>> eric holder talks on defense

right and the defense marriage act and the decision not to defend it in court. and he talked about restoring civil right and the vote to ex-felons. this is 20 minutes. >> our next guest is a special guest and we appreciate having him here as we always do. i commend general holder for his willingness to speak to us candidly and openly every year. the fact that our parting gift is going to be a baseball cap speaks to how many times you have been here because all of the gifts we give out have already been given to you.

we will give you something you might be able to use. but we have all familiar with general holder. he was sworn in as the 82 attorney general on february 3rd 2009. he was named to be the deputy attorney general in 1997 and served as the united states attorney for the district of columbia. he was nominated to be an associate judge for the district of columbia. he was a litigation partner at covington in washington. it is a pleasure to have you to here address us. general? [ applause ] &%c1

>> good morning. thank you, attorney general j.b. van hollen, for those kind words; for your dedicated service over more than two decades; and for your leadership not only in the great state of wisconsin, but also as president of the national association of attorneys general. it's a privilege to take part in this important meeting. i'd like to thank naag's leadership team and professional staff for bringing us together this week - and inviting me to speak with this distinguished group once again. over the past five years, i've been privileged to work closely with many of the attorneys general in this room. some of us have collaborated on cutting-edge public safety and financial crime initiatives. some of us are working together to strengthen our courts and corrections systems - and to find innovative ways to reduce costs and share resources. and some of us have occasionally found ourselves on opposite

sides of an issue. but despite the differences we've encountered from time to time, as attorneys general, we all share the same set of goals. and we're striving to fulfill the same responsibilities: by protecting the safety of our fellow citizens and the security of our nation; by safeguarding the civil rights to which everyone in this country is entitled; by preventing and combating violent crime, financial fraud, and threats to the most vulnerable members of society; by improving the effectiveness of our criminal justice systems; and by strengthening collaboration among government, law enforcement, and community partners at every level. for more than a century, the national association of attorneys general has brought america's leading legal minds together to discuss and advance this work. especially in recent years - through sequestration, federal government shutdown, and unprecedented budgetary difficulties - you have shown remarkable leadership in addressing the priorities we share. and that's why i've made it a priority to participate in this

organization's conferences since i took office just over five years ago: because, at every stage of my career - as a prosecutor, as a judge, as u.s. attorney for the district of columbia, and as deputy attorney general - i've seen the profound, positive differences that state leaders like you can make. and i understand the unique roles you play as the chief law enforcement officers in each of your respective jurisdictions. in so many ways, you and your colleagues are pioneering our broad-based efforts to recalibrate and reform america's criminal justice systems - to ensure that 21st century challenges can be met with 21st century solutions. you're responding to the same realities that are driving justice department reforms at the federal level - by working to break the vicious cycle of poverty, criminality, and incarceration that traps individuals and weakens communities. and i'm pleased to note that this commitment has, in many places, given way to principled action - and expanded federal-state partnership. in recent years, no fewer than

17 states - supported by the department's justice reinvestment initiative, and led by state officials from both parties - have directed significant funding away from prison construction and toward evidence-based programs and services, like supervision and drug treatment, that are proven to reduce recidivism while improving public safety. rather than increasing costs, a new report - funded by the bureau of justice assistance - projects that these 17 states will save $4.6 billion over a 10-year period. and although the full impact of our justice reinvestment policies remains to be seen, it's clear that these efforts are bearing fruit - and showing significant promise across the country. from georgia, north carolina, texas, and ohio - to kentucky, arkansas, pennsylvania, hawaii, and far beyond - reinvestment and serious reform are improving public safety and saving precious resources.

and i believe that the changes that have led to these that have led to these remarkable results should be carefully studied - and emulated. that's why, last august - in a speech before the american bar association in san francisco - i announced a new "smart on crim"" initiative that's allowing the justice department to expand on the innovations that so many states have led; to become both smarter and more efficient when battling crime, and the conditions and choices that breed it; and to develop and implement commonsense reforms to the federal criminal justice system. under this initiative, we're ensuring that stringent mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal, drug-related crimes will now be reserved for the most serious criminals. we're taking steps to advance proven reentry policies and diversion programs that can

serve as alternatives to incarceration in some cases. and as we look toward the future and as we look toward the future of this work, we'll continue to rely on your leadership - and close engagement - to keep advancing the kinds of data-driven public safety solutions that many of you have championed for decades. this also means making good on our commitment to provide formerly incarcerated people with fair opportunities to rejoin their communities - and become productive, law-abiding citizens - once their involvement with the criminal justice system is at an end. with the justice department's strong support, the aba has done important work in this regard, cataloguing tens of thousands of statutes and regulations that impose unwise collateral consequences - related to housing, employment, and voting - that prevent individuals with past convictions from fully reintegrating into society. as you know, in april 2011, i asked state attorneys general to undertake similar reviews in your own jurisdictions, and - wherever possible - to mitigate or eliminate unnecessary

collateral consequences without decreasing public safety. i've made the same request of high-ranking officials across the federal government. and moving forward, i've directed every component of the justice department to lead by example on this issue - by considering whether any proposed rule, regulation, or guidance may present unnecessary barriers to successful reentry. two weeks ago, at georgetown university law center, i called upon state leaders and other elected officials to take these efforts even further - by passing clear and consistent reforms to restore voting rights to those who have served their terms in prison or jail, completed their parole or probation, and paid their fines. i renew this call today - because, like so many other collateral consequences, we've seen that the permanent disenfranchisement of those who have paid their debts to society serves no legitimate public safety purpose.

it is purely punitive in nature. it is counterproductive to our efforts to improve reentry and reduce recidivism. and it's well past time that we affirm - as a nation - that the free exercise of our citizens' most fundamental rights should never be subject to politics, or geography, or the lingering effects of flawed and unjust policies. i applaud those - like senator rand paul, of kentucky - who have already shown leadership in helping to address this issue. and i encourage each of you to consider and take up this fight in your home states. of course, i recognize that this reform, and the other changes we seek, will not be easy to achieve. and none of them will take hold overnight. i know that, as law enforcement leaders, your work has in many ways never been more complex or more challenging. and particularly in this time of budgetary uncertainty - when unwise, across-the-board cuts have impacted federal, state, and local programs we depend upon - you and your colleagues need all the support, and all the resources, you can get.

