Thank you, senator. From my perspective, having joined as a correctional officer in 1988 and around that time the bureaus population was a little more than 60,000. I think historically when you book at the bureau of prisons and go back from 1940 to 1980, the bureaus population pretty much remained flat for many, many years in excess of 20,000. So in 1980, which is the primary target for this discussion, we, as an agency, we had approximately 24,000 inmates in the federal system. We had less than 9,000 employees, 41 institutions and able to operate the entour bur en tour bureau of prisons for 330 million. So when you look at the increase from 1980 to 2013, we were at more than 800 as far as the growth of the population. And our staffing didnt keep pace with that growth. And with our mission, where we are tasked with anyone and everyone who is convicted and turned over to the department of justice and placed in the care of the bureau of prisons, we have a job to do, a significant job. And it takes staff to do the work that is required. Let me ask you, from your perspective, again, youve been there, what drove the dramatic increase in the prison population. Well the war on drugs in the early 80s had a significant drive on the growth of the population. And as a result, we were having moro fenders come into the system. And we have a longstanding practice within the bureau of prisons and this goes back into the 1930s that the reentry efforts are always in play and that is to ensure that for our role were providing prehab ilttation. But the challenges as we try to protect the inmates and staff in our facilities but the driver has been the war on drugs. Has there been any legitimate increase due to a crackdown on Violent Crime that we just really again, appropriately crack down on that, or is that really like re didnt we didnt become a more criminal society. We are always arresting and convicting people and putting them in jail and are we putting them in jail longer. I want you to address that aspect as well. In regards to violent offenses, the department, through prosecutorial efforts, there is a mixture of individuals, as you are aware, nonviolent and those with violence. And within our population, i think it is safe to say we have very violent offenders in our population to include a significant amount of gang members in the federal system, we have more than 21,000 Security ThreatGroup Members that pose significant threat to the public and staff. And gang violence, that generally driven by drugs . It can be driven by drugs. If the gangs and those who are associated with that activity and part of the structure within the money to be gained. And let me stick with the director in terms of in spector general horowitzs testimony. Why havent we been proactive in terms of the Early Release programs that have been authorized. Is there a risk aversion . Because who wants to be responsible for releasing somebody into the public that will commit another Violent Crime. Can you speak to why we havent taken advantage of those programs a little bit more robustly . The bureau of prisons as director of the agencies my authority is very limited when you look at taking advantage of the various programs that are being referenced. With compassionate release, which i will start there, we, as an agency, did a thorough review and we determined a couple of years ago when we were looking at the number of individuals who would meet the criteria just for the release based on terminal illness. We dofred there were discovered there were a little more than 200 in the bureau of prisons and once they are identified you have to go further that those that are considered that they have the resources if they are given an opportunity through a motion and released under that program. To 200 inmates agencywide with the population at that time that was at 220,000 is a very, very small number. So again were talking about compassionate release, and Early Release and release to foreign nationals and under all three programs you are saying the law is written too restrictively and doesnt give you the latitude to utilize those programs more and mr. Secretary, ill be asking you the same question. And we moved from medical to nonmedical. And even when we look at those cases and many are being referred, when you are looking at the criteria, as well as being responsible for Public Safety for any individuals having the propensity to continue more criminal activity, we have to take that into account. With the transfer program, and i do share the concerns that the Inspector General has raised, we identified through the audit a problem there and we have since that time provided a number of training opportunities for our staff and educating the inmate population on their rights under consideration for the program and we have seen an increase. However, when we submit the application for consideration there is another process that takes place with the Department Working with the various countries who have agreements under the treaty transfer program to make determines on when those individuals are removed. And of course, they would probably rather have the u. S. Bear the cost of keeping those people in prison themselves. Inspector general horowitz, can you speak to from your perspective why the programs havent been utilized more fully. I think there are a couple of reasons. And i agree with director samuels. In many it is not the b. O. B. Decision making or elsewhere in the department or the way the programs have been instructions have been placed. For example, elderly release, 65 and eldery and that was announced with many fanfare, but there is only two. We find two released under the program a year plus later. And why is that . Well, in part because of the over age 65 they have to meet strict criteria and both with regard to meeting the criteria and as we found in that program and treaty transfer, the discretionary calls that have to be made. And perhaps it is risk aversion, perhaps it is a feeling that someone got a jail sentence that let me ask. Appropriately strict criteria . We found we had concerned with elderly provisions. For example, requiring people to