bipartisan legislation that i co-authored with senator jeff sessions that greatly -- justify a few weeks ago, the jue judici committee introduced thereform federal drug sentencing and focus law enforcement resources on the most serious offenders. i want to thank my ranking member for cosponsoring that smarter sentencing act as well. i also want to thank senator cruz for his by partisan cooperation on putting this hearing together today. almost two years ago this sub committee held the first ever congressional hearing on solitary confinement. we heard testimony about the dramatic increase in the use of solitary confinement that began in the 1980s. we learned that the vulnerable groups like immigrants, children, sex abuse victims and individuals with serious and persistent mental illness are often held in isolation for long

periods of time. we heard about the serious impact, fiscal impact of solitary confinement. it costs almost three times as much to keep a federal prisoner in segregation than in the general population. and we learned about the human impact of holdsing tens of thousands of men, women and children in small, windowless cells 23 hours a day, for days, for months and for years with very little if any contact with the outside world. this extreme isolation can have serious psychological impacts on an inmate. according to several studies, at least half of all prison suicides occur in solitary confinement. and i'll never forget the testimony in our last hearing of anthony graves, who was held in solitary for ten of his 18 years in prison before he was exonerated. mr. graves told this sub committee and i quote, no one can begin to imagine the psychological effects isolation

has on another human being. solitary confinement does one thing, it breaks a man's will to live. now, i've been chairman of this sub committee for seven years. i cannot remember more compelling testimony. at the last hearing, we heard from director of the bureau of prisons charles samuels who is with us again today. i wasn't particularly happy with the testimony at the last hearing and i think i made that clear to mr. samuels, but u b i want to commend him and his team because they heard the message of the first hearing. at my request, mr. samuels agreed to the first-ever independent assessment of our solitary confinement policy and practice. this assessment is underway and look forward to an update today from mr. samuels who is with us. at our 2012 hearing, we found that the overuse of solitary can present a serious threat to public safety. increasing violation inside and outside prisons. the reality is that the vast majority of prisoners held in isolation will be released

someday. the damaging impact of their time in solitary or their release directly from solitary can make them a danger to themselves and their neighbors. i want to note this is the one year anniversary of the tragic death of federal correctional officer eric williams who was killed by an inmate in a high-security prison in pennsylvania. we owe it to correctional officers who put their lives on the line everyday to do everything we can to protect their safety. make no mistake, that means that some dangerous inmates must be held in segregated housing. but we also learned from states like maine and mississippi which reduced violation in prison by reducing the overuse of solitary confinement. i made a personal visit to a prison closed in illinois called tams. our state maximum security prison. i asked that they take me to the worst of the worse.

the most dangerous inmates. they took me to an area with five prisoners. they happened to be going through some unusual classroom experience while i was there which i never quite understood, but each of the prisoners was in a separate fiberglass unit protected from one another and from the teacher. and i walked to each of them and spoke to them. trying to get an understanding of who they were, why they were and how they perceived their situation. it was much different for each one of them. but there's one in particular that i remember. he looked to be a community college professor. a clean-cut young man. and i asked him, well, how long are you sentenced to prison? he said, originally 20 years. and i said, originally? yes, he said they added another 50 years. and i said, why? he says, because i told them if they put anybody in a cell with me i would kill them and i did. now, that's the reality of prison life in the most extreme

circumstance. i know that we want to make certain that those who work in prisons and those who also are prisoners are safe and we've got to balance that against our concerns about humane treatment of those in solitary confinement. we must address the overcrowding crisis in federal prisons that made it more dangerous. that's one of the reasons i want to pass the smarter sentencing act that will reduce overcrowded by inmates who committed non-violent drug offenses. i want to open a thompson correctional center in my own state. i look forward to working with the bureau of federal prisons to help it alleviate overcrowded and that all prisoners are held humanely. children, according to the justice department, 35% of juveniles in custody report being held in solitary confinement for some time. 35%.

