years before it. they day, everywhere around world, there's a great global debate taking place. it is about the nature of freedom and fairness, about democracy street corners, coffee shops. it is also happening on all of these new social media platforms. the rage, the scale, and the speed of that debate is like nothing before in history. i have been involved in that debate my whole life. america must be involved in that debate and we must leave it. every day there are attacks about american foreign-policy that cannot be left to let stand. -- pat moynihan famously said, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. or and more these days, people seem like they are entitled to their own fax.

they are making them up. if confirmed, i will focus on a few issues that are vital to our national interests. people under the age of 30 are our audience. i will advance public diplomacy's focus on youth, including girls so that they see our nation and our people as friends and allies. if confirmed, i will work to identify and implement the best practices of social media and mobile technology. our department a long these new platforms in targeting the new audience we want. this cannot replace people to people diplomacy. social media is a gigantic force. he are an entrepreneurial nation. that expertise is one of our most valuable exports. if confirmed, i will scale up programs that support innovation so we can connect a small paolo withman in sao

the global economy. i will be a champion of the global economy. education is one of our most strategic assets. more than 700,000 foreign students come to our institutions, which are incubators of democracy. they are learning the english language is critical. inrica is also the leader technologies that are revolutionizing the way people learn. if confirmed, i will employ the strategic assets to the 21st century. extremism islent vital to our national security. make sure wel to provide people, particularly youth, with alternatives to misguided ideological justifications for violence. one successful example of this -- thestrategic for

strategic center for counterterrorism. this is something that is incredibly innovative that needs to be built up. we must contest the space. the men andlute women working in public diplomacy and public affairs around the world, including our employeesl american who are risking their lives for america. they advance our national interests, often at great risk. it is my honor and privilege to offer my leadership to support their dedication to the united states and the american people. they queue for giving me the opportunity to speak today. for giving me the opportunity to speak today. >> thank you for your statement. at the moment, the committee

stands in recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the senate foreign relations many hearing will continue shortly. breaking tombers take votes in the senate on motions and amendments to the employee nondiscrimination act that would are checked the rights of certain sexual and

gender minorities in the workplace. you can see those votes as they are tallied on c-span 2. we will return to live coverage after those votes. richard cordray yesterday morning. he discussed the federal agency's direction and his you trip. -- and his future. e -- politiccome o's chief economic correspondent, ben mark -- ben white. >> i am the chief economic reporter for politico. it -- if it is a

must read, but we hope you read. there honored to have director of the consumer financial protection bureau. a few housekeeping notes. if you have cell phones, we would be happy to have you tweet the event. just turn them on vibrate. i have a tab to get twitter questions if you have those for me. i would like to thank the foundation for their partnership . we are appreciative of their efforts. here to say a few words is michael peterson, the president and chief operating officer. good morning. welcome today. the nonpartisan mission is to increase awareness and accelerate action on america america's long-term

fiscal challenges. we just made it through a government shutdown. we just have a couple months before we have similar deadlines. is important to move beyond governing by crisis and institute a long-term fiscal plan. we need to get our long-term fiscal plan in order. of earning by crisis hurts the economy. governing -- governing by crisis hurts the economy. on top of all of the other economic challenges, we are adding insult to injury and did wounds. this is also affecting american families. voters sayf four they are concerned their financial situation will worsen as a result of crisis-driven

policies. it is hurting families. it is a consumer issue. i can think of no one we would rather hear from than richard cordray, the first director of the consumer protection bureau. we look forward to good discussion today. >> thank you for your continued support. i would like to welcome everybody on live stream and those watching on c-span. without further ado, i would like to introduce richard cordray. >> i always think we should have entrance music like at a basketball game. are you a basketball player?

>> forward. >> how about power forward? >> that would not be justified. >> i wanted to start a little more broadly with some comments from elizabeth warren giving a speech today in which she says the system is still rigged against families in favor of powerful interests. it seems like we are now four years on from the worst of the financial crisis, some of the worst abuses of the mortgage industry. surprising that she would say it is still rigged despite all of the work that has been done, the passage of dodd-frank. do you think that is true, that the system is still rigged against working families in favor of powerful interests? i have not seen those remarks.

i am always interested to hear what senator wyden has to say. warren has senator to say. congress clearly made a judgment that a new agency needed to be created, that there is someone to stand on the side of the average consumer to make sure they are treated fairly in the marketplace. that is a big part of our role. we are concerned about every individual consumer to make sure they are treated fairly and that the market is working for average americans so they can understand pricing and risk and make judgments about their choices that they can live with over the long term. willis the work we continue to be doing over the next several years. you think we are safer now than we were in 2009 in terms of the mortgage products we use,

student loans. have we made a fair amount of progress in protecting consumers from where we were four years ago? there is no question that the mortgage market will be safer and function better with our new rules that take effect january 10. they were designed to root out some of the most irresponsible crack since of the mortgage market -- responsible practices that lou up the mortgage market blew up the mortgage market. the card act that was enacted several years ago -- we were tasked with reporting on the affects of the card at, how that has affected the average consumer in the credit card marketplace.

he found there have been a number of positive effects from the statute. every day that the consumer bureau is doing its work, we are making further progress to clean up. yesterday, we put out the beginning piece of the assets to revise -- piece of the process to revise debt collectors. that is our focus and the work we are doing. it is positive and will continue to be positive for consumers. speaking of the qualified residential mortgage rule and two things to pay -- that are controversial in the mortgage market, a number of republican congressmen wrote you a letter saying the industry is not ready for this, the marketplace is not ready for this, it is going to inhibit the flow of mortgages, it will be too hard for smaller

institutions to comply as of january 10. what do you say to those people? >> nine extra days. >> that will fix everything. what is your response to those who say we are not ready to implement these rules? explained what these rule mean -- rules mean and whether or not we are ready to implement them. the rule that the cfpb was required to write. qm rule is the ability to repay rule. it is a simple principle. you might wonder why we need a rule to tell lenders that when you lend money to a borrower, you should pay careful attention payhe borrower's ability to

. it seems like lending 101. in the mortgage market, it was not at all the norm, particularly with the securitization in the secondary market. people made loans that were not sustainable over the long term or even the fairly short term. they were able to sell them in the secondary market. and pay closefail attention to whether those funds worked for the borrower. the borrowers should have known better. the pricing on the loans was opaque. aey might be advertised over teaser rates as if that would be for the life of the loan. there were a lot of problems. as to the letter and the observation, it is a.'s observation. the dodd-frank -- it is a curious observation.

the way congress passed dodd- frank -- title 14 of the law would have taken effect of its own accord at the beginning of january 2013. 10 months ago now. it would've had a new framework. rule not as though our qm has altered the status quo and without it the status will would have continued to operate as it was. change was coming. it was embedded in the statute. fact that we wrote that rule delay the implementation of the changes in the market by one year. we have given the street an extra year beyond the two years to begin to get ready for this. the vast majority of -- it is important that we continue to move ahead. certainty in the mortgage market to the emerging and continuing housing recovery.

