terms of safety for your staff, but also additional 

staffing that you might need to keep these folks busy. 

And I would be interested in receiving the recidivism study that 

you have done. That would be pertinent, I would think, for all of 

us. 

And I see I have consumed my time, Mr. Chairman. Just one 

note on the cell phones. 

As I understand it, and obviously, you do not want inmates with 

cell phones. 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is correct. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I mean, nobody disagrees on that. 

But it is possible that the jamming also jams the neighborhood. 

And so that anybody—you know, the wives of the guards are not 

going to be able to have a cell phone, either. And that is a significant issue for communities with a prison. 

Mr. LAPPIN. I think some legitimate issues need to be worked 

out. 

But let me just mention, you mentioned education, the 53,000. 

On any given day, as well, you have got 20,000 inmates working 

in prison industry, or thereabouts. Correct? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Correct. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And all of the other inmates are assigned a job. So, 

the only program that we mandate is work. We do not force inmates into the other programs. We do not make it mandatory, 

other than work. 

In addition to that, on any given day, you have got about 8,000 

inmates in a residential drug treatment program, as well as several 

other faith-based programs and others that are—and we will provide you the numbers of participants in those—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes, that would be great. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. How many are participating—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. And I do not want to abuse my time. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Right. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But if I could get just a grid—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. It will be an overview of our—— 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Of how many inmates—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. How many hours per day per inmate, 

the percentage that are not doing something. That will give us— 

you know, and then, any insight you have into why there may be 

a reason why some inmates cannot or should not participate in 

terms of security. But just a picture of where we are and where we 

might need to go, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to overstep. But the 

Inmate Skills Development Initiative is part of the Second Chance 

38 

Act. It ties in perfectly with her question. If I can just expand on 

that a second. 

We have not done as good a job in the past of matching an inmate’s needs with the programs we have in institutions. And the 

direction of the Second Chance Act said you will do an assessment, 

and you will try to tie those—the needs of those inmates, based on 

that assessment, to programs that are available in an institution. 

So, today, we are doing a much better job of that. It is not fully 

implemented. The assessment is completed. All new inmates coming into the Bureau of Prisons are assessed, as well as 25 percent 

of the existing inmates. So, over the course of the next 1.5 to 2 

years, every inmate will have this assessment done. 

And the responsibility of the warden is to make sure there is a 

program available at each location to address the lack of skills in 

the nine skill areas identified in the assessment. And then we encourage, we leverage, we prod the inmate to get involved more so 

in those programs where they have the greatest need, rather than 

probe things they would just like to do, which was part of what 

could have been occurring in the past. 

So, I am happy to say we are well on our way to addressing the 

skills initiative I have alluded in the Second Chance Act. It ties in 

perfectly with the educational, vocational, work, and specialty program areas like drug treatment, pro-social value enhancement, religious needs, mental health needs, medical needs, and so on. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I won’t go further. 

But when you give this report, I would be also very interested 

in the percentage of your population that has been assessed with 

a mental illness. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Fifteen percent, which we will put it in writing and 

send it to you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Virginia? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

holding this hearing. 

And Mr. Lappin, welcome. We appreciate your participation. 

I wanted to ask a couple of follow-up questions to those asked by 

the Ranking Member about the situation with the Guantanamo 

Bay detainees. 

I am very concerned about the President’s penchant to transfer 

these prisoners to the United States. And I am wondering if you 

can assure us that no Guantanamo Bay detainee transferred to a 

U.S. prison be granted additional constitutional rights by a court, 

by virtue of they are being detained on U.S. soil. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Again, anybody convicted in Federal court, indicted 

or convicted, would end up in our custody. And they are going to 

have—I do not know a way around them having access to the same 

rights as anyone else. 

I am not an attorney. I will go back and ask the folks in the department what limitations could be put in place. But I cannot 

speak to that, given my lack of education on the law and the Constitution in that regard. 

But, you know, I mean, we have got 207,000 inmates in bureau 

prisons. And they are from all different countries and for all difVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Jul 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\072109\51223.000 HJUD1 PsN: 51223
39 

ferent types of reasons. And I cannot think of any that have much 

limitation to access of most rights that others would have. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But what kind of measures could you take to 

prevent these individuals from spreading their hatred and 

radicalizing others in our prison system? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Just so you realize, we are concerned about inmates 

who spread any type of inappropriate behavior, whether it is gang 

association, getting involved in drugs, you name it. So, there is 

radicalization of all types. 

And our staff, I think, do a good job of limiting that through two 

things—either disciplining inmates who behave in that manner, or 

isolating them, if, in fact, discipline does not stop that type of behavior. 

But specifically with the international terrorists, we put additional controls in place through a classification system that places 

them in a more restrictive environment—that is, in cells, more staff 

control, greater oversight of phone calls, less access to other inmates. So, there are a number of those types of initiatives we have 

done. 

There is also a Correctional Intelligence Initiative. And that is an 

initiative that we are part of the JTTF. And as these inmates 

transfer from local to State to Federal custody, and back, we are 

communicating between the States and the local those types of behaviors and those concerns they should have with these types of inmates. We are also sharing that information with the FBI as they 

transfer in and out of prisons and jails, to ensure that we are adequately tracking these folks. 

And again, back to the congresswoman’s question about what do 

you do just to keep them busy so they are not behaving this way, 

is we try to get those that are willing, those that are in a less restrictive environment, involved in more programs. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. What kind of a problem do you have in the prison system with the spread of the use of cell phones? 

It is my understanding that cell phones are not allowed in any 

U.S. prison. But officials, nonetheless, confiscated 947 phones in 

the Maryland prison system, 2,000 handsets and accessories in 

South Carolina, 2,800 mobiles in California. 

Do you have this problem in the Federal prison system, as well? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, we do. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. How can you assure us that these detainees 

from Guantanamo Bay would not be able to obtain a cell phone to 

perpetrate, perpetuate some of the things they are bent on doing? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, those in the higher custody levels, it is more restrictive. There are more pat searches. There are more visual 

searches. 

It is not impossible, but we have not had a problem at that level 

for those folks. 

But without a doubt, I mean, there are ways of getting these 

things into prisons. Unfortunately, we have a small group of employees, as my guess is other departments of corrections do, as 

well, who bring those in and sell them to inmates. 

A year-and-a-half ago we began to search our employees. We 

have seen less of an insurgence of cell phones and other contraband 

through that process. But it continues to be a challenge. 

40 

And I certainly look forward to working with you all and the department, and others, on strategies to preclude that from happening, and if it does occur, how to limit their access in prisons. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me shift to one more question—since my 

time is about to run out—on a different subject. 

Can you tell us what percentage of the Federal prison population 

is comprised of illegal aliens? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, I can. 

Of the 207,000, 53,500 are non-U.S. citizens. That is 25.9 percent 

are non-U.S. citizens. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And are all of those illegal aliens, when they are 

released from prison, deported from the country? Or are any of 

them released onto the streets of our—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The witness said non-U.S. citizens. That is not the 

same as an illegal alien. I mean, what percentage of those are undocumented? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I can get that number. I do not have that with me. 

My guess is, most of the illegal aliens are deported. 

Some of the non-U.S. citizens may stay in this country. We can 

probably get some statistics on that. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Do you keep records of that, what the disposition is of somebody who is not lawfully in the United States, once 

they complete their prison term? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I can tell you, I am not sure how specific it gets. I 

can give you an idea. Last year, for example, we released about 

60,000 to 62,000 inmates. About 43,000 were released back into the 

United States; 18,000 to 20,000 were deported. 

So, I will go back and see what specific statistics we have regarding not only non-U.S. citizens, but—well, illegal immigrants, and 

what percentage of those are deported, if we have that. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman further yield for a question? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I will certainly yield. 

Ms. LOFGREN. You can be a legal permanent resident of the 

United States, and if you have committed a crime, still be deported. 

So, we need to find out at the inset, what is the status, because 

the deportation figure will not give you the information. 

Mr. LAPPIN. And we may have to—we more than likely have to 

go the BICE to verify some of that, because we typically—we work 

closely with BICE. And as someone nears the end of their sentence, 

and they have a detainer, some of them are released from our facilities and are deported immediately. 

Some are transferred to BICE, and those are the ones we lose 

track of. We do not know what happens when they get into their 

custody and become detainees, rather than incarcerated individuals 

in our system. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, the gentlewoman makes a good point. I 

would like to have both of those categories, because, quite frankly, 

the type of crimes committed by someone lawfully in the United 

States that would give rise to their incarceration in Federal prison, 

probably, in the minds of most people, would merit their deportation from the country, as well. 

41 

Ms. LOFGREN. In almost every case it would. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

I had a couple of other questions, very quickly, Director Lappin. 

When you provide the education information, can you provide us 

information about barriers to higher education? If somebody is 

going to be there for 10 years, there is no reason why they ought 

to stop at a GED. 

About a decade or so ago, prisoners were eligible for Pell Grants, 

and whether or not there are still barriers, or whether or not they 

can pursue their education. 

And finally, on the Federal Prison Industries, what is the policy 

of the Administration in terms of Federal Prison Industries, in 

terms of support, opposition, increasing, decreasing? Does the Administration have a policy on Federal Prison Industries? 

Mr. LAPPIN. The Administration—I have been director for 7 

years. They have all been very supportive of Federal Prison Industry. 

Mr. SCOTT. Including the mandatory source? 

Mr. LAPPIN. You know, I do not want to get into the details of 

that, since this Administration is so new. But we are working closely with the Administration to look for strategies to do what we 

have discussed, how to provide more work. How that occurs is yet 

to be determined. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you could provide for us an Administration 

policy on how we can increase the jobs. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Did you want to elaborate on that, Paul? 

Mr. LAIRD. Well, I know in the past, Mr. Chairman, and in our 

testimony last—almost a year ago we were here before you on prison industries—talked about a number of different suggestions and 

ways that we could add more job opportunities and minimize the 

impact on private sector employers. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you could—as the director has indicated, this 

is a new Administration. And if you could get to us something that 

would be official policy for this Administration. 

Mr. LAIRD. Yes, sir. We can do that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Apparently you do not have it. It has not been formulated yet. But if you can do it—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. We will work and let you know. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Other questions? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Lappin, what is your position on Representative 

Cardoza’s bill about allowing guards to carry non-lethal forms of 

weapons? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Let me tell you what our philosophy and culture has 

been for decades. It is—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. No, I am familiar with that. I am just asking 

for—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. I want to make sure that we are. 

Mr. GOHMERT [presiding]. Harley Lappin’s—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. And that is going to lead into my position on that. 

Okay? 

42 

We believe—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. But see, my time is so restricted. I have done research on where we have been there. I have been in lots of prisons. 

I am wanting to know your particular input. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We would be providing anything now that we 

thought would make our employees safer. And we continue to emphasize the importance of communication with inmates, and rely 

on our classification system to identify those inmates that are a 

greater risk and need to have greater controls. 

Therefore, I am not a huge fan of putting Tasers and batons on 

our employees, given the risks that are created. Because you have 

got to realize, anything we give to an employee you must assume 

an inmate can have. 

One reason why we manage the keys in the way that we do, and 

firearms are another thing. 

So, you give it to an employee, you should assume the employee 

can have it. And when they have it, you have to deal with it. So, 

it has not been our practice, other than in situations that warrant 

it. 

So, yes. Well, one, we do not have Tasers in the Bureau of Prisons. We do not use that. But we do have batons and other protective equipment that is issued to staff in those situations where it 

is warranted, the same as gas. 

Now, as a result of some of the instances that have occurred, we 

have made gas more readily available than it was in the past. So, 

we are getting it closer to the employees, and we are working 

through the regulations to lower the decision-making authority on 

who can issue gas. That is taking a little time, but we are currently 

working to lower the approving authority for who can issue gas. We 

are getting the gas closer. 

So, it has not been our position. It is still not that we don our 

staff with that type of protective gear, given the consequences, and 

our emphasis on working more closely and directly with inmates, 

and removing these inmates that are behaving in that manner. 

So, right now, we have got a group of inmates, without a 

doubt—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. No, I understand. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. They are not listening to us. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But—and you said—you keep talking about the 

department, or the bureau’s position. But I am wanting your personal input. 

Mr. LAPPIN. That is my personal opinion. 

Mr. GOHMERT. That is what—okay. 