the mental health effects of even short periods of isolation including depression and risk of suicide are heightened among youth. that's why the american academy of child and adolescent sky tri called for a man. we heard about many promising reform efforts at the state level. state governmentings continue to lead the way. let's take a few examples. last year my own state of illinois closed the tams correctional center. relocating the remaining prisoners to other facilities. in the ranking member's home state of texas, they passed legislation requiring a independent commission to conduct the comprehensive review use of solitary confinement in state prisons and jails. new york is just announced sweeping reforms that will greatly limit the use of solitary confinement for juveniles and pregnant woman. there have been other positive developments. u.s. immigration and customs

enforcement limiting the use of solitary confinement for immigration detain knees. this is a positive step for some of the most vulnerable individuals in detention. i want to thank ice for this effort. the american psychiatric statement issued a policy statement opposing the pro-longed isolation of individuals with serious mental illness. more must be done. that's why today i'm calling for all federal and state facilities to end the use of the solitary con confinement for pregnant women, juveniles, and mental illness except in the rarest of circumstances. by reforming our solitary confinement practices, the united states can protect human rights, improve public safety and be fiscally responsible. it's the right and smart thing to do and the american people deserve no less. senator cruz has not arrived yet, so i'm trying to turn to our first witness. as i mentioned earlier, senator cruz and i agreed on a bipartisan basis on all of

today's witnesses. i want to note that i invited the justice department, civil rights to participate in today's hearing but they declined. we will follow up with them to make them aware of our hearing and to ensure they are enforcing the federal civil rights laws that protect prisoners held in solitary confinement. also, at this time i ask unanimous consent to enter into record the written testimony of kevin lan di without objection it will be included. our first witness today is charles samuels, director of the federal bureau of prisons. you'll have five minutes for an opening statement and your complete written statement will be included in the record. please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn as is the custom of this committee. do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god. >> i do. >> let the record reflect that you have answered in the affirmative and please proceed. >> good afternoon, chairman

durban and members of the sub committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the use of restrictive housing. within the bureau prisons, i cannot begin my testimony without acknowledging that today is the anniversary of the death of officer eric williams. officer williams was stabbed to death last year by an inmate while working alone in a housing unit at the united states penitentiary canen in pennsylvania. we will always honor the memory of officer williams and all the courageous bureau staff who lost their lives in the line of duty. these losses underscore the dangers that bureau staff face on a daily basis. our staff face the same as other law enforcement officers throughout the country. we house the worst of the worst offenders to include some state inmates who we house at the state's request. and we do so with fewer staff than most other correctional systems. it is extremely crowded.

operating at 32% over capacity system wide and 51% capacity at our high security institutions. both the high crowding and low staffing levels contribute to the rate of violence in our prisons. last year alone more than 120 staff were seriously assaulted by inmates. most often in our high security institutions. in addition, nearly 200 inmates were seriously assaulted by other inmates. despite these challenges, our staff interact with nearly all inmates in an open setting without weapons and physical barriers. it is not uncommon for one staff member to be on the recreation yard with hundreds of inmates who are engaged in various activities. our staff encourage inmates to take advantage of their time in prison to improve their lives by participating in programs suches a education, job training, drug treatment, and other available programs. since the hearing held by this sub committee in june, 2012, i

have focussed attention and resources on our use of restrictive housing. we have accomplished a great deal over the past 18s in terms of reviewing, assessing our approach to restrictive housing. we understand the various negative consequences that can result. such placement can interfere with re-entry program and limit interactions with friends and family. however, please note the large majority of inmates remain in general population for their entire prison term. in response to concerns you have raised and because it is the right thing to do, we have implement numerous measures. we continue to experience decreases in the number of inmates house in various forms of restrictive housing. this reduction is attributable to a variety of initiatives we have put in place over the past 18 months. we have had several nationwide discussions with wardens and other senior managers about

restrictive housing. mental health of inmates, the discipline process and other related issues. we respect to specialize mental health treatment with respect -- we recently activated a secure mental health unit that provides treatment for maximum custody inmates with serious mental illness whom might otherwise require placement in restrictive housing. we have plans to activate a treatment unit for high security inmates suffering from severe personality disorders that make it difficult to function in our populations. we have activated a re-entry gags unit to help inmates adapt to the general population after an extended stay that was often prompted by their perceived need for protection. in addition, we implemented a gang-free institution that allows inmates to safely leave their gang affiliations to work toward a successful re-entry. we are in the midst of a independent comprehensive review of our use of restrictive