any institutions have taken this seriously and gotten themselves into position. there are other things building onto the qm regime. the longer that is delayed, the longer it delays further steps, reform, being able to build on a platform of knowing where we are. we just received that letter. we will look carefully at it as we do with all and put. interestquite a bit of in this at the moment. inclined to delay implementation. >> it is not clear what the dates should be. our hard work to get these rules in ways is a considerable burden. industry has actually had more time than they

would have originally anticipated. we have worked closely with industry over the implementation of the rules. industry wants us to clarify points so they would not have to guess at them or to clarify operational points. we have done a lot of hard work along the project we call regulatory implementation. what i have said -- and i think this is important -- though rules take effect january 10. in order to examine for compliance, we have to have time to assess compliance. in the early months after that deadline, what we are looking for is good faith efforts to come into substantial compliance with the rules, not perfection. we all share the same attitude. some of the concerns have been significantly overblown. to drill down on 2

points of that. smaller institutions say they do not have the compliance staff to be ready for this by january 10. mortgage lenders say they are not clear what they can do outside the qm rule. i guess there will be some leeway while they figure that out. how do you address the institutions who say they cannot comply because they you -- they do not have the staff and the larger institutions? in terms of community institutions that say they cannot comply, i am not sure who those are. provisionn a further in the rule. we do not have to do this. we were convinced that there was reason to treat institutions differently. institutions with less than 2 -- $2n dollars in assets billion in assets have special provisions. some of the main still be

unaware of that. them may-- some of still be unaware of that. if it is mortgage servicing they are concerned about, if they are servicing 5000 fewer mortgages per year, they are exempt from significant chunks of the servicing rule. we have tried to take account of that. lending.m i have tried to be clear about this. the ability to replay is not revolutionary in lending. commonsense principles that it's possible lenders have a load for -- responsible lenders have followed for decades. if they have performed well through the crisis, which is the worst economic event probably of ,ur lifetime, certainly to date

then you should continue making those loans. if they happen to fall in the qm category, those are good performing loans. it would be bad business to leave the loans -- the money on the table. i have tried to be forceful about that. qm difference between a non- qm loan is small. typically 15t is or fewer basis points. it is not a huge effect on the market. >> there is going to be a quiz after this on the qm rule and you will have to give me the details. i would like to turn to someone from politico who has a question for you from someone on the hill. >> obviously, the bureau has

taken a lot of heat from republican lawmakers. who are the republicans you reach out to that you are closest with to get a sense of what their primary concerns are? i have tried to be evenhanded and reach out to all of the republicans to talk about these issues. that includes the current and past chairman of the financial services committee and the currentmember -- the ranking member and the former ranking member on the senate side. i have said this again and again. maybe i came to washington a little naïve. congressional oversight is very advantageous to our bureau. some of it reflects concern or opposition to the concept of the bureau. to people who are looking

carefully at everything we do and pointing out concerns and issues that we should be attentive to, that is good input for us. you always hope your friends will tell you if you will have -- if you have food in your teeth. sometimes it is people who are less sensitive to you who are or inclined to point those things out. but you need to hear it. for us to be attentive to people's concerns -- it has been true on a number of different scrub ourhelps us operation and help us be where we should be, which is managing these types of concerns. i will be testifying in front of the senate banking committee on tuesday. i am required to do it at least every six months. typically, it has been a bit more frequent than that. i always value that opportunity and look forward to it again next week. >> republicans on the house

financial services committee like to see you and really enjoy your company. >> i try to help them enjoy my company. on the questions of oversight and pushed back responses from industry, what are one or two examples of things that you have responded to or changed based on that oversight or feedback, particularly about the review process with banks? there were concerns that there enforcements and they were more adversarial than they should have been. tell us how you changed on that front and if there are areas based on congressional oversight. as -- we think about from time to time how we are as -- allocating our resources.

we need to adjust, we adjust. raisedcommittee chair how transparent was our regulatory agenda. he noted the fcc tended to publish a forward-looking agenda and that we had not done so. that not familiar with practice at other agencies. early on, it was not so easy for us to do. when you are building an agency from scratch, you do not have a lot of fully formed future slants. --now publish a regulatory you do not have a lot of fully formed future plans. we now publish a regulatory agenda. that was helpful input for us. we were submitting that information to omb.

they published it on their website. another example is that she and haset poll -- senator crapo been clear about data collection. that has prompted a dialogue between senators and representatives who have indicated that concern. has reminded us that data is sensitive. we need to be sensitive to data and privacy concerns. we have to comply carefully with federal law. it is important to us to get the story out. we have to have data to do our jobs. when congress requires us to the creditort about

card market, whether it needs to be changed or tweaked or updated, if we do not know anything about the credit card market, we cannot possibly do that job in a way that is useful to congress. ,hen we write mortgage rules having the data to understand what we are doing and be able to assess its impact over time, which may require revisions over the next two years, is critical to us doing our work in an informed and intelligent way. in the darkooting without information, that is not going to be good for anybody. >> you are compiling this massive database of information. i do not know what they are afraid this data will be used for. you think it is unwarranted that there is a massive database being formed of consumer complaints. >> it is a topic.

some of the input we received the closest attention from us. it is not enough to say we need information to do our work and we do not pay attention to concerns around that. nothing would undermine the work of the agency more than four people to get a sense in -- a sense that we are not paying attention to federal law in those respects. the information we collect is very important. industry typically wants to know about richard cordray. what am i spending on my credit cards? where did i go? a want to figure out how to we areto me and --

monitoring this -- these institutions to figure out how they are treating consumers. what we care about is what kind of rates and fees, what kind of pricing mechanisms, that kind of thing. monitor someng to of the largest financial institutions in the world, we have to keep up with what they are doing to consumers. did not agree with the characterization that reviews --e done in an adversarial on an adversarial basis. why did you make the change? message was a certain people took from that practice. working on our enforcement elements of the bureau. we are a different animal from

my past experiences as ohio attorney general. i had enforcement authority but not supervisory authority. i had to learn more about it when i came to the bureau. most of our enforcement trainees are in the same boat. ity need to understand how is an alternative way to get a similar result. we need to understand how enforcement works, when that is an important tool and when it is not. this was one of the early judgments we made. costsms to me that the were outweighing the benefits so we made an adjustment. me youbody was telling still commute from ohio to washington and do not live here full-time. >> i think that is healthy, actually. >> i am a d.c. native .

how that informs your execution of your duties in this job. do you think it is helpful to you to be closer to community financial institutions outside of the regulatory policy world of washington? how does your decision inform how you operate the cfpb? >> it is hard on me and my family. a certain amount of effort you have to put in. it is no different from what the members of congress do. ofgives me an appreciation the sacrifice they make to be engaged in public service. i can understand better what they do and how they do it. i look at washington. washington is a significant bubble in various respects. bubble, the beltway government mentality.

it is good to get away from that part of your life. there is a prosperity bubble in the washington area. if you look at the wealthiest counties in the united states, thewealthiest counties are suburban maryland and suburban virginia counties. they did not suffer the great recession in the same manner i have seen in ohio and around my hometown and the areas of the state. on the weekend, i go to the grocery store, the barber. there was more than one vote. it took a little extra time. senator schumer caught me on the floor and said he regretted he could not make it because he was tied up on the floor.