that's why i will never stop fighting to provide the tools and assistance that state and local law enforcement leaders desperately need. and i'm pleased to report that the bipartisan funding agreement - recently signed into law by president obama - will restore essential funding for a number of key law enforcement priorities by returning the justice department's appropriations to pre-sequestration levels. already, this legislation has enabled us to lift a department-wide hiring freeze that had been in place for just over three years - so we can begin to bring on additional federal agents, prosecutors, and other staff to bolster ongoing investigative and enforcement efforts across america. we anticipate that this agreement will also allow us to further invest in the kinds of place-based, intelligence-driven strategies that many of you have s proven as effective; to keep offering assistance to states and localities suffering acute crime challenges; and to continue building upon the outstanding work that attorneys general, district attorneys, states' attorneys, u.s. attorneys and others have made possible - despite great adversity - in our ongoing fight against crime, against victimization, and for equal rights and equal justice. this, after all, is the essential duty to which all of us - as attorneys general - have been sworn: not just to win

cases, but to see that justice is done. this is the cause that brings us together in washington this week - working to confront the threats and seize the opportunities before us. and this is the extraordinary task with which the american people have entrusted the leaders in this room - and the challenge that all justice professionals are called to address: not merely to use our legal system to settle disputes and punish those who have done wrong, but to answer the kinds of fundamental questions - about

fairness and equality - that have always determined who we are and who we aspire to be, both as a nation and as a people. these are the questions that drove president obama and me to decide, in early 2011, that justice department attorneys would no longer defend the constitutionality of section 3 of the defense of marriage act. as i've said before, this decision was not taken lightly. our actions were motivated by the strong belief that all measures that distinguish among people based on their sexual orientation must be subjected to a heightened standard of scrutiny - and, therefore, that this measure was unconstitutional discrimination. last summer, the supreme court issued a historic decision - united states v. windsor - striking down the federal government's ban on recognizing gay and lesbian couples who are legally married. this marked a critical step forward, and a resounding victory for equal treatment and equal protection under the law. more recently - and partly in response to the windsor decision - a number of state attorneys general, including those in

pennsylvania, nevada, virginia - and, just last week, oregon - have reached similar determinations after applying heightened scrutiny to laws in their states concerning same-sex marriage. any decisions - at any level - not to defend individual laws must be exceedingly rare. they must be reserved only for exceptional circumstances. and they must never stem merely from policy or political disagreements - hinging instead on firm constitutional grounds. but in general, i believe we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation. and we must endeavor - in all of our efforts - to uphold and advance the values that once led our forebears to declare unequivocally that all are created equal and entitled to equal opportunity. this bedrock principle is immutable. it is timeless. and it goes to the very heart of what this country has always

stood for - even though, as centuries of advancement in the cause of civil rights have shown, our understanding of it evolves over time. as i said just after the administration's decision on doma was announced, america's most treasured ideals were not put into action or given the full force of law in a single instant. on the contrary: our ideals are continually advanced as our justice systems - and our union - are strengthened; and as social science, human experience, legislation, and judicial decisions expand the circle of those who are entitled to the protections and rights enumerated by the constitution. as we gather here in washington today, i believe that our highest ideals - realized in the form of landmark supreme court rulings, from brown to zablocki, from romer to lawrence, from loving to windsor - light a clear path forward. they have impelled us, in some instances, to extraordinary action. and the progress we've seen has

been consistent with the finest traditions of our legal system, the central tenets of our constitution, and the "fundamental truth" that, as president obama once said, "when all americans are treated as equal. we are all more free. as we come together this week to renew our commitment to the work we share, to steel our resolve to combat crime - and to pledge our continued fidelity to the values that guide us, and the constitution we've sworn to uphold - we must strive to move our country forward. we must keep fighting against violence, safeguarding civil rights, and working to bring our justice system in line with our highest ideals. we must keep refusing to accept a status quo that falls short of that which our constitution demands - and the american people deserve. and we must keep standing up and speaking out - no matter the challenges we face - to eradicate victimization and end injustice in all its forms. this won't always be easy - and, occasionally, but inevitably,

our tactical paths will diverge. but as long as we are dedicated to working in common cause, determined to disagree with mutual respect, and devoted to our shared pursuit of a more just and more perfect union - i am confident in where our collective efforts, and your steadfast leadership, will take us. i know, as this organization proves every day, that vigorous debate need not be subsumed by partisanship. as attorneys general, we are called to serve. we are expected to lead. thank you, once again, for your work, for your partnership - and for the opportunity to take part in this important dialogue. i look forward to all that we'll do and achieve together in the critical days ahead. thankss very much. [ applause ]

[ applause ] >> stay in your position and we will pause for the media to get their things together and pack up and we will resume. >> i think people think the cherry is some preserved product and it is really isn't. it is mow different than a pickled cherry and i think the brine process is no different than the sulfites you use to make wine. i would not call it healthy. but i would call it a tasty

treat. >> cherries in various spoonlistages of process. they will have brine in the fruit and go through an extensive watching to get the sulfur and calcium from the fruit. you are soaking it in a stronger sugar and you will see the color pick up as the sugar content picks up. this is fruit early in the process. it is pink colored. you see how much darker colored that one is? you will see yelly, piping a and -- yellow, pink and deep

red -- >> looking behind the life of salem, oregon this weekend on booktv. the new c-span website makes it easier than every to keep tabs on washington, d.c. and share the finds on facebook, twitter and other social networks. you can access daily coverage, and new tools make it simple to create video clips and share them with friend facebook or twitter. or you can send links via e-mail. find the share tools on the video. watch washington on the new c-span.org. if you see something of

interest, clip it, and share it with friends. >> the united states leads the world in the use of solitary confinement where a prisoner can be isolated for 23 hours-a-day. we will hear from a former inmate piper kerman and from a now exonerated death roll canada. >> this hearing begins. today's hearing is entitled reassessing solitary confinement part two. i will make an opening statement and recognize senator cruz for

his opening statement. thank you for those in person person & those falling online. there was so much interest we moved to this larger room. and we have an overflow room as well. you will see a number of pictures of children during the course of the hearing who are being held in solitary confinement. i want to thank richard ross, the photographer, for allowing us to use these. we have worked on programs around the world and we have an obligation to consider our rates at home. 5 percent of the world's populatipo population gives us 20 percent

of the incarcerated prisoners. african-americans and mexicans are incarcerated at a higher rate and we hold more prisoners in solitary confinement than any other nation. thesis we cannot ignore these human right issues. criminal justice reform is one area where the government is still functioning. we have made progress. in 2010, congress uninanimouuna passed the act that stops make a difference between crack cocaine and cocaine. and another bill that will focus

on the most serious offenders. i want to thank my ranking member for co-sponsoring that. and i want to thank senator cruz for putting this hearing together. two years ago, we heard the first meeting on solitary confinement and heard on the increase of the use in the 1980s. immigrants, children, sex a abusers and people with mental illness are held in solitary confinement. it also cost almost three times as much to them in confinement than in the general population. we learned about the human impact of putting people in

windowless cells for 23 hours-a-day for months, days and years with little contact to the world. this causes psychological impacts on an inmate. at least half of all prison suicides occur in solitary confinement. and i will never forget anthony graves who was held in solitary confine for 23 years and he said quote you cannot imagine what this does to another human being. it does one thing: breaks man's will to live. i have been here for seven years and i cannot remember more compelling testimony. at the last hearing he heard from the director of the bureau charles samuals and he is here.

