CLICK LINK BELOW TO REVIEW AND FILL OUT THE PETITION REGARDING UNDERSTAFFING. ONCE COMPLETED IT WILL BE SENT OUT TO SENATORS, CONGRESSMAN AND ATTORNEY GENERAL. SO WE ENCOURAGE EACH ONE TO PARTICIPATE!!!!!! EACH SIGNATURE COUNTS!!!!!!

 

Thanks!!

 

DISTURBANCE STATISTICS FOR 2009

 

 

 

 

Chairman Mollohan, ranking member Wolf and members of the subcommittee:

My name is Bryan Lowry, President of the AFGE Council of Prison Locals, and with me is our National Legislative Coordinator Phil Glover. On behalf of all of the Federal Bureau of Prisons Bargaining Unit Staff, we want to thank the committee for asking us to testify today on the challenges facing the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

We also want to thank the committee member’s for their effort to increase funding to the Bureau of Prisons that would make a difference to health and safety in the Federal Prison System.

Last year, our Council through our Legislative Coordinator, Phil Glover, testified on the difficult funding problems the Bureau of Prison’s was facing. He discussed the alarming assault and disturbance trends occurring in the Federal Prison System. Not long after his testimony, on June 20, 2008, I received one of the most horrendous calls I have ever received. We had an officer down. Not just injured this time, but murdered. A young new officer who had only worked for the Bureau of Prisons for 10 months. His name was Jose Rivera. He was an Iraq War Veteran, and was 22 years of age. Because of staffing issues mainly associated with budgetary cuts in the last few years and changes to Bureau policy associated to funding problems, he was working in a high security housing unit alone. He was murdered by two inmates and had no equipment to stop them. It is tragic and we in our Council think about his death everyday and the officers who face the same dangers on a daily basis.

We are hoping to come to congress and change the circumstances we now face daily working in the Federal Prison System. To get back to a time where our staffing ratios were sufficiently higher to accomplish our mission.

As you know, we are short almost 15 percent in the amount of staff working in our nation’s prisons. Budgets always seem to be tight. While other law enforcement agency’s such as the FBI, Border Patrol, Ice and others have grown, funding for the Bureau of Prison’s has stayed relatively flat in the amount of staff to handle the increasing numbers of inmates.

While it may difficult, it must be done, we need full funding. We need to get back to reasonable staffing levels. We need two officers in high security housing units, and at least one officer in every housing unit on every shift in every medium and low security prisons. These are just examples of our minimum needs. We need the equipment necessary to handle aggressive inmates in life and death situations which are becoming more and more common. Because the Bureau of Prison’s will not change its policies or change what they call the "culture," we nee your help to do it.

 

The Administration of the Bureau of Prisons has in the last several years coined the cliche "isolated incident," to include violent acts by inmates in almost every situation which now occurs. When the same institution has assault after assault and lock-down after lock-down something is not working and changes have to be made.

Our prison system used to function very well, many of you have been on this committee for sometime. You hardly heard from us and/or the Council Locals we represent. However, our people are crying out for change to our dysfunctional and understaffed agency, which has placed staff and the inmates they are charged with protecting in a very vulnerable position. On behalf of all of the employee’s of The Bureau of Prisons we are asking for the necessary funding increase that will provide more staff and reasonable policy requirements to manage today’s increasing more aggressive inmate population.

In our testimony as well as the written summary overview which we have supplied contains a great deal of information on our appropriations, on our crowding levels, on our safety. We are hopeful you will move energetically to add staff and much needed safety equipment, while also providing much needed oversight to the BOP’s spending.

In our written testimony we discussed private prisons and their costs. We talk about the 2007 GAO report that shows BOP doesn’t even monitor the private companies in the right areas to compare public and private costs. We believe funds can be found in this area which can be transferred back to BOP operational funding.

We think you should look at the revolving door of BOP management to the private sector when you look at costs. We are becoming similar to the defense department revolving door.

When you look at the laws you are passing, the second chance act, the prison rape elimination act, and the Adam Walsh act, these are important issues. However, the programs do not receive any additional funding mechanisms regarding implementation, which forces the agency to absorb these costs when staffing and training requirements are necessary for compliance. When they are not funded or don’t comply in essence, who suffers? The people that expected the acts to work.

Again, we thank you for having us here today and hope we can answer your questions on operations in the Bureau of Prisons and its major challenges, Thank you.

Bryan Lowry

Council of Prison Locals, President

American Federation of Government Employees

AFL/CIO

Phil Glover

Council of Prison Locals, Legislative Coordinator

American Federation of Government Employees

 

Illinois prison top contender to house Gitmo detainees, official says

Washington (CNN) -- A prison in northern Illinois is the leading contender to house some detainees transferred from the federal facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, two Obama administration officials told CNN Saturday.

Officials from the department of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security and federal Bureau of Prisons will be will be visiting the maximum-security Thomson Correctional Center, about 150 miles west of Chicago, on Monday, the officials said.

Earlier Saturday, a statement from Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn's office said senior Obama administration officials would be visiting the Thomson prison to see whether the "virtually vacant, state of the art facility" could be of use to the Bureau of Prisons.

The statement didn't mention the space possibly being utilized for Guantanamo detainees, but said that overcrowding is a "serious issue and one of the reasons why the Bureau of Prisons is interested in viewing Thomson Correction Center."

Quinn, whose administration hopes to generate jobs and economic growth in Thomson through the prison, was scheduled to speak on the visit Monday.

If the Bureau of Prisons purchases the 1,600-cell site, it would operate primarily as a federal prison and lease a portion of it to the Defense Department to house a limited number of Guantanamo detainees, one Obama administration official said.

There are about 215 men held by the U.S. military at the Guantanamo prison camp. Among the detainees are five suspects with alleged ties to the 9/11 conspiracy, including accused mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who will be transferred to New York to go on trial in civilian court, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Friday.

As part of the conversion at Thomson, the same Obama official added, the Bureau of Prisons and Defense Department would enhance security measures to exceed those of the nation's only supermax prison -- the U.S. Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colorado. No inmate has ever escaped from the prison.

The likelihood of Thomson being tapped to house Guantanamo detainees was first reported by the Chicago Tribune on Saturday, and sparked immediate concern from critics of the Obama administration.

U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, whose district covers suburban Chicago, circulated a letter addressed to President Obama to Illinois leaders Saturday, opposing the possible transfer of detainees. The letter says that doing so would turn metropolitan Chicago into "ground zero for Jihadist terrorist plots, recruitment and radicalization."

As home to Chicago's Willis (formerly Sears) Tower -- the nation's tallest building -- "we should not invite Al Qaeda to make Illinois its number one target," said the statement by Kirk, who is running for the same Senate seat once held by Obama.

"The United States spent more than $50 million to build the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to keep terrorists away from U.S. soil. Al Qaeda terrorists should stay where they cannot endanger American citizens."

The Obama administration has vowed to close the Guantanamo facility, but acknowledges it is unlikely to happen by its self-imposed January 22, 2010, deadline.

However, one of the two Obama administration officials speaking to CNN Saturday said that, coupled with the announced transfer of the alleged 9/11 conspirator, the likely developments at the Thomson prison are "good progress" toward closing the Guantanamo site.

The federal prison system currently houses approximately 340 inmates linked to international terrorism, including more than 200 tied to international incidents, the other Obama official said.

Of the total number, 35 inmates are housed in federal prisons in Illinois, including Ali al-Marri, who pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiring to provide material support to al Qaeda. Al-Marri is serving eight years and four months at the federal penitentiary in Marion, Illinois.