serve a long period of time and to demonstrate a lengthy period of service for a sentence. What that meant was for inmates that were the least dangerous, presumably had low sentences, they couldnt get released because they hadnt served a long period of time. That seemed odd to us. So that is something we should take a look at. Right. Thank you. I dont want to go too much over time. Senator ayotte. Thank you. Director samuels, i want to ask you about a particular prison in my state that is important, especially inco osk county, and it is fci bur land and i wanted to ask what the status is of staffing at that facility, warden tatum has indicated the facility was staffed at about 290 and there were about 1200 incarcerated individuals there. Can you give me an update on levels and also what the ultimate goal is for capacity there and staffing . Yes. Thank you, senator. Right now with the planned for continued activation of the facility we are working very, very closely with the warden staff to make sure our recruitment efforts remain on target and also ensuring that as we build the population that were making sure that the inmate to staff ratio is where it needs to be so we dont have more inmates in a facility until we are comfortable with the number of staff at the facility. And this is continuing to progress. I know there was a concern at one period in time where the applicant pool was not where we like it but with the recruitment efforts we have a very good pool for hiring individuals to work at the facility. So one followup i wanted on the applicant pool. This is an area of our state where people are always looking for more jobs. And so to get people from the area that have strong backgrounds, one of the issues that has been a challenge is the 37yearold age restriction. And has the bureau of prison actually reexamined this. I know i have previously written on this issue. But it is important that my constituents have an opportunity that live in the area to work there. Yes, thank you again, senator. Our focus is to make sure we are aggressively hiring from the local community and looking at veterans and we do have the ability for individuals who are applying who have served to make waiver to to grant waivers and we are in the process of doing that. Well that is very good to know and i appreciate your prioritizing hiring people from the community. I know they are anxious and would like opportunities to work there as well as our veterans. So i really appreciate your doing that. And i think youll find that they are a really dedicated group of people in the area. So thank you for that. I wanted to follow up on the prior panel, there was quite a bit of discussion and criticism, actually, on the Reentry Program, peace, from the bureau of prison and the commitment toward where we are when someone has finished their time and putting forward successful programs an path to success, which im interested because with our recidivism rate it costs us a lot financially and also to the individual, to the quality of life, that the person has an opportunity to set a new start if there is not a good system in place for suck ceaces. So i wanted to get your comments on what you heard in the prior panel on this issue. Thank you, again, senator. I will say to everyone that reentry is one of the most important parts of our mission. Along with safety and security of our facilities. And the expectation bureauwide is for all staff, all of the men and women who work to the bureau of prisons to have an active role in reentry efforts. In any day in the bureau of principles for education, we have more than 52,000 inmates participating in education. We have more than 12,000 individuals actively participating in our federal principle Industry Program which is the largest Recidivism Program in the bureau of prisons. Those who harp are 24 less likely to be involved in coming back to prison. And for Vocational Training, more than 10,000 inmates are participating. And for those who participate and compared to those who are not, the recidivism reduction is 33 . And you all are very familiar with the Residential Drug Abuse Program and we have our nonresidential programs as well. And we are very, very adam about in ensuring the programs are provided to all inmates within our population to have them involved for a number of reasons. It is safer to manage prisons when inmates are actively involved and we are definitely trying to do our part to ensure that for recidivism reduction in this nation that we are taking the leap. For the number of individuals that come into the bureau of prisons, despite all of the challenges an the figures you are hearing, the men and women in the bureau of prisons do an amazing job. When you look at the specific fubs relative to numbers relative to recidivism, with the feder federal, we have 80 who do not return. And we have 20 who end up in state and local and we have always known that the overall recidivism for the federal system is 40 . The 20 that return to the bureau and the 20 that go into the state systems. And i would just also add that when you look at the bureau of prisons, and there is a study that has been done that for the state correctional systems, and it is 30plus. When you look at the over all average of recidivism it is 67 . So i would still say that we have a lot of work to do. I mean the goal is to have 100 individuals never returning but as ive already stated for the record the amount of growth that has occurred over that time period, we are very limited with our staffing. But it does not repov us from the commitment to our mission. If our staffing had kept pace with the growth over the years, i do believe that i would be sitting here reporting that the 80 would have been much higher. So i want to give the Inspector General an opportunity to think on how you think were doing on reentry and any work youve done on that. Were actually, senator, in a middle of a review of the Reentry Programs and in the middle of the field work to go to the institutions and look at the education because of the concerns we heard. So i cant give you a report yet out on it. I think well have something later in the year for