housing. they have completed half of the site visits. we expect a report to be issued by the end of 2014 and we look forward to the results of the evaluation to consider making additional enhancements to our population. i share your commitment to providing federal inmates with safe and secure housing that supports physical and mental health. the mission of the bureau prisons is challenging through the continuous diligent efforts of our staff who collectively work 24 hours each day, 365 days per year, we protect the american public and we reduce crime. again, i thank you chairman durbin and mr. cruz and the sub committee for our support of your agency and i will be pleased to answer any questions you or other members may have. >> thanks, mr. samuels. there's several year and i want to give them all a chance to ask. let me zero on two or three specifics if i can. children are supposed to be

treated than adults. when it comes to solitary confinement, we know children are particularly vulnerable. at our last hearing we heard a devastating story of a young man james stewart who committed suicide after a very brief period in solitary confinement. many have called for a ban on juveniles. nowhere is the damaging impact of incarceration on vulnerable children more obvious than when it involves solitary confinement. i commend the state of new york for its strides in this area. i i don't believe juveniles should be placed in solitary confinement exception under the most exceptional circumstances. i know the federal prison has a very limited of juveniles under your jurisdiction and generally sent to juvenile facilities. what policies and guidance do you have to ensure the juveniles under your jurisdiction are not placed in solitary confinement

except in exceptional circumstances where there is no alternative to protect the safety of staff and other inmates? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i recognize the unique needs of juveniles. in the bureau prisons, we have 62 juveniles who have been sentenced to our custody. these individuals are placed then in contract facilities. and part of our requirement with the agreement that we have with these facilities is to provide 50 hours of various programs. out of the 62 inmates in these contract facilities, we currently only have one individual who is in restrictive housing. and the requirement that we have is that any individual placed in restrictive housing who is a juvenile, there should be 15 minute checks done. we are ensuring that they are

also working with the multi-disciplinary committee to ensure that all of the issues are assessed, addressed and that we are removing the individual out of restrictive housing at the earliest date possible. >> are there any limits to the period of time that a juvenile can be held in restrictive housing under the federal system? >> there's no specific limit. but if an individual is to go beyond five days in restrictive housing, we require that there are discussions held to at least justify why there's a continued need. as i've indicated, right now we only have one individual and it should only be used under the rarest circumstances when there is the belief that there's going to be potential harm to the individual and/or to others. but we do not support long-term placement of any zbluchbl restrictive housing. >> i would like to ask you about the issue of mental health,

which i think is directly linked to this whole conversation. our last hearing, senator lindsey graham asked about the mental health effects and how this practice effects prisoners. you responded that no study had been conducted within the bureau at that time. that troubled me because the federal bureau uses segregation regularly. but it had not been studied as it should be. one of the five key areas of the independent assessment salesmenal health. i would like to ask you basically two questions. do you anticipate that the assessment will help provide bop with a better understanding of the mental health effects of segregation and without getting into some of the specifics, heart breaking gut wrenching stories of what people do to themselves in solitary confinement, do you agree that people who exhibit this type of behavior generally need more mental health treatment and not just a lockdown?

>> yes, sir to our first question. i believe an assessment is being done will provide us a road map to further look at our internal operation relative to mental health treatment that's provided to our inmate population when they're placed in restrictive housing. and as i've indicated since the hearing that was conducted in june of 2012, long before this assessment has been put in place with the audit, we have been internally looking at our operation. and we are very much in agreement with the appropriate number of mental health staff being provided to look at the specific population when individuals are placed in restrictive housing and are suffering from any type of serious psychiatric illness and this is something that we will continue to do.