he had to attend a caucus meeting. his full statement will be included in the record. start with you, dr. sewall. large, asolio is very i said in my opening. it is also very important. there are a series of things i want to explore with you. all, democracy promotion. i sometimes wonder whether we pick and choose how we promote democracy in the world, depending upon the place that it is. i am not quite sure that is the right policy at the end of the day. if we are to be a beacon of light to the rest of the world, as i believe we are, having certain universal standards of

democracy and human rights is critical. there are times i get the sense that somehow we have a very different view of voting democracy in certain parts of the world. we are very vigorous in others. can you give me some general inking in that regard, since this is one of -- general thinking in that regard, since this is one of the critical elements? a distinction between goals of promoting democracy equally and the tools we used to do them. that is a things challenge and an opportunity for the enterprise and a challenge i would relish if confirmed as under secretary is trying to find more innovative ways to promote democracy when our

standard tools appear to be less effective for harder to apply. view, the united states must always promote its values. democracy is foremost among them. it is who we are. there will always be vigorous debate about when and how to do that for you my role, if confirmed, would the two always do it or it is hardest to do it and to find alternative ways to do it. that is one of the reasons why it is so important they have reorganized the undersecretariat so that a broad range of programming is united within the same span so you are not limited to simply , but or too limited tools your range is from security sector reform.

you are thinking about counterterrorism and the interest it raises in the context of voting good government accountability and countering corruption. if confirmed as undersecretary, i will be able to take a more nimble and creative approach to always promoting democracy, even if the ways in which we do it need to be adjusted depending on the circumstances. the commitment itself needs to be universal. it is what we say to the world, that we are committed to universal human rights, democracy is what we stand or. thes the role of undersecretary to be promoting that you internally -- it is what we stand for. >> i sometimes think we have double standards. we create the international efforts to ber

able to create change through peaceful efforts. in cuba, we have this romanticism. we have seen the same types of people, the same types of individuals struggling to create democracy and human rights in their own country in civil society. they languish in virtual anonymity. i hope that in your process and confirmation, we will see an that ision of democracy more evenly and vigorously promoted. i believe freedom and human rights in burma are incredibly important. they are incredibly important in places like cuba.

that has not been our reality. application of the effort and promotion of democracy will be global in nature at the end of the day. choose, weand diminish our capacity and ourtanding in the -- and standing in the world. that me ask you about your many portfolios. the area of war crimes. the undersecretary for civilian security oversees the office of global criminal justice, which was formally the office of war crimes. mym my if -- from perspective, president assad in syria continues to commit war crimes. it is a big part of the president being in the position assad's chemical

weapons. it does not undermine the fact that he is indiscriminately killing his own people. how have you been engaged in your preparation with a state department? how is the state department working with it syrian partners in exile to document, verified, and collect data to develop a case against assad. i would like to hear what those observations are. if you have not, what do you think should be the process that you would engage in in that regard? regardingge in syria the crimes that are emitted is critical. -- committed is critical.

i think that the american support for justice and accountability is one of the more important ways we can help the syrian people in the long run build a different future than the one they are experiencing now. i look forward to the time they are able to do that. it is another example of the ways in which creative programming support from the united states and others to -- to bring to justice those who have committed criminal activity is both an important opportunity and an example for others. concerned, -- confirmed,

i will closely monitor that assess. international justice has been a long concern of mine. i have written about it extensively. i am firmly committed to taking that on if confirmed. believe it is absolutely critical as well. that raisinged these issues will not lead to a conference, i believe that the ability to send a global message that when you act with impunity and commit war crimes, you will face a global consequence. i am glad to hear your response. i have a whole host of other questions. , ideference to senator rubio will come back to both of you and mr. stengel. your offeru both for to serve our country. let me start with you, dr.

sewall. modern-day slavery israel. it is shocking to some people. -- modern-day slavery is real. readyear, we elevated to powerful countries for their failure to make efforts to combat human trafficking and modern-day slavery. the debate is that they get waivers from sanctions that are supposed to be associated with that. we continue to have a debate. i wanted you to take a moment to speak about the power of the shaming that comes with that designation and the impact it has. does it still matter to people? does it still matter to countries even though they may not show it publicly? doesn't matter to them when they are shamed in this way for trafficking and modern-day slavery? >> thank you for the question,

yes -- thank you for the question, senator. it is a global phenomenon and we are not immune commit in this crate country. great country. the shaming matters very much. we would not have the keen interest in the annual list and in the movement of countries if they did not matter. i would like to thank you and the members of congress who have created this tool. it is powerful. if i am confirmed, i look forward to leveraging it as best i can to address this global crime. >> another issue we should be concerned about is the issue of religious freedom. religious persecution is on the rise in many parts of the world. similar list to the

trafficking in persons report, it is a list of the countries of particular concern. -- would you be supportive of making that designation an annual occurrence? the shaming effect of that would be similar to that of trafficking in persons. >> one of the more interesting opportunities i will have in coming to this role is looking at all of the different ways we do reporting on different forms of rights abuse and trying to do inc. about how to leverage each as best we can. the reviews are done annually. my general view is to make

recommendations based on the facts. i cannot speak on recommendations made in the past. i will undertake to use all of the tools we have. >> the reviews are, but the designations are not. the sanctions that correspond to the designation expire after two years. would you be supportive that the sanctions remain in place for countries of particular concern for as long as the designation -- as long ast go he designation remains in place? to look into it. i share your desire to make the sanctions last this long as possible. i will take a good -- a close look at that if i am concerned. >> congratulations or condolences and thank you for your offer to serve our country.

i believe, as i hope you do, that the american example is one of the most powerful contributions our nation has made to the world. people look at what has happened in the country as a source of inspiration when they pursue their own expectations of what is possible. many people have been told their whole lives that people like you cannot rise because you do not come from the right family or the right religion or the right sector of society. one of the challenges i have found is that because we have such a vibrant political system, our debate and the chaos is looked at as a sign of weakness. yesterday, i filed a brief before the supreme court on the issue of legislative prayer. as i arrived at the courthouse on thatvery viewpoint issue was represented outside. the atheists were there. those who believe strongly in

prayer and those who had constitutional reasons for being there. viewing that scene alone, you would say, this is a chaotic many ways, that is a source of our strength. whatever the court rules on that issue, people may disagree. at the end of the day, people will abide by it. i look at the recount in florida in 2000. it was a close election and to this day we have debates as to how that should have turned out. at the end of the day, there was no question that what the court ruled, that is what was going to happen. are some ideas about how we go to the world when we see these arguments in these debates and all of these things going on -- it is a source of strength, not a source of weakness that we are able to have a society of such divergent views. whatever the outcome may be, people fight to change them, but

there is no question they will abide by it. president clinton did not roll out the troops and cancel the election when vice president gore lost. how do we make that argument to a world trying to figure out how to get security and order? you have to have the space for the chaos that comes to debate as long as the commitment to the rule of law is there. is that a key component to our diplomacy abroad? pursue anspire them to similar space in their own country? question.ou for that i share your passion for the breath of that debate in america. open societies encourage debate. one of the things i have been proudest of is to show the rest of that debate. debatehe breadth of that -- show the breadth of that

