S. 307Senate bill · 119th CongressIn progressCrime and Law Enforcement

Prison Staff Safety Enhancement Act

Sponsored byMarsha BlackburnR-TNIntroduced Jan 29, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 31, 2026) Motion to reconsider Agreed to without objection.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jan 29, 2025

This bill establishes requirements for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and component agencies to assess and respond to incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault by incarcerated individuals against Bureau of Prisons (BOP) staff.

Specifically, the bill requires DOJ to adopt national standards for the prevention, reduction, and punishment of sexual harassment and sexual assault by incarcerated individuals against correctional officers or other employees of the BOP.

Additionally, the bill requires the BOP to fully implement the recommendations of the DOJ Inspector General contained in the report titled Evaluation of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Efforts to Address Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Committed by Inmates Toward Staff.

Face Value

as enrolled
92Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Areas of law−8

    Amends 2 titles of the US Code (10 and 18) rather than one.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • On decisive vote

    House · Aug 31, 2026

    A fast-track vote: no amendments, short debate, and two thirds needed to pass. Used for bills expected to be uncontroversial.

    3768

    Passed

    Every vote →

Discussion

4 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
8
harborlightDemoCA-40voted Nay3d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
6
birch_ledgerDemoLA-2voted Yea3d ago
Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
3
OldLineStateDemoOH-13d ago
Honest question, not a trap: what would change your mind?
5
rustbelt_rayDemoLA-2voted Nay3d ago
Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
Your position on S. 307No positions yet