[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






                                 ______


 
                     FEDERAL CORRECTIONS IN FOCUS:
                   OVERSIGHT OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS

=======================================================================

                             JOINT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

       SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE

                             JOINT WITH THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                          TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2025

                               __________

                           Serial No. 119-18

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
               
                          ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 60-301            WASHINGTON : 2025
            
               
               
               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking 
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  ERIC SWALWELL, California
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  TED LIEU, California
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 J. LUIS CORREA, California
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KEVIN KILEY, California              JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
BRANDON GILL, Texas
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
                                 ------                                

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL
                        GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE

                       ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair

TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin               LUCY McBATH, Georgia, Ranking 
TROY NEHLS, Texas                        Member
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
KEVIN KILEY, California              DAN GOLDMAN, New York
LAUREL LEE, Florida                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           ERIC SWALWELL, California
                                 ------                                

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

                 JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey, Chair

BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas, Ranking 
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri           Member
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas                JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
BRANDON GILL, Texas                  HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
                                         Georgia

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
                  JULIE TAGEN, Minority Staff Director
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                          Tuesday, May 6, 2025

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
The Honorable Jefferson Van Drew, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
  Oversight from the State of New Jersey.........................     1
The Honorable Jasmine Crockett, Ranking Member of the 
  Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of Texas..............     4
The Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime and 
  Federal Government Surveillance from the State of Arizona......     5
The Honorable Lucy McBath, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
  Crime and Federal Government Surveillance from the State of 
  Georgia........................................................     6
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of Maryland.......................     9

                               WITNESSES

Andy Potter, Founder, Executive Director, One Voice United
  Oral Testimony.................................................    11
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    13
Patrick D. Purtill, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, 
  Unify.US; Charels Evans Hughes Lecturer, Co-Director, 
  Washington Study Group, Colgate University
  Oral Testimony.................................................   168
  Prepared Testimony.............................................   170
Cody Wilde, Senior Vice President, Correctional Programs, Prison 
  Fellowship
  Oral Testimony.................................................   176
  Prepared Testimony.............................................   178
Kandia Milton, Government Affairs Director, Dream.Org
  Oral Testimony.................................................   182
  Prepared Testimony.............................................   184

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal 
  Government Surveillance and the Subcommittee on Oversight, for 
  the record.....................................................   219

A letter to the Hon. William Marshall, III, Director, Federal 
  Bureau of Prisons, May 5, 2025, from The Sentencing Project and 
  other advocacy groups, submitted by the Honorable Lucy McBath, 
  Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal 
  Government Surveillance from the State of Georgia, for the 
  record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member 
  of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, 
  for the record
    An article entitled, ``BOP slashes retention bonuses, 
        impacting thousands of correctional officers,'' Feb. 27, 
        2025, Corrections 1
    An article entitled, ``Days ahead of coming BOP pay cuts, 
        some employees already resigning,'' Mar. 14, 2025, 
        Federal News Network
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jasmine Crockett, Ranking 
  Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of 
  Texas, for the record
    An article entitled, ``Under Trump, U.S. Prisons Offered 
        Gender-Affirming Care,'' Oct. 16, 2024, The New York 
        Times
    A report entitled, ``Noncitizens in the U.S.: Public 
        Information on Federal Incarcerations,'' Sept. 3, 2024, 
        GAO
    An article entitled, ``What happens with US citizen children 
        caught up in Trump's deportation push,'' May 3, 2025, CNN
    An article entitled, ``Newborn U.S. citizen and Guatemalan 
        mom detained as she faces deportation,'' May 4, 2025, NBC 
        News
    An article entitled, ``Judge says 2-year-old US citizen 
        appears to have been deported with `no meaningful 
        process,' '' Apr. 26, 2025, Politico
    An article entitled, ``Video shows masked ICE agents 
        detaining 2 outside Douglas County courthouse,'' Apr. 21, 
        2025, 9 News
    An article entitled, ``ICE Agents in Ski Masks Snatch 
        Migrants Out of Lawyer's Car,'' Feb. 28, 2025, Newsweek
    An article entitled, ``Survey: Transgender inmates more 
        likely to be victims of sexual assault,'' Jul. 31, 2015, 
        CBS News
    An article entitled, ``Prison Fellowship Applauds 
        Congressional Funding of Prison Rape Elimination Act,'' 
        Mar 28, 2018, Prison Fellowship
Materials submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the 
  Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of Arizona, for the 
  record
    An article entitled, ``US federal women's prison plagued by 
        rampant staff sexual abuse to close,'' Apr. 15, 2024, The 
        Guardian
    A statement from Colette S. Peters, Director, Federal Bureau 
        of Prisons, The Department of Justice. Jul. 23, 2024
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jared Moskowitz, a Member of 
  the Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of Florida, for 
  the record
    An article entitled, ``DOGE making cuts to Federal workforce: 
        FCI Thomson union expresses frustration,'' Feb. 25, 2025, 
        WQAD
    An article entitled, ``Thomson Prison on lockdown since 
        Sunday,'' Mar. 11, 2025, KWQC
    An article entitled, ``15 FCI Thomson corrections officers 
        hospitalized after suspected drug exposure in mailroom,'' 
        Apr. 17, 2025, Corrections 1

                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

Questions to Kandia Milton, Government Affairs Director, 
  Dream.Org, submitted by the Honorable Derek Schmidt, a Member 
  of the Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of Kansas, and 
  the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, for the record

Questions submitted by the Honorable Derek Schmidt, a Member of 
  the Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of Kansas, for the 
  record
  Questions to Andy Potter, Founder, Executive Director, One 
      Voice United
    Responses from Andy Potter, Founder, Executive Director, One 
        Voice United, for the record
  Questions to Patrick D. Purtill, Executive Vice President, 
      General Counsel, Unify.US; Charels Evans Hughes Lecturer, 
      Co-Director, Washington Study Group, Colgate University



                     FEDERAL CORRECTIONS IN FOCUS:



                   OVERSIGHT OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS

                              ----------                              


                          Tuesday, May 6, 2025

                        House of Representatives

       Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance

                             joint with the

                       Subcommittee on Oversight

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:14 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jefferson 
Van Drew [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Van Drew, Biggs, Jordan, Moore, 
Onder, Schmidt, Gill, Tiffany, Kiley, Lee, Knott, Crockett, 
McBath, Raskin, Moskowitz, Johnson, Goldman, and Cohen.
    Mr. Van Drew. Good morning. The Oversight and Crime 
Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee will come to 
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    We welcome everyone to today's hearing on oversight of the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the great State 
of Kansas, Mr. Schmidt, to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. 
Please stay risen; we are going to have a moment of silence 
afterward.
    All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States 
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one 
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for 
all.
    Mr. Van Drew. Moment of silence.
    [Moment of silence.]
    Mr. Van Drew. I will now recognize myself for an opening 
statement.
    I want to welcome everyone to today's joint hearing. I want 
to thank our witnesses for being here today, especially those 
who have served or are currently serving in our Federal 
correctional institutions and are working from the outside to 
support and enhance the Bureau of Prisons, which, God help us, 
it needs. I welcome those officers and employees from the 
Bureau of Prisons who join us in the gallery or watching from 
across the country.
    This week marks National Corrections Officers Week. It's a 
time when we should honor the professionalism, the discipline, 
and the sacrifice of those who serve behind those walls. The 
men and women who staff our Federal prisons are law enforcement 
officers in every sense of the word. They walk the toughest 
beats in the United States of America. It is our duty to ensure 
that they have the tools, the training, and the leadership they 
need to do their jobs safely and effectively.
    Let me be blunt. The Bureau of Prisons is not a system in 
need of some minor improvements. It is in need of a true 
reckoning.
    That's not my opinion. It's a fact. The DOJ Inspector 
General has published over 100 reports since the early 2000s 
documenting the systemic failure of the Bureau of Prisons: 
Deteriorating facilities, chronic understaffing and failure to 
retain staff, low morale, breakdowns in safety, and resource 
mismanagement.
    This hearing is an opportunity to begin that work in 
earnest that we need to do. It should not only be an apolitical 
exercise. It is a roadmap and an educational and constructive 
platform for the new Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Mr. 
William K. Marshall, III.
    Director Marshall steps into this role at a pivotal and 
promising moment. With decades of public service in 
corrections, decades of experience, and he will be useful and 
helpful. Director Marshall now has the opportunity to chart a 
bold, credible, and accountable path into the future.
    To frame today's discussion, I want to identify some of the 
specific challenges that require urgent attention.
    First, staffing. The Bureau is currently operating with 
thousands of vacancies, including nearly 6,000 fewer staff than 
its authorized level. This is not sustainable to go in this 
direction.
    As I've worked on this issue over the years, I've come to 
learn a lot about correctional officers, not just what they do, 
but what they endure. I'm going to give you some stats. I was 
in the State Senate, I was in the State legislature in the 
State of New Jersey for 16 years, and we had the prison gang 
task force. We went to every single prison in the State of New 
Jersey and to see what they had to put up with, what was going 
on, and the challenges they had. It was a real eye-opener for 
me. I have always had a special place in my heart for 
correctional officers.
    We know their life span is shorter. Correctional officers, 
on average live to just 59 years old, nearly 20 years below the 
national average. I know their rates of suicide are higher. The 
rate is more than seven times the national average. I know they 
get sick more. Stress, sleep deprivation, and trauma drive 
higher rates of heart disease and high blood pressure. I know 
they get divorced more often. Their divorce rate outpaces 
nearly every other law enforcement official. I know they get 
paid less. In New Jersey, I know for a fact Federal correction 
officers make nearly--just about half of what their State 
counterparts earn. This job has a price. These men and women 
pay this price every day.
    Second, physical infrastructure. From broken security doors 
to outdated HVAC systems, our institutions deteriorate daily. 
The Inspector General estimates a multibillion dollar backlog 
in critical repairs all across the 122 BOP institutions. Some 
of these prisons actually cost more now to maintain than they 
are actually worth. That's a waste of taxpayer dollars, and 
real solutions are needed to ensure that government facilities 
are both safe and efficient.
    Third, accountability and reform implementation. Congress 
recently passed the bipartisan Federal Prison Oversight Act, 
creating an independent ombudsman to handle complaints. That 
office has yet to be set up.
    The Bureau has also been tasked with implementing the First 
Step Act to ensure public confidence in Federal detention. 
Thankfully, the Trump Administration has recognized the urgent 
need to course correct.
    For example, under President Trump's leadership, the Bureau 
has reversed misguided policies from the previous 
administration, including restoring the principle that Federal 
inmates will be housed according to their biological sex and 
eliminating taxpayer-funded gender ideology in our prisons. It 
does not belong there.
    Additionally, a new interagency agreement with DHS and ICE 
is helping to alleviate the border crisis by utilizing BOP 
facilities to house illegal immigrants. It's a prudent use of 
existing resources during unprecedented times.
    There is a lot more progress to be made. Director Marshall 
and his team now have both the mandate and the responsibility 
of finishing the job.
    When Federal prisons are mismanaged, it affects 
communities, victims, and law enforcement across the United 
States of America. I've seen it myself in my own district. 
South Jersey is home to FCI Fairton, where I've heard currently 
from officers and families on the ground who are deeply 
concerned about the future of the institution itself and 
maintaining professionalism and their profession.
    Fairton is designed specifically, now, to house inmates who 
can't be placed in the general population for a variety of 
reasons. Gang dropouts would be in trouble if they were in the 
general population, sex offenders, and former law enforcement 
officials.
    This facility is facing a wide range of issues. The chronic 
understaffing and rising inmate numbers have created an 
increasingly unsafe environment for everyone on the inside. 
These conditions put correctional officers at risk every single 
day of the week. What's happening at Fairton is not unique. 
It's symptomatic. It's a reflection of what's happening across 
the Federal system across the country.
    We are committed to ensuring that the Bureau of Prisons 
operates with integrity, transparency, and respect for both its 
workforce and respect for the rule of law. To every 
correctional officer here listening today and around the 
country, your service matters. We see your sacrifice, and we 
will not let this opportunity pass without pushing for real and 
lasting change that reflects the seriousness of your issues and 
your job.
    I'd like to say too, I believe that this is an area where 
on some issues, not on all, but on some issues where we can 
come together in a bipartisan way. There will be issues in 
which we disagree, but I do believe there are issues in which 
we come together.
    I want to thank you for that. I will now recognize the 
Ranking Member--I want to make sure I get this right--the 
Ranking Member, yes, Ms. Crockett, for her opening statement.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you so much 
for your opening.
    I think that we are living in a time in which the American 
people are hoping that we can agree on something, anything, in 
Congress. The fact is, the vast majority of your opening 
statement I could not disagree with. The question is, while we 
agree that there is a problem, let's hope that Congress can do 
what we are supposed to do, which is agree on a solution.
    Today's hearing could not come at a timelier moment, with 
this being National Correctional Officers Week. Thank you to 
all our correctional officers.
    Today, approximately 35,000 correctional officers and staff 
are under the control of the Bureau of Prisons. During the last 
100-plus days of this administration, we've seen just how 
little Trump cares about the BOP staff's ability to do their 
job overseeing and protecting roughly 155,000 incarcerated 
people in our Federal prison system.
    Having been a former public defender and civil rights 
attorney, I can tell you that I have seen the inside of a few 
prisons myself. I've seen the conditions these individuals are 
living in, I've seen the conditions that staff are working 
under, and based on my experience, I can tell you correctional 
officers' staff have one of the most difficult jobs, as well as 
the most dangerous. These jobs are now only getting harder.
    Just 2\1/2\ months ago, Ms. Kathleen Toomey, the Deputy 
Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, testified before 
Congress that the Bureau had over 4,000 vacant positions that 
need to be filled. Yet, rather than doing anything to ensure 
adequate staffing and protect officers and inmates, Trump's 
Justice Department terminated the Bureau's incentive pay plan, 
effectively cutting Bureau officers' and other employees' pay 
anywhere between 10-25 percent. This plan, of course, helped to 
retain and recruit people for jobs within the BOP.
    On March 27, 2025, Trump issued an Executive Order 
eliminating BOP's labor union, which is comprised of roughly 
30,000 officers and staff. All this comes after U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) added the BOP to its 2025 high-risk 
list in January due to all the problems the BOP is facing.
    The GAO highlighted BOP's quote,

        Long-standing staffing challenges present a serious threat to 
        the safety of staff and incarcerated people. BOP also faces 
        challenges with aging and deteriorating infrastructure, which, 
        likewise, affects safety. It also needs improvements in 
        planning for programs to prepare incarcerated persons for 
        release. Better monitoring and evaluation are needed to improve 
        management of the Federal prison system.