And I could not help but note in response to Mr. Goodlatte’s inquiry—and I appreciate the sensitivity of Ms. Lofgren. These may 

not be illegal aliens. Some of them will be, some won’t be. But out 

of 207,000 inmates, to have 53,000 non-U.S. citizens, just as an observation, that is a lot. 

We are told that there are some jobs Americans just will not do. 

Apparently, there are 53,000 jobs involving crime that Americans 

would not do that we needed non-U.S. citizens to come do for us. 

But there is another issue. And some guards I have talked to are 

very concerned about this, because you understand, people get out 

43 

of prison, and not everybody has been rehabilitated. And some 

carry grudges. And some do not like guards that were over them. 

And you had pointed out yourself, director, that all of your people 

are law enforcement. And so, it is troubling to some guards to be 

law enforcement, and yet not have the ability to carry a weapon 

away from the prison. 

We all understand you do not want them carrying weapons, lethal weapons, into the prison, because, as you say, then that means 

the inmates could get them. 

But I know of a number of prisons where people carry them successfully, come in, they are totally secured when they check them 

in at the prison. But it gives them a level of protection when they 

leave. 

What is your personal position on carrying by your law enforcement guards outside the prison? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, again, all of our correctional staff are law enforcement—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. So they have the authority to carry a 

weapon personally on their own time. And they are certainly free 

to do that on their own time. 

We are not in favor—we are opposed to them bringing those 

weapons on our property. There are three things we control very 

closely and do it very well: weapons, keys, and tools. 

And I think any shift in policy in that regard jeopardizes all of 

our staff at that facility, because all it takes—and we do not allow 

it now—but we still have incidents where staff either brought a 

weapon, sometimes with approval to use the firing range, but have 

not managed that weapon appropriately. 

And the thought of a weapon getting in the hands of an inmate 

is just something that we cannot have in prison. So, I am opposed 

to them bringing their weapon to work and us storing for them, 

given the risk of losing control of that weapon. 

Beyond that, they are free to carry a weapon just like anybody 

else does. But that is our only hesitation. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So, that would mean not having them in their car, 

not coming in to prison and checking them into a secure location. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, it is a Federal violation—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. To do that. 

Mr. GOHMERT. That is what I understood. But we were looking 

at trying to—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Sure. 

Mr. GOHMERT [continuing]. Open that possibility up. So, apparently, the message is, if you are in prison and you have got a 

grudge getting out, the best time to go after a guard is when they 

are coming into work, it sounds like. 

Mr. LAPPIN. But I have to say, I am not aware of incidents like 

that occurring. If it is, they have not been brought it to my attention. But, I mean, I started as a case manager. I have worked my 

way up through the system over 24 years. I was a warden, an associate warden—not seen that happen. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Not seen a guard attacked? 

44 

Mr. LAPPIN. You know, out in the—by somebody who has made 

a plan to attack them outside of work. If it happens, it does not 

happen very often. 

But that does not marry up with my biggest concern, and that 

is the failure to adequately control for those weapons that come on 

our property. I think that is a huge, huge risk that I think is unwise. And so, I am sorry that that limits them in part to carry, but 

I think there is good reason for that. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But you understand how that directly contradicts 

your position about being able to take care of dangerous enemy 

combatants. On the one hand you say, we do not want weapons 

around the prison, because the inmates get them. On the other 

hand, sure, we can take care of these dangerous criminals. 

I am a little uncomfortable with those two—— 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, we have weapons that we issue to staff—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, but you have already said that you are concerned about—you have to believe, if somebody can legally bring 

something to prison, then the inmates can get them. If the guards 

can bring something, the inmates can get it. Right? 

And that would be true of some dangerous terrorists coming to 

your prison, apparently. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, again, those of the most, the greatest concern 

are, again, controlled—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. I understand. 

Mr. LAPPIN [continuing]. In very restrictive, controlled environments. I doubt that is likely to happen. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Thank you, Director Lappin. Appreciate it. And I am sure you 

will have, if you are not here, you will have staff here to hear the 

next panel, who will probably bring up some other concerns. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The first witness on our third panel is Dr. Reginald A. 

Wilkinson, who is currently the president and CEO of Ohio College 

Access Network. He is formerly director of the Ohio State Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, and is president of the 

American Correctional Association. 

He has a bachelor’s degree in political science and master’s degree in higher education administration, both from Ohio State University, and was also awarded a doctor of education from the University of Cincinnati. 

Our next witness will be Philip Fornaci, who joined the D.C. 

Prisoners’ Legal Services Project as executive director in 2003, 

after serving for nearly 5 years as executive director of the Maryland Disability Law Center. He is a graduate of the George Washington University School of Law, and received his undergraduate 

degree from Columbia University. 

The third witness will be Richard Lewis, a senior manager for 

ICF International, a global professional services firm, that provides 

consulting services, technology solutions in defense, energy, environment, homeland security, social programs and transportation. 

He manages the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse 

and Web site, and serves as a consultant at the Urban Institute on 

45 

issues involving improving outcomes for prisoners, ex-prisoners and 

their families. 

The fourth witness on this panel will be Stephen Sady, chief deputy Federal public defender for the District of Oregon, where he 

represents clients at the trial level in habeas corpus pleadings and 

on appeal. He graduated from Antioch College and from Lewis and 

Clark Law School. 

And our final witness will be Phil Glover, who serves as the legislative coordinator for the Council of Prison Locals for the American Federation of Government Employees for the AFL-CIO. He is 

currently a correctional officer at the Federal Correctional Institute 

in Loretto, Pennsylvania. 

Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into 

the record in its entirety. 

I would ask for the witnesses to summarize your testimony in 5 

minutes or less. And to help you stay within that time, there is a 

timing device at your table where the light switches from green to 

yellow when there is 1 minute left, and turns to red when the 5 

minutes have expired. 

We will begin with Dr. Wilkinson. 

TESTIMONY OF REGINALD A. WILKINSON, PRESIDENT & CEO, 

OHIO COLLEGE ACCESS NETWORK, COLUMBUS, OH 

Mr. WILKINSON. Mr. Chairman—— [Off mike.] 

Mr. SCOTT. Wait a minute. Excuse me. Excuse me. 

Mr. Wilkinson? 

Mr. WILKINSON. Thank you. 

Chairman Scott and Members of the House Judiciary Committee 

on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony before you today regarding the key 

role that Federal and State industries play in the overall mission 

and success of our country’s correctional institutions, based on my 

decades of work as a corrections professional. 

I would especially like to thank Chairmen Conyers and Scott for 

inviting me to speak regarding the importance of prison industries, 

and for their own ongoing support for the development of quality 

industry programs in our Nation’s prisons and jails. 

You have heard my bio, and I am currently head of a non-profit 

agency, but I am still very much involved in the corrections profession. 

I would like to provide you with my views based on my lengthy 

experience as a corrections administrator as to the importance of 

prison industries in Federal and State facilities, as well as give you 

a thumbnail sketch of what I experienced with Ohio’s approach to 

prison employment. 

I hope my input will prove helpful as you examine legislative solutions available to you and to resolve the very serious challenges 

facing the country’s correctional facilities. 

Let me first address the issue of why I believe it is vital to maintain an effective and viable Federal and State prison industries 

program. In my view, there are at least six reasons. I am only 

going to give you about four of them. 

Federal and State prison industries jobs are a management tool 

to keep prisoners productively busy, as we all know. When prisVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Jul 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\072109\51223.000 HJUD1 PsN: 51223
46 

oners are idle, tension and violence increases in correctional facilities. 

Prison industry programs keep thousands of inmates productively involved in day-to-day, structured operations of our Nation’s 

correctional facilities, thereby increasing the safety of correction officers, who are on the front lines, as we all know, as well as citizens, inmates and the communities surrounding the facilities. 

Federal and State prison industries’ job training programs reduce crime. Inmates who participate in meaningful job training 

demonstrate a significant statistical reduction in recidivism. A 

Washington State Institute for Public Policy study showed that for 

every $1 spent on prison industry programs, as much as $6.23 is 

saved in future criminal justice costs. 

In addition, a previous study conducted by my former department, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 

showed that the Ohio prison industries reduced the return rate of 

prisoners released from prison to about 20 percent. Participation in 

high-skilled prison industry jobs resulted in a 50 percent reduction 

in recidivism. 

Similarly, studies also show that Federal Prison Industry inmates are 24 percent less likely to recidivate than those in nonprison industry jobs. 

Federal and State prison industry contracts with private sector 

businesses boost economic development, and in particular, minority-owned small companies. In an attempt to expand prison industries and create more real-world, high-skilled jobs, prison industries have placed an emphasis in recent years on partnering with 

the private sector. 

These partnerships benefit both Federal and State departments 

of corrections and companies they contract with. Thousands of private sector businesses from around the country benefit from purchases made by both State and Federal prison industries. 

In 2007 alone, the Federal Prison Industries purchased about $538 million in goods and services and raw materials from the private sector. So, in other words, we not only keep prisoners meaningfully employed, we help persons who are not even affiliated formally with the corrections system employed, as well. 

Prison industries offset the costs of incarceration. Federal Prison 

Industries, for example, and other State correctional industry programs are self-supporting entities that do not require financial assistance from the various general revenue funds. 

And finally, Federal and State prison industries imbue inmates 

with a work ethic and a sense of self-responsibility. Many inmates 

have never held a job for any length of time, nor have they learned 

to take instruction or feel the satisfaction of a job well done. That 

is not the case with prison industry programs around the country. 

I would like to briefly address some issues, specific points of legislation discussion. At this juncture, due to the serious challenges 

FPI has just announced it faces, I would urge you to work toward 

legislative and administrative solutions that lift these onerous restrictions on FPI’s mandatory source authority relating to Federal 

agencies’ purchases from FPI. 

It appears at this point that these constraints remain in effect, 

that FPI would further incur loss of inmate jobs and training opVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Jul 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\072109\51223.000 HJUD1 PsN: 51223
47 

portunities, along with many civilian industry staff. Additionally, 

the private sector companies who supply raw materials will be adversely impacted, as well. 

In conclusion, as I have stated above, prison industries provide 

many positive benefits to Federal and State correctional agencies 

by keeping inmates meaningfully engage by providing them with 

marketable skills that may reduce the likelihood of future recidivism. They also provide positive economic benefits to taxpayers by 

reducing reliance on Federal and State revenue sources, creating 

demand for raw materials, for raw products and supplies purchased from the private sector and increasing the skilled labor. 

Based on the concerns that I and other corrections professionals 

have articulated, I urge you to work toward legislation that enhances prison industries and lifts the legislation and administrative constraints that are clearly impeding their mission and their 

ability to succeed. 

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions. 

And I must say that, at some point real soon, I am going to have 

to catch a plane, so I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilkinson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REGINALD A. WILKINSON

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Scott and Members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, and Homeland Security, I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony before you today regarding the key role federal and state prison industries 

play in the overall mission and success of our countries’ correctional institutions 

based on my decades of work as a correctional professional. I would especially like 

to thank Chairmen Conyers and Scott for inviting me to speak regarding the importance of prison industries and for their on-going support for the development of 

quality industry programs in our nation’s prisons and jails. 

I am currently the President & CEO of the Ohio College Access Network but until 

a few years ago, I spent thirty four years as a correctional administrator in Ohio. 

A more detailed biography is provided at the end of my testimony for the record. 

I would like to provide you with my views based on my lengthy experience as a 

correctional administrator as to the importance of prison industries in federal and 

state correctional facilities, as well as a thumbnail sketch of what I experienced 

with Ohio’s approach to prisoner employment. I hope my input will prove helpful 

as you examine legislative solutions available to you to resolve the very serious challenges facing the country’s correctional facilities. And, specifically, the mounting obstacles that Federal Prison Industries (FPI) is encountering on the heels of the announcement that they are being forced to close eight factories, downsize an additional twelve more and eliminate seventeen hundred inmate jobs and one hundred 

plus staff jobs all associated with the downsizing of these operations. These are sobering statistics in combination with the fact that the number of eligible inmates 

employed in the FPI program has already fallen precipitously over recent years by 

thousands and specifically from 25% to 18%. I understand that this is due to limitations imposed on FPI by Congress and the FPI Board on FPI’s mandatory source 

authority relating to federal agencies purchases’ from FPI. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF PRISON INDUSTRIES

Let me first address the issue of why I believe that it is vital to maintain an effective and viable federal and state prison industries programs. In my view, there are 

at least six primary rationales: 

First: Federal and State prison industries’ jobs are a management tool to 

keep prisoners productively busy. When prisoners are idle, tension and violence 

increases in correctional facilities. Prison industry programs keep thousands of inVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Jul 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\072109\51223.000 HJUD1 PsN: 51223
48 

mates productively involved in the day-to-day, structured operation of our nation’s 

correctional facilities, thereby increasing the safety of the correctional officers who 

are on the front lines, as well as for civilians, inmates, and the communities surrounding the facilities. 