and i can report since the last hearing in particularly with the concern that was being raised at the adx, we have increased our staffing for psychology services to include assuring that our psychiatrists within the bureau are making visits to the facility. i know that was a concern you had at that time when it was reported that we only had two psychologist responsible for treating that population. >> has that changed? has the number changed? >> yes, sir, it has changed. we currently have five individuals who are devoted to that population. we're in the process of recruiting to hire a full-time psychiatrist there, but in the interim, we are also using tell psychiatry and i have ensured that the chief psychiatrist for the bureau in our head quarters is also visiting the facility as well and there are a lot of things we can do remotely, but we have increasing the staffing and it's something that we will

continue to stay on top of. >> has there ever been a time since you've been in charge when a person has been released directly from restrictive housing to the general population, released from prison? >> yes. and that is also something that from discussion we had in june of 2012 we have discussed extensively throughout the agency with leadership. and i do not believe that it is appropriate. it is something that we will continue to address. no one should be released based on the concern that was raised directly from restrictive housing into the general population. and we will do everything possible to ensure that we have procedures in place. one of the things that we've done, sir, is we have implemented a step down unit. and definitely for those individuals who are suffering from a significant mental illness that we don't have those

individuals going out without some form of treatment and assuring that there's a transition period. >> the last question i'll ask relates to testimony. we have some excellent witnesses coming at the later panel. testimony about women, particularly pregnant women who are placed in restrictive housing in solitary confinement. what have you found and what are your policies when it comes to these prisoners? >> with the femalelati populatii can definitely tell you out of 1408 female offenders we have in our system, right now only 197 are in restrictive housing, which is like 1.4%. and if an individual requires placement, again, under the rarest circumstances, either tone sure that there's no threat to themselves and to others, we're not looking to place individuals in restrictive housing. and i would also add for the record that individuals who are placed in restrictive housing, the majority of the time is for temporary, temporary period.

these are not individuals who are placed in for a long period of time. >> could you define those two terms, temporary and long period from your point of view? >> if an individual right now out of our entire population for individuals who are in restrictive housing -- i will start with our special housing unit. we have approximately 9,400 individuals who are in restrictive housing. only 15% of those individuals are in there for periods longer than 90 days. that would be based on sanctions relative to discipline and/or administrative detention, which when you look at the two categories, discipline is a sanction imposed for violating a rule, which we definitely need to maintain order within a facility if individuals do things that warrant them being placed in restrictive housing, which that's temporary. and for individuals who require long-term placement within restrictive housing which we can

look at individuals for various reasons due to threat, to the facility, harm to others, and ensuring that we're doing our best to keep the individuals safe, that sometimes require longer periods of incarceration. specifically when you look at the control unit where we have in that population a significant number of individuals, 47% to be exact out of the 413 inmates who are at the adx, 47% have killed other individuals and that is a combination of them murdering individuals before they have come into the system and they have either murdered other inmates and/or staff within the system. those individuals require longer periods of placement in restrictive housing. however, for those individuals i am not saying -- and i would never advocate in any way that we are saying we are giving up on those individuals, this is

where the intensive treatment and ensuring that those individuals are being given adequate time out of their cells for recreational time and other things that we deem appropriate to ensure that when those individuals needed to be pulled out that the assessments by our psychology staff, psychiatrists that we're taking all that into consideration. and i am 100% behind ensuring that we're not causing anymore damage to an individual who is placed in that setting, but i have to state that to ensure the safety of other inmates, to ensure the safety of our staff, these are individuals that only represent, sir, a small number within our entire population. it is less than one fifth of a percent when you look at the 215 thousands inmates in our agency, the number is very, very small. even when you look at the discipline for as large as our

population is, you're only talking about 1,500 inmates out of a population of 215,000. so it's a very small number. we will continue to reduce the number as best we can. and i am committed that in our population it is better for us to manage inmates in general population. it's better for everyone because those individuals need to have the opportunity to participate in programming and when we're looking at recidivism reduction, we want them to receive all the intensive programs that we can provide. and when the inmates are not being 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 carry out the

mission. that is one of the most important things that we're responsible for the bureau of prisons. >> thank you very much. senator chris? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for holding this hearing. i think everyone here shares the number of common objectives wanting to ensure that all federal prisoners are held in a humane manner, that respect is their inherent dignity as human beings and at the same time upholds the objectives of sound penological policy both allowing an opportunity for rehabilitation when possible and ensuring to the maximum extent possible the safety of other inmates and of prison guards entrusted to guard sometimes some of the most dangerous people in the country, if not the world. mr. samuels, i appreciate your service and your being here today and engaging in this important discussion. and i would like to ask some