    Does Trump take these issues and threats to safety 
seriously? Absolutely not. Instead, he made the deranged, 
delusional decision over the weekend to open Alcatraz as a 
prison that was literally shut down because it was too 
expensive and too impractical to run. Honestly, you can't make 
this stuff up.
    Please tell me how any of this makes sense. Stripping 
Bureau employees of their collective bargaining rights; cutting 
pay and benefits at a time where the Bureau was ranked the 
worst place to work among all Federal subagencies and offices--
and we have more than 450 offices--having staff like prison 
teachers, cooks, nurses, and monitors being forced to serve as 
correctional officers because BOP has too few officers to 
actually do the job; wanting to place even more of a strain on 
the system by trying to house migrants and children in Bureau 
facilities. It's absolutely ridiculous.
    Let me be clear. This isn't just a staff issue. It's a life 
or death issue. Reports by the Justice Department's Inspector 
General detailed how over a third of the inmate suicides that 
occurred between fiscal years 2014-2021, BOP staff didn't 
sufficiently conduct the required inmate rounds or counts to 
check on the inmates.
    Let me tell you all something. Realizing this fact took me 
back. I don't know what it's like to be a family member and to 
receive that phone call about your loved one that you would 
imagine is in one of the safest places ever, regardless of why 
they are there, and to find out that they somehow committed 
suicide. I don't know what it's like to be that loved one, but 
I do know what it's like to be that attorney and to get that 
call, to get the call that one of my clients somehow has 
managed to, unfortunately, take his life. This is unacceptable, 
and who knows how many lives could be saved.
    While all this is bad on its own, let's not forget about 
the fact that, in all of the 120 correctional institutions 
under the Bureau's control, each needs some kind of repair at 
any given time, like Seagoville Federal Correctional 
Institution in Texas, for example, which is close to my 
district. Six of the eight buildings housing inmates had broken 
air-conditioning units during the summer where temperatures in 
Texas facilities can reach up to 110 degrees, and at least one 
unit topped 149 degrees.
    We need to get to the bottom of this and fix this 
organization before more and more deaths occur. Today's hearing 
is one of the few moments where actually I believe we can do 
something good in Congress, and I hope we do today, because at 
the end of the day, this is about doing what's right. It's 
about protecting employees, it's about protecting lives, it's 
about ensuring we give people a second chance at life.
    I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, and I 
look forward to participating in this important discussion.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. I will now recognize the Chair of 
the Crime Subcommittee, from the great State of Arizona, Andy 
Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the Members of 
both Subcommittees for coming together this morning. I thank 
Chair Van Drew for his opening remarks. I thank the witnesses 
for being here and appreciate you; look forward to your 
testimony today.
    Today's hearing is titled, ``Federal Corrections in Focus: 
Oversight of the Bureau of Prisons.'' This hearing will serve 
as a robust continuation of the oversight this Committee 
conducted over BOP during the 118th Congress. I look forward to 
continuing that important work today.
    The Federal Bureau of Prisons, BOP, is a component of the 
Department of Justice. BOP's mission is to protect society by 
confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons 
and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-
efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and 
other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in 
becoming law-abiding citizens. It's critical that the BOP holds 
people accountable, while also preparing those who will reenter 
society.
    This week we honor and celebrate National Correctional 
Officers Week and recognize correctional employees, the brave 
men and women who continue so much--excuse me--who contribute 
so much to public safety. Unfortunately, we know corrections 
officers continue to work difficult and demanding jobs between 
staffing shortages and crumbling infrastructure throughout its 
facilities.
    The staff recruitment and retention remain a major 
challenge for BOP. While BOP has attempted initiatives to boost 
recruitment and retention, BOP still has thousands of 
vacancies, including nearly 6,000 fewer staff than its 
authorized level. It's no secret that morale is low, and that 
causes ripple effects across all the Bureau.
    To those corrections officers listening or watching or are 
here today, we see you, we hear you, we appreciate you, we 
thank you, and we hope that this hearing can serve as a 
starting point that will lead to a better workplace with better 
conditions.
    One of the ways to move toward a better BOP is to implement 
oversight and accountability. We've heard concerning 
allegations about the BOP misappropriating funds. We've seen 
this before; those at the top of government using taxpayer 
funds to benefit themselves. The BOP needs accountability and 
transparency through true fiscal responsibility, not turning a 
blind eye to all the existing issues.
    Thankfully, there's hope and optimism with Director 
Marshall. We look forward to working with him to restore trust 
in the BOP and bring it back to its original mission.
    The BOP is also charged with much of the implementation of 
the First Step Act. The First Step Act was signed into law by 
President Trump and seeks to reduce the size of the Federal 
prison population and reduce recidivism while still maintaining 
public safety.
    The First Step Act required DOJ to develop a system for BOP 
to use to assess the risk of recidivism of Federal prisoners 
and to assign prisoners to evidence-based recidivism reduction 
programs. These programs include literacy programs, 
occupational education programs, trade skill programs, and 
substance use disorder programs.
    This is why I said BOP needs to make sure they get this 
right. We cannot allow individuals to leave our prisons early 
unless we can ensure that they will not reoffend. The Crime 
Subcommittee has examined the implementation of the First Step 
Act on a bipartisan basis since its passage, and this oversight 
of BOP continues today with more urgency and focus than ever 
before.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Again, I 
thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the 
Ranking Member of the Crime Subcommittee, from the great State 
of Georgia, Lucy McBath.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today. We really appreciate your time 
and your effort.
    Mr. Chair, I thank you for having this hearing on the 
oversight of the Bureau of Prisons. While it's not been long 
since we last discussed this issue, the problems in our Federal 
prisons, many of which are decades in the making, continue to 
demand our attention.
    The many issues faced by the BOP are the result of year 
after year of extremely limited resources. At a time when the 
President and his allies in Congress are talking about radical 
cuts, it's critical that we take note of how a severely limited 
budget has already affected the health and safety of everyone 
who enters a the BOP facility.
    There are more than 150,000 Federal inmates and more than 
35,000 BOP staff members depending on us to give them the tools 
and resources that they need to keep everyone safe and even 
themselves. Far too often the BOP has not guaranteed the basic 
safety of everyone in its care.
    These failures have often fallen especially hard on women 
in BOP custody, like those at Federal Corrections Institution, 
Dublin, California. For years, women at FCI Dublin faced 
horrific sexual abuse, including harassment, coerced sexual 
activity, and even rape. Inmates who tried to speak up faced 
harsh retaliation, and those responsible managed to cover up 
their conduct for years.
    Seven correctional officers, including the prison's warden, 
have been sentenced as a result of the years of misconduct, but 
the abuse faced by their victims cannot be undone.
    Last April, BOP abruptly shut down FCI Dublin, in some 
cases sending inmates far from their families and the lawmakers 
that were working to help them--excuse me--lawyers that were 
working to help them. Some reported being singled out and 
bullied at their new facilities, such as being denied soap, 
served worse food, and being forced to sleep on soiled beds, 
all because they were perceived as speaking out against the 
abuses that shut down FCI Dublin.
    Earlier this year, a judge signed a consent decree that, 
among other things, requires the BOP to report on the medical 
and mental health of former Dublin inmates, ensure that they 
have access to rape crisis centers, review their disciplinary 
records, expunge all disciplinary actions that were actually 
retaliation, and limit the inappropriate use of solitary 
confinement potentially used to retaliate against them or 
isolate them so they might be subject to further abuse.
    We must ensure that we do not allow an incident like this 
to ever, ever happen again. Safety is simply the bare minimum. 
The vast majority of imprisoned people will eventually be 
released and rejoin our communities. How they spend their time 
in prison has a profound effect on who they will be when they 
are released.
    This was a basic premise of the First Step Act, a 
bipartisan bill that provided more opportunities for inmates to 
make the most of their time through evidence-based programs 
that reduce recidivism. These programs help inmates get the 
treatment for addiction, gain job skills, learn how to read, 
strengthen their family relationships, and learn how to resolve 
conflicts, inmates who put in their time and effort to improve 
themselves that they could earn an earlier release.
    The First Step Act was a historic step toward providing 
better opportunities for rehabilitation that will ultimately 
benefit all our communities, because more people will come out 
of prison prepared to make better choices and turn away from 
crime.
    Despite challenges in implementation, that positive change 
is already happening. An analysis by the Council on Criminal 
Justice found that people who participated in the First Step 
Act programs and were released early were 55 percent less 
likely to commit another crime.
    If this administration and congressional Republicans don't 
follow through by investing in the First Step Act, they'll be 
locking people up without any plan for them for the future. 
This country would be stuck in an old, failed policy in which 
prisons would be dangerous, hostile places for inmates and 
staff, and inmates would be released without any more skills 
and even less hope than what they came in with.
    If we don't invest in the First Step Act, a bipartisan bill 
that's signed into law by President Trump, then we are setting 
people up to fail even before they're released from custody. It 
doesn't have to be this way.
    The First Step Act can unlock a future with fewer people 
incarcerated, more people contributing to their communities, 
and safer places for all of us to live. We must invest in the 
First Step Act to be sure that it reaches its full potential.
    Likewise, we must fund the Federal Prison Oversight Act, a 
bipartisan law that I was proud to lead, which was signed into 
law last year. This law will require the Department of 
Justice's Inspector General to assess the risk of problems at 
our BOP facilities, to inspect high-risk facilities more 
frequently, to provide recommendations to fix the problems, and 
to report its findings and recommendations to Congress and to 
the public. The law requires the BOP to respond to all 
inspection reports within 60 days with a corrective action 
plan.
    This overhaul of BOP oversight can ensure the health and 
safety of everyone in BOP facilities and is especially 
important to uncover misconduct like what occurred at FCI 
Dublin, and to find it much earlier so that swift action can be 
taken to protect victims and discipline those who do not 
fulfill their duty to treat inmates with basic human and 
dignity--human dignity.
    This law will only take effect--yes, once again--unless it 
is funded. We already have bipartisan agreement that this is 
the right action to take to address the BOP's problems. We must 
continue this bipartisanship in investing in better oversight 
of the BOP by providing funding that will make the Federal 
Prison Oversight Act actually a reality.
    Together, I truly believe, I know that we cannot only 
improve the BOP but improve the lives of those who serve time 
in the facilities so they can choose to turn their lives around 
and contribute to their communities, which are all our 
communities.
    I'd like to--I have a unanimous consent request I'd like to 
enter into the record.
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you.
    It's a unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter 
dated May 5, 2025, led by The Sentencing Project and signed by 
12 other justice--
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you. Thank you so much for your time and 
your interest today. I yield back.
    Mr. Van Drew. I will now call on the Ranking Member of the 
Committee of the whole, from the great State of Maryland, Mr. 
Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very kindly, Chair Van Drew. Welcome 
to our witnesses. Thanks to the Ranking Members, Ms. McBath and 
Ms. Crockett, as well.
    I'm going to start with a couple of unanimous consent 
requests. One is to enter into the record an Associated Press 
article by Sarah Roebuck titled, ``BOP slashes retention 
bonuses, impacting thousands of correctional officers.' ''
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Mr. Raskin. Good. I don't mind if this comes out of my 
time, Mr. Chair. I just--because it leads into what I want to 
talk about.
    The article ``BOP slashes retention bonuses, impacting 
thousands of correctional officers.'' Roughly 23,000 were 
informed that their retention pay would be significantly 
reduced or eliminated entirely, with some workers seeing a pay 
decrease of up to 25 percent.
    One other UC request to enter into the record, an article 
by Drew Friedman titled, ``Days ahead of coming Bureau of 
Prison pay cuts, some employees are already resigning,'' 
Federal News.
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly.
    Well, look, within his first 100 days, President Trump has 
made moves that I'm afraid will only exacerbate long-standing 
problems that interfere with the Bureau of Prisons' ability to 
safely incapacitate and rehabilitate its prisoners.
    The President issued an Executive Order that rescinded the 
Biden Administration's prohibition on the BOP's continued use 
of private prisons, opening the door for a renewed reliance on 
private facilities where the Federal Government has little 
oversight and where inmates have been shown to be less safe and 
less able to access necessary medical care.
    President Trump also unlawfully rescinded the collective 
bargaining rights of a huge number of Federal workers, more 
than a million Federal workers and Federal unions, including 
those representing the Bureau of Prison employees, essentially, 
stifling the voices of frontline officers during a period when 
their voices are very badly needed.
    Once again, a Federal judge had to step in to block 
President Trump's Executive Order from taking effect after 
unions sued; one of now more than 130 court orders blocking the 
administration's violations of the law and the Constitution.
    The administration also rescinded retention-based 
incentives for the BOP employees that amount to cuts, 
essentially, of around 25 percent of their pay rates. These 
cuts have triggered mass resignations among the BOP employees 
whose ranks were already stretched way too thin.
    How can we expect to bolster the culture and the 
effectiveness of the BOP workforce if we slash their pay? Do 
any of us know of any institutions where that might work?
    In the face of this mass resignation of correctional 
officers, the BOP will have to resort to even more, quote, 
``augmentation,'' which is the term describing use of employees 
other than correctional officers, people like nurses or 
teachers or cooks, to guard inmates, a stopgap measure which, 
obviously, undermines safety for everyone.
    Facilities that are short-staffed rely also on facility-
wide lock-downs more often and for longer periods of time. At 
the same time, because of this lack of resources, inmates do 
not have access to the treatment, medical care, and 
rehabilitative programming that Congress called for in the 
bipartisan First Step Act, which we're all so proud of.
    Despite President Trump signing the First Step Act aimed at 
reducing the Federal prison population and aimed at reducing 
recidivism, the Bureau of Prisons also reduced the amount of 
time that inmates can spend in residential reentry centers from 
18-19 months to a maximum of just 60 days, two months, citing 
budget constraints.
    These residential reentry centers, or halfway houses, as 
they're colloquially known, perform a critical role in helping 
released inmates' transition back into communities across the 
country, providing housing, employment, substance and mental 
health treatment, professional counseling, and medical care. 
Drastically cutting the amount of time that people can actually 
use these services will certainly lead to a reduction in their 
efficacy and an increase in recidivism.
    While the BOP has been forced to make devastating cuts that 
will affect not only employees and inmates but the safety of 
our communities, last week, the Judiciary Committee passed an 
$81 billion reconciliation bill to supercharge ICE, money that 
our colleagues voted to make available for arresting, 
detaining, and deporting, not just immigrants, but some U.S. 
citizens too.
    Just two weeks ago, the Department of Justice terminated at 
least 365 public safety grants totaling in the hundreds of 
millions of dollars, cutting funds for law enforcement at the 
local level, opioid addiction treatment programs, programs 
promoting officer safety and wellness, programs for crime 
prevention, programs that support the victims of rape and 
sexual assault, and other violent crimes.
    All of us, even apparently our Republican colleagues, were 
apparently blindsided by these deep cuts to existing programs 
that, as far as I can tell, came from a single DOGE employee.
    During the Committee's consideration of reconciliation last 
week, I tried to restore funding to these critical grant 
programs through an amendment, which my colleagues failed to 
discuss and all voted to oppose.
    I'm aware that our panel of witnesses has often worked 
together on criminal justice reform and to adjust the 
challenges facing the BOP. I look forward to hearing from you 
about these important issues.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. Without objection, all other 
opening statements will be included in the record.
    We are now going to proceed with the introduction of 
today's witnesses. Again, thank you all for being here. We do 
appreciate you.
    Mr. Andy Potter. Mr. Potter is the Founder and Executive 
Director of One Voice United, an organization that advocates on 
behalf of corrections officers. He served for nearly 30 years 
as a correctional officer with the Michigan Department of 
Corrections.
    Mr. Patrick Purtill. Mr. Purtill is the Executive Vice 
President and General Counsel of Unify.US, an organization that 
advocates for individual freedom, limited government, free 
enterprise, and American values. He is also the Charles Evans 
Hughes lecturer in politics and Codirector of the Washington 
Study Group at Colgate University.
    Mr. Cody Wilde. Mr. Wilde is the Senior Vice President of 
correctional programs at the Prison Fellowship, an organization 
that works with prisoners, former prisoners, and their 
families. Mr. Wilde oversees Prison Fellowship correctional 
programming in approximately 1,200 prisons across all 50 States 
in the Union.
    Mr. Kandia Milton. Mr. Milton is the Government Affairs 
Director at Dream.Org, an organization that advocates for 
criminal justice reform. He previously served as Deputy Mayor 
and Chief of Staff for the city of Detroit, Michigan.
    We welcome our witnesses today. We thank them for appearing 
today. We will begin by swearing you in.
    Would you please rise and raise your right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear that under the penalty of perjury 
that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to 
the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help 
you God.
    OK. Thank you. Please be seated. Let the record reflect 
that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
    Please know that your written testimony will be entered 
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you 
summarize your testimony in five minutes.
    We will begin with Mr. Potter.