Second: Federal and State prison industries’ job training reduces crime. 

Inmates who participate in meaningful job training demonstrate a significant statistical reduction in recidivism. A Washington State Institute for Public Policy study 

showed that for every $1 spent on prison industry programs, as much as $6.23 is 

saved in future criminal justice costs (arrest, conviction, incarceration, post release 

supervision and crime victimization). In addition, a previous study conducted by the 

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections showed that participation in 

Ohio Penal Industries jobs reduced the return rate of offenders released from prison 

by 20 percent. Participation in high-skilled Ohio Penal Industries jobs resulted in 

a 50 percent reduction in recidivism. Similarly, studies also show that FPI inmates 

are 24 percent less likely to recidivate than those inmates in non-FPI jobs. 

Third: Meaningful job training contributes to the successful reentry of offenders and increases their chances of finding and keeping jobs after release. Now, more so than ever, with our country’s tough economy, one can imagine, 

former prisoners attempting to find jobs are at a natural disadvantage. Like FPI, 

Ohio’s mission is to teach them skills so that they can compete in the job market 

after they have served their prison sentences. For example, Ohio has one hundred 

plus vocational education programs ranging from building maintenance to welding, 

from brick laying to auto mechanics. And, their industries program works with 

areas in the Ohio Department of Corrections, as well as with other state agencies 

to enhance the skill-sets obtained by offenders. 

Fourth: Federal and State prison industries’ contracts with private sector 

businesses boost economic development and in particular minority-owned 

and small companies. In an attempt to expand prison industries and create more 

real-world and high-skilled jobs, prison industries have placed an emphasis in recent years on partnering with the private sector. These partnerships benefit both 

federal and state Departments of Correction and the companies they contract with. 

Thousands of private sector businesses from around the country benefit from purchases made by both federal and state prison industries. In 2007, FPI alone purchased $538 million in goods, services, and raw materials from the private sector 

OR in other words, 77.4 Percent of FPI’s Revenues. Of this 77.4 Percent, nearly twothirds of these purchase contracts are with small businesses, many of them female 

and minority-owned or disadvantaged. Estimates indicate that roughly 5,000 jobs in 

the private sector are the result of goods purchased by FPI alone, not including 

state industries purchases. This is one of the best examples I have seen of the public/private partnership model working to benefit all parties, the federal and state 

governments, private businesses across our nation and our country’s overall correctional programs. 

Fifth: Prison industries offsets the cost of incarceration. FPI and most 

other state correctional industry programs are self-supporting entities that do not 

require financial assistance from the general revenue fund thereby creating cost 

savings to taxpayers, an all too critical goal for both federal and state governments 

in light of our country’s current tough economic climate. 

Finally, federal and state prison industries imbue inmates with a work 

ethic and a sense of self-responsibility. Many inmates have never held a job for 

any length of time, nor have they learned to take instruction or feel the satisfaction 

of a job well done. In FPI, Ohio, and other jurisdictions, prison industries work 

standards mirror the normal work environment as closely as possible so that when 

offenders are released to the community they are as ready as possible to join the 

work force with real world job skills so they can be as successful as possible at making a productive contribution. 

OHIO’S INMATE EMPLOYMENT AND REENTRY EFFORTS

Ohio has worked very hard to increase the employability of ex-inmates through 

initiatives such as the Offender Job Linkage Program, where local business leaders 

are invited to interview skilled inmates close to release at job fairs in the prisons. 

As a prerequisite to participation in the job fairs, inmates must be within 90 days 

of release and are required to produce a current resume and participate in classroom training to develop interview skills. To date, thousands of inmates and hundreds of potential employers have participated in over 300 plus job fairs across the 

state. 

One of Ohio’s most important employment initiatives is the community service 

program. Ohio has expanded the numbers of inmates and hours devoted to this area 

49 

from over 75,000 hours in 1991 to millions of hours in 2007. This program has provided Ohio communities with over 40 plus million hours of volunteer inmate service 

since the inception of the program. 

Finally, it is important to note that offender employment is just one component 

of a broad systems approach to managing offenders returning to the community following a period of incarceration. In Ohio, and many other jurisdictions, innovative 

‘‘reentry initiatives’’ are underway that emphasize a continuum of services, programming, support, and offender accountability from the time of sentencing to well 

beyond an offender’s release to the community. I previously testified before Congress 

in support of the landmark legislation, The Second Chance Act, as I believe efforts 

such as those embodied in this legislation further enhance public safety and ensure 

that many more offenders return home as tax paying and productive citizens. 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT STATE OF FPI AND STATE PROGRAMS

I would like to briefly address some specific points of legislative discussion. At this 

juncture, due to the serious challenges FPI has just announced it faces, I would urge 

you to work towards legislative and administrative solutions that lift these onerous 

restrictions on FPI’s mandatory source authority relating to federal agencies purchases’ from FPI. It appears at this point that if these constraints remain in effect 

that FPI would incur further loss of inmate jobs and training opportunities, along 

with the loss of many civilian industry jobs. Additionally, the private companies who 

supply raw materials and partner with correctional industries would be placed at 

further risk to lose their jobs should these types of legislative constraints remain 

on the books. Certainly a less than desirable outcome on all levels. 

CONCLUSION 

As I have stated above, prison industries provide many positive benefits to federal 

and state correctional agencies by keeping inmates meaningfully engaged and by 

providing them with marketable job skills that may reduce the likelihood of future 

recidivism. They also provide positive economic benefits to taxpayers by reducing reliance on federal and state general revenue fund sources, creating demand for raw 

products and supplies purchased from the private sector, and by increasing skilled 

labor. Communities and families benefit by offenders being returned to society with 

a greater likelihood for employment, a chance to become productive, law-abiding, 

and drug free citizens. 

Based on the concerns that I and other corrections professionals have articulated, 

I urge you to work towards legislation that enhances prison industries and lifts the 

legislative and administrative constraints that clearly are impeding their mission 

and ability to succeed. 

Mr. Chairman and Committee members, thank you for the opportunity to offer 

my testimony. I would be pleased to address any questions that you may have. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Fornaci? 

TESTIMONY OF PHILIP FORNACI, DIRECTOR, DC PRISONERS’ 

PROJECT, WASHINGTON LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL 

RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. FORNACI. Good morning. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony. I would particularly like to thank Chairman Scott for his leadership on these 

issues. 

My name is Philip Fornaci. I am the director of the D.C. Prisoners’ Project of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee. We advocate 

on behalf of D.C. prisoners. As this Committee is aware, our organization was created about 20 years ago, and focused on the needs 

of D.C. prisoners, primarily held in our so-called State prison system. 

With the D.C. Revitalization Act in 1997, and the closing of that 

prison, D.C. prisoners were moved into the Federal Bureau of Prisons. As a result, our organization has focused on the Federal BuVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Jul 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\072109\51223.000 HJUD1 PsN: 51223
50 

reau of Prisons, perhaps uniquely in the country. We have unique 

perspective on viewing the Bureau of Prison systems, because it is, 

in fact, our State prison system. 

You have my written testimony. I just wanted to give you some 

of the highlights. And I wanted to focus in particular, a couple of 

issues related to medical care and some other issues in the Bureau 

of Prisons. 

I wanted to first say that the Federal Bureau of Prisons provide 

in many facilities very high levels of medical care, in particular at 

Butner Federal Medical Center, at Rochester. These are places that 

provide a very high level of care that is certainly similar to care 

that is available in the community. 

However, many other facilities in the BOP do not provide not 

only that level, but not a very high level of care. In particular, I 

wanted to focus on the private prison system, and in particular, the 

private prison known as the Rivers Correctional Institution in 

North Carolina, the facility with which we are very familiar. That 

facility was opened, in fact, to house D.C. prisoners with the closing of the Lorton facility here in the D.C. area. So, it was essentially opened to make a profit on the D.C. prisoners. 

Since the moment of its opening in 2002, we have been inundated with complaints about medical care. This is a facility with 

1,300 people. It has one doctor not working 40 hours a week to provide medical care to these individuals. 

In contrast, most BOP facilities have at least two physicians and 

provide weekend coverage. Rivers does not provide that coverage. 

In 2006, the Washington Lawyers’ Committee—2007, I am 

sorry—the committee filed a class action litigation to improve medical care in that facility. So, we are very familiar with it. We visit 

it every 6 weeks. We interview people constantly there. 

And I wanted to raise that we are not discussing here things like 

elective surgery. We are talking about instances of medical malpractice that lead in serious disfigurement and death. 

We are talking about an outdoor pill line, where people with serious disabilities need to stand outside in stormy weather to pick up 

medications two or three times a day. 

BOP has sent people with critical medical needs, post-surgical 

people, folks even who are suffering from ALS, Lou Gehrig’s disease, have been in Rivers, and at facilities that cannot simply take 

care of them. 

And during the course of our litigation, and as I have detailed 

in my testimony, the Bureau of Prisons has asserted that, in fact, 

it engages in only limited monitoring of this facility. Limited would 

be an overstatement, I should say. They have left this for-profit facility with a situation of a fixed price contract—that is, they get a 

fixed amount of money every year—provides very little monitoring. 

And the result, of course, is very obvious what will happen. They 

receive poor medical care, ultimately serious injury, and death will 

occur, and it has. 

In addition to Rivers, we visit many other facilities in the Bureau 

of Prisons, responding to complaints from D.C. prisoners in those 

facilities. D.C. folks are held in about 70 different prisons. 

We often get information about medical care. We have developed 

ways of kind of siphoning out information. And we have attempted 

51 

to bring that information to the attention of the Bureau of Prisons. 

We have offered to have quarterly meetings with medical staff to 

say, ‘‘Look. We visited this facility. These are the kinds of problems 

we have had.’’ 

I have attached to my testimony, also, a letter, a correspondence 

from the general counsel of the Bureau of Prisons we received in 

2008 from Kathleen Kenney, who not only refused our request to 

have some regular meetings, but, in fact, threatened our access to 

the Bureau of Prisons. 

We were quite startled with this, because we felt that this was, 

in fact, a free way for the bureau to get feedback about its facilities. And on top of that, giving us a threat that our work was, in 

fact, somehow inappropriate, was quite disturbing to say the least. 

Third, Director Lappin referred to the grievance system as a possible way to get information about medical problems in the Bureau 

of Prisons, which is possible, except that the grievance system 

takes approximately 3 months to fully exhaust. Obviously, that is 

not the best way to get attention to one’s medical needs. 

In our experience—and we have reviewed hundreds of grievances—we have rarely seen an instance where the Bureau of Prisons has gone back and said, ‘‘Yes, you are right. You are not getting very good care, and we are going to get that for you.’’ 

Now, generally speaking, the bureau, when the grievance reaches 

the level of BOP headquarters, they will generally affirm the decisions of the local medical providers. Again, we are not talking 

about elective surgery here. We are talking about basic medical 

care. 

I just wanted, in my remaining 12 seconds or so, I want to raise 

a couple of other non-medical issues that are detailed. And I just 

hope that you will take a look at my testimony on this. 

One is the perennial problem of snitches in the Bureau of Prisons. That is, not people snitching, but people not being protected. 

People are giving State’s evidence who are very heavily pressured 

to provide evidence in cases. We are representing a person who 

provided evidence for the FBI in a case involving corruption by a 

Federal prisons official. 

He was not only not protected, but his life has been threatened 

for the last 4 years. And we brought litigation to no effect on this. 

This man’s life is in danger as we speak now, yet there have been 

no steps. Mr. Lappin has been named personally in that lawsuit, 

but to no avail. 

The other issue is the use of restraints as punishment in the Bureau of Prisons, which is fairly common. That complaint is detailed 

in my testimony. 