i wasn't happy with his first message but did agree to the assessment of solitary confinement and it is underway and i look forward to the update. in the 2012 hearing, we found overuse increases public safety and the reality is the vast majority of prisoners held in isolation will be released and this damaging impact or being released from solitary makes them a danger to their neighbors. eric williams was killed a year ago who was killed by an inmate released from a prison in pennsylvania. we owe it to correctional

officers who put their lives on the line every day to do everything we can to protect their safety. make no mistake, that means that some dangerous inmates must be held in separate housing. but we learned from states like maine and mississippi that released violence in prison by reducing the overuse of solitary. i went to a prison in illinois that was the state maximum prison. i asked them to take me to the worst of the worst. they took me to an area of five prisoners. each of the them was in a separate fiber class unit protected from one another and the teacher. i went to each one, talked to

each one and they perceived the situation different. there was one in particular i remembered. he looked to be a community college professor. i asked him how long are you sentence to prison and he said originally 20 years. and he said they added another 50 and he said why? and i said because if they put anybody in a cell fee with me i would hurt them and i did. we want to make certain those who work in prison are safe and we have to balance that against solitary confinement. we must address the overcrowding that is making them more dangerous and increase the officer-inmate ratio. that is why i want to pass the

smarter act that will reduce crowding by inmates who created non-violence drug offenses. i am looking to opening a thomas thompson center in my state to a help with crowding. let me talk about children. 45 percent of juveniles report being held in solitary confine. -- 35 percent -- the mental health effects of short isolation including depression and risk of suicide are heightened among youth. there is a ban called for isolation for children. the case state governments continue to lead the way.

let's take a few examples. my own state of illinois closed the tams correction scenter. in texas, the state legislator passed legislation to review solitary confinement in jails. and new york city is has reforms to limit solitary confine for juveniles and pregnant women. guidance is being issued for immigration detainies. this is a big step for these vulnerable people. and the american psycho called

for the end of this to end for mental illnes except in rare circumstances. the united states can protect human rights, improve safety, and be fiscally responsible. senator cruz isn't here so i will turn to our first witness. i want to note i invented the justice department to participate but unfortunately they declined. we will be following up with them to make sure they are enforcing the civil rights law in solitary confine. and i ask consent to enter the

custom immigration and enforcement. our first witness is charles samuals. you will have five minutes for the oral statement and your complete written statement is in the record. if you would stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. [swearing in] >> let the record reflect you have answered in the afirmmative. good morning, chairman durbin, ranking member cruz, and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the use of restrictive housing within the bureau of prisons (bureau). chairman durbin, i appreciate you and other members of the judiciary committee for your support of the bureau over the years, and i look forward to continuing our work together. wharf i cannot start without

honoring officer williams who was stabbed in pennsylvania. we will always honor his memory and all of the staff who lost lives in the line of duty. these underscore the dangerous that staff face on a daily bases. our staff faces the dangers of other law enforcement agencies. we house the worst of the offenders and do so with fiercer staff than other correctional systems. the federal prison system is operating at 32 percent over capacity and 51 percent over capacity at high institutions. 120 staff members were assaulted by inmates in the high security institutions police year. and 200 were seriously assaulted

by other inmates. our staff interacts with a lot of them in an open setting without weapons and physical barriers. it isn't uncommon for one staff member to be on the floor with hundreds of inmates. the staff encourages them to improve their lives with cognitive therapy, job training, drug program, and other programs. i have focused attention and resources on restrictive housing. we have olympiaccomplished a gr deal with our approach to restrictive housing. it can interfere with

interaction with family. please note the majority of them remain in this situation their entire time. we have a number of regulation we will enter to make sure this is being used appropriately. we have put a variety of in initiati initiatives in place over the 18 months. we have had discussions about wardens and other managers about the restrictive housing. we respect to specialize in mental health treatment and actiivated a stepdown unit that is providing treatment for inmates with serious mental illness and we have plans for

high security inmates suffering from severe personality disorders that make it difficult to function. we have a reintegration unit to help inmates adapt after an extended stay in restrictive houses. in addition, we implements a gang renunciation and disassociation program gang to alow them to use their gang and work toward reentry. we are reviewing restrictive housing and we expect the report to be issued by the end of 2014 and look forward to making additi additional changes. i promise you i share the commitment to proceed save housing that supports physical and mental health.

through the continuous efforts of the staff who work 24 hours each day, 365 day as year, we protect the american public and we reduce crime. again, i thank you chairman durbin and mr. cruz and the subcommittee for your support of the committee. >> thank you. let me try to zero in on two or three specifics. the law recognizes that children are to be treated differently than adults. that is why facilities for juveniles are different than prison. we know children are vulnerable to solitary confinement. we heard from a man name john stewart about his short time in solitary confinement.

nowhere is the damaging impact of incarceration on vulnerable children more obvious than when it involves solitary confinement. i don't believe juveniles should be in solitary confinement. i know the federal prison has a limit number of juveniles, but what policy and guidance does bop have to ensure the juveniles are not placed in solitary confinement except situations where there are no alternatives to protect staff? >> i recognize the unique need to protect juveniles. we have 62 juveniles in contract

facilities. and they have to provide 50 hours of various programs to ensure that individualized training is also provided for these individuals under our care. out of 62 inmates in our system, in thes contract facilities, we only have one individual in restrictive housing. any individual in restrictive housing, there should be 50-minute checks done. we're ensuring they are working with a committee to ensure a lot of issues are addressed and we are moving them at the earliest day possible. >> are there limits to how

long-they can be housed? >> if they are going beyond five days there has to be a meeting to justify why there is a continued need. we only have one individual being used under the rarest circumstances when there is the belief of potential harm to the individual and/or to others. we don't support long-term juveniles in restrictive housing >> i would like to ask you about mental health when i cthink it s linked. senator lindsay grahm asked about how this affected prisoners and you responded there was no study conducted and that frightened me.

i am pleased that one of the five key areas for the independent assessment of health. and i would like to ask you if you anticipate the assessment will help provide the mental health effects of segeraration do you agree that people that exhibit this behavior need more mental health treatment and not just a lockdown? >> yes, sir, to your first question. i do believe the assessment being conducted will provide us a road map to look at the internal operation relative to treatment that is provided to the inmate population when placed in restrictive housing. as i have indicated, since the

hearing that was conducted in june of 2012, this assessment has been put in place with our audit. we are very much in agreement with the number of mental health staff being provided to look at the specific population when individu individuals are placed in respect -- restrictive housing -- with mental illness. we asked staff for scanning --

psychology care -- >> has that changed? >> yes, sir, we have five individuals devoted to that population. we are in the process of hiring a full-time doctors and there are a lot of things we can do remotely but we're increasing the staff and staying on top of it. >> has there ever been a time when you have been in charge with a person is released from retrictive housing directly to the general public? >> yes. and that is something from it discussion that we had in june of 2012, we have discussed

extensi extensively throughout the agency with leadership and i don't believe it is appropriate. it is something to address. no one should be released based on the concern that was raised directly from restrictive housing to the general population and we will do everything possible to ensure we have things in place. we have implemented a step down unit for those suffering from a significant illness so we don't have them going out without a form of treatment. >> the last question relates to testimony. we have witnesses coming in. testimony about women, particularly pregnant women placed in restrictive housing. what have you found?