                    STATEMENT OF ANDY POTTER

    Mr. Potter. Mr. Chair, Ranking Members, and the 
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to be here today. My name is Andy Potter, and I 
serve as the Founder and Executive Director of One Voice 
United, a national organization committed to lifting up the 
voices and expertise of corrections professionals and ensuring 
that they are a part of the national conversations that are 
shaping the future of corrections.
    Before founding One Voice United, I spent nearly 30 years 
working inside the correctional facilities as an officer and 
later as a labor leader in Michigan. Those experiences, 
combined with years of traveling the country and listening to 
thousands of correctional officers and staff, have given me a 
deep appreciation for the work that they do, and the clear view 
of the systematic challenges that continue to impact 
corrections at every level.
    Today, corrections as a profession is at a crossroads. From 
the county jails and State prisons to the Bureau of Prisons, we 
are seeing an unprecedented convergence of issues that threaten 
the overall mission and health of our corrections system across 
the United States. The chronic understaffing has forced 
employees to work exhausting amounts of overtime, often leading 
to burnout, safety risk, and declining morale.
    New recruits have become increasingly difficult to attract 
and even harder to retain, with many agencies losing a 
staggering number of good people within the first 18 months of 
service. It's a problem that touches every corner of our 
country and every layer of our system.
    At the same time, the physical infrastructures inside many 
facilities continues to deteriorate, and employees and those 
incarcerated are asked to live and work in facilities that are 
not equipped for the demands of today's correctional 
environment. When conditions deteriorate such as they have, it 
sends a harmful message about the value we place on their 
safety and their well-being.
    Compounding these issues is a deeper, more difficult 
challenge, the erosion of job satisfaction, and connection to a 
larger purpose. Increasingly, employees report that they feel 
isolated and disconnected from the mission of rehabilitation 
and more like expendable cogs in a machine. The result is a 
workforce that is overburdened physically, stretched to its 
breaking point mentally, and demoralized emotionally.
    However, despite the seriousness of these challenges, I 
believe this is also a moment of tremendous opportunity. We 
have the chance right now through leadership, collaboration, 
and honest engagement to chart a better path forward for the 
corrections profession and the broader system that it serves.
    A critical part of that effort must be investing in 21st 
century training and comprehensive employee wellness programs 
that are designed with the direct input of the employees 
themselves. They must be integrated into the culture of every 
department and facility, with consistent funding, evaluations, 
and leadership commitment.
    Equally important is restoring the meaning and pride in 
corrections work. When employees are treated as stakeholders, 
when their expertise is valued and their voices are heard in 
the shaping of policies, it builds a sense of agency and 
purpose that cannot be replaced otherwise. Without that buy-in, 
even the best-intended reforms or culture change will struggle 
to take hold.
    We believe in the power of collaboration between employees 
and those who might represent them, administrators, 
legislators, advocates, and communities to drive lasting 
change. No single entity can solve these changes alone.
    In closing, if we're willing to truly engage with one 
another and lift up the real-world experiences of those who 
know this work best, then One Voice United stands ready to 
assist however we can.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to speak here today, 
and I'll stand ready for any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Potter follows:]
    
 GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
   
    
    
    
   
    
    
    
    
   
    
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Potter.
    Mr. Purtill, you may begin.

                STATEMENT OF PATRICK D. PURTILL

    Mr. Purtill. Mr. Chair, Ranking Members, and the 
distinguished Members of Congress, thank you for the 
opportunity to speak with you today.
    I want to begin by noting that President Trump made an 
excellent choice when he selected William Marshall to serve as 
the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and I have high hopes 
he'll succeed in that post. As we've heard, the most immediate 
challenges he faces are staff retention and recruitment, the 
degraded condition of BOP facilities and, I would add, the 
increasing financial cost of incarceration generally.
    Over the past 10 years, BOP staffing has dropped 
significantly. Staffing shortages often require substantial use 
of overtime, including mandatory overtime and the use of 
augmentation. BOP faces a $3 billion price tag for deferred 
maintenance, and those repairs needed across all its 
facilities. Staffing shortages and poor facilities undermine 
employee retention rates and create security and safety issues 
for staff and inmates alike. These challenges are complicated 
by the fact that the number of prisoners in BOP facilities and 
the cost to incarcerate them has risen dramatically over the 
years.
    Understanding Congress' efforts to reduce unsustainable 
levels of Federal spending, I'm going to limit my remarks to 
recommendations that can be implemented under current law using 
current funding levels.
    First, remember that corrections officers are first 
responders, and that we can make better use of them. The COs 
are law enforcement professionals who perform many of the same 
functions as police officers. Equally important, they're 
critical to the rehabilitation process and have a direct impact 
on recidivism.
    In fact, no one has more insight into an inmate's 
likelihood of successfully reintegrating into society than the 
COs who interact with them on a daily basis. The COs' 
experience and insights should help inform public policy, and 
the BOP should incentivize and empower the COs to have a stake 
in the prisoners' rehabilitation, as well as in the security of 
the facilities.
    Second, home confinement to free funds up at the BOP. The 
BOP must reduce its per-inmate average cost of incarceration 
while not undermining public safety. I stress that, while not 
undermining public safety. Recent experience demonstrates that 
this can be done within certain careful parameters.
    The 2020 CARES Act allowed Federal prisons to serve a 
portion of their sentence in home confinement. Former Attorney 
General William Barr set the criteria for home confinement 
eligibility. It required being in low or minimum security, 
having a clean misconduct record, no history of violence, sex, 
or terrorism offenses, a viable reentry plan, a minimum-or low-
risk score on the BOP's PATTERN risk assessment tool, and 
having served a significant portion of their sentence.
    These criteria allowed a substantial number of prisoners to 
be moved to home confinement without undermining public safety. 
In fact, after release from home confinement, those with a 
CARES assignment had a 3.6 percent recidivism rate over one 
year, whereas those without a CARES assignment had a 13 percent 
recidivism rate.
    According to the most recent data available, about 54 
percent of the current Federal prison population are classified 
as minimum or low risk for recidivism by BOP's PATTERN risk 
assessment tool. I'm certain that not all these people meet the 
CARES Act criteria for home confinement, but many could be 
placed in home confinement without jeopardizing public safety 
and thereby realizing a substantial cost savings to the BOP.
    Third, close outdated and dilapidated BOP facilities. The 
BOP needs to review its physical footprint, as we've heard. 
Since modernizing, any Federal operation often runs up against 
political pressures. Unify.US would recommend forming a 
commission patterned after the DOD Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission to review the BOP's facilities requirements and to 
right-size the Bureau after accounting for its staffing and its 
budgetary needs. This would free up revenues for maintenance 
and modernization of the BOP's remaining facilities.
    Beyond cost savings, there is some evidence that this could 
also help reduce recidivism. Evidence from Colombian prison 
construction suggests that prisoners that were quasirandomly 
assigned to newer and, therefore, slightly better prisons were 
up to 36 percent less likely to recidivate.
    Fourth, continue implementation of the First Step Act. 
During President Trump's first administration, he championed 
supporting successful reentry and supporting law enforcement 
with passage of the First Step Act. Through its oversight 
function, Congress should continue to ensure that the BOP 
expands recidivism reduction programming and that eligible 
individuals receive appropriate FSA incentives. Also, the BOP 
should especially focus on increasing access to evidence-based 
recidivism reduction programs.
    In closing, by improving facilities, by improving respect 
for and the resources available to corrections officers, and by 
safely transitioning inmates least likely to commit new crimes 
back into society, BOP, Congress, and the Trump Administration 
can go a long way toward solving our corrections crisis while 
ensuring public safety.
    Thank you very much. I look forward to answering your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Purtill follows:]
    GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

    
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Purtill.
    Mr. Wilde, you may begin.

                    STATEMENT OF CODY WILDE

    Mr. Wilde. Good morning, Chair Biggs, Chair Van Drew, 
Ranking Member McBath, Ranking Member Crockett, and the Members 
of the Subcommittee. I'm Cody Wilde, Senior Vice President of 
the correctional programs at Prison Fellowship, and I want to 
thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
    Prison Fellowship is the Nation's largest Christian 
nonprofit, equipping the church to serve currently and formerly 
incarcerated people, their families, and to advocate for 
justice and human dignity. Established on the belief that all 
people are created in God's image and that no life is beyond 
his reach, Prison Fellowship takes a restorative approach to 
those affected by incarceration.
    We strive to make prisons safer and more rehabilitative, 
advance criminal justice reform, and support incarcerated 
people, their families, and their communities. Robust 
programming, including faith-informed, volunteer-led 
initiatives, is essential for creating a safer correctional 
environment and preparing individuals for successful reentry. 
Research shows that incarcerated people who participate in 
educational or vocational programming are 43 percent less 
likely to recidivate.
    While many State correctional systems have embraced 
partnerships with external organizations to provide these 
opportunities, the Bureau of Prisons has historically been more 
cautious. The First Step Act of 2018 encourages collaboration 
with community-and faith-based groups to provide evidence-based 
recidivism reduction programs and productive activities.
    However, the current vetting progress for external programs 
exceeds what the law requires, unintentionally excluding no-
cost mission aligned programs like the Prison Fellowship 
Academy. The incoming BOP director has an opportunity to remove 
unnecessary barriers and realize the full intent of the First 
Step Act by welcoming qualified partners who can expand the in-
prison programming.
    At the same time, any discussion about program access must 
be grounded in the broader challenges facing corrections today, 
such as significant staffing shortages that impact the ability 
to implement and sustain rehabilitation effort. With prison 
staffing at its lowest point in over two decades and continued 
high incarceration rates, facilities face serious operational 
and safety strains.
    Officers often endure long shifts and high stress, 
contributing to burnout and health risks. Addressing these 
issues through fair compensation, mental health supports, and 
strong recruitment practices is vital, as is leadership 
development to foster healthier cultures inside of prison 
walls.
    In response to these pressures, programs like those offered 
by Prison Fellowship can play a critical role in supporting 
both staff and incarcerated individuals at no cost to the BOP. 
Prison Fellowship's Warden Exchange equips correctional 
executives with tools for building restorative prison cultures 
and has trained over 680 leaders across 47 States, with an 
additional 149 currently enrolled.
    We also offer transformative programs like Prison 
Fellowship Grow, a year-long, cohort-based course rooted in 
Christian principles of human flourishing. While faith is not 
required for participation, the program is designed for those 
who are curious about or open to learning more about 
Christianity.
    The Prison Fellowship Academy is our most intensive in-
prison program, offering men and women a voluntary, holistic 
journey of life transformation. Over the course of the year, 
participants are mentored by staff and volunteers as they 
develop and practice the biblically based values of good 
citizenship, community, affirmation, productivity, 
responsibility, restoration, and integrity. A recent study in 
Texas found a 53.8 percent reduction in recidivism among 
academy graduates.
    Finally, Angel Tree supports family connections by 
partnering with churches to serve children of incarcerated 
parents year-round, helping restore relationships and providing 
hope to the 1.5 million children with a parent currently in 
prison.
    In total, our programs reach over 600,000 individuals in 
more than 1,200 facilities annually, supported by 7,600 
volunteers, and serve more than 271,000 children each year.
    At a time of limited budget and rising needs, it's 
essential to adopt cost-effective, volunteer-driven programs 
that reduce recidivism, support staff, and foster 
rehabilitation, and we are ready to partner with the BOP to 
expand access to these proven initiatives to help create a more 
restorative and effective Federal system.
    Thank you for your time and attention, and I look forward 
to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wilde follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you Mr. Wilde. Mr. Milton, you may 
begin.