questions to further understand your testimony and the scope of solitary confinement within the federal prison system. you testified that roughly 215,000 inmates in the federal system and that compares to about 1.2 million encars rated in various state systems. and am i correct that the overwhelming majority of the 215,000 in the federal system are in the general population at any given time? >> yes, sir. the majority of the inmates are in general population. also, the majority of the inmates in our system spend their entire period of incarceration in general population. we're only talking about a very, very small percentage. right now, 6.5% out of our entire population is in some form of restrictive housing. when you break that number down, as i've mentioned, administrative detention, which is temporary and also with the

disciplinary segregation, they're given a set number of days and/or months that they have to serve. in a prison environment -- and i would hope that everyone understands -- it's all about order. and if we do not have order, we cannot provide programs. we're constantly locking down our institutions. since the hearing in 2012, we have reduced our restrictive housing population by over 25%. within the last year, we have gone from 13.5% to 6.5%. so the reductions are occurring. we are only interested in placing individuals in restrictive housing when there is a legitimate reason and justification. with our system being so large, we have over 20,000 gang members

in our system. they are watching this hearing. they're watching our testimony very, very closely for the reason being if they see that we will lower our standards, we will not hold individuals accountable, it puts our staff at risk, it puts other inmates at risk and this is why i mentioned in my oral statement, that not only are we looking at staff being injured and harmed, our staff are putting their lives on the line every single second of this day to protect the american public. but we're also having inmates within the population who are being harmed by these individuals who have no respect -- i mean, no respect for others when it comes to their safety. we cannot afford at any time to say that for those individuals who assault staff, assault inmates there's no

accountability. this is no different than in society. if individuals violate the laws and they hurt citizens, they are removed from society and either placed in a jail and/or prison. if these individuals attack police officers, they are removed. they're not given second chances where we say do not do it again. my staff, as i've indicated who are putting their lives on the line every single day, they have to know that there is accountability for the actions of others. now, for treatment and working with those individuals, we are going to continue to do that. that's our mission. 95% of the individuals within the bureau of prisons at some point will be released. we have a duty, we have an obligation to do everything, sir, to ensure that for that captured population, we are working to change their behavior. many of these individuals come

in with significant issues. we have to address those issues and we will continue to do it. i also believe that it's very, very important for this sub committee to know, when you look at the care levels for mental health, we have approximately 94% of the inmates within our system who have no mental illne illness, 94%. that's 187,264 inmates. we have the care levels one, two, three and four. when you take it to level two, you're talking about 10,809 individuals who have been diagnosed with some type of mental illness that would require on average our mental health staff engaging with these individuals once a month. when you go even further, for care level three, we have 555 inmates who would require

intensive interaction and treatment. to the concerns that were raised earlier, we need to make sure that we are -- these individuals are receiving access, that there is quality time with the mental health providers, and for the most serious cases we have in the bureau, out of our entire population, 286 individuals are diagnosed with an acute mental illness. same thing for that population. but i think everyone needs to know that for our entire population, the majority of these inmates do not suffer from a significant mental illness. and they are programming. they are in our institutions doing the right thing and not causing us problems. but it's that very, very small number who will do anything, i mean, anything to hurt others. i've been in the bureau of prisons now going on 26 years. i have talked to inmates -- i

have had inmates tell me, if you release me to the general population, and/or if you take me out, i will kill someone. i have a duty and an obligation to protect the staff, to protect the inmates. and when someone is willing to tell you, if you do it, this is what i'm going to do, i mean, there are huge issues with that. >> mr. samuels, and i appreciate your decades of service and as someone who spent a significant portion of my adult life in law enforcement, i certainly am grateful as i'm sure is every member of this committee for the service of the many employees of the bureau of prisons 34 of whom risk their lives to protect innocent sit zens everyday and it's not an easy job that you're doing and it's a very important job. i would be interested in the judgment of the bureau of

prisons, what is the affirmative value of solitary confinement? and what circumstances should it be imemployed and what are the hisk r risks and what are the down sides of using it as a tool in our prisons? >> thank you, senator cruz. the value of restrictive housing in the bureau should only be used when absolutely necessary for those individuals who pose a threat to others and the safety and the security of the facility and that's to ensure that we're protecting staff, inmates in the general public. it should never, ever be used as a means of being viewed as we're retaliating against individuals. we're trying to correct the behavior. i strongly support ensuring that

