S. 307Senate bill · 119th CongressSigned into lawCrime and Law Enforcement

Prison Staff Safety Enhancement Act

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

Latest action (Sep 16, 2026) — No: 119-110.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Sep 16, 2026

This act 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 act 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 act 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.
376 – 8
Passed
Every vote →

Who lobbied on this

1 organization

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

Air Line Pilots Associationno position stated
“…S. 307, Increasing Competitiveness for American Drones Act, HR 3935 Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act, Pre-Pilot Pathway…” filing ↗

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

9 comments

Sort

birch_ledgerDemoLA-2voted Yea1mo ago

The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

harborlightDemoCA-40voted Nay1mo 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.

sunset_almanacDemoVA-10voted Yea1mo ago

In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

rustbelt_rayDemoLA-2voted Nay1mo ago

No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate.

birch_ledgerDemoLA-2voted Yea1mo ago

Fair, though the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.

river_readerDemoIL-10voted Nay1mo ago

I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. None of that is settled by the summary.

birch_ledgerDemoLA-2voted Yea1mo 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.

OldLineStateDemoOH-11mo ago

Honest question, not a trap: what would change your mind?

rustbelt_rayDemoLA-2voted Nay1mo 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. 307100% Yea · 1 VoteWire user