                   STATEMENT OF KANDIA MILTON

    Mr. Milton. Good morning, Chairs Biggs and Van Drew, 
Ranking Members McBath and Crockett. Thank you for convening 
this important joint hearing.
    My name is Kandia Milton, and I serve as Government Affairs 
Director for Dream.Org, an organization committed to advancing 
meaningful and lasting bipartisan criminal justice reforms. At 
the heart of all our work is a commitment to centering on the 
voices of those directly impacted by the justice system.
    I came to you this morning not only as a policy advocate, 
but also as someone who has lived experience within the Federal 
prison system. I previously served as Deputy Mayor and Chief of 
Staff for the city of Detroit, and after accepting 
responsibility for a serious bad decision I made in office, I 
served time in a Federal correction facility.
    While I had always understood on an intellectual level the 
need for prison reform and the importance of supporting 
successful reentry, it was my time behind the walls and the 
stories of those I met inside that opened my heart and gave 
purpose to the work I do every day.
    It is deeply troubling that the many challenges we 
discussed and faced during my incarceration, which ended in 
2011 and these problems remain unresolved today. In fact, by 
many accounts, the conditions have worsened. This is not only a 
disservice to the correction officers and those who are 
incarcerated but also to the communities to which they will one 
day return. There are large problems, pressing problems at the 
Bureau of Prisons.
    First, there are the catastrophic infrastructure issues. 
The BOP has 121 institutions that include 3,600 buildings. 
According to the Inspector General, they are all in need of 
serious attention. As of February 2024, the BOP estimated that 
the major repairs needed across a facility would cost $3 
billion. According to OIG audits, it has determined that all 
121 of the BOP's institutions require maintenance.
    Despite the need for investment and critical infrastructure 
across the entire BOP, there continues to be talk of investing 
more money in building new facilities, including an unnecessary 
budgeted $505 million prison proposed to be constructed on top 
of a former coal mine in Eastern Kentucky.
    Second, the BOP is critically understaffed. The Associate 
Deputy Director Kathleen Toomey, in her testimony before the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related 
Agencies in February, concluded that the BOP is short over 
4,000 officers, while other press reports suggest that the 
Bureau is over 6,000 officers understaffed.
    The problem of retaining officers has been further 
complicated by a directive that ended retention bonuses. A BOP 
spokesperson suggested this impacts up to 25 percent of some 
employees' pay, and the Federal News Network reports that this 
decision has already resulted in more correctional staff 
leaving the positions, thus exacerbating staffing crisis. 
Furthermore, understaff results in higher overtime costs and 
the use of regular staff, including medical staff, and augment 
correctional officer shortages.
    Third, the problem of halfway houses. The Bureau has 
available beds but has not filled them, and left thousands of 
people who have earned credits under the First Step Act or 
Second Chance Act to qualify for release, but still remain in 
prison. This is also legally problematic in the case of the 
First Step Act earned credits, multiple courts have concluded 
that the plain meaning of the statute demands release, and 
there are pending litigations on this topic as well.
    As an organization that led the efforts to pass the First 
Step Act, we emphatically support its full implementation, 
which to date the BOP has failed to do. We agree with Attorney 
General Pam Bondi who said, during her confirmation hearing,

        We must fix the Bureau of Prison and followup with the promises 
        of the First Step Act by building more halfway houses.

    Finally, the culture related to its operations. Most 
recently, these problems resulted in the closure of FCI Dublin, 
a prison so notorious that nearly 100 cases, including a class 
action lawsuit, are in the process of litigation today. This 
speaks to the need to fund the bipartisan Federal Bureau of 
Prisons Oversight Act.
    The problem--oh.
    Mr. Van Drew. You're over the time.
    Mr. Milton. Have I gone over time? Sorry, Mr. Chair. Sorry, 
Members of the Committee.
    I stand down and avail myself to answer any questions you 
may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Milton follows:]
    GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

    Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Milton, thank you for your time and being 
here.
    We're now going to proceed under the five-minute rule with 
questions, and I'm going to recognize the gentleman from the 
great State of Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Wilde, what has the response been both federally and 
States that you worked in with faith-based organizations like 
yourself? Tell us the response that you get.
    Mr. Wilde. One of the things that I know about corrections 
is that people tend to be very pragmatic. Does this work? What 
we've seen is a large expansion of our programs--our Warden 
Exchange program. Like I said, we just had our largest cohort 
ever. The 149 correctional leaders are going through it right 
now. Our Prison Fellowship academies, our Grows, and our Angel 
Tree program have continued to expand. As I mentioned, we're in 
all 50 States. So, I'd say the response has been very good.
    Mr. Tiffany. Where you find governments that are not as 
welcoming, what do you hear from them?
    Mr. Wilde. We operate in States as diverse as Washington 
and Oregon to Texas, Florida, North Dakota, Nebraska, 
California, and all of them.
    As I said, they tend to be very pragmatic, ask the 
question, Is it voluntary? The answer is, yes. Does it work? It 
does. So, we're allowed to operate. Over time, we're able to 
really affect the prison culture, which we hear both from the 
staff as well as leadership.
    Mr. Tiffany. Are there any changes needed by Congress to 
help you further your mission?
    Mr. Wilde. Thus far, we have not been able to operate our 
in-prison programs, our Academies or our Grows within the 
Bureau of Prisons. We think that both those programs, as well 
as our Warden Exchange Program that helps assist correctional 
leaders at no cost to the State, can be a tremendous asset and 
a force multiplier to help solve some of these problems facing 
the Bureau.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Purtill, we heard earlier from the Ranking 
Member in regards to President Trump is failing. Do you agree 
President Trump does not care about prisons? That's what we 
heard, is that he does not care about prisons by one of the 
Members up here.
    Do you agree with that?
    Mr. Purtill. I do not, respectfully, sir, do not agree with 
that. We worked extremely closely with the first Trump 
Administration on crafting the First Step Act, and I can tell 
you that they were very involved, very concerned. It would not 
have happened without Mr. Trump's personal leadership. It 
simply doesn't comport with what I've experienced.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you think President Trump should continue 
with the status quo? Because that's what I'm hearing is that he 
doesn't care about prisons, we should leave things as is.
    Do you think we should leave the status quo?
    Mr. Purtill. No, sir. I think there is much here--as this 
Committee well knows, there is much here that under the Bureau 
of Prisons that needs to be addressed.
    It can be addressed in terms of what Mr. Trump tried to do 
in his first administration, and that I have every reason to 
believe he's going to try to continue in his second.
    Mr. Tiffany. Give me something that's primary in your mind 
that could be a good change for Federal prisons.
    Mr. Purtill. Well, to go back to what--to my testimony, I 
do think that focusing Federal prisons--Federal prisons are in 
a unique position in terms of corrections facilities across the 
country. They are best equipped to deal with some of the 
prisoners that are really most dangerous, most likely to commit 
new crimes, to recidivate.
    That's really--a friend of mine at The Heritage Foundation, 
John Malcolm, likes to say, ``prison beds are some of the most 
expensive hotel rooms in the country. I want to reserve them 
for the people who are most dangerous to society.''
    Doing all that we can to make sure that this is the 
population within the Federal prisons, because they are most--
they're just better equipped to deal with it than any other 
system in the country.
    Mr. Tiffany. In my home State of Wisconsin back when I was 
in the State legislature, we had a youth correctional facility 
that the ACLU came in and sued to prevent them, the staff, they 
restricted the staff from using certain measures that they had 
used for a long, long time.
    The day that the judge accepted the ACLU's brief and said, 
``We're going to accept the policies that you're suggesting for 
us,'' the young people in the correctional facility went on the 
roof of the facility and taunted the guards, saying, ``You 
can't touch us.''
    Is it surprising to you that a couple years later that a 
staff youth counselor was killed in that facility?
    Mr. Purtill. In all honesty, sir, I couldn't address that. 
I don't know anything about the facts of the--
    Mr. Tiffany. Have you seen instances where an organization 
like the ACLU has sued and prevented staff from being able to 
do their jobs using the proper restraints? Have you seen that 
nationally?
    Mr. Purtill. There's a lot of questions in that issue. It's 
BOP's job to ensure both the safety of the staff as well as the 
inmates, and limiting them to be able to do that is always 
dangerous.
    Undermining the respect that law enforcement should be 
given leads to the sense of the idea that people are taunting 
guards and things like that, and that this also undermines 
security.
    I also think that we have to remember that when people are 
within our custody, we have to do everything to make sure that 
we're remembering to treat them as people and remembering that 
they still have rights while they're in there. It's a very 
difficult challenge that the BOP has to make sure that they're 
balancing both of those sides.
    Mr. Van Drew. Your time is expired.
    Mr. Tiffany. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. Next, we will hear from the 
gentleman from the great State of Georgia, Mr. Hank Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    My daddy rose to the No. 3 spot in the Bureau of Prisons 
back in the early 1960s. He was head of--his responsibility was 
pardons, classifications, and paroles. He became a corrections 
officer, one of the first Black corrections officers in the 
country back in 1950, when he was--actually, 1949, when he was 
recruited out of Morris Brown College in Atlanta to go to the 
Atlanta Federal Penitentiary and become one of the first Blacks 
to be a corrections officer.
    He became the first parole officer out at Leavenworth, 
Kansas, where he was transferred to back around 1952-1953. The 
BOP, Bureau of Prisons, kind of runs in my blood. He used to 
work at the Federal Home Loan Bank Building, what it is now, 
but that used to be the Bureau of Prisons, just a stone's throw 
away from here.
    I'm alarmed that we will be having this hearing today and 
we don't even have the current BOP Director to testify. If 
Republicans actually cared about oversight, they would have the 
Director here or reschedule for a date that he was available.
    President Trump fired the former Bureau of Prisons Director 
on inauguration day and a third of the BOP senior leadership 
quit. In its misguided efforts to chase efficiency, the Trump 
Administration ended a long-running incentive pay plan, cutting 
officers' and other employees' pay by 25 percent, which will 
only worsen the existing staff shortages. It's not just human 
infrastructure that's in disrepair. It's also the physical 
infrastructure, which has been a problem for years.
    Mr. Purtill, you are aware that in May 2023, the Office of 
the Inspector General published an audit of the BOP's efforts 
to maintain and construct institutions, and that audit 
described hazardous and crumbling infrastructure, including 
infrastructure problems that have led to the closure of the BOP 
facilities, correct?
    Mr. Purtill. Correct.
    Mr. Johnson. You are also aware that the BOP leadership has 
expressed concern about underfunding for maintenance and repair 
efforts and a resulting backlog of projects, right?
    Mr. Purtill. I know that they have a significant backlog in 
deferred maintenance.
    Mr. Johnson. Mr. Milton, how does the failure to maintain 
the BOP facilities affect the health and safety of the BOP 
staff and inmates?
    Mr. Milton. Thank you for the question. If I may take some 
liberties and also express gratitude for your grandfather's--
    Mr. Johnson. My daddy.
    Mr. Milton. I'm sorry, your father's legacy. Certainly, the 
facilities have put the health--
    Mr. Johnson. When you say grandaddy--that makes me feel 
good.
    Mr. Milton. I'm sorry.
    Mr. Johnson. That must mean I'm looking young up here.
    Mr. Milton. You look so young that it had to be your 
grandfather.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, I'll tell you, I do want an answer to 
that question, but I'll contact you later. I want to proceed 
on.
    Mr. Milton. OK. Sorry, sir.
    Mr. Johnson. I'm getting flustered now.
    Instead of putting money into our existing prisons to fix 
them, this week Trump ordered Federal agencies to rebuild and 
open Alcatraz, which closed in 1963 and is now a tourist site.
    Alcatraz was shut down because it was too expensive to run, 
and all its supplies had to be brought by boat to the--I mean 
just total--the place doesn't need to be reopened, but it's a 
vanity project for the President.
    He would waste money there, Mr. Purtill, and he also wasted 
money that could have gone to enhance facilities at the 
existing BOP facilities, but he poured money into a failed 
effort to make Guantanamo Bay a place where it could accept a 
bunch of--some being American citizens who were later deported 
to El Salvador. We don't need a BOP that manages facilities 
that are the same as what we have in El Salvador.
    I'm out of time now so I will yield back, but we have 
dysfunction in the BOP at this point.
    Mr. Van Drew. The gentleman yields back. With that, I'll 
ask the gentleman from the great State of Alabama, Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Trump Administration reversed several of the Biden-
Harris, BOP-related policies through Executive Orders. Most 
notably, President Trump signed an Executive Order 14168, 
requiring that all Federal inmates be housed according to their 
biological sex, and ending any provision of taxpayer-funded 
gender-affirming care for any Federal inmates.
    Mr. Purtill, how did the previous administration of the 
Bureau of Prisons justify allocating limited taxpayer resources 
toward gender transition?
    Mr. Purtill. In all honesty, sir, I couldn't answer that. I 
don't know what their justification was.
    Mr. Moore. What would be a better use of those funds?
    Mr. Purtill. What I will say is that I strongly support the 
current Executive Order that housing should be based on 
biological sex. There's a lot of agreement across multiple 
corrections systems, not just at the Federal system that this 
is the way to go.
    I believe that's the way California currently operates. If 
you can get agreement between an Executive Order from the Trump 
Administration and Governor Newsom's Administration, there's 
probably--we can safely say there's some bipartisan consensus 
on that issue.
    I do think that for facilities, both security and for the 
safety, especially for the inmates, that this is the correct 
policy.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I would agree 100 percent.
    One thing you mentioned in your testimony--and we looked at 
this in the State of Alabama--is the in-home confinement as 
opposed to having them locked up in a prison, a Federal prison 
in this case.
    Can you elaborate a little bit on the cost-effectiveness of 
that? That was something Bill Barr and the CARES Act, they kind 
of came out with. It seems like to me that makes a lot of sense 
for the taxpayers and for the inmates.
    Mr. Purtill. Yes, I agree, the cost of savings there is 
enormous. It's just over $44,000 a year to house an inmate in a 
Federal correction institution today. I don't have numbers 
handy, but I'll get them to you on exactly what the 
differential there would be on home confinement, but it is 
substantial.
    As long as you approach that topic from a public safety 
standpoint, that you're very careful about who moves to home 
confinement, that the bar requirements were very well thought 
through.
    That they also ensured that we maintained--the 
rehabilitative piece of corrections is extremely important. The 
punitive piece is also important, and requiring a significant 
portion of their sentence to have been served was what Mr. Barr 
was trying to get at with that piece.
    That's a very viable option, given that 54 percent of the 
current Federal prison population is deemed low risk to 
recidivate by BOP's own pattern tool.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I agree 100 percent. Like I said, if 
they're nonviolent, maybe there's an opportunity to revisit 
their case and say, Hey, you can be confined at home.
    In the State when we were doing the study, it seemed like 
we could house them for a month for the cost of one day in a 
prison. So, we were looking at it as we were overcrowded as 
well.
    So, a really quick we question. Mr. Potter, I want to ask 
you this: The 119th Congress has already acted with the 
introduction of H.R. 1046. It's actually the Marc Fischer 
Memorial Act.
    Are you familiar with that?
    Mr. Potter. I am not familiar.
    Mr. Moore. OK. What happened, we actually had a Bureau of 
Prison employee that was just going through the mail, and it 
had so much fentanyl on it that it killed him.
    We're looking at ways that we can actually have this mail 
screened offsite. That probably is something we're trying to 
get. We have 56 cosponsors right now. We're working on moving 
that through. Hopefully we can make some--any of you familiar 
with that at all? OK. It's something they asked me to talk 
about, and I wanted to make it aware to the panel that we're 
talking about that.
    Mr. Wilde, what is the No. 1 thing that you see when 
you're--what really changes when you start meeting with folks 
who are incarcerated and through your process? What do you 
think is the most impactful thing that we can do to help folks 
not recidivate?
    Mr. Wilde. The Prison Fellowship utilizes what we call an 
ecosystem model. It's recognizing that within a correctional 
environment there are multiple stakeholders. Through 
programming like the Prison Fellowship Academy and the Warden 
Exchange, correctional leaders as well as the incarcerated 
population can actually go on parallel journeys and not look at 
one another as the problem, but both become participants and 
partners in how we create a more rehabilitative and 
constructive culture to both live and work in. We utilize all 
kinds of programs that bring multiple stakeholders together.
    Mr. Moore. Do you see your recidivism rates drop 
dramatically?
    Mr. Wilde. Our recidivism rates within the State of Texas 
are over--it's a reduction in over 50 percent from a control 
group within that State.
    Mr. Moore. One of the things we've done in Alabama is 
actually skills training in prison so that as those individuals 
are incarcerated, they actually develop the skill, whether it 
be a mechanic certification, HVAC, honestly, all kinds of 
industry they can go into. We've seen that have a tremendous 
impact as well as faith.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. I'm out of time.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you.
    Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, I do have an unanimous consent: 
``Under Trump, U.S. Prisons offered gender-affirming care.'' 
This is a The New York Times article from October 16, 2024. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Mr. Van Drew. Next, if I've got this right, Ranking Member, 
we have Mr. Raskin from the great State of Maryland.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Chair Van Drew. Mr. Potter, is there 
evidence that private prisons are run better than Bureau of 
Prison facilities?
    Mr. Potter. There isn't any evidence that I've ever seen.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Milton, the President wants us to hand out 
hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses and incentive pay to 
ICE agents. The number we saw the other day, we discussed it 
here in Committee, was $858 million to ICE agents, which, 
according to Mr. Moskowitz's calculations, came to something 
like $45,000 per employee of ICE.
    Yet, at the same time we are reading articles about how 
retention incentives are being cut right now for the Bureau of 
Prisons staff up to 25 percent, effectively reducing their 
salaries when you look at it from an annual perspective.
    What kind of effect is this having on Bureau of Prisons' 
corrections officers?
    Mr. Milton. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member 
Raskin. What we've come to realize when we talk about officers, 
correction officers tend to be among the lowest paid.
    When those bonuses were removed, it certainly did--should I 
say the incentives were removed, it disincentivized a number of 
correction officers. Certainly, it has an impact on morale.
    We believe that investing in correction officers will also 
increase morale and have a better impact on those who are 
incarcerated as well.
    Mr. Raskin. The President has told us recently that the 
border has never been safer. Can you think of any reason why we 
should be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on bonus pay 
for ICE employees while we're reducing retention bonuses and 
incentive pay for Bureau of Prison employees?
    Mr. Milton. No, sir.
    Mr. Raskin. What's that going to do to retention, moving 
forward?
    Mr. Milton. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Raskin. What's it going to do to our ability to retain 
the best Bureau of Prison employees?
    Mr. Milton. Certainly, it makes it a challenge. Removing 
those bonuses can speak to a lack of willingness to invest in, 
in this case, people.
    One of the things that's missing in the conversation is 
that whether we're talking about people who are incarcerated 
or, in this case, correctional staff, these are people. At the 
center of all the solutions, we should be placing people at the 
forefront.
    As much as we're talking about the facilities, in this 
case, bonus pay, it's really about the morale of people and how 
it's impacting those who are directly impacted.
    Mr. Raskin. All right. It's going to be profoundly 
demoralizing to the staff there now. We've heard also about an 
increase in lockdowns taking place because you've got the 
people who are the most effective and necessary employees 
resigning because their pay is being cut.
    These lockdowns can last weeks, even months I've heard in 
some cases. What impact does the lockdown have on prison 
safety, on access to programming, and on the mental health of 
incarcerated people?
    Mr. Milton. Yes. Well, when lockdowns happen, there is a 
decrease in access to medical care. There's a decrease in 
access to families. You can't reach out to families. Families 
don't know what's going on during those lockdowns.