And finally, I just wanted to mention that the issues around D.C. 

prisoners are complicated, and they are certainly—the D.C. folks 

are about 3 to 4 percent of the overall population. It is very hard 

for us to get a hearing on these issues, and we really very much 

appreciate this opportunity to bring some of these matters to your 

attention. 

But we have some ongoing issues. It has been 8 years of D.C. 

prisoners in the Bureau of Prisons. We have a lot of issues. 

52 

We would like to bring them closer to home. We would like to 

help in terms of their re-entry into the community by keeping them 

closer to D.C., bringing services to them and in other ways. 

And I would encourage this Committee to consider having regular testimony or a hearing very soon on the specific issues of D.C. 

prisoners in the Bureau of Prisons. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fornaci follows:] 

53 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILIP FORNACI


PF-1.eps
54 


PF-2.eps
55 


PF-3.eps
56 


PF-4.eps
57 


PF-5.eps
58 


PF-6.eps
59 


PF-7.eps
60 


PF-8.eps
61 


PF-9.eps
62 


PF-10.eps
63 


PF-11.eps
64 

ATTACHMENT 1 


PF-12.eps
65 


PF-14.eps
66 


PF-15.eps
67 


PF-16.eps
68 


PF-17.eps
69 


PF-18.eps
70 


PF-19.eps
71 


PF-20.eps
72 


PF-21.eps
73 


PF-22.eps
74 


PF-23.eps
75 


PF-24.eps
76 


PF-25.eps
77 


PF-26.eps
78 


PF-27.eps
79 


PF-28.eps
80 


PF-29.eps
81 


PF-30.eps
82 


PF-31.eps
83 


PF-32.eps
84 


PF-33.eps
85 


PF-34.eps
86 


PF-35.eps
87 


PF-36.eps
88 


PF-37.eps
89 


PF-38.eps
90 


PF-39.eps
91 


PF-40.eps
92 


PF-41.eps
93 


PF-42.eps
94 


PF-43.eps
95 


PF-44.eps
96 


PF-45.eps
97 


PF-46.eps
98 


PF-47.eps
99 


PF-48.eps
100 


PF-49.eps
101 


PF-50.eps
102 


PF-51.eps
103 


PF-52.eps
104 


PF-53.eps
105 


PF-54.eps
106 


PF-55.eps
107 


PF-56.eps
108 


PF-57.eps
109 


PF-58.eps
110 


PF-59.eps
111 


PF-60.eps
112 


PF-61.eps
113 


PF-62.eps
114 


PF-63.eps
115 


PF-64.eps
116 


PF-65.eps
117 


PF-66.eps
118 


PF-67.eps
119 


PF-68.eps
120 


PF-69.eps
121 


PF-70.eps
122 


PF-71.eps
123 


PF-72.eps
124 


PF-73.eps
125 


PF-74.eps
126 


PF-75.eps
127 


PF-76.eps
128 


PF-77.eps
129 


PF-78.eps
130 


PF-79.eps
131 


PF-80.eps
132 


PF-81.eps
133 


PF-82.eps
134 


PF-83.eps
135 


PF-84.eps
136 


PF-85.eps
137 


PF-86.eps
138 


PF-87.eps
139 


PF-88.eps
140 


PF-89.eps
141 


PF-90.eps
142 


PF-91.eps
143 


PF-92.eps
144 


PF-93.eps
145 


PF-94.eps
146 


PF-95.eps
147 


PF-96.eps
148 


PF-97.eps
149 


PF-98.eps
150 


PF-99.eps
151 


PF-100.eps
152 


PF-101.eps
153 


PF-102.eps
154 


PF-103.eps
155 


PF-104.eps
156 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Lewis? 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD A. LEWIS, SENIOR MANAGER, 

ICF INTERNATIONAL, FAIRFAX, VA 

Mr. LEWIS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

Members of the Committee. 


PF-105.eps
157 

I would like to thank Judge Gohmert for the invitation to be here 

today. 

On behalf of ICF International, we appreciate the opportunity to 

discuss the efficacy of faith-based programming in prison. Faithbased programs are essential to improving outcomes for prisoners, 

for ex-prisoners and their families. 

For more than 20 years, I have been managing programs and 

conducting criminal justice research, and work for a company 

called ICF International. And I have had the opportunity to also 

serve as director of research for Prison Fellowship, and also as a 

social science analyst with the U.S. Department of Justice, Master’s Justice. 

As you all are aware, American prisons are indeed in crisis. 

Today, I think the major challenges are an overburdened prison 

system, which we talked about earlier today, and record numbers 

of prisoners returning home. 

Today, there is about 2.3 million prisoners—another 5.1 million 

adults on probation or parole, bringing the total number to a new 

high of 7.3 million persons. And that was at the close of 2007. 

Many of these folks who are preparing to return home—I should 

mention that prisoner re-entry starts on the day of your first day 

of incarceration. But many of these folks who are returning home 

are returning home with inadequate preparation for their successful reintegration back into society. 

As you all know, they have multiple barriers to success upon returning home, have difficulty reconnecting with families, difficulty 

getting affordable housing, difficulties finding a livable-wage job. 

And in addition, many do not have job skills to be able to gain employment, which is why the previous testimony was so very important. 

In addition, many folks returning home have substance abuse 

issues, substance abuse challenges, mental health challenges and 

health challenges, as we talked about a little bit earlier. Moreover, 

folks returning home from prison, the majority of which are returning home to poor neighborhoods, which are largely infested with 

drugs, gangs and violence. 

So, the stakes are high, and all of this is happening in an economic climate of increasing demand for services and declining resources. 

The question is, what do we do about these formidable challenges 

to folks who are impacted by incarceration? 

The community of faith is an untapped resource, a resource that 

the Bureau of Prisons at the Federal level, and State prisons, and 

certainly local jails, should rely upon as potential partners in problem-solving. This has taken root over the past 30 years. But as you 

all know, religion has been around in corrections for more than 100 

years. 

And the church is uniquely positioned, with the volunteers that 

are really unlimited, to assist and to augment the social services 

and spiritual services that are provided folks while in prison and 

upon returning home. 

Over the past 30 years, there has really been a resurgence of religion in corrections, and increased diversity among faiths that are 

158 

happening in prison settings, and a real opportunity, I think, to 

reach out to folks and to effect some positive change. 

So, the historical of the church, combined with this potential for 

volunteers, uniquely position the faith community to help with the 

successful reintegration of returning offenders. 

A little empirical evidence. There is a growing body of empirical 

evidence out there that supports the claim that religious beliefs are 

inversely related to a variety of crime problems, all the way from 

juvenile delinquency, all the way through the adult continuum. 

There are two studies’ findings which I would like to share with 

you, because I had an opportunity to manage these. But one was 

the InnerChange Freedom Initiative study that happened in the 

State of Texas. 

As director of research for Prison Fellowship, we had an opportunity to do a 2-year study of the InnerChange Freedom Initiative. 

And the results of the study show that graduates of this program, 

which is largely religious and Bible-based and run by Prison Fellowship, 60 percent—folks who graduated from the program were 

60 percent less likely to be reincarcerated, 50 percent less likely to 

be rearrested. 

We need more studies like the InnerChange Freedom Initiative 

and more programs like IFI. 

I also had the opportunity to conduct an evaluation of Horizon 

Prison Ministries in Tomoka Prison in Florida. Once again, we had 

some very promising findings from Horizon, similar to the ones 

that we found at IFI. Not only does religious programming promote 

public safety in terms of reducing recidivism, but it also promotes 

prison safety. 

At Horizon, it promoted a safe correctional environment. Folks 

who were participating in our programs had fewer discipline reports, fewer segregation stays and were less likely to be arrested 

upon release from prison. Specifically, one-third, 30 percent of our 

folks who graduated from the program were rearrested during the 

2-year follow-up period. 

The bottom line is that we need to think strategically about prisons and think more broadly about the prisons being in crisis, and 

try and find more ways for the faith community to work in partnership with folks who are in corrections to help solve the many problems that I mentioned early on. 

The bottom line is that faith matters. It matters in changing 

folks’ lives. It matters in improving outcomes for prisoners, ex-prisoners and their families. 

Thank you for your time, and I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:] 

159 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. LEWIS


Lewis-1.eps
160 


Lewis-2.eps
161 


Lewis-3.eps
162 


Lewis-4.eps
163 


Lewis-5.eps
164 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Sady? 


Lewis-6.eps
165 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN R. SADY, CHIEF DEPUTY FEDERAL 

PUBLIC DEFENDER, PORTLAND, OR 

Mr. SADY. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member 

Gohmert, for the opportunity to address Bureau of Prison rules 

that limit statutory opportunities for prisoners to achieve earlier 

and more successful transitions back to the community at the end 

of their sentences. 

Over-incarceration wastes millions in taxpayer dollars, exacerbates prison overcrowding that is dangerous to both correctional officers and inmates alike, and separates prisoners, longer than is 

necessary to accomplish any legitimate goal of sentencing, from 

families and from their communities. With no change in statutes, 

the Bureau of Prisons could address what Director Lappin this 

morning called ‘‘growth outpacing staffing.’’ 

Well, there is a way of limiting the growth without having any 

change in any current statutes: by enforcing the statutes that 

would save millions and ease overcrowding in six areas: the Second 

Chance Act, the Second Look statute, good time credit, residential 

substance abuse, boot camp and sentence computation. 

Starting with the Second Chance Act on April 9, 2008, President 

Bush signed the Second Chance Act with strong bipartisan support. 

In section 251 of the SCA, Congress doubled the period for required 

consideration of community corrections from 6 months to 12 

months. Instead, at this moment, the rule that is in effect effectively limits the time in community corrections to 6 months—exactly the same situation we had pre-SCA. 

Now, by starting half-way house earlier, at 12 months, that 

would also allow earlier transition to home detention, which is an 

eighth of the expense. The cost of supervising home detention is at 

$3,743 a year instead of the $25,894 for general incarceration expenses. 

Each prisoner is supposed to receive individual consideration, but 

overcrowding could be substantially addressed simply by enforcing 

the existing law and starting out with the statutory assumption 

that up to 12 months should be a norm. It virtually never happens. 

Nothing has changed. 

On the Second Look statute, under 18 USC, section 3582(c), a 

prisoner who has extraordinary or compelling circumstances can be 

brought to the attention of the sentencing judge to, once again, reassess whether the sentence that was imposed is more than is necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing. 

The Bureau of Prisons is the gatekeeper. But the Sentencing 

Commission was assigned by Congress the job of deciding what 

those standards are, what constitutes extraordinary and compelling 

circumstances. 

And what has happened is, we have a huge gap between the very 

broad potential for a judge to get another chance to take a look at 

a case—a second look—and the BOP standard that is only for people who are on death’s door. We call it the death rattle rule, because in 25 percent of the applications, the handful of applications, 

the prisoner died before the judge even had a chance to consider. 

So, a way for expensive and unnecessary incarceration to be 

stopped is not being taken advantage. As a result, we are having 

unnecessary incarceration. 

166 

The good time credit that Congress was anticipating, 85 percent 

is the minimum of what everybody has to serve. The Bureau of 

Prisons requires even the best behaved prisoner to serve 87.2 percent of his sentence. That is 2.2 percent at 7 days a year. 

If you do the math, it is 7 days—not that much. You multiply 

it out by the 95 percent of the prisoners eligible, it comes out to 

36,000 years of over-incarceration that you could save $981 million 

on. That is almost $1 billion of prison savings that could be used 

to make sure that the staffing is safe for correctional officers and 

prisoners alike. 

Residential treatment. The authorization is up to a year of reduced sentence. That number has been going down. Six months ago 

it was 8.2, 7.8. Now it is 7.4. 

Well, if the program was administered in a sensible way, so that 

people were determined their eligibility soon enough, and you did 

not have this glut at the end of the period of time, and people were 

getting that 4.4 extra time, you multiply it by the 4,800 prisoners 

who were receiving the sentence reduction and you have $44 million in savings—just by administering the program in a way that 

sensibly allows the people who are already eligible to receive the 

full amount. 

And you would even have more savings, if you made the people 

who are statutorily eligible but are being categorically excluded for 

being an alien, or for being a non-violent possessor of a firearm, or 

for being somebody who has a prior conviction of a certain type. 