we do not use it just for the sake of we can. and we are not being held accountable, no different than the state systems who are also looking at this issue. and the one thing that i do appreciate with this issue being raised is, this is now a national issue. it is a national discussion. the association of state correctional administrators, which i'm a member of, immediately after the hearing, we all met. we talked about the best practices and what we should be doing. because when you look at state systems, the federal systems and even at the local level, you have many, many, many definitions of what restrictive housing means. and so we are working together. at some point, the association of state correctional administrators will be releasing a survey where they're reaching out nationally to all the 51

jurisdictions to ask everyone, provide us your best practices and this will be posted on the website. and i know just from the discussions that we have had with -- when i say we, my colleagues the secretaries, commissioners and the directors for state corrections, we are moving in the right direction to define what we believe for our profession is appropriate. we are also looking at the issue regarding cultural issues because you have to understand, where we're moving and where we're headed, we're trying to change a culture and not just within the bureau of prisons, of practices that have been in place for long periods of time. i've gone out at your request, mr. chairman, to visit the states where practices have been in place, to look at what they're attempting to do and what they're doing. and i'm very, very mindful of

the concern. and i am the director who firmly believes in treating inmates respectfully, ensuring that they are living in a humane environment because our actions will dictate to these individuals what our country is all about. and we are not there to judge these individuals. we are there to ensure that they serve their time, they pay their dues to society, and hopefully put them in a better situation so when they're released they are productive sit zens. and the goal of them never returns. so i don't see a downside with 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're released, there's no accountability. so we have to hold them accountable because if they go out and they continue with that behavior, guess what, they're coming back. and we will do everything

possible to try to get them to turn and move away from that negative behavior. but it requires intensive treatment. i'm also looking at ensuring that we are developing a cognitive behavioral therapy program for those individuals who are within our restrictive housing unit, so they're not just sitting there. we want there to be active engagement of showing them, hey, we can offer you this but they have to be willing to accept the olive branch. we don't want to just leave individuals sitting there. >> very good. thank you, mr. samuels. >> thank you, senator cruz. senator frankn? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to welcome damion tib doe. mr. tibdo, you've turned yourd tragedy into a story of hope and courage and i want to thank you

for sharing it today. i would also like to thank the chairman for holding this hearing and all the work you've done on this issue over the years. this practice of solitary confinement or restrictive housing is a troubling one for a number of reasons, for moral reasons, economic reasons as the chairman said in his opening statement, for public safety reasons. one of the aspects of this that concerns me is the mental health aspect of the problem as we've been discussing. over the years, we've seen the corrections in law enforcement systems take on more and more responsibility for responding to mental illnesses in our communities. last winter i hosted a series of round table discussions with law enforcement personnel and mental health advocates in my state of minnesota. the sheriff who runs the jails in hen pen county, that's our largest county in minnesota,

told me about a third of the inmates in his jails really belong in mental health treatment programs and not behind bars. and we've been -- 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 mental illness who have committed some crimes that they need to be behind bars, but there are a lot who probably should be elsewhere. i have a bill called the justice and mental health collaboration act that will improve access to mental health treatment to those who need it and i think we're leaving the purposes to relieve some of the burden on law enforcement personnel and on correctional personnel. the bill also funds flexibility and creating alternatives to solitary confinement in our jails and prisons.

i would like to thank you senators, durbin, lay hee and grass and others. i would like to ask others to join that effort. i want to ask you a couple things. one, about crisis intervention training. director samuels, last march i visited the federal medical center in rochester, minnesota. they have -- they're kind of a psychiatric unit and also behind bars. and they said they've benefitted tremendously from cit, crisis intervention training. and they said they've avoided serious injuries and i think incidents that may lead to inmates going into solitary confinement when they act out and become violent.