    It creates a panic and tension within the facilities. Then 
certainly, implementing the lockdowns certainly places pressure 
on staff as well. It creates a system where folks are now ill 
at ease during that process.
    Mr. Raskin. There's this rhetorical lip service to the 
people who have the toughest jobs actually in the prisons 
managing very difficult conditions. Yet, the President issued 
an Executive Order wiping out collective bargaining purportedly 
for more than a million Federal workers, including all these 
Bureau of Prison employees.
    What effect will that have on the staffing crisis, and what 
does it do to the morale of people who work as correctional 
officers?
    Mr. Milton. Certainly, collective bargaining establishes a 
formal process for advocacy for people, for the workers. By 
removing that formal process, where folks can sit at a table 
across from each other and find common ground on issues that 
are impacting the quality of life, it certainly removes that 
opportunity to do that in a formal way.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. The gentleman from the great State 
of Arizona, Andy Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our panel again.
    So, Mr. Purtill, you wrote, ``COs should be included more 
in the corrections process, and their experience and insight 
should inform public policy.''
    Mr. Potter, do you agree with that?
    Mr. Potter. Absolutely.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Purtill, you also wrote, ``No one has more 
insight into an inmate's likelihood of successfully 
reintegrating into society than the COs who interact with him 
daily.''
    Do you also agree with that, Mr. Potter?
    Mr. Potter. Absolutely.
    Mr. Biggs. Can you give me an example on where--an idea 
that you think, as you represent COs, both on the policy and, 
in particular, if you have a policy on how to address inclusion 
of COs into the procedure of determining reintegration into 
society?
    Mr. Potter. Yes. I believe any time there's a consideration 
for early release, I think you should include those men and 
women that know firsthand how that person has conducted 
themselves throughout their time.
    I can tell you from my own personal experience, I've worked 
with many people that I totally believe should have gone home, 
they were ready to go home, but I was not allowed to weigh in 
on that decisionmaking.
    I do believe that when you talk to those that are closest 
and that spend the most time with these individuals, sometimes 
16 hours a shift, sometimes longer, they know more about that 
individual than anybody else in the system.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Purtill, how would you integrate a CO into 
that process?
    Mr. Purtill. I do think coming up with a mechanism to have 
their voices input into that. That they can both be on an 
individual level within the institution on what that individual 
person is--what their likelihood is to recidivate and what 
security level they need to be housed at and all those things. 
That can be taken, become part of the case file for the 
individual incarcerated.
    I also think that there are voices at a more broader policy 
level could also--
    Mr. Biggs. Let's get on the adjudication of whether someone 
should be released early in reentry first before we get to 
broader policy.
    Mr. Purtill. Sure.
    Mr. Biggs. What I would suggest is that there's an action 
item for maybe all four of you is to come up with a process and 
a procedure to include, be more inclusive of COs. If I could, 
I'd ask you to get on that, and get us something back. Maybe 
Mr. Potter and Mr. Purtill, in particular, can sit down and do 
something, because one of the ways that this happens is if 
Congress is aware of it and can actually build on that. I would 
challenge you to do that.
    Mr. Wilde, what do you think are the factors that are most 
likely predicted whether an inmate will return to prison?
    Mr. Wilde. We often say that nothing magic happens on 
release. What you were doing the day before is a good indicator 
of what you'll do afterwards.
    We've been purposeful in trying to implement communities of 
practice where people practice values of what we call good 
citizenship. They're seeking out prosocial community, that 
they're taking responsibility, they're transitioning from being 
consumers to producers. No longer does the world happen to an 
individual but they happen to the world.
    That those are some of the greatest factors. We are 
situated to come alongside and provide those skills as well as 
support for people's change journeys.
    Mr. Biggs. You've indicated that you've had challenges 
perhaps working with the BOP and getting into the system and 
using your program. Again, I would urge, Mr. Purtill, that if 
we don't come out of here with at least a few action items 
today, we will not have achieved as much as we need to.
    I would encourage us to find a way to work with both the 
COs and the faith-based to see how we can integrate them more 
fully into helping.
    Mr. Milton, do you think that might be helpful?
    Mr. Milton. It sounds like a good solution.
    Mr. Biggs. Man, I've never heard anybody say that about any 
of my ideas before. Glad to hear that, Mr. Milton.
    I appreciate your efforts, and I hope that we can actually 
begin to take some steps to get some action items done and 
completed to facilitate certainly the reduction of recidivism, 
because I think that would make all us happier.
    So, with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Van Drew. I thank the gentleman.
    I will now ask the gentleman from the great State of 
Tennessee, Mr. Cohen.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honor to be here 
on the dais with a high IQ Ranking Member.
    None of you are from the Bureau of Prisons, as I've read 
over here, and that's a little disappointing there's nobody 
here from the Bureau of Prisons.
    Let me ask, does anybody have any idea how many trans 
people were in the prison system, the Federal prison system, 
normally the population, percentage-wise? Nobody has any idea? 
Anybody have any idea about what problems existed with the 
trans people in the prisons? If they were not done according to 
their biological sex, but whatever way they did it, were there 
problems and what occurred? Is it not an issue?
    Trans people in the prison system is not a big issue to any 
of your opinions, is that right? Nod or something.
    Mr. Goldman. Will the gentleman yield for the answers if 
you don't have them?
    Mr. Cohen. Yes, I will yield.
    Mr. Goldman. There are 156,000 inmates in the Bureau of 
Prisons. NPR has calculated there are 23 that would be impacted 
by this Executive Order. That is .01 percent of the inmates, 
and yet, this is what our Republican colleagues want to talk 
about.
    Mr. Cohen. That is a great deal greater number than are in 
the NCAA. I think there are only eight in the NCAA. It's a much 
more pressing issue than the NCAA.
    Anyway, that was just--does anybody in this group--and I 
know you are trying to do good work and all that, and I think 
that's important--feel that the First Step program is working 
or have any opinion about the First Step program? Mr. Purtill, 
do you have an opinion about the efficacy?
    Mr. Purtill. I have a very strong opinion about the First 
Step Act. It's working. There is much more that still needs to 
be done on the implementation side, but that it was well-
founded in how it was structured, and the Bureau of Prisons is 
moving forward with trying to do that.
    Increasing the recidivism reduction programming, especially 
the evidence-based programming, within the facilities is 
critically important. Most of these folks are coming back home 
into our community, and we want to make sure that we've done 
everything that we can both to rehabilitate them, which is part 
of the mandate of any corrections system.
    Mr. Cohen. I was pleased, as a Member of this Committee, 
during Trump one that I supported that, one of the few times 
I've supported Mr. Trump. In Trump two, he seems to have 
forgotten about it a bit, because Ms. Peters, who he fired on 
day one as head of the Bureau of Prisons, was very much 
involved in implementing the First Step program. Since then, 
they're on the third interim director, I think. It's a very 
difficult job and an important job.
    Mr. Wilde, you're at Prison Fellowship. How many times in 
your Prison Fellowship have you had people who become religious 
and either convert their religion or accept religion or 
something else?
    Mr. Wilde. In all our programs, they are open to people of 
any faith. There is no religious preference. That's never a 
criterion to get in, to graduate, or to participate. We say 
that our programs are a place for anybody to belong, regardless 
of what they believe.
    If a person does come to faith in Jesus, it's because they 
are compelled by something beautiful that they saw and how 
people love them with where they're at.
    Mr. Cohen. Does that happen very often?
    Mr. Wilde. I would say so, but there are also people who go 
through our programs who are Muslim who graduate as a Muslim, 
who are better citizens.
    Mr. Cohen. I saw a movie last week. It's an old movie from 
Mr. Goldman's hometown. The movie was called, ``Cafe Society.'' 
In ``Cafe Society,'' there's--it's a Woody Allen movie. There 
was a Jewish gangster, and he offed a few people.
    He was in prison, and he was talking to his sister on the 
phone and told her how he was converting and becoming 
Christian. Catholic, he was becoming. He said that he was going 
to be executed in three days and he thought it gave him 
something to look forward to. He didn't want to think of that 
being the end. She commented, ``Jews don't necessarily do that, 
but if they did have that idea that you went somewhere after 
you were killed they'd get more customers.''
    There is something to it and there's something to look 
forward to if you do accept Jesus or accept some different 
perspective, especially if you're in prison.
    Do any of you all have any opinion about prison guards and 
the difficulty? How many times are prison guards attacked by 
prisoners? Is that a very common occurrence? Mr. Potter?
    Mr. Potter. Yes. I can tell you that I have been attacked, 
but mostly, when something else is going on, and we try to calm 
the situation or break the situation up. It's an unintended 
consequence, but it's a consequence, and it happens.
    I've had a number of things happen throughout my career. I 
had two neck surgeries, cervical neck surgeries, and had a 
shoulder surgery. It does happen as part of what we do.
    Mr. Cohen. I'm over time, so I can't ask you about 
Alcatraz, which could be Mar-a-Lago West. Thank you.
    Mr. Van Drew. I thank the gentleman.
    I now recognize the gentlelady from the great State of 
Florida, Ms. Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you to all our witnesses for being here with us 
today. I believe that criminal justice reform is one of the 
critical issues for this Committee to work on and appreciate 
you all being here.
    Most recently, I was honored to introduce the Fresh Start 
Act, which is a bipartisan bill that supports helping 
individuals reintegrate back into society and gaining access to 
employment, housing, and educational opportunities, and want to 
thank my colleague, Representative Kamlager-Dove, for co-
leading this effort with me.
    In addition to advancing reform, it's critical that 
Congress continues to conduct meaningful oversight from the 
Bureau of Prisons to ensure our correctional facilities are 
secure, cost-effective, and safe for our correctional officers.
    I'd like to begin, Mr. Purtill, by going back to something 
that you just commented about, which was you referred to 
evidence-based recidivism reduction. I would love to hear your 
thoughts on some of the tools and strategies that are evidence-
based that help us reduce rates of recidivism.
    Mr. Purtill. Sure. We do know a fair amount about when 
people are more likely to recidivate. We know that employment 
is one of the most important factors that someone can ever have 
in determining whether or not they are going to recidivate once 
they're released from prison.
    That the evidence-based--there are criminologists who are 
in a better position to speak to exactly what goes into 
evidence-based programming than I am. I know that the Bureau 
has a process by which they examine programs before they 
determine that they're evidence-based.
    In terms of oversight, really encouraging the Bureau of 
Prisons to get more of those programs online, get them 
approved, get them into the facilities, get them behind the 
walls, and get them working, I think is critically important.
    I know that some things--and I'm very sympathetic to the 
idea that we need these programs to be evidence-based, because 
sometimes some of the activities that get labeled as recidivism 
reduction are probably not all that effective. It's important 
to have that distinction drawn.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Wilde, from the inmate rehabilitation standpoint, have 
staffing shortages affected the availability of programming and 
those types of opportunities for those who are incarcerated?
    Mr. Wilde. Yes. In several locations where staffing is low, 
you have to be able to escort volunteers. You have to ensure 
that as people are coming in to offer those programs, that they 
are kept safe and secure as well. Yes, staffing shortages do 
impact programs.
    Ms. Lee. Mr. Potter, shifting gears a little bit, last 
Congress I introduced the Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati Stopping 
Prison Contraband Act that would have increased penalties for 
smuggling cell phones into prisons and will provide oversight 
of the Department of Justice to ensure these policies, when in 
place, are being upheld.
    Can you speak about the issue of increased contraband being 
smuggled into prisons and specifically the dangers associated 
with cell phones.
    Mr. Potter. Yes. There's been all kinds of contraband that 
have been smuggled into prisons one way or the other, whether 
it's over the fence or through the gate.
    Cell phones, in particular, are, in my mind, pretty 
dangerous because there's a way of communicating from across 
the compound. There's a way of communicating with folks outside 
to do all kinds of nefarious things.
    It's not just communication to see how you're doing. Most 
times those cell phones lead to--also, it's a level of 
contraband that's bought and sold that also leads to higher 
tensions and things like that.
    Ms. Lee. In particular, when we are analyzing officer 
safety and how to ensure that we are doing everything possible 
to ensure the security and safety of correctional officers, are 
cell phones one of the tools that can be utilized to actually 
develop plans or threats against correctional officers and 
others who are working in prison security?
    Mr. Potter. I believe so, yes.
    Ms. Lee. Now, what are some of the things that you think we 
could do to help deter or reduce the amount of contraband 
entering into our prison systems?
    Mr. Potter. Well, there's a lot of innovation that's taken 
place over the past several years, and there's a lot of 
facilities and a lot of States that are taking those steps like 
cell phone detection and drone detection and things like that.
    When people come in, if you can detect what kind of 
contraband they're bringing in, or if there's contraband coming 
from over the fence or however, if you can identify what that 
is or stop it or disable it, those are all mechanisms that are 
extremely useful.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Van Drew. I thank the gentlelady.
    Next, I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Goldman.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    I would ordinarily appreciate this hearing very much, 
because the Bureau of Prisons is a critical component of the 
Department of Justice that is woefully underfunded and 
struggling to implement their mission.
    We must be living in Fantasyland. We're trying to have a 
normal hearing doing oversight of the Bureau of Prisons when 
the President and Elon Musk are taking a hatchet to the Bureau, 
canceling the collective bargaining agreement for all the 
correctional officers, eliminating retention bonuses for the 
correctional officers while making sure that every masked 
undercover Gestapo agent with ICE gets a $40,000 bonus.
    In fact, the bill you passed last week, the Republicans 
passed last week, would give $12 billion in pay increases and 
bonuses to ICE and CBP, and nothing to the Bureau of Prisons. 
Yet, my colleagues sit over there acting as if they're really 
interested in correcting the Bureau of Prisons and all the 
problems that we have there.
    Then, put some money where it is, because we all know 
that's how you correct the problem. That's how you implement 
the First Step Act. That's how you implement and fund the 
Federal Prison Oversight Act, a bipartisan bill that we passed 
last Congress that has not been funded and can't do anything.
    You're passing a partisan reconciliation bill. You have the 
purse strings. Yet, we're supposed to sit here thinking that 
you're really serious about making sure that we're helping the 
corrections officer. It's just bogus.
    Let's take the Metropolitan Detention Center in my district 
in Brooklyn. Since 2020, there have been 17 inmates that have 
been killed. The staffing shortages are devastating and have 
been devastating. There have been numerous, numerous lockdowns 
simply because there are not enough staff. Inmates are kept in 
isolation for multiple days at a time because of staffing 
shortages.
    There was a crackdown by the FBI and the Department of 
Justice in March. Twenty-five inmates were arrested for all 
sorts of various smuggling efforts, violence, violent assaults 
with scalpels and, as my colleague from Florida said, 
``smuggled in cell phones.'' There's not enough staff to 
actually monitor what is going on.
    What did they do at MDC? Well, under President Biden, they 
implemented a retention bonus of 35 percent. That enabled them 
to hire 87 additional people for that one location, the most in 
years and years. It decreased lockdowns. Since August 2024, 
there have been three days of lockdowns due to staff shortages.
    You would think that's a productive way of boosting 
employment, boosting staffing, which I think every single one 
of our witnesses has said is an essential part of addressing 
the problems in the Bureau of Prisons.
    What does President Trump do? Gets rid of the retention 
bonuses, gone, gets rid of the collective bargaining agreement.
    How on earth do you think you are going to increase 
staffing by taking away all the correction officers' benefits, 
by taking away their retention bonus, which proved to be 
successful and is necessary. Yet, we're here talking about 
implementing recidivism programs. It's a joke.
    So, Mr. Biggs, you asked for some action items. I'll give 
you some action items.
    Mr. Biggs. Can I ask you a question, Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. After I give you the action items, I'm happy 
to have a colloquy.