We also lost the boot camp, a program that was providing firsttime offenders who were non-violent a way of avoiding large parts 

of the over-incarceration that was resulting. Instead, they were 

able to get more time in community corrections, and a 6-month 

sentence reduction. That program was terminated—no notice, no 

discussion. It was gone. 

The sentencing computations are done in a way that is creating 

unnecessary consecutive sentences, depriving good time on concurrent sentences, depriving people of time for credit in immigration 

custody, which we have heard is very big chunk of the prison population. 

These are unnecessary expenses, unnecessary incarceration, that 

without any new legislation could make the ratios of prisoner to 

guard much safer and save public resources. 

Redirection of the BOP policy toward full implementation of 

these ameliorative statutes would bring both justice and rationality 

to a system that is now spurring unnecessary growth that is creating—that is outpacing staffing and creating dangerous conditions 

and unnecessary expenditures. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sady follows:] 

167 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN R. SADY


Sady-1.eps
168 


Sady-2.eps
169 


Sady-3.eps
170 


Sady-4.eps
171 


Sady-5.eps
172 


Sady-6.eps
173 


Sady-7.eps
174 


Sady-8.eps
175 


Sady-9.eps
176 


Sady-10.eps
177 


Sady-11.eps
178 


Sady-12.eps
179 


Sady-13.eps
180 


Sady-14.eps
181 


Sady-15.eps
182 


Sady-16.eps
183 


Sady-17.eps
184 


Sady-18.eps
185 


Sady-19.eps
186 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Glover? 

TESTIMONY OF PHIL GLOVER, LEGISLATIVE COORDINATOR, 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, 

JOHNSTOWN, PA 

Mr. GLOVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Gohmert. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. You have 

our written statement for the record. 

I am a correctional officer by trade. I have been a correctional officer, soon to be 20 years in September of 2010. And I would like 

to get into the issue of assaults and violence inside the prison system. We have documentation given to us by local unions across the 

country, what some of the Members here have talked about, speaking to the correctional officers in the field. 

Just in July and June timeframe reported to us, there have been 

10 lockdowns in the Federal Bureau of Prisons: USP Hazelton, 

drug relations between gang members; USP Big Sandy, Kentucky, 

inmate static; USP Beaumont, gang-related disturbance; USP 

Canaan, gang-related violence; FCI Oxford, a medium, gang-related 

disturbances; USP Hazelton, gang-related disturbances; USP 

Atwater, which was discussed this morning, gang-related fighting; 

FCI Big Spring, gang-related disturbances; USP Terre Haute, Indiana, inmate fighting. 

These are not isolated. The problem that has been going on, and 

what we have been talking about, is these are not isolated cases. 

So far this year, reported to the union, we have had 101 assaults 

on staff without weapons, and we have had 33 assaults on staff 

with weapons. Now the inmates are fabricating weapons, or they 

are using mop handles. They are breaking off pieces of plastic and 

sharpening it, and stabbing our staff. 

So, the idea that we cannot carry a 2.5-ounce can of pepper spray 

to keep an inmate off of us when they are attacking is ridiculous. 

And we have told the Bureau of Prisons this repeatedly. 

So, it is a shame that we have to come to a congressional Committee to get 2.5-ounce cans of pepper spray for staff to carry 

around with them, if they are about to get punched in the face by 

an inmate. 

So far, January 2009, we had 14 staff assaulted; February 2009, 

13; March, 17; April, 6; May, 11; June, 27. And so far this month 

we have had eight assaults. 

Some of the assaults—an officer tells an inmate in a hallway to 

pull up his pants. The inmate turns around and strikes the officer 

on the side of the head with his fist. The officer receives contusions 

on the side of his head. 

Staff assaulted by an inmate at Hazelton. An inmate threw feces 

and urine on the officer in our A-1 step down unit. The facility is 

currently locked down due to drug interaction in gangs. 

USP Atwater, a fight was announced at approximately 11 a.m. 

in unit 5-B. This is one of the units that the officer was killed in 

last year. The fight moved from a cell into the flats and back into 

the cell. The fight was over cell assignments according to one inmate. 

187 

And if any of you have seen the BOI report from the murder, 

which we sent to the Committee, I believe, that was one of the 

issues. It is describing the problems at Atwater prior. 

Hazelton, a staff member assaulted in the seg unit. Again, the 

inmate held the food slot open while the officer was feeding. The 

inmate spit on the officer, then threw a food tray lid and hit the 

officer in the face. 

FCI La Tuna, another medium, an inmate began kicking a door 

located between unit one and three. When the unit officer approached to investigate, the inmate attacked the officer, placing 

him in a headlock, and struck him with his fist. The inmate was 

restrained and placed in a special house. 

McCreary USP, an inmate approached a quarter officer from behind and punched him one time in the facial area. The inmate was 

restrained and was transported to health services, where he again 

became combative, pulling away from staff and kicking staff. 

Coleman USP, an inmate was escorted to the disciplinary hearing office by the lieutenant. When he was asked what is going on, 

the inmate jumped on the desk and hit the officer in the chest area 

and pushed him against the wall. Staff then responded and removed him. 

The last one I will read, FMC Devens, July 2. At 10 a.m., a nurse 

was assaulted by a mental health inmate with a lock and a sock. 

The nurse was transported to a local hospital where she—— 

There are I don’t even know how many here to read. And I am 

not going to do that to you. I would like to put them into the 

record. 

The idea, we have been understaffed for many years. In 2006, 

the director cut 2,300 positions due to budgets, now telling people 

that he is fighting for 3,000 new positions. That is commendable. 

But we really need Congress to act. We cannot continue to have 

officers in housing units by themselves in high-security housing 

units. 

One of our suggestions to the bureau was to put two officers 

working as teams, like you do on patrol in a police force, inside 

these high-security housing units. It would require a grand total of 

about 120 positions to put one extra officer in the unit from 2 to 

10 p.m., when the inmates are then locked down for the night in 

the high-security housing units. 

We have gotten nowhere on this issue. The director approved two 

staff to rove additionally on a shift—not inside the housing units, 

but rove on the compound. It is not working. 

On less than lethal munitions, we put in our literature, yes, we 

put in there that we would like pepper spray, batons or Tasers. 

Tasers—we are not worried about having Tasers. We are not worried about walking around with Tasers. That is not the point. 

But the point is, the idea that you now have more access to pepper balls that are locked up in the captain’s office, when an inmate 

is about to assault you, it does not make sense to the staff. And 

you have heard that from members out in Texas, I know, because 

I know they have had meetings. 

So, these things have got to be looked at. Unfortunately, they are 

now at this level. We wish we could get the bureau to agree to take 

care of these things. 

188 

The vest issue, you heard Congressman Cardoza. And he has 

been a great advocate for us since the murder. Yes, vests were provided to the staff. If you want a vest, you can ask for one. But you 

must wear it on every single post you work anywhere in the institution, even in annual refresher training. 

And so, what staff are doing are turning them back into the arms 

room, because it is a policy that was meant to make you not want 

and wear a vest. We wanted to negotiate locally on what housing 

units might require the use of a vest—segregation and other 

places. That has gone nowhere. And again, we have to come to 

Congress and talk about it. 

A couple of things that came up during some of the other testimony. Federal Prison Industries, with the DOD rules kicking in, 

those kind of issues, with the limited amount of contracts, with the 

DOD not purchasing as much. My institution, for instance, at FCI 

Loretto, used to have 500 inmates that worked in FPI, an electronics factory. We are down to 300 inmates in the FPI in our facility. 

What is happening now is, we are down to 4 days a week. We 

were running 5 days a week. Now we are down to four. 

What this is causing inside the facility—for those people that do 

not understand this—is, if you normally have 200 inmates down in 

the recreation area, now you have 400. And our recreation areas 

are not built to handle those kind of amounts—those amounts of 

inmates. The other inmates that get laid in end up in the housing 

unit with the correctional offices. 

And so, the education programs are stressed. The recreation facilities are stressed. And this all causes safety issues within the facility. 

We have asked for ability to go overseas and bring back work. 

That has not come through. We have tried to partner with companies. That has not come through. 

We would like—we have asked for an appropriation. What we 

are doing now is we are asking for an appropriation, to say, let us 

build things, and give us the Katrina victims. Let us make mattresses, blankets, whatever. We will give this stuff away, but we 

have to—our staff are paid out of UNICOR sales, FPI sales. 

And so, we cannot just create items and pay for raw materials, 

and pay the inmates and the staff and their benefits, without having some form of funds coming in. And since the sales are down, 

that is where we are with FPI. 

We think we have signed on to several bills talking about sentencing changes. Our union has supported them. We think it is 

necessary to change some of the sentencing in order to reduce 

crowding. If we are not going to build at 40 percent over-crowded, 

which is what we are now, and we are not going to build, then we 

need to look at reducing sentences in some way that makes sense. 

Non-violent offenders, programming, we know there is a group 

on veterans. I am on the Union Veterans Council for AFL-CIO, and 

there is actually work being done to move veterans into veterans’ 

quarters, to get them so they are not incarcerated in Federal prisons. So, we think those are all good ideas that need to be discussed. 

The Second Chance Act, the Adam Walsh Act, the Prison Rape 

Elimination Act—those acts, unfortunately, are not funded. And as 

189 

much as the bureau director is telling you they are, if the money 

is there, we are not seeing staff increases in case management. 

We are not seeing staff increases in counseling. We have one 

drug treatment specialist for 1,450 inmates at my facility. So, we 

are not seeing increases in those. 

And with that, I hope to answer any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glover follows:] 

190 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHIL GLOVER


PG-1.eps
191 


PG-2.eps
192 


PG-3.eps
193 


PG-4.eps
194 


PG-5.eps
195 


PG-6.eps
196 


PG-7.eps
197 


PG-8.eps
198 


PG-9.eps
199 


PG-10.eps
200 


PG-11.eps
201 


PG-12.eps
202 


PG-13.eps
203 


PG-14.eps
204 


PG-15.eps
205 


PG-16.eps
206 


PG-17.eps
207 

ATTACHMENT 


3-1.eps
208 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Glover. 

I will now recognize ourselves under the 5-minute rule. And I 

will start with Mr. Fornaci. 

In terms of medical care in the federally run prisons, they are— 

we have heard they are accredited and there is oversight. And did 

I understand that you were saying there was not as much problem 


3-2.eps
209 

with the federally run prisons and medical care as there was with 

the private prison? 

Mr. FORNACI. Yes, that is correct. 

And I would say that, in terms of accreditation issues, those are 

things that generally happen at the opening of a facility and at certain intervals over a period of years. 

But our concern has been the sort of ongoing monitoring of problems as they arise. But, yes—— 

Mr. SCOTT. The accrediting process does not contain ongoing 

oversight? 

Mr. FORNACI. It does, but I believe it is 3 to 5 years. Like the 

JCAHO process, I believe, is 5 years? 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. And the private medical care is not under any 

accreditation? 

Mr. FORNACI. They are also JCAHO accredited. At the Rivers 

case, it was accredited at the time of its opening. I do not know 

whether they have been visited since then. That was in 2001. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Lewis, you indicated the value of faith. Is there 

any barrier to voluntary participation in faith-based volunteer programs? 

Mr. LEWIS. There has been some anecdotal reports coming from 

volunteers that I have had an opportunity to talk to, that their access has been increasingly restricted due to the number of volunteers wanting to gain access to prison facilities at the Federal and 

State level. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. If you could provide us with some information 

on those, that would be helpful. 

And in terms of programs available to prisoners, Mr. Lewis, we 

hear most of the comments on getting the GED, which is absolutely 

critical. But some come in with close to a GED. But after they have 

gotten the GED, have you seen any benefit from those who continue their education on through college? 

Mr. LEWIS. Not so much going through college. But there is evidence that folks who do get educational programming while in prison, that is, complete their GED, end up having better outcomes, 

better employment outcomes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that because you have not noticed the college participation, or because they cannot afford to get into college anymore? 

Mr. LEWIS. It is a relatively low percentage of folks who actually 

go to college. A lot end up going to more sort of a community college, and then maybe a 4-year degree. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. And could you describe the program you mentioned that had a 50 percent recidivism rate reduction? 

Mr. LEWIS. There were two studies that I mentioned. One was 

the InnerChange Freedom Initiative study. And—— 

Mr. SCOTT. I am sorry. Could you speak up? 