debate. we have a diversity of opinion trade we can tolerate it. because thaton debate is an example of free expression. not only tolerance for the views we live, but tolerance for the views we don't -- not only tolerance for the views we like, but tolerance for the views we don't like. if confirmed, i will work on even better ways to promote that. >> i have one more question, which you alluded to in your opening statement. it is shocking to me as you travel abroad and meet people -- i should not say it is shocking. it made an impression on me. how many people, because they have gone to war in the united return home,they

they have a clear understanding of what this country is really like. they went to school here. they studied here and lived here for a time. the kind of thing we should be encouraging more, the opportunity for people to come here from abroad, not just to acquire skills to allow them to go back to their country. there are talented people we would like to stay here. there are folks who will return to their home country. the notion they can return home and be deeply influenced by the american idea. these people return home highly skilled, highly educated. . publicn we do from a policy perspective to encourage that? our higher educational system is the educational changes

something that is vital and powerful. the 700 houses students and the number of nobel , the number just in , 27 local election and national leaders have been here as students. i agree with you. that makes them more sympathetic to the american point of view. it makes them understand us better. i was overjoyed to see the story that the new president of china came over to meet president obama in california and asked to stop in a little town in iowa that he visited on a leader exchange program to have dinner with that family that he knew as

a young man many years before. the value of that is extraordinary. i am a believer in educational diplomacy. i will try to increase the number of exchanges. the long-term benefit of that is something we all want. >> thank you. one of the areas where your portfolio will take you is refugees. having visited jordan earlier this year, the nerd largest city --jordan -- thi largest third largest city in jordan is now a refugee camp. been leading and providing humanitarian assistance. we have been leading in

providing humanitarian assistance. our do we do in making sure humanitarian aid is linked to longer-term developments in africa? it seems shortsighted in one respect. there is an immediate need. we don't think about the longer- term consequences. what do you say to that? an excellent point. it was one of the first questions i asked when i began talking to people at the state department. given the tragedy in syria, we wish it were possible for refugees to return home as soon as possible. wait and notord to address their current place in ways that have longer-term implications. there are enormous opportunities to use our refugee assistance outside of the country where we

have a population that is interested in envisioning a future. use our support to think more ofadly and to think instead livelihoods, to think of developing ways to support internal governance structures, to build a set of skills and expectations that we hope can return with them to syria after .he crisis is over i was interested in something to promote a new approach to enhancing the role of community members and working with the door dany and police and refugee camps to protect rights and police andjordanian refugee camps to protect rights.

that is exciting to me and that is the direction we need to be handing i would welcome the opportunity to work with you in doing more innovative programming to assist these people. >> you have a certain expertise. i want to call upon it on the board. some suggest that has been a failure. what has been effective in stemming tragedies in syria, the tragedy in burma, the central african republic. what would you propose that would increase its effectiveness? >> thank you for the question. much of the disappointment i

have heard in the role of the atrocities prevention board stems from a different set of expect haitians. my understanding has developed to think about it in two different ways. role to help create within the bureaucratic infrastructure -- by that i mean the people who are the eyes and .ars on the ground the ways in which we receive our programming is attuned to the risk of atrocities. there is value in what i am told are the efforts underway in the andem to elevate awareness create a greater sense of responsibility for taking action. that, isd piece of

that i believe the atrocities added valueoard's is in studying and focusing attention on areas in which there is violence, but before it becomes of a level of national concern such as syria. obviously, syria is the most important foreign policy rarity of crisis -- priority of crisis management today. , in my judgment, does not need to play a role in elevating attention. the apb and add the most value when it looks at incipient crises and seeks to elevate the awareness and resources and problematic response in areas where we can make a difference where it is still below the radar. my role, if confirmed as

undersecretary, i think that the early warning offers potential to focus efforts across the entire enterprise. it is my hope that we will be able to think more creatively. we may need to come to the committee about responding earlier with programming in areas where we see opportunities to avert crises. our goal should be to prevent and not to elevate. when we get to that point, we have already, to some degree -- i'm not want to say failed. we cannot prevent every conflict that rises to a level that syria arises to. shortsighted in

delegating the resources before it became -- becomes that elevated stature. i hope that is one of the things you will pay attention to when you are confirmed. your portfolio is so wide. i see markets around the world expanding rapidly. i would like to hear, in your capacity, how you intend to oversee the office to monitor and combat trafficking persons to eliminate trafficking in their supply chain. .> thank you for the question i am excited about the possibility, not simply for the moral reasons we were discussing earlier.

one of the hard security elements of the scores of trafficking is that it is intertwined with other nefarious practices and actors we wish to combat. as i look across the spectrum of bureau's that are active in offices that are active in the , i see greatiat synergies that are in our efforts to combat trafficking, whether they are violent extremist exploitations of persons. there are a host of ways in which the trafficking in persons element, which has highlighted a problem we did not seem to be paying significant attention to is leading the way in terms of guiding our efforts to attack problems that had implications in other areas. i hope to learn more about what

has been successful within the trafficking in persons practices and help ensure that some of those lessons are migrated to other elements of the work that will be under and to don't help us understand that these problems are all interrelated and so our solutions need to be thinking beyond simply the response to trafficking but also the prevention of trafficking which is related to other elements of the programming. i see it as an e more mouse challenge, some of which we can apply to other areas and there are other element that is can better support our anti-trafficking efforts even if they are not called precisely that. >> and finally, only because submit some ay

questions for the record. one of the critical things i hope that you'll look at is many of the j bureaus whether it be population, refugee, bureau of democracy, human rights and labor are working on issues and with resources in countries in working on aid is those issues. and the challenges of maximizing our resources of having a greater coordination i hope will be one of the efforts that you will bring to your job. >> yes, it absolutely will be. >> let me ask you a couple of things. one is structural in nature because i think a lot about whether the good intended consequences for different positions we have in the state department can be achieved if

the structure doesn't allow them to achieve it. and there are those who have been critics of the structure who have argued that the undersecretaries role is not rong enough from a bureaucratic standpoint for resources and personnel activities abroad with most public diplomacy officers working in diplomatic posts abroad outside the secretary organization. what is your understanding of the role of the under secretary in efforts worldwide. i'm sure you had an engagement of the secretary and administration in talking about accepting this role. how do you see being able to achieve the goal you so admirably stated in your

response to some of the questions here? >> thank you for that question. as you know that the secretary and the president are strong believers in the idea of public diplomacy and global engagement and i think they each have notions about how to do it even better. in so far as i've been briefed the public diplomacy aspect of my job, the public diplomacy officers who serve around the world again at great risk often to themselves have a whole set of tools at their behest that they can use to promote america and america's image abroad and programs, educational programs, there are visitors programs, there are more than 700 american spaces around the world that have 16 or 17 million visitors where people engage with american ideas and things like