>> out of 14, 008 female offenders we have in the system, only 197 with in restrictive housing. in an individual requires placement to ensure no threat to themselves or others, we are not looking to put people in restrictive housing. the majority of the time it is temporary. these are not individuals who are placed in for long period of time. >> could you define temporary and long period from your point of view. >> if an individual, right now out of the entire population, for individuals in restrictive housing and i will start with the special housing unit, we have 9, 400 individuals in

there. only 15 percent are in there for periods longer than 90 days and that is sanctions relative to discipline or administration detention. displain and sanctions are for violating a rule and we need to maintain order within the facility if individuals do thank think things that require short-term. and long-term housing like due to threats to the facility or harm to others and ensuring we're keeping them safe, requires longer periods. when you look at the control

element, we have 47 percent of those individuals and 13 inmates at the adx. 47% have killed other individuals and that is a combination of murdering before they come in or murdered other inmates or staff within the system. those individuals require longer periods of placement in restrifkt -- restrictive housing -- i am not saying, however, that we given on them. we are doing what we deem is appropriate and assessments by staff for consideration. i am hundred percent behind

ensuring that we're not causing damage to an individual placed in that setting. but to ensure the safety of inmate and staff, the individuals that only represent, sir, a small number within our entire population, it is less than 1/5 of a percent when you look at the 215 in the agency, the number is small. even when you look at the displain -- discipline -- you are talking about 1500 inmates from a 250,000 population. we will continue to reduce the number, as best as we can, and i am committed that in our population, it is better manage

inmates in general population. they need to have to opportunity to participate in programming. and when we are looking at recidivism reduction, we want them receiving a lot of intensive programs we can provide. when they are not given those opportunities, you are looking at the issue and concern relative to threat to public safety. and we do not want to be a part of anything that causes us not being able to bring about the mission. >> senator chris? >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for holding this hearing. everyone here shares a number of objectives and wants to make sure federal prisoners are held in a humane manner that respect

their dignitity and also allows rehabilitation when possible and ensuring the safety of other inmate and of prison guards trust today guard some of the most dangerous people in the country, if not the world. mr. samuals, i appreciate your service and being here today and engaging in this discussion. i mind like to ask questions to further understand and the scope of solitary confinement within the federal prison system. you testified there is 250,000 inmates to about 1.2 million

incarcerated in various state systems. and the majority are in the general population at any given time in the federal prison? >> yes, sir. the majority are in general population. also, the majority of the inmates in the system spend the entire period in general population. this is a small percentage. right now 6.5 percent is in some form of restrictive housing and when you break that down with temporary, they are given a set number of days and/or months they have to serve. in a prison environment, and i would hope that everyone understand that it is all about order. and if we don't have order, we cannot provide programs.

we're constantly looking down institutions. since the hearing in 2012, we have restricted housing population reduction by 25 perce percent. we have gone from 13.5 percent to 6.5 percent. so reductions are occurring. we are only interested in placing people in restrictive housing when there is justification. we have 20,000 gang members in our system. they are watching this hearing. they are watching our testimony very, very closely for the reason being if they see we will lower standards and not hold the individuals accountable, it puts the staff and inmates at risk. and this is why i mentioned in

my oral statement, we are looking at staff being injured and harmed but our staff is putting their lives on the line to protect the american public. and we have inmates within the population who are being harmed by these individuals who have no respect, i mean no respect for other's when it comes to their safety. we cannot afford, at any time, to say that for those individual whose assault staff, assault inmates don't have accountability. this is no different than in society. if individuals violate the law, hurt citizens, they are removed from society and placed in a jail or prison. if these individuals attack police officers, they are not given second chances where we say don't do it again.

my staff, as i have indicated who are putting their lives on the line, have to know there is accou accountability for others. with treatment and working with the individuals, we will tine continue to that. 95 percent of the people will be released at some point and we have an obligation to do everything for that captured population, we are working to change their behaviors. many come in with significant issues. we have to address those issues. and this is very important for the subcommittee to know that when you look at secure levels for mental health, we have approximately 94 percent of the inmates within our system who have no mental illness.

94 percent. that is 187, 264 inmates. we have 1-4 care levels. when you go to level two, your talking about 10, 809 individuals who have been diagnosed with mental illness that would require the mental health staff to engage with these individuals once a month. care level three. we have 500, 055 inmates that require intensive treatment and we need to make sure they are receiving access and there is quality time with mental professionals. and 286,000 individuals are

acute individuals. the majority of the inmates don't suffer from significant ment mental illness. it is a very small number who will do anything to hurt others. i have been in the prisons 26 years. i have talked to inmates and had inmates tell me if you release me to the general population or take me out, i will kill someone. i have a duty and obligation to protect the staff and inmates and when someone is willing to tell you if you do this, this is what i am going to do, there are

issues with that. >> i appreciate your decades of service. as someone who spent a significant portion of my adult life in law enforcement, i am grateful to the many employees of prison, many who risk their live toes protect citizens every day. it isn't an easy job you are doing. i would be interested what is the value of solitary confinement and what circumstances should it be employed and what are the risks? what are the downsides to using it as tool? >> the value of restrictive housing should only be used with

slight necessary for those individuals who pose a threat to other and the safety and security of the facility. that is to make sure we are protecting staff, inmate and the general public. it should never be used as being viewed as retaliating against individuals. we are trying to correct behavior. i strongly ensure that we use it for the sake of we can. it is no different than the state systems who are looking at this issue as well. and the one thing i do appreciate is this is a national discussion. the association of state correctional administrators,

which i am a member of, immediately after the hearing, we all met. we talked about the best practices what we should be doing. when you look at state systems, federal systems and even toe -- at the -- alexandlocal level, y different ideas on what restrictive housing is. and we are reaching out to the jurisdictions to provide their best practices and it will be posted on the website. ...

>> to look at what they are attempting to do and what they are doing, and i'm very, very mindful the concern, and i am the direct in treating inmates respectfully, ensuring they are living in a humane environment because our actions will dictate to these individuals what our country's all about, and we are not there to judge these individuals.

we are there to ensure that they serve their time, cater to society, and hopefully put them in a better situation so when they are released, they are productive citizens. the goal of them never returning so that i don't see a downside with individuals who are not abiding by the rules because if they are not abiding by the rules within the prison, i mean, at some point when they are released, there's no accountability. we have to hold them accountable because if they go out and continue with that behavior, guess what? they are coming back. we will do everything possible to try to get them to turn and move from the negative behavior, but that requires intensive treatment. i'm also looking at ensuring that we are developing a therapy program for those individuals who are within our restrictive housing unit we want there to be

an active engagement of showing, hey, we can be willing to accept the olive branch. we just don't want to leave individuals sitting there. >> very good, thank you, mr. sanders. >> senator cruz. senator franken. >> thank you, i want to welcome a minnesotan testifying later today. you terned your story from tragedy to hope, and thank you for holding the hearing and all the work you've done over the years. this practice, solitary confinement, restrictive housing is troubling for a number of reasons, moral reasons, economic reasons as the chairman said in

the opening statement, public safety reasons, and one of the aspects of this that concerns me is mental health aspect of the problem. we've been discussing over the years we've seen the corrections and law enforcement system take on more and more responsibility for responding to menial illnesses, and our communities. last winter, i hosted a series round table discussions with law enforcement, personnel, mental health advocate, and my state of mips. the the sheriff who runs the jails in minnesota told me about a third of the inmates in his jails really belong in mental health treatment programs and not behind bars. you've been talking about treating people behind bars. maybe that's not where they should be treated. if it's possible. there are people with illness

who committed some crimes that they need to be behind bars, but there are a lot who should be elsewhere. i have a bill called the justin's mental health collaboration agent to improve access to mental health treatment for those who need it, and i think we're leaving -- the purpose is to relieve burden on law enforcement personnel and on correctional personnel. the bill also funds flex the in creating alternatives to solitary confinement in our jails and prisons. i'd like to thank senators durbin, leahy and others for cosponsoring the bill, and i want to ask others to join that effort. i want to ask you a couple things. one about crisis intervention training. director, last march, i visited

the federal medical center in rochester, minnesota. they have -- they are kind of a psychiatric unit and also behind bars, and they said they benefit tremendously from crv, crisis intervention training, and they avoided serious incidents that may lead to inmates going in the solitary confinement when they act out, become violence, and we see these on the weekend shows, show people behind bars, and the guards have to strap op all kind of protective wear. they can avoid that by understanding when some -- and talking someone double instead of in a way not provoking terrible conflict, but also not stopping it.

