U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

43–153 PDF 2009

PRIVATE PRISON INFORMATION ACT OF 2007 

(PART II) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 1889 

JUNE 26, 2008 

Serial No. 110–190 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 26, 2008 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 1889, the ‘‘Private Prison Information Act of 2007’’ .................................... 6 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 9 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Michael Flynn, Director of Government Affairs, Reason Foundation 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13 

Mr. Alex Friedmann, Vice President, Private Corrections Institute 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23 

Mr. Tom Jawetz, Immigration Detention Staff Attorney, The American Civil 

Liberties Union National Prison Project 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 56 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 58 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 75 

(1) 

PRIVATE PRISON INFORMATION ACT OF 2007 

(PART II) 

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:05 p.m., in Room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert C. 

‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Gohmert, Coble, and Chabot. 

Staff Present: Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; 

Kimani Little, Minority Counsel; Jesselyn McCurdy, Majority 

Counsel; Rachel King, Majority Counsel; and Ameer Gopalani, Majority Counsel. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will now come to order. 

I am pleased to welcome you today to the hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security on H.R. 

1889, the ‘‘Private Prison Information Act.’’ 

H.R. 1889 requires prisons and other correctional facilities holding Federal prisoners under a contract with the Federal Government to make the same information available to the public that 

Federal prisons and correctional facilities are required to release 

under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. 

On November 8, 2007, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 

bill in conjunction with a hearing on the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act. Representative Tim Holden, the lead sponsor of the bill, was 

the only witness to testify before the Subcommittee on the panel 

regarding H.R. 1889. Neither majority staff nor minority staff was 

made aware of any opposition to the bill, so at the time of the November hearing H.R. 1889 did not appear to be controversial 

amongst Subcommittee Members, or anyone else for that matter. 

Shortly after the hearing, the Corrections Corporation of America 

contacted Subcommittee staff to express its strong opposition to the 

legislation and question the necessity of the bill. However, organizations such as the advocacy group, Private Corrections Institute, 

PCI, and the American Civil Liberties Union supported the legislation, claiming it was difficult for them to obtain information from 

private prisons through the regular FOIA process of seeking the 

desired information through the request to the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons. 

2 

We decided to hold an additional hearing now to allow all parties 

to put their positions on the record and to give Members more information on the pros and cons regarding the bill. 

Unfortunately, CCA has chosen not to testify today even though 

it has been the organization most vocally opposed to the legislation. 

They have submitted a written statement noting their opposition. 

And, without objection, I have made that part of the hearing 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


F-1.eps
3 


F-2.eps
4 


F-3.eps
5 

Mr. SCOTT. So what started out to be an easy, straightforward 

bill has turned out to be more complicated and controversial than 

we first knew. And there seemed to be a general distrust of private 

prisons, and many believe that they purposely hide information 

from the public. In addition to PCI, the ACLU has put together a 

number of examples of how private prisons escape oversight by not 

being required to respond to FOIA requests. 

On the other hand, CCA asserts that it complies with FOIA 

through the Bureau of Prisons or other Federal agencies, and the 

current system works. They also point out that to pass H.R. 1889 

would have the effect of putting private prison contractors in a different position vis-a-vis other Federal contractors, which could significantly change the FOIA process in ways that may not have 

been intended by this bill. 

With that, I will now recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Judge Gohmert. 

[The bill, H.R. 1889, follows:] 

6 


1889-1.eps
7 


1889-2.eps
8 


1889-3.eps
9 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

And this is, as you said, our second hearing on this legislation. 

Our first hearing was held in November of last year. On that date, 

the Subcommittee also considered H.R. 4109, the Prison Abuse 

Remedies Act, a bill that made substantial changes to the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act. H.R. 4109 commanded most of the Subcommittee’s attention that day, and I believe it overshadowed our 

consideration of H.R. 1889. 

Since last November, I have had an opportunity to review the 

testimony of the sponsor of H.R. 1889, Mr. Holden. In his testimony, he describes the need to ensure that information regarding 

private prisons is readily available to the public. He proposed H.R. 

1889 as the proper means to accomplish that goal. 

Since November, I have also had the opportunity to hear from 

other advocates that support this legislation, as well as others who 

oppose it. After reviewing all the available information, I, too, have 

my serious concerns. 