that. o i think there are a lot of possibilities and the reality of what public diplomacy officers do i think is great. certainly if confirmed, i will look at whether there are other things that might be done to enhance american public diplomacy. i would never, by the way, refuse an offer of having more authority but thus far it feels like the amount of authority that i have over the public diplomacy officers and programs seems adequate. >> well, i'm >> the alignment here between your position and the ability to have those globally be able to pursue the public diplomacy doesn't seem for me to be there. and so we'd love once you get in the job to talk about that as a structural element to ensure that we mocxmies the ability of

the public diplomacy that you can bring to the department's efforts to have a multiplire effect in a more powerful way. in that regard, one of the things you're going to be as the under secretary of public diplomacy is the secretary's designee to the broadcasting board of governors, the entity charged with overseeing international civilian broadcasting. do you have any thoughts on that? have you thought about that element of the role you are going to be playing and how do we create a greater integration between the state department and the bvg? >> yes, senator i have thought about it. i know you have thought a great deal about it as well. i would indeed be the secretary's december ig gnat on the board if confirmed. the work that they do i think is

vital to morn foreign policy. there is the firewall between the independent journalism that is done by organizations and i would never say there is too much independent journalism in the world. i think that is important. at the same time i think there are opportunity for the state department to work more closely with bvg. there have been examples of a bvg program in mali that the state department worked with where we collaborated. so i know the structure has changed a lot and certainly if confirmed and i'm a member of that board, i will look at that closely and try to make it as effect and efficient as possible. >> what are the goals i -- one of the goals i seek to see is the greatest integration to have the greatest effect. that brings me to my final question. the bureau of international

programs has undergone eorganization to modernize technologies which you refer to in your opening statement. however on may 2013 inspector general inspection of the bureau found that many problems exist including a lack of a clear strategy in performance measurement. what attention would you place on new technologies and latforms as part of our global diplomacy strategy and what steps do you think that particular bureau would need to take to improve its perform science >> thank you for that question, senator. i welcome the oig report. coming into a job for the first time and looking around having an inspector general's report that looks at the territory and

gives you guide seasons something very valueable. i nuned very valuable when i had rarts like that in the private sector. one thing i'd be remisif i didn't mention public affairs as well as public diplomacy. one of the things i would like to do if confirmed is to bring public affairs and public diplomacy closer together. public affairs is out there on the deck of the ship every day and they are talking about policy and talking about the president's policy and the secretary's vision. i think that can help all of the other programs that we do. from my statement i think you realize i'm a great believer in the power of social media. i think it's a new form of communication. and one of the reasons i think it's a very valuable tool is that it's interactive. it's not just us preaching and other people listening.

we can have a dialogue, we can have a conversation and that is very important. that ill straits the beauty of the free society that we are and so i would try to use all of those tools at my dispose toll help and improve public diplomacy. >> it's certainly the new frontier and it is a frontier in which those who wish us harm by one dimension are actively engaged in. so i appreciate your earlier comment in your statements about making sure that we are engaged in the stays and occupying it as well proactively as well as responsibly. i thank you both for your testimony. the record will remain open until the close of business tomorrow if there are any questions and i'm sure there will be some. soon aso answer them as possible. this hearing is adjourned.

>> if you missed any of this hearing it is available in the c-span video library. go to cspan.org. in the meantime the senate has been making headway. they have voted on out lawing discrimination on gay and trance genter americans. all 55 members of the democratic majority and several republicans

were expected to unite today on backing the employment non-discrimination act. senator mccain signaled his conditional support yesterday. you can see the debate leading up to final passage at 1:45 on c-span2. this from the a.p. this afternoon. reports of sexual assault in the military increased by 46% during last fiscal year. the pentagon said it wasn't possible whether it represented an increase in assaults, an increase in people reporting them or both. they feel people are more competent about coming forward now that improvements are being made about handling assaults. >> rick perry will be at the polk dinner tonight. we'll have live coverage of governor perry's comments beginning at 8:00 eastern right here on sponsman.

>> the place is called the super dome in new orleans where the saints play built entirely at public expense after hurricane katrina badly damaged. when it hosted games again it was a feel good story and i would say so. the public paid for all the repairs. the public invested about a billion dollars in the construction of the super dome and the man who owns the new orleans saints keeps almost all of the revenue generated there. y don't people rebel against this? many people don't understand this is taking place. the second is they feel there is nothing they can do about it it's based on insider deals and it is. the most recent time that there was a vote in miami last year there was a vote on whether to use public money to renovate the place where the dolphins play

and the citizens voted against that. more on sports author sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> the senate judiciary committee held a hearing yesterday on oversight of the federal prison system. it looked at how to reduce prison population. mong the witnesses tfing the director of bureau of prisons. this hearing is about two hours.

>> the hearing will come to order. >> welcome everybody. today's hearing is oversight of the bureau of prisons and cost effective strategies for reducing recidivism. we'll be exercising our over sight of the bureau of prisons but more importantly we will be exploring with the director and second panel of witnesses what can be done to improve our federal correction systems so we better protect the public while

reducing cost. this is an area that has attracted broad and bipartisan interest within our committee and i think there is real reason for optimism about being able to legitimate effectively in this area. continued growth and federal spending on prisons and detention poses a significant threat to all other federal law enforcement activities. during the last fiscal year the cost ate up more than 30% of the justice department's budget. since 2,000 cost associated with federal prisons have doubled. if nothing is done, these cost will continue to consume an ever larger share of the department's budget squeezing out other activities. while spending on federal prisons has continued to grow, the system remains dangerously overcapacity. the inmate to staff ratio has increased significantly over the past decade and each year we ask the men and women who guard our prisons, who walk the toughest

beat in the state to do more with less. if we let these trends continue we'll be putting these brave men and women at serious and unnecessary risk. fortunately states across the country have shown that it is possible to reign in corrections ost while reducing reis it vism. my home state of rhode island enjoys wall. with his leadership we enacted a package of reforms that increased programming, focused on high risk offenders and expanded investments in community reentry. as a result of these reforms our state's prison population declind for the first time in years. other states have had similar successes. we'll hear from pennsylvania and kentucky who enacted and implemented reforms that cut

costs while better protecting the public. these examples and others from around the country show that it's time for the federal government to learn from these states. as a former state and federal prosecutor i recognize there are no easy solutions to this problem. inmates in our federal prison reasons there because they've committed serious offenses and because the law enforcement officers did the jobs in seeing they were arrested and prosecuted. and we must never try to save money at the expense of public safety. what the states have shown that it is possible to cut prison cost while making public safer if we are willing to be guided by what works. to achieve this we must look at all aspects of our sentencing and correction systems. we should reevaluate mandatory minimum sentences, an area where senators have begun important work together. we should explore whether the

federal sentencing guidelines are working nearly 30 years after they were first enacted. we should ask if we're doing enough to provide drug and alcohol treatment for those inmates who need it and whether we're collecting accurate information about addiction from the presentence report right through the criminal justice process. we should ask whether there is more to be done to prepare inmates for reentering their communities and more to help the communities with their reentry. in rhode island tupped leadership of director we passed reforms that allowed inmates to earn credits toward their sentences if they participated in programs that reduced their criminal factors. and we should do a better job of supervising exoffenders after their release. many states have implemented parole systems that impose swift and certain sanctions for

violations of the provisions with success so far. there is room for improvement. let me conclude with one point that i think is not debatable and that is doing nothing about this problem is no longer an option. if we do nothing, we are choosing to let the corrections budget take away from the f.b.i.'s ability to disrupt terrorist agroups, if we do nothing we are allowing the cost of corrections to prevent us from stopping the next generation of cyber threats. we'd be spending less on the violence against women act, we'd giveless to state and local law enforcement agencies. those are not choices my colleagues wish to make. those are not smart choices. i look forward to hearing from today's witnesses and working with members of this committee to address this critical issue. thank you, sir. > thank you.