can you talk a bit about the role that cit, crisis intervention training, plays in federal prison system? >> thank you, senator franken, and i'm glad you raised this question. the national institute of correctness, part of the bureau prison, actually provides the training for crisis intervention, and it is based on a request of the state system. we ensured that our staff, and as a result of what they have seen, we implemented our own protocols, related to the youth various element, and we have bill tested this training in one of our institutions, and as a result of it, we are obtaining the feedback with something that we are considering to look at actually adopting within the bureau based on the federal

system in our unique needs, so to your point, it does serve value, and we're looking to explore doing more with it within the federal system. i kind of want to, you know, you provided a lot of status statistics about solitary or restrictive housing. i just want to get more into the human aspect of this. i kind of want to, crisis intervention training, but how big is a cell? how big is the average cell in solitary? >> average size? >> cell, yeah, the size of the cell, how big is it? i'm trying to get this -- is the human thing we're talking about. how big is the cell?

>> the average cell is -- i guess -- you're looking for the space of what -- >> yes. the dimensions in feet, in inches. the size of the cell that a person is kept in. i want to get some idea of -- i don't know -- am i asking this wrong? [laughter] is there -- i mean, is what you're saying is that there is no such thing as app average cell for solitary? typically, in the bureau of prisons, the cells in solitary confinement, how big is the cell typically? >> the average size should be equivalent to six by four.

>> okay. that's an answer. six by four. does a person in the cell during months and months say of this, they have ability to talk to families? >> yes. >> they always do? >> it's not op a frequent basis, but we provide individual to restrictive housing op average. i mean, they are receiving one phone call per month, and this is something that we are looking at when i talk about reforms for our disciplinary process for those placedded in restrictive housing that we need to change, that is something we are willing to continue to look at to ensure we provide more access for frequency for the phone calls as well as visits. >> well, i've run out of of time. we'll have some witnesses who

may be more descriptive. >> and it's ten by seven for the cell size. >> okay, thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your service and all that you're doing to address what is really a troubling situation. we do have someone on the second panel who will testify or talk about women being con finded in solitary for reporting abuse including sexual abuse by their bureau of prisons staff. i have a series of questions regarding this situation. are you aware of this happening in the system? rare as it may be, we hope? >> yes. >> same question. then what do you have in place to prevent this kind of abuse from happening?

>> well, what we have in place is our staff being active in ensuring rounds are made. we have also addressed concerns with ensuring the inmates are able to reach out and let us know and being comfortable with that. we have zero tolerance. >> so you have zero tolerance, so does that mean that that inmates that this is happening to feel free to come forward and report? who would they report this too? certainly, it shouldn't be the person that, you know, has power over them and who is actually the abuser, alleged abuser. >> they're able to report any allegations to staff, and we also have a hot line number that the inmates are given, and they can also report it in that manner. >> in terms of getting the

information out to inmates, do you do this in written form? how do your inmates know, regardless if they are in solitary or in the general population that if they are faced with this kind of abuse, that they no what to do, where to go. >> it's provided to the inmates' population verbally during discussions as well as in writing. >> mr. chairman, i would -- would be good to provide with a sample or, in fact, a directive regarding what they tell the inmates, this is the situation, so we can -- >> we can provide that for the record. >> so in terms of the enforcement of this policy or this directive, how do you go about in making sure that this is being followed by your staff?

>> well, a number of thing, the local level is something that the leadership concludes that staff are focused on ensuring we do call control review. we utilize our national office when we go out and conduct audits of the facilities. we look at the operation practices and procedures to ensure that we are following policies. >> how long have they been in place? >> for decades. we've always have zero tolerance for any type of activity and given the staff to carry it out. for the individuals who do this, we quickly take all allegations

seriously, and those individuals are removed from general populations as well as the individuals who have been victimized to make sure we're looking at the security issues on both sides, and we ensure that the investigation relative to the allegation that we're doing it in a timely manner, and holding those individuals accountable because as i mentioned, senator, we do not support nor do we want anyone victimizing others. not being held accountable for their actions. >> and is this kind of behavior considered a crime for which the perpetrator can be prosecuted? >> yes, and if the investigation's leaked to individuals charge, which we refer all issues to the fbi and then they move in, and they did their investigation and, ultimately, this determines

whether or not a crime is committed, and we believe ensuring those individuals are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. >> do you have the numbers how many are prosecuted in a way and then discipline and then prosecution. >> i don't have that information with me currently, but i can provide that for the record. >> do you have that? >> yes. >> thank you. any studies on the effects of solitary confinement on recidivism and early entry? >> there's been no stoids as a result of the hearing conducted in 2012 when that was presented to me, and we have not participated in any type of study. we dprea to undergo the analysis that's take b place right now with cna, and hopefully from that review, we'll have some insight, but, senator, i have to add, when you are looking at

recidivism, that will require a long period of time to assess when you're looking at the number of individuals who have since been released and impact on recidivism, and, also, they have resources for ensuring if we undertake something like that, there's substantial costs, but currently, we do not have anything like that in place other than what we're being looked at. >> i recognize that it's not that easy to determine cause and effect in these situations. are you aware of situations that show differences in the effects of solitary confinement on men and women? >> no. >> is this an aspect going to be addressed in some ways in the studies you refer to? >> the competence of the study we're undergoing now, that's not part of the assessment, but i agree with you. it's something that we should

continue to look at, but also, as i stated, when you look at the gender issues for restrictive housing, the number for us is very, very, very low for the female population, and they are not as likely as the male population to be engaged in behavior that requires them to have restribtive houses for long period of time. >> you have 198 women in restrictive housing. how many of them are in the adx facility? >> we do not house any females nor do we require for the record to have that type of housing for female inmates, only for males. >> thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. >> [inaudible] >> thank you very much for your testimony. we appreciate it. we're going to follow-up with the questions raisedded here earlier. we invite the second panel to

come before us and ask the witnesses to take a place at the witness table. i'll read background on them before they are called on. rick is here, the executive director of the colorado department of corrections, three decades of law enforcement experience for this position. he was secretary of wisconsin department of corrections, and he also received at deputy secretary. previously, he was a sheriff at bane county, wisconsin, served as u.s. assistant attorney and assistant attorney and undercover and narcotics executive and deputy sheriff, and i thank him for joining us today. thank you for being here. piper carmen is with us, author of the "new york times" best selling memoir "orange is the new black: my year in a women's prison," it was recently adapted into a netflix original series. she works at the communications consul at that particular time for nonprofit organizations and