    Mr. Lappin. First of all, we appreciate your involvement. And we welcome you to call us, send us emails, and let us assist you with responding to your constituents.
    Mr. Aderholt. Well, Tom Kane knows that I call from time to
time.
    Mr. Lappin. Is that right?
    Mr. Aderholt. Yes, so----
    Mr. Lappin. Well, we ought to bring Tom up here. Seriously,
the caseworker locally does not have the authority to make that adjustment. That work is done by our sentence computation staff who have the background, the experience, the expertise, to adjust a sentence computation and to determine the day the individual should get out. If you give me the email with the person's name, we will go right to the sentence computation center, ask them what if any changes were made and why, as related to applicable law. It could be that somebody miscalculated, made an error on some some good time or some jail time. But if you give it to us we will get back to you----
    Mr. Aderholt. That would be great. And like I said, you know, sometimes they may have been given wrong information as well. But again, like I say, nine days does not seem like a whole lot to me or you but for someone who has been away from
their family and they have served the appropriate time, that can be very demoralizing. And they just have some questions about the system, and they feel the unfairness. And we
understand when a sentence is handed down and they have to serve the appropriate time. But beyond that we, I thought it was only fair to check into that. So after today I will get you the contact information on this. And if you could please help me try to find out some information, my constituent would be very happy.
    Mr. Lappin. I will give you my card, or you could send it
to Tom Kane.
    Mr. Aderholt. Well, either one of you. So----
    Mr. Lappin. Because you are right. Nine days is nine days.
We want them out on the day the law says they should be released from prison.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
    Mr. Lappin. Our goal is to have 100 percent of them released on that day. We would be more than happy to look into it.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, I appreciate that. That is all I have.
    Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Rogers.

                      RATED CAPACITY/OVERCROWDING

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, welcome to you and to all your staff. I have been told that you are 37
percent overcrowded. Is that an accurate figure?
    Mr. Lappin. We are 37 percent over rated capacity.
    Mr. Rogers. Over what?
    Mr. Lappin. Over rated capacity.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you mind if I call that overcrowded?
    Mr. Lappin. Okay.
    Mr. Rogers. What would be your target?
    Mr. Lappin. 15 to 17 percent. That is our target.
    Mr. Rogers. Over your rated capacity?
    Mr. Lappin. And so, let me kind of put it in perspective.
What does that mean? What does 17 percent mean over rated
capacity? That means that every cell in the entire Bureau of Prisons has two inmates in it, and we believe in that goal. It may be a long term goal, there is no way we are going to get
there overnight, but our goal would be that we get to the point
where cells that were built of a certain size, which is a standard size--you have got a couple new prisons in Kentucky, they are a standard size--for a cell of that size it is appropriate for two inmates to be housed in those cells long term. At 17 percent, every cell in the Bureau of Prisons would have two inmates in those cells.
    Now realize there are some inmates that cannot be housed
with anyone. So for those that require single cells, it is going to push into other cells three inmates. We are okay with that. There are certain inmates that we could temporarily house in that manner. Our target is 17 percent.

    Mr. Rogers. Well, if you are 37 percent over now and you want to be at 17 percent, that is a 20 percent difference.
    Mr. Lappin. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. That is not insignificant. That is a huge, huge
undertaking, correct?
    Mr. Lappin. Well, it is. And we have faced this over a number of years. And believe me, the Congress, the Administration; let us go back a bit. In 1980, 26,000 were inmates in the federal prison system. Today, 201,000 inmates. The Administration and the Congress have provided for us very well through the majority of those years. Provided funding, provided positions, as the prison system grew. And so we have been very fortunate. But then again the population continues to grow. And without a doubt, we have to continue to decide, how are we going to absorb those additional inmates? Do we continue
to build prisons? Are there other ways to offset some of that growth? And so, you are right, it would be a long term plan. But again, that is our target.

                                STAFFING

    Mr. Rogers. Well, that spans the time I have been in Congress. And I have been on this Subcommittee I think twenty-three or four years of that time, and I have watched the
population grow. And have watched directors over the years
wrestle with that problem as inmate population kept growing and growing. And it is not getting any better. You say your inmate to staff ratio is 4.92, that is the highest ever, is it not?

    Mr. Lappin. Well, you know, at least in my tenure we know
what it is back to 1997. We were at 3.57 in 1997, we are 4.92. So my guess is this is probably the highest ratio we have had in modern history.
    Mr. Rogers. And how many employees short of the minimum number required for safe operations are you?
    Mr. Lappin. How many, what is the minimum number for safe operation?
    Mr. Rogers. Yes, how short are you of people?
    Mr. Lappin. Well, it kind of relates to the question that the Chairman asked a few minutes ago. Yes, what is the right ratio? And again, we are working on what the right ratio is. Our target this year is to have about, 35,400 employees employed, or the compensation and overtime to the equivalent of about 35,400 employees. So if we do not have full-time positions, we are probably going to extend the equivalent of what is not filled in overtime to accomplish the work. Because we are really at the point where if someone does not come to work, we must fill that post with someone.
    Mr. Rogers. I want you to make it simple for me.
    Mr. Lappin. Okay.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you have the minimum number of employees for safe operations? Do you have enough employees for safe operations?
    Mr. Lappin. This year the number we have identified is 35,400.
    Mr. Rogers. For safe operations?
    Mr. Lappin. That is the number we want, yes. I mean, we do
not have that number right now. Let me explain. We do not have that number right now. We are about 1,200 shy of that. However, we compensate for that through overtime, so technically, we have got that many employees. Therefore, we believe we continue to run safe and secure operations. We do not want to see that ratio increase any more. And that is why we have drawn, or targeted, that number of employees. If you know the equivalent in overtime----
    Mr. Rogers. If you do not have overtime, if you disregard
overtime, and you are paying people straight pay, how many
people short of safe operations would you be?
    Mr. Lappin. Again, we do have the overtime so we continue
to run.
    Mr. Rogers. If you did not have it?
    Mr. Lappin. I think we are staffed at about 34,100. Is that
about right?
    Mr. Rogers. I will ask you a real simple question. I want a
simple answer. With no overtime, if you did not pay overtime,
and you are paying people straight pay----
    Mr. Lappin. 1,200.
    Mr. Rogers. Short?
    Mr. Lappin. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. For safe operations?
    Mr. Lappin. Well, I would not say for safe. We make adjustments internally. Certainly I can take more risks, for
example, at minimums and lows. So what we will do is we will
run shorter at minimums and lows where the inmates are less
risky and we will staff up at medium and highs to make sure that those institutions run and have the adequate number of
people they need. So we have that flexibility. But if you ask
what is the number, the minimum number we want this year? I am 1,200 short of that number.

                           STUN/LETHAL FENCES

    Mr. Rogers. Well staffing or budget shortfalls have led several prisons, including McCreary County, Kentucky, the
newest one in my area, to install what they call stun fences in
lieu of managed central surveillance towers. Some people
believe that tower surveillance is preferable with eyes on----
    Mr. Lappin. Sure.
    Mr. Rogers. And I assume you agree with that?
    Mr. Lappin. I believe the stun lethal is the direction we should go.
    Mr. Rogers. Is what?

    Mr. Lappin. Is the direction we should go. Let me just say, let me give you an example of why I think that. One, stun lethal or lethal fences have been in operation in corrections for twenty, twenty-five years. There was resistance in the Bureau to moving in that direction. But when we looked at our cost savings initiatives, we went and assessed those locations,
looked at the operations that occurred there for fifteen, twenty years, and realized they could provide the same level of security at those locations without manning the towers. Many of the staff in towers that are operated cannot see inmates
because many of the rec yards are internal now. So the staff in
towers cannot see into the rec yards because the buildings are in their way. Unlike the old prisons where the rec yard was more open to the public, or more open to the fence.
    So, you know, we could have a long debate, and I am sure
there will be many discussions. We believe that if the funding
is available it would be wise of us to. Again, technology changes all the time. And this is a technology advancement that we think has merit, that we think we will continue to run safe and secure prisons and not jeopardize the community. And so we are firmly behind the stun lethal fences, whether we have the funding or not because we think it is a more efficient way to operate the prisons.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions that I will defer to a later time.