i put my statement in the record. i agree so much with what was just said. this is the second hearing this fall in which we've turned our attention to the unsustainable growth in the prison population with a 700% increase in the last 30 years. and that means the bureau of prisons budget takes more and more of the resources from the department of justice. we're losing prosecutors, we're losing agents necessary to investigate and charge crimes. we're cutting support for critical work with our local and state law enforcement. i think the main drivers of these prison growth are front end sentencing laws that were enacting by news congress. i think proliferation of mandatory minimum sentences and i'm hoping that many including the people who voted for those are looking at it now and

realize it was a bad mistake. i'm committed to addressing sentencing reform this year and i'm pleased by the fact that both republicans and democrats are joining in that effort. it is a problem that congress created. it's also a problem that congress can fix. and it's high time we do so and public safety demand we do so. we can also do things such as changing the calculation on good time credit to the 54 days a year which congress intended instead of the 47 that b.o.p. actually credits. that's a change that i include in the second chance reauthorization act. and i believe you are going to be doing that in your legislation. i want to find out what is being done on programs reduce reis it vism. i know it's an interest shared

y members of this committee. more than 90% of federal inmates are going to be released at some time back to our communities. what chance do they have to make it in the community when they are released? lastly and one of the main reasons i wanted to be here, director samuel is to say i want to thank you for the prompt attention and concerns that i've raised and others have raised regarding the proposed closing of the only secure facility for female inmates in the northeast. and i understand you've taken those concerns to heart and i want to thank you for that. i know that people in my state of vermont thank you. and this question has been raised well.

i put my full statement in the record. i'm supposed to be at another hearing but thank you for doing this. it's a subject we have to talk about. and thank you for your service. >> thank you very much. i now turn to our distinguished ranking member. >> i welcome the opportunity to have over sight of the justice department. it's a very important function thoff company or this committee and the bureau of prisons of course is a large come pobet point of the department's budget. and the bureau's work is very important. budget now with the eficit

>> we should be careful about changing sentencing laws whether based on cost or other concerns. it's hard to think of a more successful accomplishment over the past 30 years than the reduction of crime rates we've had. this was achieved through multiple policy changes, policing techniques, prison construction, longer sentences and many others i won't name. crime rates are at their lowest level in r50 years. many people have earned the right to be proud of these results. at the same time we must remember these were hard won gains. i'm concerned we're hearing the same kind of voice that is headed us towards a greater crime starting back in the 1960's. for instance we hear that prisoners should have their

sentences retroactively reduced. we hear that mandatory minimum sentences should be eliminated. that we should no longer have truth in sentencing, that fewer drug prosecutions should be pursued. these i'm skeptical. reducing prison sentences will bring prisoners out in the streets sooner. many so-called non-violent drug offenders happen to have violent records. some of these released offenders will commit additional crimes. somehow cost analysis of the bureau of prisons do not include cost to victims including injuries, economic losses, psychological, economic or emotional harms. one organization represented here today notes that most

prison cost are fixed and the real cost of adding or subtracting an inmate is closer to $10,000 than the $25,000 figure that is often used. that changes the calculus as well. the cost for discretion are actually cover language for leniency and too many judges are already too lenient. they can do serious damage. i know heat the second circuit unanimous ruling last week that a district judge violated ethics in her zeal to issue rulings against successful crime reduction practices that led to increased imprisonment. rather than rebutte for actions and changing course away from the apparent bias, i regret this district judge quickly issued a press release statement containing that she had done nothing wrong.

of course we welcome state officials who will testify today. we can always consider what states are doing. but state and federal offenders often have committed different kind of crimes. what works in one context may not work in the other. we also need to proceed with caution because states are letting more prisoners out earlier crime rates are rising. it is too early to establish the cause of this increase in crime but the bureau of statistics announced that property and violent crime rates rose significantly in 2012. the violent crime rate rose from 22.6 victimizations per 1,000 in 2012. 26.1 in the rate of property rose 10% in one year. funds are not unlimited.

i would be willing to examine some balanced mixed of sentencing reforms. it is well worth considering releasing very sick prisoners or prisoners of such advanced age or other situations to be assessed as a low risk to commit new crimes. but len yen si for the sake of len yens si is a bad idea as crime rates are rising. i look forward to today's hearing. thank you. >> thank you. senator sessions? > mr. chairman, thank you. mr. samuels and i have talked before. in terms of cost we spend totch per prisoner in the federal system. it's more than two times what the average states are probably spending on their prisons number

one. number two, we have had an increase in violent crime rate and my sense is with the budget difficulties the last three or four years, maybe 90% of the prisoners are confronted by the criminal justice system are softening their punnishments and federal government sort of sets the standard and lead sometimes in those issues. senator durbin and i did work together on legislation to ease some of the sentences for crack and other penalties really. so i think we took a step in the right direction. but senator grassly is correct, we've seen an inreese in violent crime, 15% last year. and the sfact long term sustained reduction in crime in america from the consistent violent times of the 1970's when

i was a young prosecutor to have that today, murder rate is half what it was. a lot of that is driven by the fact there are not that many people who commit murders, not that many people commit rapes and the more of those who are in jail, the fewer murders and rapes you're going to have. and that is just fact. people do not need to go back to think when we don't realistically about prison reducing climb. i regard to recidivism, think some programs work better than others. anybody who knows about the criminal justice system knows there is no cure, no plan ever deviced yet someone always has something they say will change the course of criminal history

and it hasn't happened yet and we've tried thousands of ifferent programs. reducing recidivism 10% or 15% is worth us giving attention to. these programs that say will reduce by 50% or 60% you have to prove it to me because i've been watching this for 30 years. if it would, i'm for it. >> i appreciate it. >> senator lee? that is all. omen >> i thank you for having this hearing and to respond to the remarks made from the senator of alabama. between the two of us we have close to 70 years in the justice system and i want to agree with

him that in an ideal world we would first of all have no crime but second treat criminals without regard to the dollar cost. but there are very severe dollar cost to incarceration. in fact, the cost of incarcerating an individual is now in excess of what it costs to send a young person to college in many universities across the country. and i would just point out that many states are taking very innovative and important steps toward reducing their prison populations in part because of wiser incarceration policies and i hope we can explore some of those policies so that we keep dangerous people in prison, the ones who are likely to recommit serious and harmful crimes, fiscally dangerous people. and at the same time work to rehabilitate them.