Mr. LEWIS. The InnerChange Freedom Initiative study is a program that is run by Prison Fellowship. This particular program 

was just outside of Houston in Sugar Land at the Carol Vance 

Unit. 

And the folks who graduated from the program were indeed 50 

percent less likely to be rearrested upon release, and 60 percent 

less likely to be incarcerated during the 2-year follow-up period. 

210 

Mr. SCOTT. And can you provide for the record a description of 

that program, so we will have that for the record? 

Mr. LEWIS. Absolutely. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Sady, you indicated that the 85 percent requirement for prior to—a minimum of 85 percent was not being effectively utilized, because of a mathematical calculation. 

Can you explain why that is the case? 

Mr. SADY. Yes. The Bureau of Prisons in 1988, basically took the 

position that good time should be calculated against time served, 

rather than the sentence imposed. The problem was that the Sentencing Commission had used the time against the sentence imposed, which is the 85 percent against the sentence, when they calculated the table for the imposition of sentences. 

So, that whole grid that every sentence is made on is 2 percent 

higher based on their calculation. 

Further, the folks in Congress have basically said that it was, if 

you do 10 years, you are going to do 8.5. And so, the legislative history is full of this idea that it is an 85 percent rule—the same rule 

that Congress required from States in their truth in sentencing legislation. 

However, because they used the other method of calculating— 

which I believe has no support anywhere except for they mistakenly thought that was what was required—has created the 87.2 requirement. 

Mr. SCOTT. And how could that be cured? 

Mr. SADY. I think that tomorrow morning, if Director Lappin 

issued a directive with a simple computer change, that could be 

solved tomorrow—no new legislation, no anything. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One quick question. A topic that has been coming up lately is 

over-criminalization, federalizing crime, over-criminalizing what 

would normally be civil violations. 

I am just curious if any of you had any opinions on what some 

of us think is the trend toward over-criminalizing conduct. 

Sure. Mr. Glover? 

Mr. GLOVER. We have seen closure. And I started in—this year, 

207,000 inmates. 

A lot of this has to do with federalizing State crimes—obviously, 

State and local crimes—for whatever reason, that was done 

through that period of time through the 1980’s. 

They have pushed to do that, so that Federal prosecutors could 

get a bite at the apple. 

And so, the late—at the end of it—207,000 people in Federal 

prisons and at 86 percent staffed. [Off mike.] 

Mr. GOHMERT. When you said, ‘‘for whatever reason,’’ it occurred 

to me back when I was a judge, and I would see campaign commercials that we are going to end burglary, we are going to—you know. 

And I laughed the first time I saw a commercial like that. And 

that is not their job. That is a State crime. 

But—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Did they get elected? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. I mean—— [Laughter.] 

211 

So, apparently, it was a popular thing. And that is why we have 

apparently federalized so many crimes. 

But now, I was a little shocked, Mr. Glover, at your insensitivity. 

You did not seem to want to give inmates the benefit of the doubt, 

that if the warden has teargas available, and an inmate starts to 

assault one of the guards, that the inmate would not give the 

guard a chance, if he asked to go get the teargas, to come back to 

protect himself. So, you need to work on your sensitivity somewhat, 

I think, there. 

But I did want to point out, too, having been to Gitmo a couple 

of times, apparently, there have been two to three dozen really innovative attacks with urine and feces when these guys are being 

so restricted. But as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said, we are terrorists to the bone, you know, God be praised. 

Mr. Glover, your comment about two partners and high-risk 

housing areas seems to have a great deal of merit to it. So, I appreciate your bringing that up. 

I mean, police do that in high-risk areas. It makes sense. And I 

appreciate that comment. 

And as far as the privatization, yes, I am a Republican, and we 

do believe, you know, generally, privatizing some things are good. 

But I have always had concerns about privatizing certain things 

that really are governmental functions. 

If you can privatize what is inherently a governmental function 

in prisons, then perhaps we could privatize Congress, as well. And 

you all may be supportive of that. 

With regard to the RDAP—the RDAP, the drug and alcohol programs—I had seen reports that they are waiting until people have 

less than a year to stick them in those programs. Now, my experience as a judge, you can put somebody in a 30-day program, and 

under optimum situations, maybe they are better. But usually, it 

takes many months to change the behavior and be able to win that 

daily fight. 

Is that your experience, from any of you, observed people getting 

put in these programs with less than a year, which means they are 

not going to finish the programs? 

Mr. SADY. They generally have to be within 9 to 12 months of 

the completion of the program before going into 6 months of community corrections as part of the program—it is moved out quite 

a bit from there. 

The problem is that the decision and the eligibility determination 

is not being made until very late in the day, and not including the 

sentence reduction. So, there is this huge glut at the end, where 

people are on waiting lists and being bumped, instead of making 

the decision when the person comes in. 

They could make the eligibility decision. And then, if there is another facility, for example, where there are open spaces and they 

can make a more rational allocation of those scarce resources. And, 

because of the savings that you would get if you were able to get 

the full year for these non-violent offenders, they would be able to 

fund the classes necessary, so there are enough classes, so everybody can get in with enough time to complete the program, so it 

is not trying to cram something in at the end. 

212 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, that is a really interesting point. Perhaps it 

could be—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, sure. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if people have a longer time to be in, what would 

that do to the idle hands, as the gentlelady from California was 

mentioning? 

Mr. SADY. This is a really excellent program. I have talked to 

hundreds of people who have come out of it. It has changed their 

lives. It is a 9-to 12-month residential program. And so, the participation is extremely intense and creates a documented reduction in 

recidivism. 

So, for that period of time, when they are headed for that as 

something that usually happens toward the end of their sentence, 

but with enough planning time so that they can get the full year 

off, I think that it would reduce idle time and is extremely productive for both the individual, their families, and for our society, because it lowers recidivism. They have documented it in the TRIAD 

report. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I understand the thinking of the past, that 

you do not want to broadcast to an inmate that they will be going 

into a program at the end. What their thinking is, it ought to be 

a reward, you know. You conduct yourself appropriately, and then 

we will reward you by giving you one of these programs at the end. 

But that doesn’t seem to have worked very well. And it does 

seem like a great thing could be done to say when people are assessed coming in, ‘‘Wow, you have got a bad drug problem. This 

will be what you do the last year of your time.’’ 

Now, of course, if you act up, you know, do something, it seems 

like you could go ahead and give them something to shoot for at 

the beginning. 

Mr. SADY. You are exactly right, because that is how it operated 

until the last few years. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Oh, is that right? 

Mr. SADY. It worked perfectly that way. That is why there has 

been a decrease in the amount, because at the beginning of the program, many people were being determined very early. They were 

finishing the residential part, and then they had a transitional period before they started the community corrections. 

So, it was working with the full year. But we have been seeing 

that average length of the sentence reduction tanking at a time 

when we should be trying to lower the growth, so that we do not 

have these ratios that are dangerous to correctional officers and to 

prisoners. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I know my time has expired. Could I ask one—— 

Mr. SCOTT. We are going to have a second round. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you want to go now? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Because I just had this one last question. 

But it was regarding, Mr. Lewis, about the, you know, the cuts 

in recidivism. It seemed, from my experience in dealing with State 

prisons in Texas, that a great deal of the success came through the 

213 

follow up, the mentoring, the visits after—well, like in AA or NA, 

that accountability after leaving confinement. 

But I had understood that there had been some difficulties in 

faith-based mentors being able to have access. Are you familiar 

with that at all? 

Mr. LEWIS. I am familiar with the finding that it is very important that, to sustain the success that we have while in prison, that 

there be adequate after-care in the community upon—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. But as far as the lack of access to being able to 

mentor or have contact after release, are you familiar with that 

problem at all? 

Mr. LEWIS. After release, no. It was more so during release. I can 

look into that. 

Mr. GOHMERT. After release is what I had understood. 

Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Glover, you, in mentioning the paper spray, we obviously 

want to be helpful. But my initial reaction is that Congress really 

is an inappropriate place to make decisions like that. 

Is there any accreditation or board, or some professional people, 

that can look at questions like this and make recommendations? 

Mr. GLOVER. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, you saw the chair of 

the ACA board. So, they are the accreditation group for Federal 

prisons and State prisons. 

The only thing that we can do is appeal to the Department of 

Justice, A.G. Holder, and ask him to change his policies—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I mean—— 

Mr. GLOVER [continuing]. Come to you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are there—I mean, are there professional committees 

that look at this to determine what is the most professional way 

to equip guards, without having the decisions be made on an ad 

hoc, political basis? 

Mr. GLOVER. I do not know of any, Mr. Chairman. All I know is 

how many of the big State systems already provide this to their 

staff. They provide a stab-proof vest in California. They have some 

staff carry Tasers. Some carry pepper spray. Florida—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Has there been any—has there been any independent 

evaluation of which works best for the security of the prison? 

Mr. GLOVER. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. SCOTT. You mentioned the Federal Prison Industry jobs and 

suggested that some could be made for disaster relief, the problem 

being, if you gave it away, you would not have the income stream 

necessary to support FPI, because there is no appropriation for 

FPI. Once you get—decades ago, you got started. And after that, 

you are on your own. 

Could FEMA or someone buy blankets and other kind of disaster 

equipment to help supply a number of jobs and to have an outlet 

for the goods and services? 

Mr. GLOVER. I have no doubt, in the discussions that I have had 

with Mr. Laird, that they are looking for any type of work that will 

make sure that they pay the staff—they can pay their staff and 

benefits. They cannot lose money on the item. That would be the 

only concern that I know of. 

214 

But we already make some mattresses for the institutions. We 

make some other material—sheets, other things—for the institutions. So, to expand those projects I do not think would be a huge 

burden. 

Mr. SCOTT. And finally, you indicated that your organization has 

taken a position on sentencing policy. I did not hear a mention of 

mandatory minimums. Have you taken a position on mandatory 

minimums? 

Mr. GLOVER. We have not specifically taken a position on mandatory minimums, but we know that they have been responsible for 

much of the increase—— [Off mike.] 

We have looked at H.R. 61, for instance, that—— [Off mike.] 

The only problem with some of the bills that we could see is that 

it leaves the discretion to the bureau warden or the bureau director 

to release the inmates. We do not think, politically—I mean—talking—that many wardens or many administrators within the system 

will release inmates early, if it is a judgment call, due to the fact 

that, if something happens on the outside, it is going to come right 

back to them. 

I think that would be a difficulty. There needs to be some sort 

of panel, commission, something, to run those decisions through as 

far as we are concerned. 

Mr. SCOTT. You had a list of physicians you had taken. If you 

could provide us with the entire list of physicians you have taken— 

alternatives, we would appreciate it for the record. 

The gentlelady from Texas? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Chairman, thank you very much. And let me 

apologize for my delay, but also moving in front of you, Mr. Chairman, for trying to get some materials. But I do thank you for this 

hearing. 

And I just want to focus on one line of questioning. And I believe 

it is to Mr. Fornaci? Thank you. 

And I am sure it was in your testimony, so please forgive me as 

I review it subsequently. 

I have a detention center, a Federal detention center, in my congressional district, actually, in downtown Houston and, of course, 

a large population, Federal population, a series of prisons going out 

toward Beaumont and then into Louisiana. So, geographically, we 

are well endowed with Federal prisons in the Gulf region. 

We know that we have been under the burden of mandatory sentencing for a long period of time. And I have been working for at 

least 7 years consistently on something called good time early release. 

Having visited the Federal prisons, and knowing that many of 

the individuals there are incarcerated for drug offenses—it may be 

that they had little or none. It may be that they were wrapped up 

or rounded up in a conspiracy. 

And the premise of my legislation has been—or the theory behind it has been—non-violent offense, good time, or well-behaved, 

if you will, whatever the good time criteria is, and that these individuals have the opportunity for early release. 

Has your—have you been engaged or have any sense of that kind 

of challenge, meaning the overcrowding of prisons, because people 

215 

are in on mandatory sentencing and something that would be in 

place called early release for good time? 

Mr. FORNACI. I think, actually, I think I would turn to Mr. Sady, 

who I think is more familiar with these issues. But we certainly 

would support the goals of that legislation. 

Mr. SADY. As a first step, we have been asking that the 85 percent that is already permissible under the statute be provided, because at this point, the Bureau of Prisons’ own—even the best behaved prisoners are required to serve 87.2 percent. 