                       ACTIVATION OF FCI POLLOCK

    Mr. Mollohan. There will be other rounds. For those who may not have voted, there are forty-five seconds on this vote. Mr. Lappin, if, again, we have a $240 million reprogramming
request. If additional funding is provided at the Department's
request level, will the new medium security prison FCI Pollock
in Louisiana be activated in the year 2008?
    Mr. Lappin. We are currently activating Pollock. It will not have inmates in 2008. But we are currently planning on ramping up, slowly, the staffing for Pollock.
    Mr. Mollohan. Okay. So the answer is, even if you do not get this reprogramming, even if you do not get this infusion of $240 million, Pollock will be activated?
    Mr. Lappin. If we do not get the $240 million we will do
the most we can at Pollock to begin the activation. I will not
deny that activation will be slowed significantly if we do not get the $240 million.
    Mr. Mollohan. Okay, I am going to step back then. What is
activation in your definition so that we can operate off the same understanding?
    Mr. Lappin. Once we begin an activation it takes us about six to eight months, depending on some variables, to get to the point where we begin accepting inmates.
    Mr. Mollohan. Okay, and what is the moment of activation?
When you start accepting inmates? Or when you start getting
administrative people in the prison----
    Mr. Lappin. Well we begin to, I guess that is a good point.
When we begin hiring people in my mind is when the activation begins. Opening the prison with inmates is when you begin
taking inmates. So that period between activation and bringing
on inmates is about six months in most cases. If we get into a
community where we are struggling hiring locally, then sometimes it is extended somewhat.
    Mr. Mollohan. Okay, well I am trying to tie this to your request, or the Department's request, for reprogramming of $240 million which you have received. And I am trying to understand, if additional funding is provided at the requested level, will Pollock be activated in fiscal year 2008 or will it be
activated anyway, and what do you mean by that?
    Mr. Lappin. If we get the additional funding, obviously
that activation will go much faster. By the end of fiscal year
2008 my guess is we could be very close to fully staffed.
    Mr. Mollohan. And if you do not get it what----
    Mr. Lappin. Then we can begin to bring inmates in soon
thereafter. If we do not get it, it is going to slow down the staffing.
    Mr. Mollohan. But you will still staff it?
    Mr. Lappin. We will still staff it as high as we can given
the other limitations. Again, obviously if we do not get the
$240 million we are going to be struggling to continue other
operations. It will slow, I am not going to ramp up as fast a prison we are not using----
    Mr. Mollohan. Well, let me ask you this. If you are on the
brink, and I know you are so that is not the debate here, if you are on the brink of operating a safe prison system or not operating a safe prison system, or on the margins of that, if
you activate a new prison which will result in, I do not know,
another thousand, 1,200, 1,500 employees?
    Mr. Lappin. 1,500? I am sorry.
    Mr. Mollohan. I am talking about----
    Mr. Lappin. 1,500 inmates, about 300 employees.
    Mr. Mollohan. 300 employees?
    Mr. Lappin. 300 employees.
    Mr. Mollohan. Okay, so if right now you are on the edge with regard to funding S&E, how can you activate a prison without this infusion and bring on 300 employees more?
    Mr. Lappin. You are correct. I mean, it is a very good point and that is why I say we would slow that activation. We would not hire as many. If we do not get the funding without a doubt it is going to be later in the year, or next fiscal year, before we actually begin to bring on inmates.
    Mr. Mollohan. I feel like I am trying to help you here, but----
    Mr. Lappin. I know you are----
    Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. I feel like I am having a hard time doing it. It is probably my----
    Mr. Lappin. No, you are absolutely correct. We are in a
financial dilemma. We are cautiously moving forward. We are
being very careful in what we spend. We are not aggressively
pushing Pollock given the fact we are in this dilemma. If our
sense is we are going to get the funding then we will certainly
speed that up.
    [Clerk's note.--The Department of Justice was unable to
provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee
within the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record have been retained in the Committee's permanent files.]

                         FUNDING/REPROGRAMMING

    Mr. Mollohan. Okay. I do not think I have to do anymore on
that. I think I understand. I have some information from the
employees, the employee representatives, that if you were not
to receive this additional money, $240 million, $280 million,
$300 million, that you would have to actually cut correctional
staff in 2008. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
    Mr. Lappin. Well, I have two choices there. If we did not get the additional funding, obviously, if we do not get additional funding there is no way we could save that amount of money in operations. So given that, for us to live within the mark that we currently have, we would have to eliminate staff. That is one choice. The other choice is to go deficient.
    Mr. Mollohan. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Lappin. The other choice is to go deficient.
    Mr. Mollohan. Oh, go deficient.
    Mr. Lappin. Deficient.
    Mr. Mollohan. So you are up against it here. The fiscal year 2009 request of $5.436 billion for salaries and expenses
represents an increase of 7.6 percent over the current year.
Given the current year's shortfall, is this request adequate to
meet basic BOP requirements in fiscal year 2009?
    Mr. Lappin. As I expressed earlier, the increase from 2007
to 2008 was about $55 million. So clearly, this is a much larger increase from 2008 to 2009, which is going to serve us extremely well. And hopefully we can get that or close to that
mark. However, it will continue to be a challenge for us. I
think it will serve us well. I think we will be in a better situation, certainly, in a much better situation than we are this year. It will still, I think, require us to act very cautiously, look for efficiencies, prioritize our responsibilities and focus on the highest priorities.
    But yes, I think if we can get that mark we are going to be in a much better situation than we are this year. It may still require some strategies to gain efficiencies, but I think we could get through that----
    Mr. Mollohan. Does the 2009 request take into account the
possibility of this reprogramming request being granted? In
other words, would the reprogramming request, say you were to get $240 million, be annualized in the 2009 request?
    Mr. Lappin. I do not believe that will happen. What I think is---    Mr. Mollohan. No, no, ``will happen.'' The question is----
    Mr. Lappin. It is not built in.
    Mr. Mollohan. Okay, so the answer is no.
    Mr. Lappin. That is correct.
    Mr. Mollohan. So if you were to, if the Justice Department's reprogramming request at $240 million were approved then would we anticipate receiving an amended budget request for 2009 to annualize the approval of that request? Of the 2008 supplemental request?
    Mr. Lappin. On behalf of the base for 2009. Although there
was a $100 million 2008 reduction through the Congress.
    Mr. Mollohan. I am going to forget that big long question I
just asked. Are you answering it?
    Mr. Lappin. I am going to answer it. I just want to make
sure that the base in 2009 is $100 million more than what we
actually got in 2008. Because when the 2009 budget was built
they added back in the $100 million.
    Mr. Mollohan. Okay, what about, all right, you are telling me $100 million----
    Mr. Lappin. That is right.
    Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Would be accounted for in the base, and it would be annualized for 2009 in your 2009 request?
    Mr. Lappin. One hundred million more.
    Mr. Mollohan. Okay, so there would be $140 million that
would not be taken into account and would not be annualized in your 2009 request? Correct?
    Mr. Lappin. Correct.
    Mr. Mollohan. So for that amount would we expect an amended budget request for 2009? If we were to approve the $240 million would there be a request for--well, let me ask it.
    Mr. Lappin. We do not anticipate that, no.
    Mr. Mollohan. You do not anticipate what?
    Mr. Lappin. An amended request for another $140 million.
    Mr. Mollohan. Well then, how are you going to pay for, in 2009, the increased funding, which is basically for S&E----
    Mr. Lappin. Sure.
    Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Which will occur in 2009, how
are you going to pay for it in 2009?
    Mr. Lappin. Well, one we could work within the Department
to identify other funding, possibly. But the other thing is, we
may not see as many inmates. We anticipate some reduction in the number of inmates because of the crack amendment impact, the guideline amendment. Let us take an example currently.
    Mr. Mollohan. But you are so far down on employees right
now if you let every adjusted sentence adjust and release
early, you would still be short of employees, would you not?
    Mr. Lappin. But again, there are other things----
    Mr. Mollohan. What is the answer to that question? And then you can elaborate.
    Mr. Lappin. Would we still be short of----
    Mr. Mollohan. Yes, sir. Of employees?
    Mr. Lappin. Not necessarily.
    Mr. Mollohan. Oh boy, I am really confused.
    Mr. Lappin. Well, it is actually $140 million. In the way
you calculated it----
    Mr. Mollohan. Did I ask the right question here?
    Mr. Lappin. You did ask the right question.
    Mr. Mollohan. Okay, thank you.
    Mr. Lappin. We believe that with the higher number, the
President's number----
    Mr. Mollohan. Right.
    Mr. Lappin [continuing]. And the fact that the base started a little higher than what was actually enacted, okay?
    Mr. Mollohan. Okay. All right.
    Mr. Lappin. You would assume we would be about $140 million short.
    Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
    Mr. Lappin. What we can not gain through, continue to gain
through efficiency in operational areas for some of that $140
million. If not, we will work with the Department to identify what funding we might need beyond that. If it requires a
reprogramming request, we would certainly submit one. But
certainly starting off from this point we do not anticipate that, in hopes that we can gain those efficiencies through some of the strategies that we have. We will work with the Department. And if there is a need, we would ask for more funding. Obviously, we are not shy about that. We forwarded a $240 million reprogramming to you this time. We would make the same assessment once we got into 2009.
    Mr. Mollohan. You may not be shy but I would say the, the
Department is reluctant. Thank you. Boy, I tell you, Mr.
Frelinghuysen, saved by the bell.