and i am going to be focused on the recent decision that the federal institution at dan berry which unfortunately a number of us had to stop which would have resulted in transfers of women prisoners away from their families which in my view is bad prison policy no matter how long people are kept in prison, they should be nearer to their children, especially if they are mothers of those children. and near to their families and i'm glad we were able to prevail with the help of the attorney general in changing that decision. i want to thank director of the bureau of prisons in his wisdom in doing so and ask about other prisons and other prisoners and what can be done to keep them near their children whether they are men or women. >> prison overcrowding is a huge issue at both the federal and

state levels so thank you for this hearing. i will be very interested in hearing from our witnesses what we can do regarding the front end that has to do with sentencing and at the back end because the recidivism is another major issue. so front and back end issues relating to prison overcrowding. thank you. >> mr. samuels, will you stand to be sworn. >> did you affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth so help you god? >> i do. of the the director bureau of prison ps. he's responsible for the oversight and management of the federal institutions. prior to his appointment he served as assistant directors of the correctional programs division where he saw inmate fuppingses and counter

terrorism, community corrections, meant haddle health services. he began his career as a corrections officer in 1988. we are pleased to have him. please proceed director samuels. >> to appear before you. i cannot begin without acknowledging the bureau lost two of our staff. officer eric williams was stabbed to death by an inmate while working in a housing unit. the oofs shot and killed while driving home from the etropolitan detention center porkt. we'll remember these officers and the loss undercoarse the dangers the staff faces on a daily basis. we share a commitment to the

nation's criminal justice system. we understand that incarceration is only one aspect of the overall mission. i'm sure you share my concerns about the increasing cost associated with operating the nation's largest correctional system. those make up one quarter of the d.o.j. bument. we're optimist tick smart on crime initiative will reduce the population in prison ahead. i know several of you have bills to impact the crowding through sentencing reform and incentives. i appreciate your work and your interest on this important topic and i look forward to working with you going forward. the bureau of prisons is responsible for the incarceration of 219,000 inmates. our prison reasons crowded. we are most concerned about the

52% over crowding at high ecurity facilities and 45% crowding at medium security facilities. i'm excited about the new facilities. when fully activated these facilities will assist with reducing over all crowding rates by about 4%. i know you have expressed a great deal of interest in the change at dan berry. this will reduce crowding in low security female facilities and from 38 to 36% in low security male facilities while bringing many men and women closer to their homes. reentry is a critical part of public safety. our approach is reentry begins on the first day of incarceration. it includes treatment, jobs skills training and more that takes place throughout an inmates term. over the past 20 years there has

been an expansion of our reentry program. several of our programs are frovepb reduce southeast sidvism -- recidivism. participants are less likely to residvate than non-participants. we're working diligently to maximize these opportunities. we currently have more than 450 inmates working on repatriotation projects. inmates must triage risk. high risk offenders are a first priority for treatment as they pose the greatest risk when released from our custody. the safety of our staff and the public are our highest priority. let me highlight some recent

advantages. we expanded the availability of pepper spray for our staff to use in emergency situations at all high security prisons, detention centers and jails. we have plans to add an additional correctional officer to each housing unit during weekend and evening shifts. we have made significant advances in reducing our use of restrictive housing and expanding drug abuse program. .t is challenging this concludes my formal statement. i thank members of the committee for your continued support and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you director. you said in your testimony that reentry should begin first day, reentry planning should begin first day. what further steps in addition to what you already undertaking

do you think would be most helpful for this committee to consider? >> mr. chairman, i think the next steps for the committee to consider, as i stated in written testimony and in my oral statement, we are doing everything possible when inmates enter our system to begin the reentry process. it's not something that should start from the initial on set and stop. you need to continue throughout their entire term of incarceration. since 1980, our population has explode. 1980 we had approximately 26,000 400 inmates in our care. 10,000 staff to manage that population and 41 institutions at the. s of to date as i've indicated our population is at 219,000. that is an increase of 830% just

with the inmate population alone. safety and security is very important to manage a correctional facility. we are utilizing staff who have been hired to provide programming in some cases to provide security because security is paramount to ensure you have an environment where you can provide the appropriate programming. and we are on a path of unsustainability. and it is a significant issue that i think everyone needs to be concerned about because the men and women who work for the bureau of prisons who are dedicated law enforcement officers are putting their lives on the line every single day. we pleeve that reentry is very very important because it is a significant part of our mission. our mission is not just to warehouse individuals but to ensure we are providing them

everything necessary when ultimately they are released. 95% of the inmates in our care will at some noint time be released back to communities. reentry is also important because for us to manage these individuals, we have to ensure that we are actively ensuring they are engaged in programs within the institution. and this is accomplished by our reentry efforts. i can report that despite all the challenges we have faced over the last 30 years, we are at a point where 80% of the inmates who are released from the bureau of prisons do not come back within three years. i give credit to the staff who are working under these difficult situations and at the same time assuring that we're maintaining safe security facilities for the american public. so if any consideration could be given, i think it's looking at the growth that we have no

control over. as you all are aware, we do not control the number of inmates who enter the system, we have no control over their sentence length. but what we do have a duty to do is ensure thoys who are released do not return to prison because about 45,000 inmates are released on average back into the community. with the recidivism issues and concerns i tell our staff day in and day out it's up to to us provide effective programming so they don't control. >> is one of them the drug abuse program, the residential drug abuse program, tell me about this and how effective you think that is and how it fits into the improvement of non-recidivism upon reentry. >> the residential drug abuse program is modeled after our

cognitive behave i don't recall therapy mod that will research has shown with experts looking at this that it does reduce recidivism as well as relapse. so within the bureau we have been very successful with rdat. we have taken it a step further nd used the model to place programs throughout the bureau for other segments of our population. i'll give you an example. we have a challenge program that also uses cbt for high security inmates. we have a brave program that we use for young male inmates. we have a resolve program that is very beneficial for female offenders who have experienced traumatic incidents within their life. we have the sex offenders treatment program which is also

very successful. and for chronically mentally ill inmates, we have a step down program. we have a stage program that we utilize for individuals who are suffering from paranoid issues and over all we believe that this is very important. we have to don't do it. but the challenge is with the resources. and focusing on high risk need offenders and we have to assure that is where we're putting the focus for the efforts we've put in place. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. samuels for being here and thank you mr. chairman. we have testimony before us that 25% of the federal prisoners are foreign citizens. anyone who is concerned about reducing prison cost should make lowering that number a priority. what can your agency do, the bureau do more effectively to

use the international prisoner transfer program to make more of the foreign citizens serve their sentences in their home countries rather than at taxpayer expense. >> thank you for this question. 25% of our population come prices non-u.s. citizens. that number equates to 55,000 criminal aliens in our population. and we have a treaty transfer program that we are actively using. and there is room to ensure that we are increasing the numbers as far as the participants for the program. we are reaching out through out the bureau to ensure our staff are explaining this program in its entirety to the inmates who would benefit from being removed from within the bureau of