we see these on these weekt shows that show people behind bars and the guards have to strap on all kinds of protective ware. they said they can avoid that by understanding when and talking someone down instead of, in a way not provoking terrible conflict but also not stopping it. can you talk a bit about the role that c.i.t. or crisis intervention training plays in the federal prison system? >> all right. thank you, senator franken. i'm glad you raised this question. the national institute of corrections which is also part of the bureau of prisons actually provides the training for crisis intervention. and it is based on the requests of state systems. we've ensured that our staff, specifically the bureau psychologists have participated in the training. as a result of what they've seen, we have implemented our

own protocols relative to the training to use various elements. and we have field tested this training in one of our institutions. and as a result of it, we are obtaining a feedback. it's 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. we're looking to explore doing more with it within the federal system. >> okay. i kind of want to -- you know, we're -- you've provided a lot of statistics about solitary or about restrictive housing. i just want to get more into the human aspect of this and i kind of want to on the crisis intervention training.

how big is a cell? how big is the average cell in solitary? >> the average size? >> cell, yeah, the size of the cell, how big is it? i'm trying to get this -- this is a human thing we're talking about. we've got a lot of statistics. how big is the cell? >> the average size of a cell is -- i guess i'm -- you're looking for the space of what -- >> yes, the dimensions in feet and 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? is what you're saying that there is no such thing as an average

cell for solitary? typically in your -- in the bureau of prisons, if someone is in solitary confinement, how big is the cell typically? >> the average size should be equivalent to 6 by 4. >> okay. that's an answer. 6 by 4. does the person in a cell during months and months of this, do they have the ability to talk to family? >> yes. >> they always do? >> it's not on a frequent basis, but we provide individuals who are in restrictive housing on average -- i mean, they're receiving one phone call per month. and this is something that we are looking at when i talk about

reform for our disciplinary process for those placed in restrictive housing, we need to change. and that is something that we're willing to continue to look at to ensure that we're providing more access for frequency for those phone calls as well as visits. >> well, i've run out of time. we'll have some witnesses who maybe little more discryptive. thank you. >> it's 10 by 7 for the cell size. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator franken. senator romo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director samuels, 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 confined in solitary for reporting abuse, including sexual abuse by bureau

of prison staff. i have a series of questions regarding this situation. my first question is, are you aware of this happening in the system, rare as it may be, we hope. >> yes. >> second 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 assuring that rounds are being made. we have also addressed concerns with ensuring that the inmates are able to reach out and to let us know and being comfortable with that. but we have zero tolerance. >> so, you have zero tolerance, so . . d and report? who would they report this to? certainly it shouldn't be the

person that has power over them and who is actually the abuser, alleged abuser. >> yes. they're able to report any allegations to staff. and we also have a hot line number that the inmates are given. they can also report it in that manner. >> and in terms of getting this information out to your inmates, do you do this in a written form? how do your inmates know, regardless of whether they're in solitary or in the general population, that if they are faced with this kind of abuse that they know what to do, where to go? >> it's provided to the inmate population verbally during discussions as well as in writing. >> mr. chairman, i would -- i think it would be good if he could provide us with a sample or, in fact, the directive regarding what they tell the

inmates with regard to this kind of situation so that 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 enforcing and making sure that this is being followed by your staff? >> well, a number of things that we do. at the local level, obviously something that the leadership to include management staff are focussed on ensuring that we're doing quality control reviews. we utilize our national office when we go out and we conduct audits of our facilities, we look at the operating practices and procedures to ensure that we are following the expectations of our policies. >> how long have these policies been in place at the bop? >> these policies have been in place for decades. we've always had a zero tolerance for any type of

activity and giving your staff the guidance to carry it out. >> so when this does happen, what happens to alleged abuser or the violator? >> if -- for the individuals who do this, we quickly take all allegations seriously. those individuals are removed from general population as well as the individuals who have been victimized to ensure that we're looking at the safety and 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 accountability. because, as i mentioned, senator, we do not support nor do we want anyone victimizing others. and 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 leads to the individual being charged, which we refer all of those issues to -- >> and do you have the numbers on how many individuals have been prosecuted or disciplined in some way? let's talk about disciplined and then prosecution. >> i don't have that information with me currently, but i can provide that for the record. >> you have that data? >> yes. >> thank you. have there been any studies on the effects of solitary confinement on recidivism and/or re-entry? >> there have been no studies as a result of the hearing that was

conducted in 2012 when that question was presented to me and we had not participated in any type of study, we agreed to undergo the analysis that is taking place right now with cna. and hopefully from that review, we will have some insight. but, senator, i will have to add, when you're 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 the impact on recidivism. and also, a resource issue for ensuring that if we undertake something like that that that there will be 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 any studies that show differences in the effects of solitary confinement