                               RECIDIVISM

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Lappin, I just wanted to pick up one
more figure. The number of people who come through your
operation that have been in prison before or have come up through the juvenile system and had some degree of incarceration?
    Mr. Lappin. The number of people?
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. In other words, of the population--
    Mr. Lappin. Not prior records?
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. With prior records, yes.
    Mr. Lappin. I do not know that number off the top of my head. I may be able to find that number for you through our
research department. I can tell you our recidivism rates----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes.
    Mr. Lappin [continuing]. Are about 40 percent in the
federal prison system. So we are releasing 62,000, 63,000
inmates a year, of 50,000 of those returning to the United States we are seeing a return of about 40 percent. Which really, in my opinion, is significant. I mean, we would love to see it lower. We have seen that number come down over the last
few years. If you look at the states, they have about 65 percent recidivism rates. We attribute the difference to the many, many BOP programs that are offered. The inmates are improving their skills in educational and vocational work, and more important are going home better prepared to face reality. But I will work with our research folks----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Right.
    Mr. Lappin [continuing]. To see if we can give you a number, the number of inmates coming into our system with prior records.
    [The information follows:]

                       Inmates With Prior Records

    Of the 77,804 inmates designated during calender year 2007, 54,807 (70%) had a prior record, as indicated by U.S. Sentencing Commission's Criminal History Score.

                       CRACK SENTENCING AMENDMENT

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. You started down this path, the impact
of the crack amendment?
    Mr. Lappin. Yes.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Just briefly, because I want to get into
where you stand relative to the counterterrorism unit and things like that.
    Mr. Lappin. As of, this week, Tuesday, we had processed
1,522 orders to reduce sentences. Of those, 793 were immediate releases. 729 shortened the sentence, but not to an immediate release so those inmates have some time remaining. I do not know exactly how much. Now that we have started the process our sense is that this fiscal year, between now and the end of September, we will probably release about 1,500 to 2,000 more inmates than we would have without the adjustment. We believe next year will probably be around 2,500 to 3,000. So there are 19,500 offenders who are potential candidates for reduction.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well you said that in terms of drug related you gave us a figure of 14,000 earlier.
    Mr. Lappin. No, that was sex offenders.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Oh, excuse me, sex offenders.
    Mr. Lappin. And 52 percent of our offenders are drug offenders.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay.
    Mr. Lappin. But many of those offenders have convictions on things other than crack--powder cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana. So of the 52 percent of the offenders, there are about 19,500 who may fall into the category of being eligible for a sentence reduction. We anticipate, at least the sentencing commission's projections reflect, that about 12,000 of those could be released over the next five years, earlier than they would have been. The other 6,000 or 7,000 are going to be spread out over the course of about fifteen or twenty years. So it is going to slow down significantly over the first five years.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. And they will be monitored after their
departure?
    Mr. Lappin. My assumption is the majority of them have
supervised release. And my guess is we have some statistics of those that do not. But the vast majority of the offenders come into our custody and then have supervised release. So they do not lose that when they release early, it just picks up a
little earlier. They continue to be supervised.

                            COUNTERTERRORISM

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Could we focus for a few minutes?
We provided you with $17 million last year to establish the
counterterrorism unit. Where do we stand? How is the effort
going? I know you have a pending supplemental of, what, $9
million? Is that right? Update us on it.
    Mr. Lappin. I am very pleased with the progress we have
made, not just on the counterterrorism unit but on our
management of terrorist offenders. Last year when we spoke
there were some concerns over the monitoring of mail, phones, and so forth. The ramp up of the counterterrorism unit is going quite well. We are doing a better job of monitoring mail and phones given that mandate. The other thing we have done is we have----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. You may have to direct that to the
Chairman.
    Mr. Lappin. I will do that. We have ramped up communications management units. Now that we know we are going to have these folks long term, a lot of the more serious
offenders, terrorists, were housed at ADX Florence. We found
that some of those, although they needed closer monitoring, did not need the security requirements at Florence. So we are
ramping up two communications management units that are less restrictive but will ensure that all the mail and phone calls
of those offenders are monitored on a daily basis.

    
                       CRACK SENTENCING AMENDMENT

    Mr. Mollohan. The new sentencing, or some decisions
impacting the sentencing guidelines, would impact the length of the sentences for crack cocaine convictions and incarcerations? If that happens, you are going to be releasing drug addicted offenders more quickly, correct? Addicted offenders.
    Mr. Lappin. Yes.
    Mr. Mollohan. Does that suggest that somebody is going to
have to take care of that problem on some percentage basis? I
mean, they are not all going to walk out and stay clean.
    Mr. Lappin. Right.
    Mr. Mollohan. So what should we be anticipating? What
should you be anticipating programmatically, or planning for
programmatically? And what should we be anticipating in the
treatment area? Should we be increasing the treatment intensity? The after care? The halfway house? How should we be doing this, particularly since folks are being released early?
    Mr. Lappin. Well these folks that are being released
immediately, unfortunately some of them will return to the
community without treatment. That is unfortunate.
    Mr. Mollohan. Well, that is really unfortunate.
    Mr. Lappin. Very unfortunate. And given that, I would
certainly be working with, we need to be working with probation, the folks that are supervising those folks. Some of
them will release, unfortunately, without halfway house
opportunity. Now this is a very small percentage of the entire
group. It will only affect those that are releasing right now,
and that we anticipate releasing with in eighteen months.
    Mr. Mollohan. Are you releasing people right now that you
were anticipating releasing in eighteen months?
    Mr. Lappin. That we were anticipating?
    Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
    Mr. Lappin. Absolutely.
    Mr. Mollohan. So this policy is in effect immediately?
    Mr. Lappin. In November the Sentencing Commission made a decision, actually December, to adjust by two levels the crack guidelines, crack sentencing guidelines, and postponed its
implementation until March 3. It asked judges to please wait until March 3, give the prisons and other probation, marshals,
other folks, time to prepare for what could be a wave of early
releases. And so there was kind of a waiting period. But some
of these folks may be in drug treatment now, because they were nearing the end of their sentence. A few of them may not have gotten into drug treatment yet. And their sentence was
shortened to the point that they are releasing with either only
a portion of that treatment completed, or possibly none. But
again, it will only affect those that are releasing right now.
    Mr. Mollohan. Not only, though. I am all for a reconsideration of our sentencing guidelines. But is it mandatory that you release from the prison prisoners who fall into this category even if they have not received drug treatment? Or have----
    Mr. Lappin. We have no choice. The judge reduces their
sentence, we must release them.
    Mr. Mollohan. Can they be released contingent upon their
staying clean after they are released and going through a program that requires testing?
    Mr. Lappin. I assume the court could put conditions on that
release.
    Mr. Mollohan. And when you say ``the court?''
    Mr. Lappin. The court.
    Mr. Mollohan. You are talking about federal courts? The
individual courts? It would be up to the discretion of the
individual judge?
    Mr. Lappin. Correct. Now, again, hopefully after this first
wave, as I mentioned of the 1,500 we have received orders on
729 of them did not release. So what we will do with those,
729, we will immediately look at their new release date. And if
they are recommended for drug treatment and they are
volunteering for drug treatment, we are going to put them at
the top of the list, and we will immediately put them in drug
treatment.
    Mr. Mollohan. Doing these things individually like that, is
not the way to do it. We ought to be looking at what are the
consequences of this action, however well intentioned. And I am totally in favor of more sympathetic treatment to people who are in jail because of drug use offenses. But it needs to be looked at in the context of the different situations we are putting people in and the likelihood of their being successful
or failing in those situations.
    Mr. Lappin. Well, without a doubt, it was a negative
consequence of the decision. Because some of these folks will leave----
    Mr. Mollohan. Well, they will be right back in.
    Mr. Lappin [continuing]. Without completion of treatment.
And just let me say, I mean, we are struggling a little bit in
the drug treatment area. We unfortunately----

