[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 8, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4511-S4512]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 842. 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.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public 
Safety Act. This bill will prohibit the placement of Federal prisoners 
in facilities run by private companies and deny specified Federal funds 
to State and local governments that contract with private companies to 
manage their prisons. Incarceration, or the deprivation of a person's 
liberty, is the penultimate control a State exercises over its 
citizens. That authority should not be delegated to any private, for-
profit entity. We must restore responsibility for public safety and 
security to our Federal, state and local governments.
  As our nation has confronted prison overcrowding in recent years, 
private companies have stepped in to help communities address this 
issue by claiming they could alleviate bed shortages and manage prisons 
more cost effectively than governments. But private companies and 
governments do not share the same goals with respect to corrections. 
Federal, State and local governments are motivated by public safety and 
justice, while private companies are motivated by a desire to cut costs 
and make a profit. Today, some 120,000 of our nation's 2 million total 
jail and prison beds are provided by private for-profit companies. As 
reports of escapes, riots, prisoner violence, lack of adequate medical 
care and abuse by staff in private prisons abound, many have begun to 
question the wisdom and propriety of delegating this essential 
government function to private companies.
  At a prison in Youngstown, OH run by a private company, 20 inmates 
were stabbed, two fatally, within a ten month period shortly after the 
prison opened in May 1997. After the company claimed it had addressed 
the problem, six inmates, four of them murderers, cut a hole in a fence 
during recreation time and escaped in broad daylight. A report released 
in 1998 by the U.S. Department of Justice cited inexperienced and 
poorly trained officers and resulting excessive use of force at this 
Youngstown facility. The Justice Department also noted that the company 
failed to recognize its responsibilities as a correctional service 
provider and its reluctance to accept blame for the unconstitutional 
conditions of confinement at the prison. In 1999, the prison company 
paid $1.65 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought by inmates 
who complained that, among other things, the prison provided inadequate 
medical care and that guards were abusive.
  Unfortunately, the problems that plague the Youngstown facility are 
not unique. A private prison in Whiteville, TN, which houses many 
inmates from my home state of Wisconsin, has experienced a hostage 
situation, an assault of a guard, and a coverup to hide physical abuse 
of inmates by guards. A security inspection found that this facility, 
run by a private prison corporation, had unsecured razors, obstructed 
views into individual cells, and an unsupervised inmate using a 
computer lab labeled ``staff only.''
  Proponents of prison privatization claim that private prison 
operators save taxpayers money. But this has never been confirmed. In 
fact, two government studies raise significant doubt about whether 
private prisons save money. One study conducted by the GAO stated that 
there is a lack of ``substantial evidence that savings have occurred'' 
due to prison privatization. A second study completed by the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons arrived at the same result: there is no strong 
evidence to show that States save money by using private prisons.
  Private prison companies are guided by the same business principles 
as other corporations. Their goal is to make a profit and, in turn, 
please officers and shareholders. This profit motive is inappropriate 
when the safety and security of guards and our communities are 
threatened by prison violence and escapees.
  Unfortunately, we have seen this cost-cutting turn into cutting 
corners on public safety. Cutting corners means hiring unqualified and 
untrained corrections personnel, as well as understaffing facilities. 
Furthermore, when prison riots break out or inmates escape, these costs 
are not cut but instead are shifted to the taxpayers, who must foot the 
bill for U.S. Marshals, sheriffs or local police or other officials to 
step in and clean up the mess.
  Private prison corporations make money when they house more inmates 
and provide fewer services. The result is that prisoners are deprived 
of the rehabilitation, education, and training that make it less likely 
that they will commit more crimes after they have served their time. 
This drive to keep ``beds filled'' is especially troubling because it 
adversely affects our nation's African American community, which is 
already over-represented in the prison system.
  The legislation I introduce today, The Public Safety Act, addresses 
these concerns. It prohibits the Federal government from delegating 
responsibility for incarceration of inmates to private entities. The 
bill also conditions Federal prison funds to states upon their 
agreement to retain responsibility for the incarceration of inmates and 
not contract out this solemn responsibility to private companies. 
Governments may contract with private vendors to provide auxiliary 
services such as food or clothing, but governments would be prohibited 
from contracting out the core correctional responsibility of housing, 
safeguarding, protecting or disciplining inmates.
  Correctional officers have joined together with other government 
employee groups and criminal justice activists to support this 
legislation. The bill's supporters include the American Federation of 
State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, the

[[Page S4512]]

American Federation of Government Employees, AFGE, the International 
Union of Police Associations, the Fraternal Order of Police and the 
American Civil Liberties Union.
  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 the rehabilitation and safety of the individuals housed there 
so that they may return to society as productive law-abiding citizens. 
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Public Safety Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 842

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

     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 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 housing, 
     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 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''.
                                 ______