    (1) Restore the retention bonuses so that we can hire more 
corrections officers to implement all of the laws that we want 
to implement in a bipartisan way, and so we can keep the 
inmates safe;
    (2) restore the collective bargaining agreement rather than 
unilaterally canceling a negotiated collective bargaining 
agreement that gives the corrections officers very important 
protections; and
    (3) fund the First Step Act, let's fund the Federal Prison 
Oversight Act, which has not been funded.

    There are three action items that you can take back to Mr. 
Trump to try to actually address the issues at the Bureau of 
Prisons. I am happy to yield to you.
    Mr. Biggs. Can you tell me--you mentioned that the Brooklyn 
facility had 17 homicides among inmates from 2020-2024. What 
administration controlled the BOP that entire time? Did you do 
anything? You didn't do jack crap.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Goldman. You have no idea what I did.
    Mr. Van Drew. Your time is expired. All right. Next, we 
have the Chair of the whole Committee, Mr. Jordan.
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Purtill, any idea 
how many inmates in Federal prison are not U.S. citizens?
    Mr. Purtill. I actually do not know that, sir. I'm sorry.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Potter, would you hazard a guess or know?
    Mr. Potter. I do not know.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Wilde?
    Mr. Wilde. I do not know.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Milton?
    Mr. Milton. No, sir.
    Chair Jordan. I think you all testified there are staff 
shortages. The gentleman from New York just talked about staff 
shortages.
    Maybe if there weren't 24,000 Federal inmates who are not 
U.S. citizens, maybe we wouldn't have a staff shortage. Maybe 
if the administration before this one hadn't just released into 
the country people who came here illegally and actually 
detained them, they wouldn't have committed some of these 
crimes and wouldn't be in Federal prison.
    Do you think maybe that would help with the situation on 
staffing that you all brought up that the gentleman from New 
York just raised? Mr. Purtill, I'll start with you.
    Mr. Purtill. I do, sir. I'm assuming that most of those are 
under an immigration detainer for when they do come out.
    Chair Jordan. I don't know about most of them, but that's a 
question I'd have, too. Do you understand that? Are they under 
a detainer, when they're released that at least ICE will have 
the ability to go--they're not just going to be released into 
the country? Do you know?
    Mr. Purtill. That's my assumption, but I do not know those 
numbers.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Potter, do you know if that's actually 
the case with these 24,584 Bureau of Prison inmates are not 
U.S. citizens? Do you know what percentage represents of the 
Federal inmate population?
    Mr. Potter. No, I do not.
    Chair Jordan. Sixteen percent. Maybe we wouldn't have a 
staff shortage if this had been dealt with in the previous 
administration. This is something President Trump is trying to 
deal with going forward. Sixteen percent.
    Do you know if there are detainers for these individuals 
who would be subject to that going on currently, Mr. Potter?
    Mr. Potter. No, I don't know.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Wilde?
    Mr. Wilde. I don't know.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Milton, any idea?
    Mr. Milton. No, sir.
    Chair Jordan. Well, what we do know is what happened a few 
years back. I think this goes clear back to the Obama 
Administration. I sent a detainer to the Board of Prisons--or 
the Bureau of Prison, excuse me, regarding the individual who 
wound up killing Kate Steinle. Sure, many of you remember this 
situation.
    The BOP didn't honor that, instead released this individual 
to San Francisco, to law enforcement there, who then--to the 
jurisdiction there, who then released this guy to the streets 
who wound up killing Kate Steinle.
    This is something that we should look at here, this huge 
part of the population in our Federal prison who are not 
citizens. Again, I appreciate we've known about Prison 
Fellowship forever and the good work you do. We appreciate the 
work you're doing with inmates.
    This is one thing, one area where we could make some 
changes. Again, the Trump Administration is seeking to do that, 
and certainly not following--well, we're not having near the 
amount of migrants come to the border now that were coming in 
the previous administration, but certainly not releasing people 
into the country like was done before, which then gave the 
opportunity for this situation to happen with some of these 
individuals.
    Any comments on that? Mr. Potter.
    Mr. Potter. They may help the situation, but I think 
restoring collective bargaining unit rights is an important 
issue. Treating people like professionals is also important.
    Do I think it will solve the staffing problem? I don't 
think it will solve the staffing problem. I think there's a 
systematic issue here. When it comes to how you value the 
people that work there and how they feel valued is what's going 
to keep them there.
    Chair Jordan. Fair enough. Any other thoughts from the rest 
of the panel? If not, I'll yield my time back.
    I'll yield my remaining time to the Chair. Thank you, Mr. 
Chair. Thanks for this hearing and thank all of you for the 
work you do.
    Mr. Van Drew. I will--you'll yield the time to me. I will 
yield to Mr. Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
    I do want to point out, in relationship to the gentleman 
from New York's comments, I take what he says with gravity and 
seriousness, but I know one thing: When his side of the aisle 
controlled the House, the Senate, when they controlled the 
Presidency, when they controlled the Bureau of Prisons, we had 
massive amounts of problems with the Dublin Corrections 
Facility.
    We investigated and kept going at it, and eventually that 
had to be closed. They didn't do anything to fix that. That's 
my point. I think that there's something we could--you can piss 
each other off all you want, but if you're going to get 
something done, you got to find a place that you can work 
together and get it done.
    Some of the rhetoric I've heard today indicates my 
colleagues just don't want to do that, and that's a shame.
    Yield.
    Mr. Van Drew. The gentleman yields.
    Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, I've got an unanimous consent.
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. This is the GAO report 
that says that there was a 33 percent decrease in noncitizens 
incarcerated in BOP from 2017-2022.
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you.
    Mr. Van Drew. I now recognize Mr. Moskowitz from the great 
State of Florida.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I begin, I have 
a unanimous consent request.
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Mr. Moskowitz. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record an article by Emma Buker titled ``DOGE, Musk oversight 
of Federal workforce causing frustration for FCI Thomson 
staff.''
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Mr. Moskowitz. I have another unanimous consent request.
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Mr. Moskowitz. You want me to read it or--
    Mr. Van Drew. Not really, but go ahead.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Can I text it to you later? All right. So, 
unanimous consent request, obviously. I'll give them to you, 
Mr. Chair. I'll skip that.
    All right. Let's begin on my time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I 
appreciate this hearing. It's always a pleasure to go after 
Chair Jordan.
    I've been listening to my colleagues talking about 
investment and personnel shortages. Of course, we're talking 
about that in a time where DOGE has its fingerprints over all 
the agencies, including your own.
    At a time when we're talking about personnel shortages, 
we're actually firing people. We're convincing them to leave. 
We're retiring them, right? Don't get me wrong. Like, you guys 
need more resources, right? You need more people. You got 
crumbling infrastructure, right? We need to be tough on crime, 
tough on criminals. I got all that.
    There definitely needs to be serious reforms, right? This 
is a serious conversation. Earlier I was listening to the 
Ranking Member and she brought up something about Trump talking 
about Alcatraz.
    Of course, look, this is just another distraction to divert 
attention away from the tariffs or rising prices or the 
struggle on Main Street. Since we're having a hearing on 
prisons, it's lucky timing for me.
    Three times more expensive than any prison to operate in 
1959, Alcatraz was, OK? It needs about $250 million to shore up 
the infrastructure and utilities. All food and water have to be 
barged in. Sewage has to be barged out. The facility is almost 
100 years old.
    I don't get it. In the days of DOGE where we're cutting 
budgets, we got to find savings, now we're going to what? We're 
going to cut Medicaid and SNAP so that we can pour money into 
Alcatraz?
    First, have you been to Alcatraz recently? It literally 
is--it's a rust box walking around. You need a tetanus shot 
just to go into the building. Do we still give tetanus shots or 
has RFK gotten rid of those? I can't keep up.
    So, listen, where did the President get this idea all of a 
sudden, right? Where did he get the idea? Perhaps, he was 
watching ``Escape from Alcatraz,'' right? I brought boards, 
because some people are visual learners. Perhaps he was 
watching ``Escape from Alcatraz,'' by Clint Eastwood.
    Actually, the funny part about that, it was actually on 
television in South Florida. It was on PBS South Florida over 
the weekend when Trump was at Mar-a-Lago. In fact, he made his 
announcement just hours after it aired. You know PBS, the 
programming that he's trying to get rid of, so just in case 
you're keeping up, right? It's two dolls for girls and zero 
Elmos, OK?
    Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it wasn't that. Maybe he was 
watching ``The Rock,'' with Sean Connery. You know this one. 
This is where Sean Connery goes back to Alcatraz, because he 
originally escaped Alcatraz and he needed an expert on chemical 
weapons.
    Maybe the President was just Netflixing and chilling, like 
watching ``The Rock,'' which is not to be confused with ``The 
Rock,'' right? That's a different person.
    Then the President is really excited about these sharks, 
right? He's talking about all the sharks and the person 
escaped. He lost his clothing. So, sharks, they don't have 
laser beams on, they don't have laser beams, but maybe the 
sharks are going to be there.
    This is just all ridiculous. All of a sudden after that, we 
heard like, Oh, we're going to tariff the movies. Well, hold on 
a second. Why would we tariff the movies? This is where the 
President is getting his ideas from. We can't tariff the policy 
idea making of the Presidency.
    I know what my colleagues are going to say. They're going 
to say, Jared, just let the President cook. This is 4D chess 
he's playing.
    I'm going to say, but maybe he's just watching late night 
movies. Perhaps he's just watching late nights movies. In fact, 
we're told he got this movie tariff idea from no other than Jon 
Voight, the guy who was in that great movie ``Anaconda.'' I 
don't know if you've seen that.
    This is the ridiculousness that's going on. I want to end 
with this: Mr. Purtill, you run a faith-based organization, 
right? No? Oh, it's Mr. Wilde. You run a faith-based 
organization. Sorry.
    Do you think it's a good idea to reopen Alcatraz? Do you 
think the faith-based community has been pounding the table to 
reopen Alcatraz?
    Mr. Wilde. Prison Fellowship's stance is that prisons 
should be safe, effective, efficient, and uphold human dignity.
    Mr. Moskowitz. OK, let me make it easier for you. All four 
of you, which one of you think we should reopen Alcatraz? Just 
raise your hand.
    OK. For my colleagues who sometimes are a little slow, no 
one raised their hand, OK, nobody, not a single witness. None 
of your witnesses here think we should reopen Alcatraz.
    We have real problems in the prison system. It does need 
reform. It does need money. We can work on that together. The 
President puts out Alcatraz as a distraction. Thank you.
    Mr. Van Drew. The gentleman yields. I am going to yield to 
myself. I had prepared remarks but before we get into them, so 
much has been said on the other side, I just want to address 
some of that.
    First, I want to say, Mr. Moskowitz, you really do have 
talent. You really do have potential as a full-time standup 
comic for real. You're good. You're good. It's fun. It really 
is enjoyable.
    Mr. Moskowitz. The President provided the material.
    Mr. Van Drew. No, I think you have got some of your own 
material too, and you embellish a little bit but it's still 
fun.
    Second, on a serious note, earlier in the meeting we were 
discussing, the Ranking Member for the Committee of the whole, 
something about deporting babies and U.S. citizens and ICE and 
detaining criminals.
    Let's be clear. First, that's not your issue. It's not why 
you're here. I'm sorry we had to digress on that. This is not a 
reconciliation meeting. I really do want to talk about the 
Bureau of Prisons and how we can make it better.
    I really started the meeting out by saying I was extending 
my hand to see. We're going to disagree on some stuff, but 
let's see if we can work together to make it better because 
what those folks are going through isn't good. We can do 
better.
    Quite frankly, it's been going on for years on both sides 
of the aisle. Let's not anybody be holier than thou on this, 
OK? We're not deporting babies, by the way. I have to bring it 
up, because it's said.
    We're not deporting--and I know somebody is going to 
disagree with me on the other side, probably the Ranking 
Member, and that's fine--U.S. citizens. There were a lot of 
folks that shouldn't have been in the United States of America 
that were committing crimes and doing bad things that nobody 
appreciated, obviously, that committed murders, disfigured 
people, raped people, and hurt people. Some of them were on the 
terror watch list. We're not speaking about immigrants. We love 
immigrants, but we don't like those people.
    Yes, the border is much, much better now than it was. Yes, 
sometimes we might need some help from the Bureau of Prisons. 
Ultimately, it makes it a lot better for them too, not have 
having lots of bad folks come into the United States.
    I just want to, again, focus on associating myself with the 
remarks of Mr. Biggs. We really want to try to do something 
together here. It's my goal. I know it's hard, and I know it's 
highly partisan, but I think there are some areas--we're not 
going to agree on everything. We know it.
    We have divergent ideas for the future of the United 
States, but there may be a few points where we can come 
together to try to make it better, and that's what I hope for 
and that's what I hope we would do.
    Finally, Mr. Goldman made a remark, too, about--I think I 
heard it right and if I didn't I apologize but I believe I did, 
about jack-booted Gestapo agents as far as ICE.
    The men and women who work for ICE are oh so similar to 
people that work for Corrections. They're just doing their job. 
They want a safe America. It's a hard job. It's a brutal job. 
It's not easy. They've been understaffed, abused, and 
mistreated for years.
    I don't like it in Corrections. I don't like it in ICE. We 
shouldn't do it to anybody. So no, they're not Gestapo agents, 
and that's abusive and inappropriate to refer to them so much, 
and I do call out Mr. Goldman for doing that. I wish he was 
here.
    Finally, really quickly, because I used up a lot of my 
time, but if you'd give me a brief answer.
    Mr. Wilde, what structural or policy reforms would give you 
and your teams the stability and the access to really serve 
incarcerated individuals?
    The work you do, I like. It was referenced before by Mr. 
Cohen, when you believe in something and you believe you can 
get better. I've been around Corrections a lot, and some of the 
most successful work that I have seen done is faith-based, 
whatever the faith is. Just the faith that there's something 
greater and bigger and better for all of us, quite frankly. We 
all need that, including those of us who sit up here.
    Tell me, how can we make it better?
    Mr. Wilde. First, we would ask for the full implementation 
of the tenets of the First Step Act.
    Prison Fellowship is situated to be able to provide these 
services to those who live in prison, those who work in prison, 
family members, and to create better neighbors inside and 
outside.
    We believe that we have something really important and 
valuable to be able to offer to this conversation, and we're 
ready to do that. With the First Step Act, we would encourage 
the inclusion of other faith-based organizations.
    Mr. Van Drew. I hope that this Committee in some way can 
help. That's something I believe, I'm hopeful that across party 
lines that we can agree on, that there's a place for God to 
help people rehabilitate, regardless of what, ``D'' or ``R,'' 
is next to our name.
    Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Potter, would you agree--and I think this 
is what I got from your testimony, and then I'll be done, but I 
want to just summarize it. You can say yes or no--that we don't 
actually listen to the correctional officers enough? We always 
do this. In everything that government does, we don't listen to 
the people who are most directly affected. Do you believe 
within the current budget we actually could make it a lot 
better?
    Finally, recidivism--that's a hard word for me--do you 
agree that the quality of facility actually affects that? I 
know it's three questions. Real briefly.
    Mr. Potter. Yes. I do believe--
    Mr. Van Drew. Sorry. I'm looking at you. Yes, go ahead. 
You're correct. You're correct.
    Mr. Potter. OK. Yes. I do believe that listening to the men 
and women that do the work is extremely important and the 
second largest stakeholder in the system, so any reform that's 
going to happen is going to affect them as well.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Potter. I yield back. With 
that, I will recognize the gentlelady from the great State of 
Georgia, Ms. McBath.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chair.
    First, I do want to say, in listening to all of you today, 
there are resounding themes that we hear from each and every 
one of you about what we should be doing and the problems that 
we're facing within the BOP. I do appreciate that Mr. Biggs, 
our colleague, is looking for action items, but actually the 
action items are already right before us. Let's make sure that 
we are fully funding the BOP and the First Step Act and also 
the Federal Prison Oversight Act.
    I'd like to ask each of you gentlemen, just yes or no, 
would you agree that these programs are a step in the right 
direction? Mr. Milton?
    Mr. Milton. I agree wholeheartedly.
    Ms. McBath. Mr. Wilde?
    Mr. Wilde. Absolutely.
    Ms. McBath. Mr. Purtill?
    Mr. Purtill. I do. I think implementing the First Step Act 
is critically important.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you. Mr. Potter?
    Mr. Potter. I absolutely agree.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you. Because we agree as well. My 
questions briefly are going to be for Mr. Milton and also for 
Mr. Potter today.
    Mr. Milton, we know the Federal oversight--Prison Oversight 
Act, we know it needs to be instituted, we know it needs to be 
funded. Nothing can be done until those things are done. Can 
you tell us, do you believe that it would have prevented 
another occurrence such as the widespread abuse that we saw 
that occurred at FCI Dublin if it was instituted?
    Mr. Milton. I believe it could have, Ranking Member, 
avoided that, particularly as we talk about the transparency 
that's built into the Oversight Act, the independence is built 
into the Act, could have sent early warning signs to this 
honorable body to do something about it.
    Ms. McBath. Uh-huh. Thank you.
    Mr. Potter, you talked about the human toll that you spoke 
of in terms of covering the BOP staff. Can you kind of talk 
about the solutions that we might be able to encapsulate to 
find these solutions? What can we do basically to improve the 
mental health and the wellness of our corrections officers and 
staff that are in the BOP?
    Mr. Potter. In any good wellness program, the employees 
have to be able to help create what that looks like for them. 
In every instance and every different State, one wellness 
program might look different than the other. It shouldn't be 
something that's just implemented by the administration and 
then they're dragged into it and convinced that it's a good 
wellness program. They have to be hands on, they have to help 
develop that wellness program from the ground up.
    There also needs to be a cultural survey. I totally believe 
that the Bureau of Prisons needs a complete cultural survey to 
be able to identify where those needs are going to be, and that 
should be done by a third party, someone who's trusted. I do 
believe in oversight as well.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you.
    Mr. Purtill, what you said in your opening remarks, I 
really want to thank you, because a lot of the funding that we 
secured--bipartisan funding that we secured under the Biden 
Administration under the CARES Act is what has been able to 
facilitate a lot of what we were trying to do to restore faith 
in our Board of Prison system. I want to thank you for 
acknowledging that funding through the CARES Act is what--we 
were on the right track at that time.
    Mr. Potter, one last question for you. Would these 
solutions for correctional officers make our prisons safer and 
better places for inmates as well?
    Mr. Potter. Yes, I believe it would.
    Ms. McBath. Could you kind of expand on that for us, 
please?
    Mr. Potter. Remind me of exactly the question that you're 
asking.
    Mrs. McBath. OK. The solutions that you spoke about in 
terms of really helping to support in covering the Board of 
Prisons' staff, to improve the mental health problems that we 
have with our staff in the Board of Prisons and the correction 
officers, would these solutions for correctional officers make 
our prisons safer and better places for inmates as well?
    Mr. Potter. Yes, thank you. I do believe it would, because 
when someone comes to work and they're healthier, they're going 
to conduct their jobs in a much different way. When people come 
in and they're exhausted and they're not healthy, well, they're 
not going to be able to do the things we're asking them to do 
when it comes to helping those incarcerated find success as 
they leave. I do think it has a direct impact on how somebody 
comes to work and how they're treated and their mental health 
State.
    Ms. McBath. In closing, we're hearing from every witness 
here, whether invited by the Republicans or the Democrats, all 
of you are calling on us to get the BOP the funding that it 
needs, fully implement the First Step Act, and fund the Federal 
Prison Oversight Act. I thank you for that.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Van Drew. The gentlelady yields. I recognize the 