                         DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM

    Mr. Mollohan. Well, I want to get that. What about the needs, additional resource needs, to intensity the treatment for those who are still going to be in long enough to experience treatment? Do we need to think about the supplemental, increasing your funding in that area? 2008-2009?
    Mr. Lappin. Let me get the number for you here. This was
the first year since the requirement was imposed, that we treat
100 percent of the inmates who require drug treatment, and
volunteer for drug treatment, that we were unable to treat all
of the offenders. We treated probably 18,000 offenders this
past year. We needed to treat 22,000. So we----
    Mr. Mollohan. And that is because of lack of resources?
    Mr. Lappin. We did not have enough drug treatment
specialists to increase the number of classes to accommodate
that.
    Mr. Mollohan. Okay, is that a problem you face, you are
describing a 2008 problem?
    Mr. Lappin. We still have that problem.
    Mr. Mollohan. Were you describing 2007? Just when you said that was the first year? Okay. What about 2008? What is your circumstance in 2008?
    Mr. Lappin. We still have a 7,000 inmate backlog for drug
treatment.
    Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Does the Department of Justice request
for the $240 million reprogramming include funds for adequate
drug treatment of all the inmates that require it?
    Mr. Lappin. I have to go back and check exactly what was
included in that $240 million?
    Mr. Mollohan. So you are not sure you can answer that
question?
    Mr. Lappin. I will answer that. What we have done is,
getting back to what we need----
    Mr. Mollohan. Would you get back to the Committee for the
record?
    Mr. Lappin. I will do that.
    [Clerk's note.--The Department of Justice was unable to
provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee
within the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record have been retained in the Committee's permanent files.]
    Mr. Mollohan. Soon? Before we do our supplemental? And
before we address your reprogramming request?
    Mr. Lappin. I will do that.
    Mr. Mollohan. I really want to know the answer to this.
Your testimony indicates that 40 percent of inmates entering
the BOP system have a drug use disorder and require residential drug abuse treatment. Do you agree with that?
    Mr. Lappin. That is pretty close.
    Mr. Mollohan. In fiscal year 2008, BOP was only able to
provide treatment to 80 percent of eligible inmates instead of
the 100 percent requirement established by the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Do you agree with
that? Treated 80 percent instead of 100 percent that were
mandated under the authorization?
    Mr. Lappin. That is probably pretty close.
    Mr. Mollohan. How much additional funding is needed to be
in compliance with this law?
    Mr. Lappin. We need about another eighty positions. And
about $10 million in funding to work off the backlog and treat
100 percent. The eighty positions are included in the $10 million.
    Mr. Mollohan. Now have you followed these individuals in a
way that would allow you to tell us what percentage of the
participants succeed in remaining drug free after treatment and
after release?
    Mr. Lappin. Yes.
    Mr. Mollohan. Well, what is----
    Mr. Lappin. Well, as I indicated our recidivism rate is
about 40 percent. We have recidivism research on all of our
programs. Our drug treatment, vocational training----
    Mr. Mollohan. Well, that was not exactly my question.
    Mr. Lappin. And we see a reduction of about 16 percent,
from our 40 percent----
    Mr. Mollohan. My question was how many remaining drug free?
Do you have a kind of follow up program----
    Mr. Lappin. Yes.
    Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. That would allow you to say how
many remain drug free?
    Mr. Lappin. Well, I do not know the exact number. I can
tell you what percent, which the percent coming back is probably about 30 percent of those folks coming back versus 40 percent without treatment.

                          INMATE MEDICAL CARE

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. One of your biggest cost drivers in your
S & E account is inmate medical care. We sort of touched on it.
I think the last couple of years you have needed reprogramming to cover those costs. And you have a large increase for fiscal year 2009. Now what is the total amount budgeted in the package before us today for medical care?
    Mr. Lappin. Medical care?
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes.
    Mr. Lappin. We spent about $730 million last year. I think
we got close to $800 million in requirements this fiscal year.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Why the increase?
    Mr. Lappin. The rising cost of healthcare----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Right.
    Mr. Lappin [continuing]. And aging. You know, although the
average age remains about the same, we have a lot more older inmates. It is also because we tend to get a lot more younger
inmates. So the average age stays about the same, but we have more older inmates, more care issues, more needs, and
healthcare costs continue to increase.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I cannot imagine a more difficult
environment to provide inmate medical care. How much of it is
provided in the institution and how much of it is related to being placed in other settings? I obviously assume these people are armed or not necessarily. They may be dangerous, but they obviously have to be guarded to protect other patients.
    Mr. Lappin. Our goal is to perform as much of that care as
we can in our institutions. But without a doubt, we cannot
provide the full range of services. We have a break down of
inside and outside healthcare. We will get that to you for the
record. I do not have the exact number. But our goal is to
provide as many of those services in our institutions. We have
done a number of things to be more efficient. For example----
    [Clerk's note.--The Department of Justice was unable to
provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee
within the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record have been retained in the Committee's permanent files.]
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. And those who provide it are MDs?
    Mr. Lappin. Oh, absolutely.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes.
    Mr. Lappin. Our healthcare structure, includes medical
doctors, PAs and nurses, with their support staff. But it is
really a combination service. We provide the base level
staffing to perform the basic functions necessary in medical.
We oftentimes have contracted at each location with hospitals
surrounding the facility to assist us with needs that we cannot
provide there. What we have done is we realized, we finally
realized, that we could not provide the same level of healthcare at all 114 prisons, given the fact that some were in very rural locations. Some were in locations where we really could not get very good deals at the local hospitals. So we basically went to structured care level facilities. So we haveinstitutions now that have very healthy inmates. We have institutions that have less healthy, we have institutions with more ill inmates, and we have those that need hospitalization. So there was a couple things there. One, we could not get good contracts at local hospitals. Two, we could not hire the people we needed. We were in rural area. It was difficult to get the professional staff. And so we tried to put more healthy inmates there so you have less of a need.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. So the bottom line is you are doing your
utmost to control the cost?
    Mr. Lappin. I would be happy to provide for the record the
strategies we deployed over the last three or four years to
control costs. But even with that, our costs continue to increase.
    [Clerk's note.--The Department of Justice was unable to
provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee
within the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record have been retained in the Committee's permanent files.]