H.R. 1889 extends the Freedom of Information Act reporting obligations imposed on Federal agencies to private companies that contract with Federal agencies to house prisoners. These companies, 

obviously, are commonly called private prisons. 

I support the Freedom of Information Act. It has done a great 

deal of good. I support the goal of providing information to the public. However, I think that the existing Freedom of Information Act 

framework does accomplish that goal. It is normally unnecessary 

and unwarranted to impose Freedom of Information Act obligations 

directly on private companies because of contracts with the Federal 

Government, and actually opens a gate that could, and I believe 

would, become a floodgate. 

Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act to ensure open 

government. FOIA, as its initials cause it to be called, allows the 

public to gather information, upon request, from Federal Government agencies unless that information is properly withheld because 

of privacy, law enforcement, trade secret, national security or other 

concerns. 

It was the intent of Congress to allow the public to peek behind 

the curtain of the Federal Government and to let people see how 

their tax dollars are being spent. Congress determined that FOIA 

was a reasonable burden for Federal agencies to bear. Foisting 

those same burdens on private entities certainly appears overburdensome. 

Proponents of H.R. 1889 attempt to justify singling out private 

prisons to bear the burden of FOIA obligations by asserting that 

housing prisoners is a core and a unique governmental service. 

However, this limited test, providing a core and unique government 

service, could be used to impose FOIA on every class of Federal 

contractors, including those who take out the Government’s trash 

and recycling. 

This is a dangerous precedent, I believe, that we should not set 

without careful consideration of the likely consequences. Chief 

among those likely consequences is increased costs. If passed, the 

bill would cause every private prison with a Federal contract to 

hire lawyers to receive and reply to FOIA requests. These costs will 

be passed along to Federal agencies. That will occur even though 

10 

these same agencies already have offices that exist specifically for 

the purpose of processing FOIA requests. 

Imposing FOIA on private entities will create a duplicative process that will waste taxpayer dollars. This certainly seems unwarranted, especially when one considers that it is yet to be demonstrated that information about private prisons cannot already be 

obtained through a FOIA request to the responsible Federal agencies. 

There is not a single example, that I am aware of, of a FOIA request regarding a private prison that was properly made to the appropriate Federal agency which was refused. If someone has evidence to the contrary, we will welcome seeing that, as well. 

We should not create legislative fixes to address problems that 

do not exist. Without clear evidence of the failure of the existing 

FOIA regime to properly work, it is difficult to support legislation 

that would take the huge step of imposing FOIA obligations on potentially all private entities. 

So, at this point, I am in opposition to the Private Prison Information Act, and will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Our first witness on the panel will be Mike Flynn, the director 

of government affairs for Reason Foundation, the nonpartisan 

think-tank whose mission it is to advance a free society by developing, applying and promoting libertarian principals, including individual liberty, free markets and the rule of law. 

He is a graduate of the University of Iowa, where he studied 

English and Economics. He has more than 15 years of experience 

in the development, implementation and analysis of public policy. 

He has provided his expertise to a number of nonprofit organizations. 

He began his public policy career in the Illinois General Assembly, where he worked as an analyst, both in the Capitol and in the 

Assembly’s Washington, D.C., office. 

The next witness will be Alex Friedmann, vice president for Private Corrections Institution, Incorporated. He is the associate editor of Prison Legal News, a monthly publication that reports on 

corrections and criminal justice-related issues nationwide. Prison 

Legal News has been published since 1990 and has extensively covered the private prison industry. 

He also serves in the voluntary, noncompensated capacity as vice 

president of the Private Corrections Institute, a nonprofit organization that opposes prison privatization. 

He is presently a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed against CCA due 

to CCA’s refusal to comply with Tennessee’s public records law. 

Our final witness will be Tom Jawetz, who is the immigration 

detention staff attorney for the National Prison Project of the 

ACLU Foundation. 

He graduated from Yale Law School in 2003 and served as a law 

clerk for the Honorable Kimba Wood, United States District Court, 

Southern District of New York. He works on a wide range of issues 

dealing with the conditions in which immigrant detainees are 

housed, and has co-counseled several lawsuits involving issues 

ranging from overcrowding to poor medical care. 