gentleman from the great State of Missouri, Mr. Onder.
    Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, before we do that, I've got a UC, 
unanimous consent request. ``What happens with U.S. citizen 
children caught up in Trump's deportation.'' That's a CNN 
article. I've got another one. It says, ``Newborn U.S. citizen 
and Guatemalan mom detained.'' That's an NBC article. My last 
one is, ``Judge says 2-year-old U.S. citizen appears to have 
been deported with no meaningful process.'' Politico article. 
Thank you so much.
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chair, I have a UC as well.
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Mr. Biggs. ``Federal women's prison in California plagued 
by rampant sexual abuse to close.'' Thanks.
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection. Mr. Onder, you got your 
chance.
    Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, Mr. Chair--
    Mr. Van Drew. Dr. Onder, I guess I should say.
    Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Chair, you had Mr. Goldman's quotes slightly off. You 
quoted him as saying ``jackbooted Gestapo agents.'' No, he 
called our hardworking men and women of ICE masked Gestapo 
agents. With that kind of attitude toward Federal law 
enforcement, no wonder in 2023 the Bureau of Prisons had a 21 
percent unfilled position rate.
    In 2022, the California Department of Corrections report 
found that 34 percent of transgender offenders who requested 
transfer to women's prisons were registered sex offenders. In 
the U.K., that was more than 70 percent. California was 
allowing men who were convicted of raping women to suddenly 
identify as transgender and then be moved to women's prisons, 
where many times they continued their abuse.
    Female inmates like Dana Gray, who woke up in the middle of 
the night to a 6,1" male roommate pushing his intact genitalia 
in her face. Alissa Kamholz as a child was routinely raped by 
her stepfather and his Hells Angels buddies. She eventually was 
convicted and sentenced to prison under the Three Strikes Act, 
and she referred to prison--Federal prison as her safe space 
where men couldn't hurt her anymore. Then--I'm sorry, 
California prison. That was until one of the men who was among 
the abusers was placed in her room at Central California 
Women's Facility. The same prison had placed condoms in every 
day room.
    The issue of men and women's prisons, the United States is 
behind the times. In the U.K. in 2023, there was a reversal of 
course and the U.K. banned so-called transgender women who have 
male genitalia from being placed in women's prisons. During the 
debate in the U.K., a prison manager was on record saying that 
the majority of transgender women, so-called, began identifying 
as trans-
gender after they interacted with the criminal justice system.
    You would think that the 2003 law, the Prison Rape 
Elimination Act would protect female inmates from male abusers. 
The Obama Administration perversely used this very law as 
authority when he introduced a policy through the Transgender 
Offender Manual that required an inmate's transgender status to 
be considered when deciding whether to place them in a women's 
prison.
    The Biden-Harris Administration further abused the intent 
of PREA by his new version of the Transgender Offender Manual 
that allowed inmates to receive hormone therapy sex transition 
surgeries and other medical treatment related to their gender 
identity. At a time when we have a $36 trillion debt and a 
deficit over $1.5 trillion a year, the Biden-Harris 
Administration is paying for sex change operations in our 
Federal prisons.
    I would ask each of you, in your opinion, first Mr. Potter, 
does allowing men identifying as women to serve in women's 
prisons make prison rape more or less likely?
    Mr. Potter. I would only be able to guess on that and say 
more likely, I would assume.
    Mr. Onder. Yes. Thank you. Do you believe women in Federal 
prisons deserve to be protected from prison rape under PREA?
    Mr. Potter. Absolutely.
    Mr. Onder. Same question for you, Mr. Purtill. In your 
opinion, does allowing men who identify as women to serve in 
women's prisons make prison rape more or less likely?
    Mr. Purtill. Well, as I said earlier, I think it makes--it 
places women in a much more vulnerable position, whether it's 
physical violence, sexual violence--
    Mr. Onder. In your opinion--
    Mr. Purtill. As you heard today, there are so many issues 
facing the Bureau of Prisons, this population is infinitesimal.
    Mr. Onder. Right. It's a small population. At the same 
time, one offender, one convicted rapist being released into a 
women's prison among inmates who are smaller, more vulnerable, 
less muscle mass and so on could do a lot of damage even though 
it's a relatively small problem?
    Mr. Purtill. Yes. No, I agree. I didn't mean to minimize 
it.
    Mr. Onder. Yes, no, I know you're not. Again, our 
Democratic colleagues do minimize the problem, oh, it's only X 
number of people. They're about--well over 2,000 inmates who 
identify as transgender in the Federal prison system. Not all 
of them are men in women's prisons by any means, but the 
potential is there.
    I believe it's not--our Democratic colleagues say somehow--
they're implying somehow we Republicans are obsessed with this 
issue. They began it under Obama, they continued it under 
Biden. We're returning to sanity under President Trump.
    Thank you very much for your testimony. I yield back.
    Mr. Van Drew. The gentleman yields back. I recognize the 
Ranking Member of the Committee, Ms. Crockett, from Texas.
    Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, before I begin, I've got two UCs: 
``Video shows masked ICE agents detain two outside Douglas 
County Courthouse,'' and ``ICE Agents in Ski Masks Snatch 
Migrant Out of Lawyer's Car.''
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chair, I have a UC.
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Mr. Biggs. The Department of Justice statement by Colette 
S. Peters, Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons, to this 
Committee July 23, 2024.
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Mr. Van Drew. I now recognize Ms. Crockett.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. OK. I don't 
really know where to begin. We've got a lot of ground to cover 
in about five minutes, so let's go. I've got three statements 
that I want to know if you agree or disagree with, and I want 
to just go down the row, yes or no. Does cutting pay typically 
assist in recruiting a workforce, yes or no?
    Mr. Milton. No.
    Mr. Wilde. No.
    Mr. Purtill. Generally, no.
    Mr. Potter. No.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you. It sounds like a low IQ 
implementation to me. Let's go to the next one. Does poor 
working conditions assist with recruitment, yes or no?
    Mr. Milton. No.
    Mr. Wilde. No.
    Mr. Purtill. No.
    Mr. Potter. No.
    Ms. Crockett. Sounds like another low IQ implementation to 
me. Finally, I'm going to start with Mr. Potter because I don't 
know how this is going to go. Does union busting help with 
recruitment?
    Mr. Potter. No.
    Mr. Purtill. I know nothing about unions whatsoever. I'm 
sorry.
    Ms. Crockett. OK.
    Mr. Wilde. I don't know anything about unions either.
    Ms. Crockett. OK.
    Mr. Milton. No.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. So, again, another low IQ implementation.
    I just want to be clear that the American people should 
know that these are all Trump 2.0 policies. When we say that 
he's failed, let me tell you, we've got receipts and those are 
some of the receipts.
    When we start talking about this pay, I think that we've 
talked about the fact that there was up to a 25 percent cut in 
recruitment bonuses--or retention bonuses, but I want to make 
sure that people understand the numbers. I want you all to know 
what the numbers are.
    It looks like on average in 2023, the average CO for the 
BOP made $57,000. Now, we're talking about potentially up to a 
25 percent cut in that. Now, let's transpose that what they 
don't want to talk about is what we did last week, which was 
reconciliation, where in their bill they decided that they 
wanted to add this big number as an increase for bonuses for 
ICE agents. What that translates to was bonuses of 
approximately $44,000 for each ICE agent.
    We're talking about ICE agents getting an additional 
$44,000 per person while, on average, when we talk about our 
COs at the BOP only making 57,000 and talking about cutting up 
to 25 percent of that and that is why we're outraged. That is 
why we say that this is a joke, because you can't sit here and 
continuously underfund an agency and then expect it to 
overperform.
    Let's talk about the underfunding. We have talked about 
immigration for a reason, not because we think that it makes 
sense to just talk about immigration all day every day. It 
seems like our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want 
to do it. It is relevant to this conversation. You know why? 
Because, according to this particular document from The 
Guardian, it says, as it relates to a partnership between BOP 
and ICE, two agencies that have generally operated separately, 
means people accused of civil immigration violations are being 
imprisoned in harsh environments of the Federal penitentiaries 
run by prison guards.
    Right now, I believe that the most recent number that I had 
was that they had approximately 700 people that were being held 
for ICE within the Bureau of Prisons. Guess what? Do you think 
they gave the BOP any extra dollars to be able to take care of 
those folks? They didn't. I'll help you.
    It says Congress provided no increase to the BOP's salaries 
and expenses account in Fiscal Year 2024, despite the staffing 
crisis that has been linked to prisoner deaths and a cascade of 
operational problems at the agency.
    We talked about rape, so let me get to rape. It seems like 
it's a bit of hypocrisy, but that's not anything new to say 
that you want to protect victims of rape and sexual assault and 
then allow Trump to gut funding for the Prison Rape Elimination 
Act Resource Center, a center that trains prison sexual assault 
auditors, tracks the results of the Prison Rape Elimination Act 
investigations, and provides resources to imprisoned sexual 
abuse survivors.
    My question is--and I ask everyone if you can answer--can 
we all agree that rape and assault of prisoners is vile and 
completely unacceptable?
    Mr. Milton. I agree.
    Mr. Wilde. I agree.
    Mr. Purtill. Of course.
    Mr. Potter. Absolutely.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. The last thing that I'll 
say is that, according to the BOP, there have been a total of 
two individuals that have received gender-affirming surgery 
while in the BOP custody. There has been a total of four that 
were referred and were determined to be medically ineligible.
    We're going to have all this talk and all these fights 
about trans folk, and we're talking about literally two 
surgeries. I'll yield.
    Mr. Van Drew. The gentlelady yields. I will recognize the 
gentleman from the great State of North Carolina, Congressman 
Knott.
    Mr. Knott. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In response to what we 
just heard, I think that the discussion on immigration is 
relevant for a number of reasons, many of which were not 
mentioned by Ms. Crockett. It's by some estimates concluded 
that the previous administration spent hundreds of billions of 
dollars on illegal immigration. The discussion that we are 
having today centers on $10-, $20-, maybe even $30 billion.
    The previous administration spent money on educating, 
transporting, medicating, housing illegal immigrants at the 
taxpayers' expense, and as we now know, the Bureau of Prisons 
expense. It's a disgrace. You all are due more funding, sure. 
Illegal immigrants are due far less funding.
    One of the points that I'm hearing over and over and over 
today is the point about the need to rehabilitate. While that 
is certainly one consideration that we should all be focused 
on, perhaps the main point of consideration that the Bureau of 
Prisons is there to protect the American citizens from 
dangerous criminals. Yes, rehabilitation of the criminal is 
key, but protection of the public is first and foremost.
    To that end, one of the unfortunate realities that we have 
in this country is that we have a tremendous crime problem. 
Just as one example, in the year 1990, just 4,500 people died 
because of drug overdoses. Depending on which statistics you 
look at, averaging it out, sometimes it's up to 125,000-130,000 
people have died from drug overdoses from the years 2020-2024.
    Whether it's gangs, cartels, or other organized criminal 
organizations, they have, in large part, arrived here and 
embedded themselves in the country because of the open border 
welcomed approach to illegal immigrants that the Democratic 
Party has championed.
    As a Federal prosecutor, I saw that the crime not only was 
exacerbated outside of jails; I saw the crime reach far inside 
of jails as well. I know that you all need no education when 
discussing the dangers that criminal gangs and organizations 
pose inside and outside of jails.
    My question is, Mr. Purtill, to you first. How can we 
assist the BOP in combatting the ongoing criminal activity 
inside the Bureau of Prisons, specifically as it relates to an 
ongoing connection to outside organizations? When I was 
sentencing people, there was often no interruption in criminal 
activity, whether it's cell phones, bribing prison officers, 
whatever it may be.
    What can we do to assist you or the BOP in stopping 
criminal activity once someone is sentenced?
    Mr. Purtill. Well, I think that Mr. Potter might be better 
equipped to answer that question.
    Mr. Knott. He's getting it next.
    Mr. Purtill. Good. I will definitely take a crack at it. 
Don't mean to dodge.
    I do think that controlling--the key thing there is 
controlling the communications process. That is how ongoing 
criminal enterprises are still able to operate, even though 
we've got people incarcerated in our facilities. I do think 
that the porousness of some of our facilities to communications 
devices is coming in, as well as contraband, many other forms 
of contraband coming in, but those--the other forms of 
contraband don't really get to the issue that you're talking 
about in the same way as the continuing activity.
    It's really the communications piece, and I think that's a 
combination of better security within the facilities. It's 
probably technological fixes as well in terms of what you can 
do in terms of signal damping and things like that.
    Mr. Knott. Sure. Mr. Potter, same question.
    Mr. Potter. Yes. I would agree with everything that's been 
said. There's a lot of mechanisms you can use to prevent 
something from coming in and detected once it's in. The 
staffing level makes a huge difference the way you monitor, the 
way you track, the way you--
    Mr. Knott. Does the danger that facility officers face 
deter people from staying a long time? Does that make sense? 
Does the threat inside the facility weaken the environment that 
people are working in?
    Mr. Potter. Yes. If it's more dangerous inside, of course, 
it makes it much more--and the risk versus reward.
    Mr. Knott. Yes.
    Mr. Potter. You have to reward people in the right way if 
you want them to come into that.
    Mr. Knott. Sure. If I could just get very quick answers. 
What's the total amount of dollars that you think is needed to 
fix the Bureau of Prisons? Not just the facilities, but total 
repair.
    Mr. Potter. I would not have a guess. Billions.
    Mr. Knott. $10 billion, $15 billion?
    Mr. Potter. I wouldn't have a guess.
    Mr. Knott. How about you?
    Mr. Purtill. It would be a genuine guess.
    Mr. Knott. Just give me a guess.
    Mr. Purtill. We know we've got $3 billion in deferred 
facilities costs, so that's baked into the cake. We know that 
we've got 4,000-6,000 full-time employment positions that 
aren't filled.
    Mr. Knott. $10 billion?
    Mr. Purtill. In all honesty, I would have to--I couldn't 
even hazard a guess, but I do think that there's--even 
realigning what we currently do in spending, I think there's a 
lot of good things that can be accomplished.
    Mr. Knott. Sure. Mr. Wilde, I don't mean to jump over you, 
but I'm assuming you don't have an answer for that.
    Mr. Milton, if I can get one answer, what's the number that 
you would put?
    Mr. Milton. I fall into the same category. I don't know 
that I'm in position to give a number, but I do know that it 
takes significant investment.
    Mr. Knott. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
    Mr. Van Drew. The gentleman yields. I recognize, last but 
not least, by any means, the gentleman from the great State of 
Texas, Mr. Gill.
    Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses 
for being here and testifying and taking the time.
    Mr. Purtill, thank you as well. I want to start with you. 
Given the decline in personnel across BOP facilities, and we've 
got nearly 4,000 vacancies, do you believe it was a wise 
decision for the previous administration to put any resources 
at all toward gender-
affirming care for BOP inmates?
    Mr. Purtill. As I said earlier, I think that it's such a 
small percentage of the population, it's not the core issues 
that BOP is facing.
    Mr. Gill. Right. I certainly believe it's not a core issue 
we should be spending money toward.
    Is it also the case that the BOP facilities are 
experiencing widespread deterioration and are in need of 
maintenance?
    Mr. Purtill. Yes. According to the attorney general's 
inspector--the department's Inspector General, literally every 
single facility faces deferred expenses--deferred maintenance 
expenses.
    Mr. Gill. Do you think that there's additional stress that 
comes with perhaps some of the logistical challenges and safety 
concerns of housing transgender and inmates with the opposite 
sex, and perhaps maybe that contributed to some of the low 
retention rates and hiring rates experienced at the BOP?
    Mr. Purtill. In all honesty, I couldn't say. Once again, I 
think that there's so many issues that go into the staffing 
issue. Did it play a part? Very well could have. There are so 
many factors there.
    Mr. Gill. What about some of the antilaw enforcement 
rhetoric that we hear on the other side of the aisle, including 
from the former Vice President who once praised the defund the 
police movement, do you think that has contributed at all to 
some of the staffing challenges at BOP?
    Mr. Purtill. Well, the fact that law enforcement, 
prosecutors, and corrections officers, that there's been an 
unfortunate trend, we've seen it in law school recruiting for 
prosecutors, that there's been an unfortunate trend to kind of 
demonize the entire field. Regardless of wherever that has come 
from, that has been harmful. It's unfair to the people who go 
into that line of work.
    Mr. Gill. What role do you think DOGE can play in 
identifying waste and fraud at the BOP?
    Mr. Purtill. That is beyond my ken. I'm so sorry.
    Mr. Gill. Any guesses?
    Mr. Purtill. Well, as I tell my kids, as with any very, 
very large institution there's going to be waste and fraud, 
even when vast majority of people are working in good faith. It 
never hurts. It's always good to pop the hood and check the oil 
and take a look at what's going on.
    That the DOGE process could--it may turn out to be very, 
very beneficial. A lot of it is going to be able to inform you 
in your oversight activities to make decisions going forward.
    Mr. Gill. Got it. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair, with that, I'll yield the remainder of my time 
back to you.
    Mr. Van Drew. I thank you. With that little bit of time, 
first, I really do appreciate you all being here. It's a long, 
long day. I didn't even give you a chance for a break and I 
probably should have. I was remiss, but it was--because now 
we're done.
    Second, I'll say as I did before, I hope that we can move 
forward in some areas, in some ways, find common ground.
    Third, and the one thing I will mention with the little bit 
of time left, I've actually interviewed some corrections 
officers at multiple locations who have come to me in my 
office. I wouldn't call them whistleblowers because they didn't 
trigger the Whistleblower Act, but told me stories saying that 
there's like one or two people in the whole country with 
transgender issues. They're still doing intake. It cost a lot 
of money on those that want to change their sex, that want to 
be transgender. This is from corrections officers who directly 
work there, who have good reputations whom I know were 
explaining what's going on.
    First, that costs money. Second, the other issue and the 
reason that it costs money is because, as you know, I 
mentioned--in fact, my facility back home has to cater to some 
of that because when they mix with the rest of the population, 
unfortunately, there are issues for them, for their own 
security and safety. It makes things more complicated. It makes 
issues--more violence is prone to happen. It also costs more 
because of the specialization they need, both medical, if they 
go through it all the way, as well as correctional; in other 
words, they need more protection, and they need to have special 
status and special help.
    So, yes, it does cost money. No, it's not just like one 
person in all 50 States. It's not. In fact, if you talk to most 
of them, almost any facility will tell you some of the issues 
they're having with that.
    The real issue is--I don't know how else to say--I'm not 
saying they should be, but they still have their desires very 
often, and it really is tough on the women. If we care about 
women, then we should care about this issue and some of the 
terrible things that are happening.
    With that, it concludes today--
    Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, I have two UCs. I'm sorry. The 
first one, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an 
article, ``Transgender inmates are more likely to be victims of 
sexual assault.'' This was by CBS News.
    Mr. Van Drew. That's true.
    Ms. Crockett. To the extent of 35 percent of the victims of 
rape are transgender inmates.
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Ms. Crockett. Then the final one is courtesy of Mr. Wilde. 
This is from prisonfellowship.org. Prison Fellowship, the 
Nation's largest Christian nonprofit serving prisoners, former 
prisoners, and their families is applauding a major funding 
increase for PREA, which as of now, this administration has 
actually defunded all the PREA resource centers.
    Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
    Their care costs a lot, protecting them costs a lot because 
they are apt to have this problem, and in some cases preventing 
a certain percentage of them from doing harm costs a lot.
    With that, it concludes today's hearing. We thank our 
witnesses for appearing before the Committee today.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the record, and 
witnesses, or additional materials can be recorded as well.
    Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the Subcommittees adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by the Members of 
the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance 
and the Subcommittee on Oversight can be found at: https://
docs.house .gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118184.