                            CROWDING ISSUES

    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Getting back to the issue of
overcrowding, I understand you recently completed a study tying increases in crowding and inmate to staff ratios to increase in serious assaults. Can you tell us a little bit about, share the results of that study?
    Mr. Lappin. We did do an evaluation of the impact on
crowding and staffing on violent incidents. And let me give you
an example. Let me explain a serious assault. A serious assault, is oftentimes when somebody has to go to the hospital.
They need medical care. They could die, or they are very
seriously injured. So you have got varying levels of assaults
in the institutions. You have serious assaults, and you have
less serious assaults. So the study was relevant to serious
assaults.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. There are assaults, prisoner to prisoner
and there are assaults prisoner to the prison staff. Make the
distinction, if you could, in your response.
    Mr. Lappin. Currently, we do it by rate per 5,000. Without
a doubt, if you look at the actual numbers from year to year to
year, the numbers are increasing but primarily driven by the
fact that you have more inmates. So you would expect the number to go up. But if you look at it by rate, right now our rate of serious assaults on staff is 1.8 per 5,000 inmates. And on
inmates, inmate on inmate serious assaults, is 10 assaults per
5,000 inmates. What that study reveals, is if you increase
crowding by 1 percent, you should expect, I think, 4 or 4.09
more assaults per 5,000 than if it remained at the original
level. If you increase the ratio of inmates to staff by one inmate, you are going to see an increase of assaults by about
4.5 per 5,000. If you lowered the ratio we would assume that
there would be some lowering of that. So we know that crowding and level of staffing has an impact on the number of serious assaults. Obviously that's why we are monitoring very closely that ratio, of inmates to staff as well as crowding.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. So are there certain institutions that
have historically had the most serious assaults between inmates and prison staff? Are there some that are up there
historically?
    Mr. Lappin. We monitor that very closely. You are right. It
kind of goes in waves. It fluctuates. But there are a couple of
locations where we have had more serious incidents than others. Let me give you an example. I just recently responded to the Chairman, specifically on homicides and assaults at certain penitentiaries. In that response, excuse me----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am glad you have quite a lot of water
provided.
    Mr. Lappin. But you know what? If I run out of water----
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. All that water, it looks like it is from
the spring but it is actually from the Anacostia.
    Mr. Lappin. But if we run out of water and I am done, just
give me a second, I will be done here in a second.
    Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay.
    Mr. Lappin. One particular institution was USP Beaumont.
And without a doubt we have got concerns at that particular
institution. And it has gone on several years. The staff there
have done a wonderful job in very challenging circumstances. I give them enormous credit. On the other hand, I am concerned
about their reaction to some of the training that is provided, some of the direction. And this goes to all of the staff. I am not talking about just management, I am talking about all of the staff. So given that, we are going to make an adjustment there, temporarily. We are going to bring down the security level. We are going to give them a break, and we are going to bring down the level of high security inmates there. We are going to reduce the number of inmates then we are going to do some training. We are going to ensure that the folks are properly trained, ready to go, and then we will begin to transition back.
    So certainly when we see those incidents, let me give you
the whole story. His other question was these newer
institutions, you are seeing some serious assaults there. And
we are. And that, I guess, certainly is the challenge of
opening a high security institution with your most risky
inmates and lots of less experienced people. So we have gone
into those locations and done additional training. We are very
pleased with the reaction of those staff. We are confident that
level of incidents will come down and be more consistent with
other penitentiaries. But without a doubt, when we see this
increase occurring over time, we try to intervene and do what
we can to reduce those levels of incidents and concerns. That
is a great question.

                     PROGRAMS TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM

    Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, we have
talked about inmate substance abuse treatment. And I would like for the staff to be able to follow up with you and your staff,
Mr. Director, about that so that we know exactly what the
situation is and what appropriation demands would be to make it better. Offender recidivism, as we talked about, is at a 40
percent rate. Other than drug treatment, what programs does the Bureau of Prisons offer, which you think have an impact in
reducing, recidivism and what more should we be doing in those or other areas?
    Mr. Lappin. Yes. Without a doubt, Prison Industries is one
of these programs. Of the inmates who participate in Prison
Industries, we see fewer of them coming back than the run of
the mill inmate. Also inmates who get a GED, and inmates who get vocational training. And to be quite honest with you, even
though we do not yet have the results of other specialty programs that improve social values, improve decision making, we anticipate that we are going to see similar results in those
programs as well. So too other psychology programs, we have
some other specialty programs, and we have faith-based
programs. The bottom line is, those inmates are volunteering
for those programs. That is the first step towards improving
their skills and abilities. They are acknowledging, ``Hey I
have issues. I need to deal with those issues.''
    Mr. Mollohan. Yes, I get the feeling we have a very progressive management in the Bureau of Prisons. For all of
these programs, we do not have enough resources to implement the programs that we need and certainly to run them at a scale that makes them available to all eligible, willing prisoners.
    Mr. Lappin. We monitor our waiting lists in all these
areas. We are managing the GED waiting list very well. We are
managing the vocational training waiting list well. Obviously
we have already talked about drug treatment and the backlog we have there. It is unfortunate that there are thousands and
thousands of inmates who release from prison never participating in Prison Industries where they learn, work skills, that is a trade. They learn what it means to get up on time and be at a certain assignment and be held accountable for the work that you do. Work skills that many of them lack when they come to prison.
    Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Lappin, I would like you to submit for the record references which discuss this matter. Academic references, case study references, which talk about all of these, I call them remedial programs, and to the extent they are available what impact they have on recidivism.
    Mr. Lappin. We will do that.
    [Clerk's note.--The Department of Justice was unable to
provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee
within the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record have been retained in the Committee's permanent files.]
    Mr. Mollohan. And also the quality of life of incarcerated
people. And then I would like to follow up, perhaps at a hearing, or otherwise, and understand those issues. So I have a lot of questions in those areas. Some of them we will submit
for the record. But I do want to mention, or give you an opportunity to talk about the importance of the Prison Industries Program. I understand that is particularly effective
at providing skills for inmates when they are released and
works to reduce recidivism. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Lappin. That is accurate. This was reflected by the research we have done on inmates who participate in a Prison
Industries Program for as little as six months.
    Mr. Mollohan. How many inmates in the federal prison system ever participate in a Prison Industries Program?
    Mr. Lappin. Today there are 23,000 inmates working in
Prison Industries.
    Mr. Mollohan. What is the percentage of your population?
    Mr. Lappin. 18 percent of the eligible inmates who could be
in Prison Industries.
    Mr. Mollohan. 18 percent of the eligible inmates?
    Mr. Lappin. 18 percent of the eligible inmates.
    Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
    Mr. Lappin. Our goal is 25 percent.
    Mr. Mollohan. Why? Does that reach all of them?
    Mr. Lappin. It does not.
    Mr. Mollohan. Well why is that your goal? Why is your goal
not to reach 100 percent of those who are eligible?
    Mr. Lappin. I am confident if we ever reach that goal, we will set a new goal. But it has been the goal for many years.
Our proposal would be that all eligible inmates----
    Mr. Mollohan. And that is a factor, really, of resources,
that also the push back you get from the private sector with
regard to Prison Industries, is that correct?
    Mr. Lappin. And some legislation that has been passed that
has limited our ability to continue to grow and provide additional work opportunities in Prison Industries.
    Mr. Mollohan. Yes, I think that is very shortsighted because the cost to society is real and the savings to society would be, I think, equally or more real if we did engage inmates in more skill----
    Mr. Lappin. I mean, we recognize the concern. The concern
is we are taking jobs away from law abiding citizens and
businesses. We do not want to do that.
    Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
    Mr. Lappin. We are more than happy to explore work
opportunities that have less, if any, impact on businesses in
the United States. Let me give a quick example, call centers. Most of that work has been done in other countries. We have
brought some of that work back and inmates are now answering 411 calls for information, all public information. It is a wonderful area. They work in shift work. In advance of going
into that program they receive education where we help them
eliminate slang from their language----
    Mr. Mollohan. Yes, I do not want to go into too much of
that but you have certainly affirmed the usefulness of the
program and I would like to follow up for the record, and to
follow up otherwise.
    [Clerk's note.--The Department of Justice was unable to
provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee
within the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record have been retained in the Committee's permanent files.]