serves on the board of women prisons association, spoke and written about prison issues in media outlets and received a 2014 justice trail blazer award from john j. college center for media crime in justice. thank you for being here. president of the justice fellowship, public policy affiliate at prison affiliate advocate principles for restorative justice found in the bible. he served as haven't and director of external affairs, and he served in the mission house of representatives elected speaker, lives in michigan with his wife, stacy, and three young daughters, and i thank you and justice fellowship for your appearance here today. mark levin, at the texas public policy foundation, playing an important role in adult and justice reforms, and the state, the leader of the public policy foundation, right on crime initiative, led conservative

efforts to reform the criminal justice system. he was law clerk to judge will garwood on the fifth circuit and staff attorney at the texas supreme court. thanks to the texas public policy foundation's work led to reforms of the drug sentencing law and in particular, i thank you for your support for the sentencing act, which all members here today have cosponsored. damon, a witness before us, in late september, he was mission's 141st death row inmate to be exonerated on actual innocence grounds since the spring court reinstated capital punishment since 1976. he was released from the louisiana state pent ri after 15 years in solitary con findment. his release supported by the district attorney's office, responsible for the original prosecution. following release, he relocated to minneapolis working, obtained

a ged, got a commercial driver's license, and then began truck driving career with the truck company, and i'm sorry what you've been through, sir, commending you for what you did to rebuild your life. amazing story. thank you for the courage to appear here today, and we'll hear testimony here in a couple moments. you have five minutes, and i read the written staples, and i commend them. they are extraordinary statements. five minutes to summarize, if you would, and then we'll ask a few questions after the whole panel. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member cruz, and distinguishing members of the committee. it's an absolute honor for me to be here. i'm rick, the executive director of the colorado department of corrections. i was appointed by governor john to fill the vacancy left by the former executive director who was assassinated in march of last year.

in a horrific irony, he was assassinated by an individual who had spent simple years in administrative segregation and was released directly from segregation into the community which is an absolute recipe for disaster. the other irony involvedded here is that he had dedicated his short time as the colorado department of corrections on reducing the large number of individuals in the system that were in segregation. in fact, colorado, was one of the leaders, unfortunately, of incarcerating people in administrative segregation. i was picked because i had the same vision in wisconsin, was able to do things there, this gives me the opportunity to continue that vision. having spent some time in administrative segregation myself recently, it just

reenforces feeling about it, and these are my feelings. thirty years in the criminal justice system that segregation is overused, misused, and abused, and what i feel is that we are failing in this particular area in our missions, and in our mission really is not about running more efficient institutions, although that's certainly something we want to do. that's something we need to do, but that's not our primary mission. 97% of all of our inmates return back to the community, and out of those 9 p 7%, some have been in administrative segregation, and our duty and primary mission is very simple. make a sacred community, and the way we make a safer community is by having no new victims, and the way we have no new victims is by ensuring the people we send back into the community are prepared and dedicated to being law-abiding citizens rather than returning in worse condition

than they came in, and that's where i feel we're failing. some of the things we've done in colorado, i was charged by the governor with three tasks. eliminate or reduce the number of major mentally ill in the segregation area, and what we did last spring, for example, 50 were in seg, and this january, there were four. the second challenge was to eliminate or drastically reduce those released directly from segregation into the streets. i might ask anyone in the audience to stand up if they want to live next to someone released in direct segregation into the street, and i'm pretty sure people stay in the chairs. what we were able to do in 2012, we released 140 directly into the streets and in 2014, we released two so far. in the other area challenged by the governor is look at everyone else in administrative

segregation and see if you determine the numbers of of those released, and we've done that. that was started by executive director which was continued by me. in january of 2011 #, we had 1451, and in january of 2014, we have 597. in a sense, i don't feel i'm replacing him. i feel i'm fulfilling his vision. that's what we're doing in colorado. i believe that nobody should be release the directly into the community, and what we are doing all can be doing. i don't disagree with thinking said, i knew him for quite some time, and working with the association and state correctional add strags correction association, we've done a lot of work with best practices. throwing a few things out there as i run out of time. for some reason, we think for this, they are in a cell 23

hours a day. who defines that? there's probably some of your court cases that mandates that's what happened. why suspect it 22 hours a day, what about 20 or 18 hours a day? start at 23 and work down to ten, that's what we're going to be doing. it's been automatic for the most part if someone on death row stays in segregation physical they are put to death, and as we know, a person spends many years, and some are found innocent and released. we'll change policy on that giving them the opportunity to get out of the cells. where reare in colorado, only extreme violence, a small handful, all we talk about, are those who remain in administrative segregation, but we don't give up on them. we have to continue to find a solution for the problems because as i sat in the cell for 20 hours, my response was this is not a way to treat an american. it's not a way the state should

be treating someone, and it's not a way the nation should be treating someone, and intergnarlly, it's not a way to treat someone. this is receiving the right amount of attention now at the right time, and i think it's time we move this forward. thank you. >> thank you. i might say to those gathered here, roll call vote started so colleagues will leave to vote. there could be interruption for recess because of role call, but we'll be back shortly to resume. >> chairman durbin, ranking member cr cruz z, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for having me here to address this important issue. i spent 13 months as a prison in the federal system. if you're flail with the back, i was never held in isolation unit. the longest amount of time i was placed alone in a holding cell was four hours, and i was ready to climb the walls of that small room by the end of that. i am here today to talk

specifically about the impact of solitary confinement of women on women's jails and detention centers. they are the fastest growing segment, and their families and communities are affected by what happens behind bars. at least 63 #% of women in prison are there for a nonviolence offense; however, some of the factors that contribute to these women's incarceration end up landing them in solitary confinement. during my first hours of incarceration, warnings about solitary or the shoe came from both prisoners and staff very quickly, and very minor infractions could send you to the shoot. they can then keep you there as long as they want under whatever conditions they choose. unlike the normal community of prison, 24 #-hour lock dop leaves you in a six by eight cell for weeks or months or years, and this is unproductive for individuals, for prison

institution, and the outside communities to which 97% of all prisoners return. several factors make women's experience in incarceration and solitary different from men. women in prison are much more likely than men to suffer from mental illness making being put into solitary confinement much more likely and damaging. the majority of women prisoners have a history of mental illness, and 97% do. she spends the first year of the six year sentence in solitary confinement. you have her full written statement. i'll share a few words of hers with you. i spent three quarters of the time on a bunk with a blanket over my head in the fetal position rocking back and forth for comfort. i can separate mind from body. i cried a lot, not for me, but for my kids. i laughed inappropriately.

i got angry at myself. angry at those who abused me and led me to the life of addiction. i felt ashame because i let others abuse my body because i felt i deserved it, felt sorry i was born. felt sorry for all the hurt i caused, but most of all, i felt sorry there was not a rope to kill myself because every day was worse than the last. they are sexually abused by staff. ..

a muffled will mark the next up and evidently needed long-term oversight and reform. >> thank you. as i said to my review the testimony of all the members of this panel. it is extraordinary, and i don't want to miss it. if you could hang around for a few more minutes we will be back.

this committee will stand in recess for tenants. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this airing of the subcommittee will resume. it would have been ten minutes except the senate train broke down. [laughter] we had to walk over the capital. please proceed.

