[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7667-S7668]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 2927. A bill to ensure that the incarceration of inmates is not 
provided by private contractors or vendors and that persons charged or 
convicted of an offense against the United States shall be housed in 
facilities managed and maintained by Federal, State, or local 
governments; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                         THE PUBLIC SAFETY ACT

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, sending inmates to prisons built and run 
by prviate companies has become a popular way to deal with overcrowded 
prisons, but in recent years this practice has been appropriately 
criticized. As reports of escapes, riots, prisoner violence, and abuse 
by staff in private prisons increase, many have questioned the wisdom 
and propriety of private companies carrying out this essential state 
function. After considering safety, cost, and accountability issues, it 
is clear that private companies should not be doing this public work. 
Government and only government, whether it's federal, state, or local, 
should operate prisons. That is why I rise today to introduce a bill 
that will restore responsibility for housing prisoners to the state and 
federal government, where it belongs. An identical bill was introduced 
in the House of Representatives by Congressman Ted Strickland, where it 
has received broad bi-partisan support and currently has 141 
cosponsors.
  Private prison companies, and proponents of their use, claim that 
they save taxpayers money. They claim private companies can do the 
government's business more efficiently, but this has never been 
confirmed. In fact, two government studies show that it is far from 
clear whether private prisons save taxpayer money. One study, completed 
by the GAO, stated that it could not conclude whether or not 
privatization saved money. The second study, completed by the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons in 1998, concluded that there is no strong evidence 
to show states save money by using private prisons.
  More importantly, private prison companies are motivated by one goal: 
making a profit. Decisions by these companies are driven by the desire 
to make a profit and, in turn, please officers and shareholders. This 
profit motive in the context of housing criminals is wrong. It is at 
cross-purposes with the government's goal of punishing and 
rehabilitating criminals.
  So what happens when a private company runs a prison? The prisons 
have promised to save taxpayers money, so they cut costs. This 
invariably results in unqualified, low paid employees, poor facilities 
and living conditions, and an inadequate number of educational and 
rehabilitative programs. Recent episodes of escape, violence, and 
prisoner abuse demonstrate what happens when corners are cut.
  At the Northeast Ohio Correctional facility, a private prison in 
Youngstown, Ohio, 20 inmates were stabbed, two of them fatally, within 
a 10-month period. After management claimed they had addressed the 
problems, six inmates, four convicted of homicide, escaped by cutting 
through two razor wire fences in the middle of the afternoon.
  At a private prison in Whiteville, Tennessee, which houses many 
inmates from my home state of Wisconsin, there has been a hostage 
situation, an assault of a guard, and a coverup to hide physical abuse 
of inmates by prison guards. A security report at the same Tennessee 
prison found unsecured razors, inmates obstructing views into their 
cells by covering up windows, and an inmate using a computer lab 
strictly labeled, ``staff only'' without any supervision.
  At a private prison in Sayre, Oklahoma, a dangerous inmate uprising 
jeopardized the security and control of the facility. As a result, the 
state of Oklahoma removed all its inmates from the facility and 
questioned its safety. Because the prison gets paid based on the number 
of inmates, however, the prison continued to request, and other states 
sent, hundreds of inmates to be housed there.
  Earlier this year the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the 
Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, the second largest private prison 
company in the United States, charging that in one of its juvenile 
prisons, conditions were ``dangerous and life threatening.'' A group of 
experts who toured the prison reported that many of the juveniles were 
short of food, had lost weight, and did not have shoes or blankets. The 
Department of Justice lawsuit also alleges that inmates did not receive 
adequate mental health care or educational programming. In addition to 
the poor conditions and lack of training, the guards physically abused 
the boys and threw gas grenades into their barracks. Some juvenile 
inmates even tried to commit suicide or deliberately injure themselves 
so they would be sent to the infirmary to avoid abuse by the guards.
  Mr. President, the profit motive clearly has a dangerous and harmful 
effect on the security of private prisons, but the profit motive also 
shortchanges inmates of the rehabilitation, education, and training 
that they need. Private prisons get paid based on the number of inmates 
they house. This means the more inmates they accept and the fewer 
services they provide, the more money they make. A high crime rate 
means more business and eliminates any motivation to provide job 
training, education, and other rehabilitative programs. These 
allegations of abuse and the negative effects of the profit motive are 
especially troubling because they have a disparate impact on the 
minority community, which has been incarcerated disproportionately in 
recent years particularly with the rise of mandatory minimum sentences 
for drug offenses.
  Another issue of concern is accountability for dispensing one of the 
strongest punishments our society can impose. Incarceration requires a 
government to exercise its coercive police powers over individuals, 
including the authority to take away a person's freedom and to use 
force. This authority to use force should not be delegated to a private 
company that is not accountable to the people. This premise was 
reinforced by the Supreme Court in Richardson v. McKnight, which held 
that private prison personnel are not covered by the qualified immunity 
that shields state and local correctional officers. This means that a 
state or local government could be held liable for the actions of a 
private corporation.
  Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today, the Public Safety 
Act, addresses these concerns. It restores control and management of 
prisons to the government. It makes federal grants under Title II of 
the Crime Control Act of 1994 contingent upon states agreeing not to 
contract with any private companies to provide core correctional 
services related to transportation or incarceration of inmates. The 
legislation was carefully crafted to apply only to core correctional 
services meaning that private companies can still provide auxiliary 
services such as food or clothing.
  Mr. President, let us restore safety and security to the many 
Americans who work in prisons. Let us protect the communities that 
support prisons. And let us ensure rehabilitation and safety for the 
individuals, including young boys and girls, who are housed there. This 
bill returns to the government the function of being the sole 
administrator of incarceration as punishment in our society. I urge my 
colleagues to join me as cosponsors of the Public Safety Act.
  I ask that the text of the bill be placed in the Record following 
this statement.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2927

