[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 19, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E65-E66]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       INTRODUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PRISON SAFETY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 19, 1999

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on January 6, 1999, I introduced the 
District of Columbia Prison Safety Act, a bill to assure the safety and 
well being of District of Columbia and other Federal Bureau of Prisons 
(BOP) inmates, who may be placed in private prison facilities, as well 
as the safety of communities where the prisons are to be located. This 
provision has become necessary as a result of Sec. 11201, the 1997 
District of Columbia Revitalization Act (P.L. 105-33), which requires 
that the BOP house in privately contracted facilities at least 2000 
D.C. sentenced felons by December 31, 1999 and at least 50% of D.C. 
felons by September 30, 2003. Under the Revitalization Act, the Lorton 
Correctional Complex

[[Page E66]]

is to be closed by December 31, 2001, and the BOP is to assume full 
responsibility for the maintenance of the District's inmate population. 
My bill would give the Director of the BOP the necessary discretion to 
decide whether to house D.C. inmates in private prison facilities, and 
if so, when and how many.
  The Revitalization Act privatization mandate marks the first time 
that the BOP has been required to contract for the housing of 
significant numbers of inmates in private facilities. The extremely 
short time frames were placed in the statute without any reference to 
BOP capabilities or the capabilities of private prison vendors. I am 
introducing this bill because recent events have driven home the 
necessity for better informed and expert judgment and calculation 
before decisions to contract out inmate housing are made.
  On December 3, 1998, the Corrections Trustee for the District of 
Columbia released a report on the investigation of problems arising 
from the placement of D.C. inmates in the Northeast Ohio Correctional 
Center (NEOCC). This highly critical report documented numerous violent 
confrontations between guards and inmates, an escape by six inmates, 
and the killing of two other inmates. The Trustee's report strongly and 
unequivocally critized virtually all aspects of the operations of the 
NEOCC.
  It should be noted that the company that runs the NEOCC, Corrections 
Corporation of America (CCA), is the most experienced in the country. 
However, the industry is a new one with relatively few vendors and few 
bidders for substantial work. The NEOCC experience is fair warning of 
what could happen if BOP proceeds on the basis of an automatic mandate 
in spite of the evidence that has accumulated in Ohio and around the 
country. The mounting problems have been so troubling that the BOP was 
forced to revise the original request for proposals (RFP), fearful that 
similar problems would occur. The bid now requires two separate 
facilities. The new process uses two RFP, thereby separating low 
security male inmates from minimum security males, females and young 
offenders. Furthermore, the RFP for low security inmates now requires 
the BOP to consider prior performance of the vendors before awarding 
the contract. However, the new RFPs put the BOP, perhaps hopelessly, 
behind schedule for the privatization mandated by the Revitalization 
Act.
  The experience of the private sector argues for a much more careful 
approach than Congress realized at the time the 1997 Revitalization Act 
was passed. For example, the 50% quota for privatization far exceeds 
any comparable number of similar inmates currently housed in a private 
facility from a single jurisdiction.
  My provision does not bar privatization, but it could prevent further 
privatization disasters. BOP may still decide to house the same, or a 
different number in private facilities. The purpose of this provision 
is to keep the BOP from believing that it must go over the side of a 
cliff, avoiding more sensible alternatives, because Congress said so.

                          ____________________