you to look at. But it is a significant concern. One of the issues, ill just pick up on what director samuels said about staffing, that is a significant issue. It is a significant safety and security issue, reentry, because what you see is first of all by most accounts the federal Staffing Ratio of in mate to staff is worse than many of the state systems, what they have. And that has been exacerbated ore time as over time as the prison population has grown. There is a cascading effect of that. The director and the staff have to pull people out of other programs to do correctional work that they cant be doing some of the other programs were all talking about. And so that i think has lost is lost sometimes and something were looking at right now, is the cascading effect. If you understaff the prisons the director has to first and foremost make sure the systems are safe. And i hope when you give us this report, i hope you give us advice on the best models phoenix youre going to invest resources to create a better path so reduce the recidivism rate and your recommendation on the piece of what is working best and invest resources would be helpful. Thank you. And senator. And i was handed a note that 2,000 out of the population are participating in the program. Can you quickly describe why, both of you. It sounds like a successful program, why arent more people engaged in it . Because i think in total we release 45,000 from the briefing, about 45,000 every year. Yes. If the 10,000 is in reference to the Vocational Training programs, we only have a limited number of opportunities that we can provide based on the number of in mates in our system. And that goes back to the crowding with increased crowding, you have waiting lists in the federal prison system, no different than any other system and the goal is to try to push as many of the inmates through and as we complete classes we bring more individuals in for participation. What i expect is an answer. I want to get that on the record. Inspector general. Yes. I think that is generally what we are finding, there are limited resources and with limited resources mean limited number of classes. Okay. Senator booker. Thank you very much. Director samuels, i appreciate you being here but more importantly or excuse me also i appreciate the fact that you visited me in my office and take a look of the issues and concerns, you represent the administration as a whole, as the president has, have done some extraordinary steps around over all criminal Justice Reform and im grateful you are here today. It means a lot. I also want to echo, you are a part of the Law Enforcement community. And your officers put themselves at risk every single day to protect this nation and im grateful for the sacrifices that your officers have made and im glad that you mentioned on the federal and state level, we have officers not just losing their lines but officers injured severely, often in the line of duty as well and we as americans should recognize that and that sacrifice that can be made. And i want to focus on solitary confinement and begin with solitary confinement of juveniles. There is a bipartisan dialogue going on right now about putting real limitations on the use of solitary confinement. We know this is an issue that faces thousands and thousands of children across america but when it comes to the federal system this is a very small amount. It was probably surprise a lot of people to know that we are talking about kids that are in dozens. This is two populations. Children tried as adults that are housed in adult facilities and then the contracts, if im correct, that you do with state facilities for juveniles as well. Do you think it is feasible that, as is being discussed in congress right now and ive been in the discussions in the senate, that we just eliminate solitary confinement or severely limit it for children, being very specific for instance, by placing a three hour time limit on juvenile solitary confinement and banning it really for punitive or administrative purposes. Is that something you would see as feasible and something would you be supportive of . Thank you, senator. And i believe that for this issue, and in the federal system, as youve already mentioned, we contract out this service. We do not have any juveniles in an adult correctional facility. And the expectation that we have with the Service Providers for us is that at any time they are considering placing a juvenile in restrictive housing they are required to notify us immediately. And even if that placement were to take place, there is a requirement also that they have to monitor those individuals every 15 minutes. So in regards to your question with looking at the restrictions that could be considered, i would say that for our purposes, regarding this, that it would be something that is definitely something that should be considered and looked at as a practice. And if congress were to act on legislation putting those severe limitations on the practice, with limitations of just a matter of hours, that is something that you would agree to something that is feasible . Yes. I really appreciate that. And that is actually encouraging to the discussions going on right now. And frankly, it is a small population but doing it on a federal level would send a signal to really resonate throughout our country and frankly is already being done in some jurisdictions. Pivoting to adult solitary confinement, if i may, this practice, as you know, is harshly criticized. If you listened to the other panel, there is a lot of data from the medical community, specifically, and also Civil Rights Community and human rights communities. In may 2013 report which i know you are familiar with from the gao found that the federal bureau of prisons didnt know whether the use of solitary confinement had any impact on prison safety, and didnt know necessarily how it effected the individuals would endure the practice or how much frankly it is costing taxpayers in general. Just this year, a recent internal audit notedin aud kwasys in Mental Health care and reentrance for people in solitary confinement. As was head in the previous panel, many