on men and women? >> no. >> is this aspect going to be addressed in some way in the study that you're referring to? >> the comprehensive study that 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've 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 be placed in restrictive housing for long periods of time. >> if i may, you have 198 women in restrictive housing, how many of them are in the adx facility? >> we do not house any females at the adx 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. >> director samuels, thank you very much for your testimony. we appreciate it. we'll follow up with some of the questions that were asked here earlier. >> thank you. >> we now invite the second panel to come before us. and i ask the witnesses to take the place at the witness table. i'm going to read a little background on them before they're called on. rick raehmish is here. three decades of law enforcement experience before this position, he was a secretary of wisconsin department of corrections and he also served as deputy secretary. previously he was a sheriff in wisconsin, served as assistant direct attorney in dane county as well as an undercover deputy

sheriff. thank you for being here. piper kerrman is with us. she is the op offer of the orange is the new black, my year in a woman's prison. account of her 13-month encars ration in. it was recently adapted in a netflix origin series. she works a a communications consultant and serves on the board of women's prison association. she spoken and written about prison issues. she received the 2014 justice trail blazer award from the john j. college center for media crime and justice. thank you for being here. craig deroche. prison fellowship that advocates for criminal justice reform bapsed on principles of restorative found in the bible. he previously sempb adds the organizations vice president. earlier in his career, he served in the michigan house of

representatives he was selected senator. i want to thank you you and the justice fellowship for your appearance here today. mark levin is the director for center for effective justice at the texas public policy foundation which is played an important role in adult and juvenile justice reforms in that state. leader of the texas public policy right on crime initiative, which has led conservative efforts to reform the criminal justice system. he served as law clerk to judge will goorwood on the fifth circuit and staff attorney at the texas supreme court. thanks to the texas public policy foundations work led to reforms of the drug sentencing law and particularly i want to thank you for your support of the smarter sentencing act which all the members here today have co-sponsored. damen tibdo, is witness before us. in late september, he became the nation's 141st death row inmate to be exonerated on actual

incense grounds. he was released from the louisiana state penitentiary after 15 years in solitary confinement. his release was supported by the district attorney's office which was responsible for his original prosecution. following his release, mr. tibdo relocated to minneapolis who reobtained az gad and commercial driver's license. january 2014, he began his truck driving career. i'm sorry for what you've been through, sir. i commend you for what you've done to rebuild your life. it's an amazing story. i want to thank you for having the courage to appear here today and we'll be hearing your testimony in just a few moments. you have five minutes. your entire written -- i've read them all and commend them to those who are here. these are some extraordinary statements. five minutes to summarize, if you would and then we'll ask a few questions after the whole panel. >> thank you, mr. chair, ranking member cruz and distinguished

members of this committee. it's an absolute honor for me to be here. i'm rick raemisch. i was appointed by governor john hick hickenlooper to fill the vacancy left by tom clemens who was assassinated in march of last year. in horrific irony, mr. clemens was assassinated by an individual who had spent several years in administrative segregation and was released directly from segregation into the community which is an absolutely recipe for disaster. the other irony involved here is that mr. clemens had dedicated his short time at 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 for incarcerating

people in segregation. i was picked because i had the same vision in wisconsin was able to do some things there. this gives me an opportunity to continue that vision. and having spent some time in administrative segregation myself recently, it re-enforced my feelings about it. these are my feelings, i'll summarize it very quickly in my mind over 30 years in the criminal justice system, that administrative seg zbags is overused, misused around abused. and what i feel is that we are failing in this particular area in our mission. our mission really isn't about running more efficient institutions, although that's something that 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 and out of those 97% some of them have been in administrative

segregation and our duty and our primary mission is very simple. make a safer community. and the way we make it a safer community is by having no new victims. the way we have no new victims is by ensuring that the people we send back into the community are prepared and dedicated to being law-abiding citizens instead of returning in worse condition than when they came in. that's where i fear 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 our administrative segregation area, and what we were able to do last spring as an example, we had 50 that were in admin seg, this january there were four. the second challenge by the governor was to eliminate or drastically reduce those released directly from se