prissens and given an opportunity serve their time through the agreements we have with the international community where the agreements are in place. and that would in effect fwive us some cost reductions within our population. >> one way to reduce prison crowding is to build more prisons, congress has thorsed building four additional federal prisons. at the same time the federal government bought a state prison in illinois and is spending additional money to renovate it. i'd like to know the current status of thompson prison and the amount of money spending on it. and lastly so it's really a three part question is the spending on thompson slowing down the opening of the four additional prison thans have been authorized and their status? >> the current four facilities that are in the activation process. the purchase of the thompson facility has not in any way

impeded our progress in moving forward to activate the facilities that you make reference to. we have the new hampshire facility as well as the facility in alabama. we have hired the staff which we are continuing to hire and we are gradually moving forward to build a population for the institutions. the facilities that are still pending for full activation hich we have the facility in west virginia and the the pen tengry in yazoo sfi. at this point we are trying to hire and funding will hopefully be provided in fy 14 we will be able to determine how soon we can move inmates into the facility for activation. for the thompson facility, i can

assure you there has been great need within the bureau of prisons for this type of facility. we have not in the bureau of prisons brought on any type of high security adx beds similar to what we have in colorado since 1994. if you look at our population in 1994 compared to today, these beds are premium. we have had to do our best with limited resources to prioritize the inmates that we place at the adx so i am looking forward to being able to fully activate the thompson facility because as i've mentioned at the high security level with crowding within the bureau of prisons, we are facing significant challenges that are ultimately putting our staff at risk, putting the inmates at risk and the community at risk. so we desperately need those beds. >> can you cement a figure that is being spent on the thompson

prisonen in writing? >> yes, sir. prisoners he federal are gang members. prisoners can more easily maintain their ties to crime if they are gang members. that can make prisons more dangerous and make it harder for inmates to avoid committing new crimes when they are released. what specifically does your agency do to reduce gang membership in prisons and is membership so high because prisoners who do not previously belong to gangs join them after they are in prison? >> within the bureau of prisons which you acknowledged, we do have significant number of gang members. many of the these individuals long before entering the prison system have gang affiliation. this is one of the reasons why the unsustainability for safety and security within our

facilities with the large numbers we are dealing with, we've had to put strategies in place to target these individuals. we are able to manage and maintain control by using the number of prison thans we have to spread out influence. the bureau of prisons for well over 30 years has used a risk assessment tool. and with this assessment tool we look at criminal factors which being a gang member would fall within static which is a factor you can't change it. and we have dynamic factors we weigh in. because gang membership, misconduct, criminal history are good predictors of institution misconduct as well as recidivism. by targeting and looking at these individual's history, in particular those with gang affiliation, we are doing everything we can to get these individuals involved in evidence based programs to ensure we are

trying to explore with them alternatives with their criminal thinking to put them on the right path to move away from any belief they need to belong to a gang, especially within the correctional environment. it's our responsibility to protect these individuals and they should not believe for a moment that they should join a gang for any type of safety. and that is why command and control within the prison system is very important to diffuse those type of issues. >> i have to go down to finances and i'll come back for the second panel. >> very well. >> thank you. >> i want to thank the senator for his shared interest in the interest in the thompson prison. this is going to create good paying jobs for the people and lesson the overcrowding and provide critical beds that are necessary for the protection of the men and women of your bureau

that work so hard at it. i thank him for those questions. he took away some of my thunder on the thompson prison. >> it's been a year and a few months since we had a hearing awe tended in this room relative to solitary confinement and segregation and the impact it has on people serving time in prison. we had many witnesses before us including a man who had spent more than ten years on death row in isolation in texas came to testify before us. i'll never forget his testimony as long as i live. it was heartbreaking. and it reflected the fact that many of the people in an isolation situation 23 hours a day by themselves, one hour a day outside, many of them will come out of prison and the question is what is left of them after they've gone through that

experience. we had testimony from the director in mississippi and he talked about an assessment mississippi did after suicides in which they concluded they were wasting money with more and more isolation and segregation. in mississippi the director of corrections there was a leader in saying we're going to change this. we can save money and keep everyone safe in a prison and avoid these terrible out comes, the mental degradation of people who are faced with isolation and seggregation. i asked you at the time whether you believe that putting people in segregation or separate facilities had any impact on their mental health and you demurred from answering. i would have said yes, clearly yes but you demurred. but you said i will look at the situation for the federal bureau of prisons. now i'd like to ask you two things, what have you done in over a year and number two, what

can we look forward to. is there a way for us to save money, not degrade the mental condition of those put in isolation and still protect the men and women who serve in the bureau of prisons? >> thank you. i do want to commend you on taking the lead on this very important issue. when i attended the hearing in june of 2012, it was a very significant issue for the bureau and i would say for this nation because i had many conversations with my peers in the field of corrections, directors and secretaries relative to this issue. since the hearing, at the time there were well over 13,500 individuals in some form of restrictive housing in the bureau of prisons. i can report today that the

number is now approximately 9,300 plus. so we've had significant reduction in that area. and what we have done throughout the agency is put a focus on the issues relative to restrictive housing. i've had many conversations with the senior leaders within this agency, specifically the warden who is are responsible for the day-to-day operations of our prisons and stressed the fact that we have to be just as aggressive getting individuals out when we put them in restrictive housing and realizing that we only use it when absolutely necessary. which for the men and women to include the inmates in our institutions, we always must keep the focus on safety and security. we have some very dangerous inmates in our system as i know you are aware. and we have to ensure that we are protecting everyone in the

correctional environment. but at the same time, we have a duty and an obligation to ensure when we are placing individuals in restrictive housing that we are maintaining the highest level of quality care relative to their physical as well as mental health -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt you but i'd like to ask a pointed question on a different topic. >> we spent somewhere between a million and a half dollars a a year for illion every inmate being held at guantanamo bay. cost s the maximum inmate at say colorado, our highest security prison? >> per inmate? >> per inmate annual cost? it would complex

equal to approximately $75 per day. it various from facility. if we look at it -- >> that's the highest level maximum security level in the system? >> yes, sir. >> has anyone ever escaped from there? >> no, sir. >> thank you very much director. >> what is the average cost per inmate in the federal prison snn >> the average annual cost $29,000 a year. >> alabama would be less than half of that which is a low cost state but a lot of other states are much less. and i think we invest a lot of money because the federal government wants to have the highest and best prison system and benefit the prisoners the most we can. but i think we have to look at that cost figure.

other states are just not costing that much. with regard to the 25% that are foreign tpwhorn prison, those do not include the people being detained in immigration institutions for deportation. these are individuals who have been tried by a federal judge for some sort of crime like drugs or assaults of that kind, is that correct? >> yes, sir. we have more than 100,000 individuals in our custody who have been sentenced for drugs which 77,000 u.s. citizens. >> i noticed in your numbers i have here that the prison 2,000 on went up about between 2012 and 2013, at least that was projected ip crease. that would be about a 1%

increase which is below the population increase. so at this point, we're not seeing a surge of prisoners above the normal population increase in the >> i am glad that you raised this point. for 2013, we had a net gain of 611 inmates. although the number seems to be compared to recent years, you have to realize at the same time we processed within the overu of prisons well 70,000 inmates, and these are individuals who have to go screening for screening -- to go screening for physical, mental health, and that large number going into our system. when you look at the overall trend, for a 10-year