>> good afternoon, mr. chairman, ranking member, members of the committee. thank you for revisiting this pressing issue. changing the culture in the prisons will change the culture and our cities and states. the disproportionate and arbitrary use of solitary confinement is not only immoral but they missed the opportunity to break the cycle of crime. this approach doesn't increase public safety and is contrary did justice goals were the criminal justice system, accountability and restoration. teaching people to become good citizens red and just give prisoners is a charge entrusted to the correctional officers by the taxpayers. skilled wharton's understand that in sharing prisoners become responsible and productive members of society at large is paramount to the safety of our communities whether inside or outside of the prison walls. part of creating safe communities in cyprus is includes removing said -- prisoners, individuals to buy its societal norms by placing themselves or others at risk.

what is being test of the prisoners should be available to them. many in this room know that just -- just disfellowship holder size power and pride crumble when he left being president nixon's council to becoming a federal prisoner, but be -- upon his release from prison his work actually started touring as solitary confinement unit in mollah prison in 1979. out of that meeting, senators, is where justice was founded. i am grateful to you, mr. mr. chairman, and ranking member crews for your support, as has been mentioned, of cosponsoring this martian since the act. i believe that mr. colson, if he were alive today, would apply your work in the area. solitary confinement to let in

theory, is for the worst of the worst of the prisoners. however, davis says otherwise. case in point is illinois where study was conducted and found that 85 percent of the prisoners were sent to disciplinary segregation for my rules violations. prisoners in these circumstances too often do not have their cases individually reviewed and looked at from oversight. there was an analogy given earlier about police officers when they are struck or other things, but it seems that the justice system does a much greater job on the outside of the loss of having accountability and individual review that seriation has had is starkly. when it comes to the discussion about mental illness, regretfully our family, friends, and neighbors suffering are too often punished rather than treated. and i would like to share the story of a man named kevin, a

young man i have a privilege of knowing back in michigan who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder when he was 11 years old. fourteen he was pressured by a peer group to holding up a pizzeria with a toy gun. he wound up in an adult prison and spent nearly a year in segregation. he described his experience as an ongoing panic attack and felt as though he was stuck in an elevator that he needed to escape from. he eventually tried to commit suicide but instead of helping cavan the prison guards at the time simply increased his punishment because that was all that they were trained and knowledgeable to do. too often our jails have become our country's mental institution i believe that supporting bills such as a community mental health collaborative mental-health fact that senator frank and spoke of earlier will

help provide resources to our state, law enforcement community as well as to our state corrections officials when they're encountering in dealing with people other suffering from mental health issues. strategy's from the justice vote the use of segregation is first to use mission house and to target anita president of mental illness, developmental the lace and that is at risk of sexual victimization. second, to use alternative responses to the disruptions the outside of segregation. third is to increase the training for the prison staff on methods that promote positive social behavior within the bureau of prisons. jurisdictions in playing the strategy several reduced there use of segregation but have tracked concurrent reactions and the use of force on prisoners

and the number of prison grievances. i want to know is that the dca and other organizations had taken a very progressive stance on inviting in an external and independent reviews as is the bureau of prisons. to the senate panel whether it is the internal revenue system of the permanent justice i believe that holding government accountable comes would no expiration date. and the issues of human liberty and public safety are at stake we must never give up the launch i would hope that this is at the end of discussion today and that this can be continued including the work with the newly authorized task force on prison reform. it is not the end. this is round two. i don't know how many more there will be, but i want to bring this issue up again. we keep inviting you to these

hearings. i find myself agreeing with you more and more and least highlight a few things that i know you disagree on. thank you for coming. let me turn the microphone. >> thank you for your on this. >> and i will note that you did find something you disagree with the chairman on. [laughter] >> we are a conservative think tank, but i will tell you that if you believe in making government less intrusive him of personal responsibility and accountability, we have to shine the light in the darkest of places. so i'm pleased to be here today. one of the issues that we feel strongly about is ending the practice of releasing and mist directly from such a confined. a major policy in texas with over 13 and releases.

in washington state the study was done on their super max unit that found inmates released directly from solitary confinement with 35 percent more likely to commit a new offense. even more likely to commit a new violent offense. not released from solitary confinement. i want to point of the successes we have seen in states around the country. in mississippi, as that merely a solitary confinement. and that has saved them over $6 million because it is less than half the cost. most importantly violence has dropped 70% since then made those reductions. and in maine, for example, they have gone from 1309 to between 35 and 45 today just in the last couple of years. i would i want to know is the corrections commissioner has noted the down side for a

solitary confinement has left some sense reductions environment to of violence, restraint shares, inmates can themselves up which used to happen every week. almost totally eliminated as a result of these changes. reducing the duration. those that used to go there for drugs, they may still go, but if they test claim of bacon graduate out of solitary confinement and a summit is being kept for more than 72 hours a decision is reviewed by the commissioner. i also want to know that one of the keys in texas to reduce in solitary confinement has been the gain enunciation program. announcing their gang. i also want to point out that using sanctions and incentives behind bars is a way to provide for incentives that the inmates to be a better which therefore reduces the need for solitary confinement. one of the models of the parallel universe model.

the longer curfew. does that ms. b gave have been denied privileges such as making donegals and access to the mail and other things. this creates a positive incentive. we notice things like the white hope program. there is a 24 hours timeout. we have to make sure we're not overusing solitary confinement. one of the strongest incentives is aaron's time. there please that senator corner and, white house, and other members are supporting time legislation, particularly for non-violent offenders. clearly by reducing the number of vendors we can make sure folks have an incentive for good behavior in prison and also by the way as steady shown from. the distress of the supervision.

pat a list of recommendations that we would do commending the released directly from solitary confinement which include eliminating rules that deny reading materials. "trading and the escalation techniques. using that power of the universe model that creates incentives. creating the matrix and intermediate sanctions. this should get a solitary for an extensive time of for those the cut minor violations in intermediate sanctions that can be used to get their attention incorrect behavior before releases solitary. reducing the number of vendors, time policy, the mission of housing which was mentioned earlier by those soup are in protective custody, former police officers, mentally ill, unfortunately those individuals often end up in 23 hour days

sell as is being punished for disciplinary actions and me know that the smaller housing communities can address that issue. if we can address the overcrowding that helps immensely. when you have then piled in day rooms it makes it more difficult . i wanted thank the committee for their work on the essentially believe we are on the path to solutions that will increase our order in prisons and make the public safer when these inmates are discharged. >> thank you. again, thank you to the entire panel. special thank you. coming in speaking openly about their own experience with incarceration. i have read your testimony three times. it is compelling and i invite you a few minutes to summarize and then we will ask some questions. >> thank you. chairman, ranking member, thank you for inviting me speak about my 15 years in solitary

confinement on death row at the louisiana state penitentiary at angola. i am here because in september of 2011 came the 11,241st death row exonerate says the u.s. supreme court reinstated capital punishment. solitary confinement for 23 hours a day for 15 years between the ages of 23 and 38. this is cool -- in my written statement that described the physical and mental torture that inmates suffered. the end kolar often unbearable and normal physical and mental activity coming human contact and access to health care severely limited. as harmful as these conditions of life in solitary is made all the worse because it is often a hopeless existence. things can survive without food and water. they can survive without fleas,