So, it would certainly be a step in the right direction, and it is 

a direction that I agree is one that should be continued to be explored to avoid unnecessary incarceration for folks, especially nonviolent offenders, who have available programs, or reductions of 

sentence that are not being fully implemented by the Bureau of 

Prisons at this time. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let us explore that further. Let us not 

just say it randomly, as if I am an expert in what you are an expert in. 

So, start again. You are saying there is a requirement, or this 

is the administrative requirement of the Bureau of Prisons—— 

Mr. SADY. Yes—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. To serve 80—— 

Mr. SADY [presiding]. 87.2 percent, rather than the 85 percent 

that is permitted by the statute. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And what do you determine is the basis of 

that? 

Mr. SADY. That is because the statute, I believe, was written to 

allow 54 days against every year of the sentence imposed. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I understand. What is the basis of the prison 

holding people on 87 percent, on extra time? 

Mr. SADY. The extra time is a result—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do they just like them? They have become 

family, and they just do not want to see them go? [Laughter.] 

Mr. SADY. In 1988, a Bureau of Prisons lawyer looked at the statute and misread it to say that it required time to be calculated 

against time served, not the sentence imposed, which creates a 7- 

day disparity for every year of the sentence imposed, which is why 

we are spending $981 million to incarcerate people for 36,000 years 

that I do not believe Congress ever authorized or intended. 

And that is what—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, it looks like we have a roundtable, a pen 

in hand or pencil in hand—pencils always seem to get things done 

a little better—pencil in hand calculating to do, because it looks 

like we have possibly—so, then, give me my immediate solution. Is 

this a petition to Mr. Lappin, or to recalculate the 85 to 87 percent? 

Mr. SADY. The courts have been in some disarray about how to 

read this. But they have basically said that it was ambiguous, and 

then deferred to the Bureau of Prisons. That means that the Bureau of Prisons has discretion. 

If the Bureau of Prisons has discretion, why in the world would 

they take away 7 days of credit for every year that Congress said 

they could obtain as a reward for good conduct? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And what we are discussing here are clearly, 

only to those who have engaged in good conduct. So, we have a 

216 

precedent. We have a record that we can address. Is that not correct, that the Bureau of Prisons could look at a clear record of that 

individual, and they had to have good conduct? Is that correct? 

Mr. SADY. Absolutely. Without the good conduct, you do not get 

those days. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And does it also include or assess the original 

conviction, whether it was for non-violent acts? Does it include 

that? Or does it include individuals who are non-violent, as well? 

Mr. SADY. Unlike about four of the other programs that I described, this is for all prisoners who have received a term of imprisonment, over 1 year. That is 95 percent of the prison population, 

of all—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So it does not—— 

Mr. SADY. Okay. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It does not account for what kind of conviction 

it was. 

Mr. SADY. Yes. That is unlike, for example, the residential drug 

abuse treatment 1-year incentive, which is for non-violent offenders; the boot camp, which would be for non-violent offenders; the 

Second Look compassionate release, which would be for people who 

have extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Those are all 

more oriented toward that type of criteria. 

This is more like the Second Chance Act, which is one that affects every prisoner, because, as we heard before, everybody gets 

out, so they need those kinds of programming. And those kinds of 

programming can result in less incarceration expense, simply by 

fulfilling what Congress intended, when you double the amount of 

time of mandatory consideration of community corrections with the 

Second Chance Act, for example. Or when you allowed for 85 percent of good time against the sentence imposed for all prisoners. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, it looks as if—if I can just pursue this 

line of reasoning, Mr. Chairman, just a little bit more—it looks as 

if we have an opportunity to cut costs, because these individuals, 

if this was revisited by the Bureau of Prisons, could be out, because 

you have cut that 87 to 85. So, that does get us a large net of individuals that might be able to come out, be released. 

We passed the Second Chance Act, which many of them would 

be funneled into. And in your capacity as defense counsel, public 

defender, would you calculate that the costs would be less than 

continuing to incarcerate these individuals? 

Mr. SADY. Absolutely. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would you also include that some of these 

people are aging and are creating an added financial burden on the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons? 

Mr. SADY. Yes, especially the Second Look statute, that aimed for 

somebody who has a stroke, for example, and is no danger to anyone. But there is no mechanism to get that case back in front of 

a judge to decide, now, on the second look, what sentence is sufficient, but not greater than necessary to serve the purposes of sentencing. 

And all of this serves not only to reduce waste, but it also is a 

safety issue for both correctional officers and inmates. Inmates care 

about the ratios also, because they want to be in a safer place. 

217 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me just finish on this last question 

so I can understand. 

Is there a court decision that is now in place that would bar, or 

that the Bureau of Prisons would argue, oh, we have got this court 

decision, so we cannot do an administrative review, which is what 

I believe is possible to do. 

Because you mentioned that the courts are confused. But is it not 

clean enough for the Bureau of Prisons—obviously, in consultation 

with the Department of Justice and the new attorney general, who 

has shown himself to be broadly talented and open-minded on new 

concepts of criminal justice. 

The question is, are you suggesting that there is a case that is 

barring this consideration? 

Mr. SADY. Absolutely not. I believe that the statute at worst is 

ambiguous. If it is ambiguous, that means that the courts have 

been saying that the agency can construe it. As a litigator, I am 

arguing that they should not be able to do it, that the statute says 

what it says, and it has to be 85 percent. 

But the courts, in general, are saying it is ambiguous. That 

means that the agency can say, tomorrow morning, ‘‘No. We are 

going to count our good time against the sentence imposed,’’ as, for 

example, then-Senator Joseph Biden said when he described the 

statute. He said, on a 10-year sentence, you will have to serve at 

least 8.5 years. 

And the Bureau of Prisons is saying that he was wrong. And I 

think it is perfectly sensible tomorrow for Director Lappin to 

say—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Eighty-five percent on the sentence imposed 

versus—— 

Mr. SADY. Eighty-five percent on actual time, which takes us— 

what they call an arithmetically complicated formula that nobody 

can understand. But it eventually comes down to 7 days less. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, Mr. Fornaci, you referred me. So, the 

only thing I want from you is that—you sound like you are the 

man that is dealing with civil rights. Does this sound like a just 

and right thing to do? 

Mr. FORNACI. Absolutely, yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. 

Mr. Lewis, you look like you wanted to say something. But if you 

do not, that is all right. And I will—— 

Mr. LEWIS. My caution would be that there are social costs to 

consider. When we think about reducing sentences of non-violent 

offenders, we have to think very carefully about what we mean by 

‘‘non-violent.’’ 

I know that there is an ongoing—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And what is—I am sorry. I called on you probably by mistake. [Laughter.] 

You represent whom? 

Mr. LEWIS. I am with ICF International. And I have done—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It is a private prison? 

Mr. LEWIS. No, it is a consulting firm that has done research and 

evaluation on faith-based prisons. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. Well, let me just say this, and I will 

not cut you off. You made your opening comment. 

218 

I think the very fact that we have in place the Second Chance 

Act, the opportunities for faith-based organizations, we need to put 

them to work. And we certainly would be cautious in the direction 

that we would take, and I hope that we would be. 

But I think I am trying to get to the core of the legal argument. 

And we certainly would not violate I think what you were about 

to say to me, which is to make sure that we do this in a proper 

and appropriate way. And your organization would probably be one 

that would certainly be included in this. 

Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And I would like to thank all of our witnesses for their testimony 

today. 

Members may have additional written questions, which we will 

forward to you and ask that you answer as promptly as possible, 

so that your answer can be made part of the record. 

And witnesses have indicated that there is certain information 

that will be forthcoming. We would appreciate if that would—that 

information would come as promptly as possible, so it also could be 

made part of the formal record. 

The hearing record will remain open for 1 week for the submission of additional materials. 

And without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:39 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(219) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

The Judiciary Committee’s oversight of the Federal Bureau of Prisons plays a 

major role in ensuring that the Bureau is effective. 

This responsibility has become even more important over the past decade, in light 

of the substantially diminished oversight role that courts have over our Nation’s 

jails and prisons since the enactment of legislation such as the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 

Tasked with the critical responsibility of incarcerating more than 205,000 inmates, the Bureau is making a concerted effort to carry out its work in the most 

professional and safe manner. 

Nevertheless, there are areas where the Bureau should improve. Let me explain 

at least three concerns that I believe it needs to address. 

First, I am concerned about the quality of medical services provided by the Bureau to Federal inmates. 

Based on the findings of an audit released by the Justice Department’s Inspector 

General in 2008, there are serious problems—and possible Constitutional violations—in the way medical services are provided. 

Federal prison inmates and their advocates have long called for improvement in 

this area. 

The audit revealed poorly administered medical services that often failed to comply with Bureau policy, and put inmates unnecessarily at risk. 

In addition, the audit concluded that Bureau facilities did not consistently provide 

preventative care as required by Bureau policy. 

And it revealed that the Bureau has failed to provide even basic medical services 

to some inmates, such as monitoring prisoners with serious chronic health conditions. 

And these problems are not new to the Bureau, as past reviews have cited many 

of these same deficiencies in prisoner health care. 

Even more disturbing, the Bureau has failed to issue any Bureau-wide recommendations to address these problems. 

Accordingly, I want to hear from the Director today exactly what efforts the Bureau has taken, or is planning, to respond to these systemic problems. 

The failure to maintain adequate medical care for inmates poses a serious public 

health risk—and not only to the prisoners, but also for those who work there, and 

for all of us. 

For example, the audit found that the Bureau failed to provide sufficient preventive care such as giving measles, mumps, and rubella vaccinations as required by 

Bureau guidelines. 

As prison staff interact with inmates, and as inmates re-enter communities each 

year, the Bureau’s failure to provide proper preventive health care has serious public health consequences both inside and outside the Federal prison walls. 

Second, there are increasing safety concerns about the working conditions at Bureau institutions because of under-staffing by correctional officers and inmate overcrowding. 

Representative Cardoza will discuss an incident that occurred at the Atwater, 

California Federal prison, where Correctional Officer Jose Rivera was stabbed to 

death by two prison inmates while locking prisoners in their cells during the 

evening. 

The growing inmate population necessitates that precautions must be taken to ensure the safety and security of prison employees. 

220 

I want to hear how Director Lappin plans to prevent incidents like this from happening again, and what policies are now in place to keep correctional officers and 

staff safe. 

One way to provide greater protection to prison guards is to give them protective 

vests that can be worn under their uniforms. Although the Bureau is authorized to 

issue these vests, they apparently are not sufficiently available to correctional officers. Another way to maintain safety and security would be to increase staffing levels 

at Bureau facilities. 

The 34,000 Federal correctional officers and staff who work at Bureau prisons 

around the Nation deserve to be safe as they conduct the work of the Bureau. 

However, the current BOP inmate-to-staff ratio of 4.9 inmates to 1 staff member 

leaves me concerned about the safety of officers and staff. 

Finally, I’d like to discuss the use of private prisons by the Bureau. According 

to recent estimates, approximately 18% of Bureau inmates are detained in private 

prisons. Most, if not all, of these individuals are immigration detainees. 

While I know private prison companies claim their facilities reduce the government’s cost of housing prisoners, I’d like to hear whether the Bureau has any evidence substantiating that claim. 

For example, the Government Accountability Office found in 2007 that the Bureau 

did not gather enough information from the private low- and medium-security prisons to determine whether contracting with them had resulted in any true savings. 

Also, a 2001 Justice Department report concluded that the average savings from 

contracting with private prisons was only about one percent, and that most of these 

savings were achieved through paying less in prison official and staff salaries— 

which means either cutting the pay of corrections officers, or reducing staffing levels. 

I would seriously question whether either of those is a prudent course of action. 

I thank Chairman Bobby Scott for holding this important oversight hearing, and 

I look forward to hearing more from Director Lappin and the other witnesses about 

how we can address my concerns. 

f 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, 

TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. Chairman, I ask for leave to extend my remarks for the record. Mr. Chairman, I salute your leadership in convening this important hearing to fulfill our duty 

to oversee the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I would like to thank our distinguished 

witnesses, the Honorable Dennis Cardoza of California’s 18th District; Harley G. 

Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Reginald A. Wilkinson, President & 

CEO, Ohio College Access Network; Philip Fornaci, Director, DC Prisoners’ Project, 

Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs; Richard A. 