11 

Prior to joining the ACLU, he worked in the Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for 

Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. 

I welcome all of our witnesses to us today, and thank you for 

joining us today. 

Your written statements will be entered into the record in their 

entirety, but I would ask you to summarize your testimony in 5 

minutes or less. And there is a timing device where the light will 

be green and turn yellow with 1 minute left and red when your 5 

minutes have expired. 

We want to recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Coble, who has joined us today. 

We will start with Mr. Flynn. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL FLYNN, DIRECTOR OF 

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, REASON FOUNDATION 

Mr. FLYNN. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert, Members of the Subcommittee, thanks for this opportunity testify today. 

I am especially grateful for this opportunity because this issue 

touches on a lot of areas of Reason’s work. 

For 40 years, we have conducted research showing how the market and competition can improve the delivery of government services. We have also worked to reform the criminal justice system. 

We, for example, propose a number of initiatives that would reduce 

or even eliminate jail time for nonviolent drug offenders as a way 

to reduce our very high incarceration rate. 

We also publish Reason Magazine, an award-winning magazine 

where we address public policy through journalism. And so we use 

the FOIA process quite a bit. Most recently, we used it to expose 

some prosecutorial misconduct in Mississippi. You would be hardpressed to find bigger champion of the FOIA process than Reason 

Foundation. 

That said, to extend the FOIA to private companies, whether it 

is private correctional companies or other Federal contractors, we 

believe is at best misguided and at worst it would create a host of 

unintended consequences. 

First, we find that extending the FOIA process to private prisons 

is unnecessary. Currently, right now, when a Federal agency contracts with a private prison, they have employees who are on-site 

who monitor the contracts. There are a number of contracts and reports and audits that are submitted to the Federal agencies. All of 

those can be FOIA’ed. You can use the FOIA process to look at all 

that information. 

Now, I know proponents of this legislation say there are some 

other aspects that we can’t get to. We can’t find out about training 

for prison staff or find out about wages or experience or turnover. 

But there is a very simple solution to that: Require it in the contract. 

There is no prohibition on what the Federal agency can put in 

the contract with a private entity. They can stipulate certain training levels. They can stipulate certain compensation levels. They 

could actually make a contract that would require disclosure of 

more information than you would have under a FOIA. Only the 

12 

imagination of Federal officials keeps us from having this information. 

Second, this would set a very dangerous precedent. I mean, governments have incredible sovereign powers to tax us, to regulate 

us, to prosecute us. Because of this, we have the FOIA process so 

that we can look at how the government is doing its work and 

make sure that they are acting in an honest and open and fair 

manner. Private companies do not have this power. So it is a very 

different place. 

Now, there is no reason, if you extend this to private prison companies that you should, that it could not also be extended to any 

other Federal contractor and, by extension, their contractors and 

their suppliers. Thousands of individuals, small and large businesses, provide services to the government and products to the government at great efficiency for the taxpayers. All of that could be 

opened up to the FOIA process. Competitors could use it to find out 

trade secrets. You know, you could find out proprietary software 

code. You could use it as a tool to poach staff. It is an invasion of 

privacy that we think just isn’t warranted in this. 

And, finally, I think the real problem with this—and let’s be honest that—and it should be pointed out that most of the organizations that support this are primarily against prison privatization, 

against contracting out for prison services. And if FOIA is in place, 

I think a lot of companies would probably remove themselves from 

that industry, from that market. And in doing so, we would lose 

out on a lot of innovation and a lot of flexibility. 

Again, you know, we have a dysfunctional correctional system. 

We have among the world’s highest incarceration rates. Our recidivism is very, very high. And the problem is, we are just managing 

the system, rather than trying to manage the outcomes. 

With a Federal bureaucracy, it is very, very hard to get different 

outcomes. But with contracting, you can build different outcomes 

into the contract. You could make the payments contingent on, say, 

how many prisoners are in GED programs, how many prisoners are 

getting substance treatment. I mean, we can create contracts that 

get the outcomes we need. And you cannot do that without that. 

It is a very, very powerful tool that we can use. And, again, it is 

only the imagination of the Federal agencies that don’t do this. 