but they cannot survive without hope. years on end in solitary, particularly on death row can drain help from anyone but is a solitary there is nothing to live for. i know what had to sell lost my help. after realizing of my existence of billing for years on end. i was on the verge of committing will was basically suicide by state by voluntarily giving my legal rights and allowing the state to carry at the sentence of death, something they would have been done only a few weeks after signing the necessary paperwork. my lawyer talked me out of doing that by convincing me that i would be exonerate it someday. and that is why i was ill to regain my health. i was all of the fortunate because i have used borders but

if they -- state effectively kills most men in solitary. and can see no reason to subject anyone to this type of existence . no matter how certain we are of their guilt. even if you want to punish some severely we would -- we should refrain from this treatment only because it is the human and moral thing to do. my religious faith teaches that we should be humane and caring for all people, st. in center alike. what does this say about us as a nation and even before the law allows the state to execute a person we're willing to let the -- let it kill them bit by bit and day-by-day. i do not condone what they have done but i do not condone what we do to them and we put them in solitary for years on an and treat them as subhuman. they are better than that command a civilized society

should be better not. would like to believe that the vast majority of the people in the united states would be appalled if they knew will we are doing and understood that we are torturing them for reasons that have little if anything to do with protecting other inmates and prison guards from the. no matter what else we want to call it. i would like to think that we can all agree that our constitution prohibits it. at think the subcommittee for looking at the situation, educating the public about it and employees ten answer any questions you may ask. >> i talked of the inmate that i met that said we get an extra 50 years because they told them to put somebody in this celt i would kill him and i did. it was stunning, cold-blooded. did you run into similar circumstances and other inmates who were that dangerous?

>> there was -- there was one. he volunteered for execution, and that is why he dropped his appeals. he stated that if he ever got out he would do it again. >> what is the right thing to do of that can a person based upon where you have seen in your -- i don't know how to describe it, and prevalent experience. >> well, i have also -- i have also come in contact with individuals who are in prison, on death row. they make no attempt to profess their innocents. they would prefer life as opposed some death. but someone who would make a

statement like that to kill someone that is but an insult them commences leave them in a sell by themselves. you let them out at the appropriate times. you do not just like the men all and forget about it. if i was to do that or you were to do that to someone in euro you would go to prison for that. it is inhumane. >> thank you. i know that center and others maries the question about women, incarcerated women. you know the vulnerabilities that they have. think about other categories, those who are being held for immigration efficent -- offenses which are technical violations, not crimes perce. no question about it. and the vulnerability they would have because of language and culture and the threat of deportation.

what can you tell us about those women and what they face? >> women have not been convicted of a crime and get are held in consignments for any variety of reasons. that is a horrifying thought. it's used not to control people who are dangerous but as a tool of control within an institution when other management tools of an institution, whether it be a detention center, a prisoner, jail would be far more humane and likely more effective. >> was there any recourse at ten bury in terms of person or office that you could contact as an inmate if you sell or fold your being threatened to act.

>> if you have contacts with the outside world. different prisoners have different degrees of contact with the outside world. frankly, a prisoner like myself was middle-class and as a lot of access, money on my phone account. a much better chance at gaining recourse if i was subjected to either it sexual abuse or any of a kind of abuse. but within the prison system is the very slippery slope to try to gain justice and inmates have the very limited trust that prison officials unless a prison is run in a way that is transparent and humane in the first place. so there is a medium security men state of prison and visited an ohio number of times run in a

very different way than any prisoners ever held in. and now borden is a remarkable person. so different institutions are run in different ways and it makes all the difference in terms of whether a prisoner who is being targeted for abuse whether by staff or another prisoner feels comfortable seeking justice. >> how much contacted you have with the yes on world? >> i had five contact visits with my family in 50 years. >> how often were you able to the me with your attorney? >> never they add up to visit. i have a law firm from minneapolis. april lease on the head three maybe four times in 15 years, but i was more concerned with the case work there were doing.

if it wanted to come and visit, fine. being in and sell like that you kind of chairs the visits. i was more concerned with the progress that was being made now case. >> it was appointed in director sam mills testimony where it really kind of stunned me. what i heard him say, 4% of the federal population in prison suffers from mental illness. i may be off on the number, but not too far off. i have heard numbers of people with mental illness challenges and prisons, state and other allies directly higher than that. but is your impression about the question a mensa illness and incarceration? >> i cannot speak for him and i believe that the fourth person was right.

we will went through my mind is it is possible that he was talking about those that fall within that definition of major manley will return numbers about 4%. our mental health means that we don't fall into that major category of 34%, about one-third of our population. intaglio a 70% of the population as some kind of drug and/or alcohol problem to throw into the next. >> will we found in the first jury was that many people with mentally challenged people, and i can tell you what levels, but many people found it difficult to follow the rules as well as they should have. any type of resistance on their part because i had it wanted to resist further or mentally challenged. >> let me give you he sample i get when i speak publicly about it. foul was walking down the

sidewalk after a bus stop and someone was mumbling to themselves, we would keep walking. antigen there was some type of mental health issue. typically in an institution that would probably be someone if there were disrupting the day-to-day activities of the institution, would get themselves into an administrative some sell. and so i cannot stress this enough in my mind, administrative segregation is used and except for the extremely dangerous, used to allow an institution to run more efficiently. it suspends the problem at best but multiplies that it's worth it tells you about that person. and if he had not addressed for government debt to begin with you have done nothing, and that is the problem. was travois and what we're trying to change in colorado and making great progress is how can

you hold someone accountable if they don't understand the rule their boat to begin with? it is a no-1 situation. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. would like to thank each of the witnesses for coming here and for giving your testimony. i would also like to thank you for your advocacy and involvement with the justice system and advocating a behalf of those who are incarcerated. in particular, mr. thibodaux, i would like to thank you for your powerful and moving testimony. when i was a lawyer in private practice to have their virginity to represent john thompson who was another individual who was wrongfully convicted of murder in louisiana and then sentenced to death and subsequently exonerate it. it was a powerful experience. personally have the option is to get to know mr. thompson and representative -- represented in

the court of appeals in the u.s. supreme court. the chairman's comment to apologize to you. and to thank you for having the courage speak out. it cannot be easy to do. this issue is an issue that raises complicated issues because you have got conflicting interests. mr. ramus, i would like to ask you, in your judgment, with what frequency is solitary confinement used for relatively minor infractions? >> i can only at this point give you my impression. my impression is that it is incredibly overused in that area this -- i was talking during the break. really, the process has not changed in over 100 years.

i try and think of what is still being done 100 years ago that is being done today that should be done? and i cannot think of anything. and so when i look at that whole process it, again, has become a tool to make a facility run more efficient. in that part of our mission, we are failing because we are sending the matter into the community worse than they came in command and believe that is what makes this time in administrative segregation. when i hear some of the comments @booktv this bucket john j. university a few weeks ago on some issues interactions. sitting next to me was the director of the texas corrections in florida or california corrections, some pretty big systems. when i was asked that question by one of the audience members i said -- and appointed to the oths,