Lewis, Senior Manager, ICF International; Stephen R. Sady, Chief Deputy Federal 

Public Defender, Portland, Oregon; and Phil Glover, Legislative Coordinator, the 

American Federation of Government Employees, Johnstown, PA. I look forward to 

your testimonies. 

As of last Thursday at 12 p.m., there were 206,895 people incarcerated in Federal 

prisons. Prisoners are disproportionately from minority communities. According to 

the Bureau of Prisons, the inmate population of Federal prisons is comprised of 

57.2% Whites, 39.3% Blacks, 1.8% Native Americans, and 1.7% Asians. Furthermore, according to the Bureau of Justices Statistics an estimated 32 percent of black 

males will enter prison during their lifetime, at current rates, compared with 17 

percent of Hispanic males and 5.9 percent of white males. 

Most inmates come from emotionally, socially, morally, intellectually or financially 

deprived environments. Criminal behavior is often an adaptive response to these 

negative influences. The criminal subculture reflects social relationships defined by 

and heavily invested in the criminal values that are used by criminals to manipulate or control their environment in lieu of normal more productive values. 

The treatment of prisoners in the United States reflects greatly on the values of 

our nation. It is important that prisoners are treated in the most humane way as 

possible. Even though prisoners are deprived of liberty, they are still entitled to 

basic human rights. They are often deprived of very basic human rights such as access to proper medical attention and education. In most states convicted felons are 

not allowed to vote from prison; in twelve states, felons are disenfranchised for life. 

The result of that is disproportionately meager electoral representation. Legislative 

221 

efforts should be made to allow prisoners the right to vote while incarcerated. Although they are incarcerated, they are still Americans. Because of the high incarceration rate of minorities their voices are ignored at a great number. 

While incarcerated, prisoners deserve rehabilitation services such as education, 

job training and counseling. Legislative efforts need to be made to provide drug 

treatment for abusers instead of incarceration. Drug policy should emphasize treatment over criminalization. Also there needs to be alternatives to prison for non-violent offenders, thus eliminating prison overcrowding. This Congress, I introduced 

legislation to address these issues, specifically, H.R. 245 Drug Sentencing Reform 

and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2009 and H.R. 61 The Second Chance Act 

of 2009. 

Once released, many prisoners lack job skills and face employers who are not willing to hire former convicts. These factors contribute to widespread unemployment 

in minority communities, causing them to resort back to the criminal lifestyle. Additionally because no true rehabilitation took place while incarcerated the results are 

high recidivism rates. 

Equally those that are entrusted with the care and supervision of prisoners 

should likewise be treated with the utmost respect. The negative environment in 

which correctional officers work has a very negative impact upon their personalities 

and their behavior. This situation is similar to the dilemma inmates find themselves 

in. 

Law enforcement and corrections generally reflect the adaptive response of society 

to the impact of criminal behavior on its environment. That collective response 

forms the correctional culture. The culture then embodies the problem just as criminal values embody and institutionalize their own deficiencies. 

The negative environment in the prisons has a corrosive influence on correctional 

staff. We must realize that crime is often an adaptive response to the environments 

in which certain individuals find themselves. Next we must look critically at what 

caused the problems in their environments. Then we need to look at what changes 

need to be made to solve the problem, not adapt to it. Unfortunately that is not an 

overnight process. 

When we start to look at the process of reforming prisons we will see that the 

process of rehabilitating inmates will look strangely similar to reformation for correctional officers. In many ways, the inmates and the correctional staff are all in 

the same boat. It makes no sense to fight over who we should throw overboard to 

lighten the load without addressing the leaks that are sinking the boat. 

Those leaks consist of inadequate drug rehabilitation, job training and limited 

educational opportunities for inmates and understaffing, low wages, long hours, inadequate safety and competition from privately owned prisons for correctional officers. There has to be a healthy medium where Federal prisoners are treated fairly 

and Federal prisons are ran in a safe, efficient and effective manner. 

My District, the 18th Congressional District in Texas, has had its share of problems with Federal Bureau of Prison facilities. According to the Houston Chronicle, 

Houston’s Federal Detention Center has seen a spike in the number of violent inmates over the past 10 years. In Houston, the downtown facility houses around a 

1,000 inmates. Overcrowding has always been an issue with detention as these facilities continue to house more and more inmates. 

The budget crisis gripping the Federal Government has increased the problem 

confronting our Federal prison system. To reduce costs over the past three years, 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons closed prison camps and eliminated more than 2,300 

positions. Federal prison workers also say that inmate crowding and staffing shortages are among the reasons for an increasingly violent U.S. prison system. There 

are 10 serious prisoner assaults and nearly two serious staff assaults per 5,000 inmates in the 114-prison system reports the Houston Chronicle. 

These figures are a clear sign that the major steps need to be taken to change 

the security situation at the Federal Detention Center in Houston and in our Federal prisons around the country. According to the Pew Study ‘‘For the first time in 

history more than one in every 100 adults in America are in jail or prison—a fact 

that significantly impacts state budgets without delivering a clear return on public 

safety.’’ 

When we start to look at the process of reforming prisons we will see that the 

process of rehabilitating inmates will look strangely similar to reformation for correctional officers. In many ways, the inmates and the correctional staff are all in 

the same boat. It makes no sense to fight over who we should throw overboard to 

lighten the load without addressing the leaks that are sinking the boat. Those leaks 

consist of inadequate drug rehabilitation, job training and limited educational opportunities for inmate and understaffing, low wages, long hours and improper safety 

for correctional officers. 

222 

Another issue compounding the challenges facing the Federal prison system is the 

government’s practice of housing inmates in privately owned facilities. The private 

prison industry has a sordid past, dating from the turn of the century when inmates 

were handed over to private businesses under the ‘‘convict lease’’ system, primarily 

in the South. Abuses by private prison firms—abuses that used inmates for forced 

labor, including a high rate of prisoner deaths—led government agencies to abandon 

the concept of for—profit incarceration. 

The industry revived in the early 1980s due largely to tough-on-crime sentencing 

laws and the war on drugs, which resulted in a large increase in the prison population. A number of companies were formed to capitalize on the developing market 

for housing inmates, including the industry leader, Corrections Corp. of America 

(CCA), the industry’s second-largest firm, GEO Group (previously known as 

Wackenhut Corrections), and Cornell Corrections, MTC, Civigenics and various 

other smaller companies. 

Today, approximately 8% of state and Federal prisoners are held in privately-operated facilities, totaling over 126,000 inmates. Government agencies contract with 

private prison companies for several reasons, primarily anticipated cost savings and 

a need for additional bed space. However, there are a number of negative factors 

related to private prisons that should be considered, including the following: Staff 

Turnover Rate Staffing costs account for about 80% of operational expenses for prisons whether they are public or private. 

Thus, one of the main ways that private prison companies reduce costs so as to 

increase their profit margins is by cutting staffing expenses. This is typically done 

by staffing private prisons with fewer employees than in the public sector, paying 

lower wages, offering fewer or less costly benefits, providing less training, and leaving unfilled positions vacant for extended periods of time. Due to these factors, private prisons tend to have much higher staff turnover rates. 

According to the last self-reported industry statistics from 2000, the public prison 

turnover rate was 16% while the private prison staff turnover rate was 53%. Higher 

turnover rates mean less experienced staff and thus greater instability in privatelyoperated prisons. Several studies have shown that privately-operated prisons experience higher rates of inmate-on-inmate violence, including a 2004 article in the Federal Probation Journal that found private prisons had more than twice as many inmate-on-inmate assaults than in public prisons, and a 2001 Bureau of Justice Assistance report that found private prisons had 50% more inmate-on-inmate assaults 

and almost 50% more inmate-on-staff assaults than in public prisons with comparable security levels. 

Private prison firms are accountable to their shareholders, not to the public, and 

add a layer of secrecy when citizens want to learn about problems or misconduct 

at privately-operated facilities. In 2008, CCA general counsel Gus Puryear admitted 

that CCA did not disclose detailed audit reports to contracting government agencies. 

In response to a question from Senator Dianne Feinstein he stated, ‘‘we did not 

make customers aware of these documents.’’ 

Because companies like CCA and GEO Group are private entities, they are not 

covered by the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or most state public 

records statutes. Private prison companies have a documented history of concealing 

information from the public, including, in some cases, internal prison policies that 

are available to inmates in private prisons but not to members of the general public. 

Although private prison companies claim they can save government agencies up 

to 30%, only minimal savings if any have been documented. According to a comprehensive 1996 General Accounting Office (GAO) report that reviewed five private 

prison studies, cost savings resulting from prison privatization were inconclusive. It 

is difficult to obtain an ‘‘apples to apples’’ comparison of public and private facilities 

due to a number of factors. For example, public prison systems have higher costs 

because they house maximum security, death row and female prisoners, who cost 

more to incarcerate. Few private prisons house such inmates. 

Also, private prison companies have a record of ‘‘cherry picking’’ prisoners with 

few medical or mental health problems, which passes the costs associated with 

housing such inmates to the public prison system. Further, in some cases private 

prison companies have a cap on the medical expenses they must pay for prisoners, 

with medical costs above the cap paid by the public prison system. These factors, 

as well as other costs such as monitoring and oversight of private prisons by public 

prison officials, make it hard to determine the costs savings, if any, that are 

achieved through privatization. 

The private prison industry relies on a number of allies and research studies to 

justify its claims of cost savings and proficiency; however, most of these sources 

have industry connections or vested financial interests. For example, the Reason 

Foundation, a strong proponent of prison privatization, has received funding from 

223 

private prison firms. The American Correctional Association (ACA) receives sponsorship money from CCA and other private prison companies for its bi-annual conferences, and receives additional payments for accrediting private prisons. 

As more and more stories are revealed of the horrific treatment of prisoners both 

within the Federal prisons and contracted prisons emerge, it is imperative that we 

hold these facilities accountable. Concerns about internal problems within private 

prisons have been raised by a myriad of organizations and even Representatives 

from within this Congress. One such organization, the Private Corrections Institute, 

recently voiced its concerns stating, ‘‘there are more safety concerns and more escapes in private prisons where guards are not well trained, are poorly compensated, 

and where this is rapid turnover of personnel.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, because we are sending our Federal prisoners to these private facilities, there must be some sort of mechanism with the capability of holding them 

up to the same Federal standards mandated to Federal prisons and correctional facilities. It is our obligation to know under what conditions Federal prisoners are living, whether they are living in a privately-owned facility or a government-owned facility. 

This hearing is an important step toward guaranteeing that Federal prisoners— 

whether they are housed in a government-owned facility or in a privately-owned facility contracted by the government—be treated the same. We can not allow the 

great city of Houston to be tainted by the problems of the Harris Federal Detention 

Center, nor can our nation afford to pay for prisons elsewhere that are neither reforming inmates nor reducing crime. The citizens of my district deserve better and 

the rest of the nation does as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

f 

224 


1-1.eps
225 


1-2.eps
226 


1-3.eps
227 


1-4.eps
228 


1-5.eps
229 


1-6.eps
230 


1-7.eps
231 


1-8.eps
232 


1-9.eps
233 


1-10.eps
234 


1-11.eps
235 


1-12.eps
236 


1-13.eps
237 


1-14.eps
238 


1-15.eps
239 


1-16.eps
240 


1-17.eps
241 


1-18.eps
242 


1-19.eps
243 


1-20.eps
244 


1-21.eps
245 


1-22.eps
246 


1-23.eps
247 


1-24.eps
248 


1-25.eps
249 


1-26.eps
250 


1-27.eps
251 


1-28.eps
252 


1-29.eps
253 


1-30.eps
254 


1-31.eps
255 


1-32.eps
256 


1-33.eps
257 


1-34.eps
258 


1-35.eps
259 


1-36.eps
260 


1-37.eps
261 


1-38.eps
262 

f 


1-39.eps
263 


2-1.eps
264 

f 


2-2.eps
265 


4-1.eps
266 

f 


4-2.eps
267 

f 


5.eps
268 


6-1.eps
269 

f 


6-2.eps
270 


7-1.eps
271 

f 


7-2.eps
272 


8-1.eps
273 


8-2.eps
274 

f 


8-3.eps
275 


9-1.eps
276 


9-2.eps
277 


9-3.eps
278 


9-4.eps
279 


9-5.eps
280 


9-6.eps
281 


9-7.eps
282 

Æ 


9-8.eps