                            HEALTHCARE COSTS

    Quickly on healthcare costs, because we have not included,
and Mr. Ruppersberger has not had a chance to question and Mr. Rogers wants an additional chance. But I do want to talk about healthcare cost increases. The budget includes large increases for healthcare, $40 million just for healthcare inflation and a requested increase for population adjustment. 32 percent is for medical care and supplies, I understand. What is the total amount budgeted for prison healthcare in 2009?
    Mr. Lappin. I think it is $770 million.
    Mr. Mollohan. What has been the annual cost growth for
medical services?
    Mr. Lappin. I think at about 9 percent. I think that is,
other than personnel, it is about a 9 percent increase from
year to year, over the last couple of years.
    Mr. Mollohan. I understand that we are not adequately
providing healthcare to all inmates in the prison system. Or that is my belief. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Lappin. I do not agree.
    Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
    Mr. Lappin. I believe we are providing adequate healthcare.
    Mr. Mollohan. What about all these drug offenders?
Hepatitis, are they all being treated adequately for any drug
related diseases such as hepatitis?
    Mr. Lappin. We very closely track infectious diseases. We
know exactly how many HIV offenders there are, that we are
aware of, and under risk assessment we test hepatitis, chronic
hepatitis B, chronic hepatitis C. We know exactly how many
offenders----
    Mr. Mollohan. Okay, would you submit a detailed answer for
the record? Mr. Ruppersberger?
    [Clerk's note.--The Department of Justice was unable to provide answers to the questions submitted by the Committee
within the timetable established by the Committee. Submissions provided to the Committee subsequent to the printing of this official record have been retained in the Committee's permanent files.]

                       GANGS AND COUNTERTERRORISM

    Mr. Ruppersberger. Just a couple questions. On the issue of
gangs and counterterrorism in prison, I just, I am from the
Baltimore area, and ATF working with local law enforcement just had a bust of a Blood gang member and it has turned out, I believe, the key, the head of the operation was running the
whole gang operation out of a state prison in Western Maryland.

 Also the issue of terrorism. And those are two subject matters that are different. You have gangs on the one area, Crip/Blood
and whatever else you have, and then the terrorism issue. Are
you working with the other federal agencies, both intelligence
and FBI, ATF, DEA to deal with that? What are you doing and how are you dealing with it? It is my understanding you are dealing with it a lot better than state prisons.
    Mr. Lappin. We all have our challenges. But I have to say I
thank our staff locally. This is the key, you need support from
the top. And we have great support from FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshals, in effective communication back and forth on
offenders who are coming into our custody or leaving our
custody, who have associations with disruptive groups or
security threat groups, which is the generic term for all the
gangs. We operate in conjunction with the Marshals, the FBI,
the Sacramento Gang Intelligence Unit in Sacramento,
California, which is kind of the clearing house.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. And the Marshals are the----
    Mr. Lappin. The Marshals, the FBI, they are part of that
organization.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Kind of like a strike force?
    Mr. Lappin. It is, and in fact it is housed in the same
building as the California gang intelligence unit. And they
work collaboratively on identifying people who are coming into our system, and leaving our system. So we know who is coming as best we can, and they know who is leaving as best they can. I think over the last three or four years the communication has been enhanced significantly. A greater flow of information, great work locally and nationally on that type of issue.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Do you coordinate with the JTTF in that
regard too?
    Mr. Lappin. We have permanent members. We have two
permanent seats on the National Joint Terrorism Task Force.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay, good.
    Mr. Lappin. And our staff are actually the liaisons for all
corrections, federal, state, and local. More applicable to
terrorists, but certainly getting involved in some of the gang
issues. Locally where we have prisons, many of our wardens or representative of the warden are on the local JTTFs so that
they are involved locally as well.
    Let me just transition a little bit. Let me back up.
Without a doubt, as I said earlier, the management of the gangs continues to be a challenge. More of them, more younger
offenders, more violent, more gang associations, so it is troublesome for us. And we are currently stepping back,
reevaluating how we are managing those gangs, and the gathering of information. We record all the phone calls, we monitor as many as we can. We read mail, especially on high profile inmates. Our classification system takes into account gang participation. So certainly those at the higher levels end up in more structured, and more controlled environments.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Let me stop you right there. If you have
identified a gang leader. Do you have a policy on cell phones
in federal prisons?
    Mr. Lappin. Yes.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. What is that?
    Mr. Lappin. None.

                     CONTRABAND AND STAFF SEARCHES

    Mr. Ruppersberger. None, okay. So the other issue. It seems where we are having problems are corruption with respect to the prison guards. And again, this is more state than federal, so I am focusing more on my knowledge of the state prison. Do you have an issue there? And if you do, what protocols do you use to identify that?
    Mr. Lappin. It is as much a challenge for us as it is locally. That is, the introduction of contraband, some of which comes in through other inmates or families, some comes in through staff who have decided to break the law, unfortunately.
We have recently implemented, I guess it was until January we did not search our staff coming to and from work. We now search all our staff entering work.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. So that is a protocol?
    Mr. Lappin. Obviously we will be doing a better job of stopping the introduction of metal, cell phones, those types of
issues. It is still going to be a challenge. We are working closely with a number of organizations to identify equipment to help us detect phones in prisons. So it is a big challenge for us. And the smaller the phones get and the less metal that is in them it is going to be more of a challenge.

                               TERRORISTS

    Let me transition real quickly to terrorists. We have got
about 211 international terrorists. If you throw in the domestic terrorists the number goes up to a little over 1,200. As I mentioned earlier to one of the other questions I think--
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Where are these terrorists from, by the
way? What countries?
    Mr. Lappin. You know, primarily the Middle East.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.
    Mr. Lappin. But there are some international terrorists
from other countries. I could get you, I could get a break down
very easily and submit it to the record. I think today we are
doing a much better job than we were doing a year ago and the year before that. We know more, we have increased resources. We are monitoring 100 percent of the phones and mail for those inmates, it is required for those that we have concerns about. We have in place contracts with companies or to assist us with interpreting. We struggle trying to find resources to bring into the system, to hire people. So we now have contracts in place to complete the interpretations that are required. We have a system to classify those individuals, so that we have them at appropriate security levels and locations to monitor and oversee their incarceration, and what contacts they have both in and outside of prison.
    [The information follows:]

                Citizenship of International Terrorists

    International Terrorists Incarcerated in BOP institutions are
citizens of following countries:
    Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Belize, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Gaza Strip*, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Trinidad, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Yemen, and Yugoslavia (Serbia).

*Not a country.

    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back briefly to the
staff versus prisoner ratio. Have you noticed any change in the number of incidents of violence or disorder as your staff ratio
has increased?
    Mr. Lappin. If you look at the rate of serious incidents over time, you will see peaks and valleys. But the trend has been a slight increase in the rate of serious assaults. So we have not seen a significant increase. There has been more of an increase at higher security institutions, a concern of ours. I
think what concerns me more is the increase in the severity of
those incidents. We are seeing more serious assaults. When we have serious assaults they are more serious, I think, now than in the past. We have had a rash of homicides. We have had, as of today, nine homicides this fiscal year. We had twelve last year in 2007. We had four in 2006, and we had twelve in 2005. Let me give you the three prior years, for 2004, 2003, and
2002. We had four, three, and three. So we have seen an
increase in the severity of the serious assaults. We have also
seen a severity of those assaults that occur on staff, a huge
concern of ours.
    So, again, the number is a little deceiving. When you look
at the rate, you do not see a huge increase. You would assume there would be given more inmates, and fewer staff. On the other hand we are very concerned about the severity of the
assaults that are occurring. And we are trying to address those issues by identifying those offenders who behave in that manner and getting them into higher security institutions for greater control and custody.