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page S7668]]

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Public Safety Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The issues of safety, liability, accountability, and 
     cost are the paramount issues in running corrections 
     facilities.
       (2) In recent years, the privatization of facilities for 
     persons previously incarcerated by governmental entities has 
     resulted in frequent escapes by violent criminals, riots 
     resulting in extensive damage, prisoner violence, and 
     incidents of prisoner abuse by staff.
       (3) In some instances, the courts have prohibited the 
     transfer of additional convicts to private prisons because of 
     the danger to prisoners and the community.
       (4) Frequent escapes and riots at private facilities result 
     in expensive law enforcement costs for State and local 
     governments.
       (5) The need to make profits creates incentives for private 
     contractors to underfund mechanisms that provide for the 
     security of the facility and the safety of the inmates, 
     corrections staff, and neighboring community.
       (6) The 1997 Supreme Court ruling in Richardson v. McKnight 
     that the qualified immunity that shields State and local 
     correctional officers does not apply to private prison 
     personnel, and therefore exposes State and local governments 
     to liability for the actions of private corporations.
       (7) Additional liability issues arise when inmates are 
     transferred outside the jurisdiction of the contracting 
     State.
       (8) Studies on private correctional facilities have been 
     unable to demonstrate any significant cost savings in the 
     privatization of corrections facilities.
       (9) The imposition of punishment on errant citizens through 
     incarceration requires State and local governments to 
     exercise their coercive police powers over individuals. These 
     powers, including the authority to use force over a private 
     citizen, should not be delegated to another private party.

     SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY FOR GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subtitle A of title II of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994, an applicant shall provide 
     assurances to the Attorney General that if selected to 
     receive funds under such subtitle the applicant shall not 
     contract with a private contractor or vendor to provide core 
     correctional services related to the transportation or the 
     incarceration of an inmate.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply to grant 
     funds received after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Effect on Existing Contracts.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to a contract in effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act between a grantee and a 
     private contractor or vendor to provide core correctional 
     services related to correctional facilities or the 
     incarceration of inmates.
       (2) Renewals and extensions.--Subsection (a) shall apply to 
     renewals or extensions of an existing contract entered into 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``core correctional service'' means the safeguarding, 
     protecting, and disciplining of persons charged or convicted 
     of an offense.

     SEC. 4. ENHANCING PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY IN THE DUTIES OF 
                   THE BUREAU OF PRISONS.

       Section 4042(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7);
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) provide that any penal or correctional facility or 
     institution except for nonprofit community correctional 
     confinement, such as halfway houses, confining any person 
     convicted of offenses against the United States, shall be 
     under the direction of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons 
     and shall be managed and maintained by employees of Federal, 
     State, or local governments;
       ``(6) provide that the transportation, housing, 
     safeguarding, protection, and disciplining of any person 
     charged with or convicted of any offense against the United 
     States, except such persons in community correctional 
     confinement such as halfway houses, will be conducted and 
     carried out by individuals who are employees of Federal, 
     State, or local governments; and''.
                                 ______