                        NON-U.S. CITIZEN INMATES

    Mr. Rogers. Deportable aliens.
    Mr. Lappin. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. How do you handle that?
    Mr. Lappin. Of the 201,000 inmates, almost 52,000 are non-
U.S. citizens. 22,000 of those are incarcerated in private
contract facilities. We determined some years ago that would be an appropriate use of private contract facilities. So 22,000,
of the low security offenders, low security criminal aliens are
the only offenders that are there, primarily. There is a small group of D.C. offenders in one facility, about 600 to 700. So the vast majority of the offenders in private corrections are low security, criminal aliens. The rest of them, the balance, are housed in our low facilities. What we cannot get into our private contract low facilities are in our low facilities. The
majority of what remains are in mediums and highs because of violence or escape history, or disruptive behavior.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, I want to know about deportable.
    Mr. Lappin. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. Those that can be deported.
    Mr. Lappin. They are, and obviously they first stay at locations around the Bureau. We have a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement where they actually have staff on site. And we try to concentrate the individuals who are being considered for deportation, who are coming up on the end of their sentence, we try to concentrate them at those locations around the Bureau. There are institution hearing programs officers from the BICE agency who review and determine whether or not that person is going to be deported. We also work with them and have a facility in Oakdale, Louisiana where many of these offenders are ultimately transferred. If there is a decision to be deported, many of them end up in Oakdale, Louisiana where we then, again, work with the immigration staff to have them deported to their country of residence. There are some folks who we are unable to deport because the country of residence will not accept them. And some of them remain in our custody. Oftentimes BICE takes them back into their custody to house them as detainees. But a small portion of them remain in our custody as long term detainees. We are working closely with BICE for a reimbursable agreement on those few that remain in our custody. Oftentimes the ones that stay with us have health issues or at a higher security level than what they want to put in some of their detention facilities.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, I am trying to figure out a place to help you reduce the population. So aliens, noncitizens who are serving time in a federal prison, you do not have the authority to deport them short of them serving their time here?
    Mr. Lappin. No, I do not.
    Mr. Rogers. Should you and would you like to?
    Mr. Lappin. Well, I think that is an issue for the
Department of Justice.
    Mr. Rogers. You have a feeling about it, surely.
    Mr. Lappin. Well, again, I am open to any strategy to help us maintain safe, secure prisons. I certainly have no problem
assisting or working with the Department to determine if this is a viable option, and with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
    Mr. Rogers. Now one-third of your prisons are over fifty
years old?
    Mr. Lappin. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. And require very significant upgrades and
maintenance because of that, obviously. But in your testimony you also indicate that the prisons constructed since the seventies reflect a modernized architectural design to support
the principle of direct supervision of inmates. In other words,
increased efficiency.
    Mr. Lappin. Increased visibility.
    Mr. Rogers. But requiring fewer personnel per prisoner.
    Mr. Lappin. If you compare institutions designed prior to that, you are going to see the need for more staff per inmate than in the newer facilities.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, the President's Budget Request includes
only $95 million for construction, which includes maintenance
of these older prisons especially, which is some indication that your facilities budget is going to become even more acklogged. Repair projects deferred, projects already in construction delayed, not to mention new construction. Is that not counterproductive? If a new prison is going to save you a
lot of manpower, they are more efficient. They were designed
that way, right? So does it not make sense to phase out some of the really old ones that are not efficient and need a lot of
repair in favor of a newer facility?
    Mr. Lappin. I cannot argue that point. Clearly there are
some of our older facilities that are very expensive to continue to operate. But our dilemma has been that we have never had the opportunity to close them because we have too many inmates.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes.
    Mr. Lappin. We could not take them offline.
    Mr. Rogers. Have you ever closed one?
    Mr. Lappin. Yes, we have. In fact, we just closed four institutions a year ago. Four older, very small, inefficient,
minimum security camps. But over the course of seventy-seven years we have closed a number of prisons. Alcatraz, McNeil, well, we did not close McNeil we gave it to the State. There are a number of different institutions. We have a list of
institutions that have been closed over the years.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes.
    Mr. Lappin. But certainly an area of concern. There are two
aspects of the B and F budget. Certainly new construction is
one issue. M and R is the other issue.
    Mr. Rogers. Let me briefly follow up.
    Mr. Lappin. And we certainly have to prioritize very cautiously funding for modernization and repair because of the number of older prisons and the cost of reconstruction and
modernization. So it is an area we really have to prioritize well. Without a doubt we are concerned about the funding level
in that area.

                              TELE-HEALTH

    Mr. Rogers. Let me follow up briefly on the Chairman's
questioning about medicine, healthcare. I remember from years ago we were talking about telehealth and telemedicine in the prisons. That has probably been fifteen years or so. I do not think we have moved very far along in that time, have we?
    Mr. Lappin. Well, we have some. Not as far as we would like
to have moved. We do quite a bit of telepsychiatry. We are doing some telehealth in certain locations where we have a
contract with a community hospital or an organization that can
assist us with that. But without a doubt, we are not where we
would like to be. I think that has been limited some by our
funding challenge. I mean, without a doubt some of the things
that we would like to do have been slowed, given the funding
challenges that we have had over the last three or four years.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, it just makes all the sense in the world
to me to try to utilize telemedicine in the prisons, saving
manpower and expenses and malingering prisoners who use this as an excuse to take a ride out in the country one day a week.
    Mr. Lappin. Let me mention something we see evolving
though. I mean, you are right, fifteen, twenty years ago we saw a greater need. But what has occurred over the last ten, fifteen years or more, is community hospitals who are willing to come to the facility to provide service. That has had a huge impact because in the past typically we took the inmates to the hospital. But we have now arranged services through contracts for them. Let us take FMC Butner in Raleigh, North Carolina. We have several contracts locally where on a given day somebody shows up to do certain types of services for inmates. And we will have all the inmates prepared. Contractors spend an entire day so it is efficient for them. Given that we have seen more of a transition to that type of provision of services, not to say that telehealth is not an option, but we certainly see a bit of a transition ongoing via the priorities and the available manner to provide services.
    Mr. Rogers. You could stop a lot of prisoners saying, ``I
am sick. I want to go to the doctor or the hospital just to get
a free ride into town or day out of the cell.'' I am sure if you said to that same person, ``Okay, come to this next cell and we will hook you up with a doctor across town or across the countryside here,'' I would say you would have fewer prisoners saying they were sick, one. Two, you do not have to have your staff accompany that prisoner all day long out there, wasting time, so it makes every bit of sense in the world to try to save some money. Now the FCC has just awarded over $417 million for the construction of sixty-nine statewide or regional broadband telehealth networks in forty-two states and three U.S. territories. It seems like a grand time for you to make your big move.
    Mr. Lappin. I would love to have that information. We would
welcome an opportunity to chat with them.
    Mr. Rogers. With whom?
    Mr. Lappin. Make connections with the people. I was unaware of this. And if there is funding for the advancement of
telehealth we will certainly look into it and see how it can be
utilized.
    Mr. Rogers. Well I would challenge you to do that. No one is going to come and lay it on your table. You are going to have to go after it.
    Mr. Lappin. Absolutely.
    Mr. Rogers. There has been awarded a big sum of money for the FCC to expand the telehealth network, which could save you tons and tons of staff and money.

                    REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENT WITH BICE

    Mr. Lappin. You know, you mentioned a few minutes ago about the long term detainees. I can tell you for sure the ones that we keep in our custody typically are individuals who have huge medical issues, because BICE may not have the locations available, or the resources to provide it. So what we need from them, as an example, is a reimbursable agreement with BICE to pay for the cost of those individuals. But we will certainly look into, this opportunity to see if we can enhance our----
    Mr. Rogers. If you could get back to us with some report on
how you are proceeding, I would appreciate that.
    Mr. Lappin. I will do that.
    [The information follows:]

                <GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
   
    Mr. Rogers. And I would be happy to try to help the gentleman and I am sure all of us would. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
    Mr. Lappin. And with the BICE issue.
    Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
    Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Aderholt, we are about ready to move onto our next witness. We have three hearings. Do you have any?
    Mr. Aderholt. No, you all can move on and I will get ready
for the next witness.
    Mr. Mollohan. I know the Director will welcome any
questions for the record from any of us.
    Mr. Aderholt. I have some for the record. I know you would
love to stay longer, but----
    Mr. Lappin. I am running out of water.
    Mr. Mollohan. Director Lappin, again, thank you for appearing before us particularly under these circumstances. And we look forward to working with you and your fine staff. We appreciate the great job they do and we look forward to working with you as we mark up this bill and 2008 supplementals reprogrammings and try to get the Bureau of Prisons the resources they need to do their job. Thank you for appearing here today.
    Mr. Lappin. I appreciate your listening and assisting us.
We look forward to working with you.

Bank of America

Branch #1803

Terry Rivera (Mother)

Account # 18032-67082

(You can donate at ANY Bank of America Branch

just give account #)

 

 

 

 

 

by James Parks, Feb. 3, 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

***ATTENTION***

 

This site is dedicated to all of the hard working men and women who put themselves in jeopardy everyday that they go to work and deal with our Nations most hardened criminals.