So I think, in looking at any public policy, I mean, this fails three 

critical tests. It is unnecessary, because we can get the information 

we need. It sets a very dangerous precedent, because there is no 

reason to think it wouldn’t be extended across the board of Federal 

contractors. And it stifles innovation by removing a powerful tool, 

which is contracting to get better outcomes in our correctional system. Because, ultimately, we need to have a better correctional system, not just a place where we warehouse inmates. 

Thank you. I would be happy to take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Flynn follows:] 

13 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FLYNN


MF-1.eps
14 


MF-2.eps
15 


MF-3.eps
16 


MF-4.eps
17 


MF-5.eps
18 


MF-6.eps
19 


MF-7.eps
20 


MF-8.eps
21 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Friedmann? 

We want to recognize the gentleman from Ohio has joined us, 

Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. Friedmann? 

TESTIMONY OF ALEX FRIEDMANN, VICE PRESIDENT, 

PRIVATE CORRECTIONS INSTITUTE 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member 

Gohmert, Members of the Subcommittee. 

With respect to Mr. Flynn, regarding public access to information 

related to privately operated prisons that house Federal prisoners, 

he has painted somewhat of a rosy picture. Unfortunately, that picture is more a work of abstract art. I prefer the school of realism, 

and the testimony I am going to give relates more to how the real 

world works. 

In December 2005, Prison Legal News, the publication that I 

worked for, filed suit against the GEO Group, the nation’s secondlargest private prison company, under Florida’s public records law. 

Florida has a unique public records law in that it expressly applies 

to private companies that contract with the State. Regardless, GEO 

Group failed to respond to our records request, which led to our 

litigation. GEO is in the process of producing our requested 

records, but only after we filed suit and only after the Court granted multiple motions to compel. 

I am going to discuss some examples related not only to FOIA 

but also to State public records laws. And the reason for that is 

that most public contracts with private companies relate to State 

and county prisoners, not Federal. FOIA, on the Federal level corresponds to the State public records laws on the State level. And 

these companies’ failure to respond on the State level is comparable 

to their failures on the Federal level. 

On April 3, 2007, on behalf of Prison Legal News, I submitted 

a records request to CCA under Tennessee’s public records law. 

Tennessee Supreme Court had specifically ruled earlier that private companies that perform functionally equivalent government 

services were subject to the State’s public records law. Regardless, 

CCA refused to answer our records request. A copy of CCA’s refusal 

is attached to my written statement as Exhibit 1. 

As a result, last month, I filed suit, personally, against CCA to 

ensure that the company complies with Tennessee’s public records 

law, as interpreted by our Supreme Court in that State. That case 

is presently pending. 

In 2007, the Private Corrections Institute, of which I serve as 

vice president, submitted a public records request to CCA under 

Florida’s public records law. We were seeking a copy of the afteraction report related to a September 2004 hostage-taking and 

shooting at the company’s Bay County jail. CCA refused to produce 

a copy of the report, claiming attorney-client privilege. A copy of 

CCA’s refusal letter is attached to my statement as Exhibit 2. 

At that time, CCA’s general counsel, Mr. Gustavus Puryear, was 

cited in a News Herald article as stating that report would never 

become a public record. 

22 

This past April, I sent public records requests to a number of 

government agencies that contract with CCA, requesting records 

related to the private prisons and jails that they contracted with. 

Of the 16 agencies that responded, only nine could provide the information I requested, which included the number of inmate-on-inmate assaults, inmate-on-staff assaults, and use-of-force incidents. 

Four jurisdictions stated they had no such records whatsoever. 

This is one example of how contracting government agencies simply do not have all the data provided from private prison contractors that would be available from comparable publicly run facilities, because the private prison companies do not supply those 

records to the agencies they contract with. If the contracting government agencies do not get data from private prison companies, 

they cannot then turn that data over to the public through FOIA 

or public records requests. 

Regarding FOIA, on May 8, 2008, Paul Wright, the editor of the 

publication that I work for, submitted a FOIA request to CCA’s corporate office. That request is attached as Exhibit 3 to my written 

statement. 

Our FOIA request encompassed data concerning CCA-operated 

facilities that house Federal prisoners. We asked for records related 

to inmate-on-inmate assaults and use-of-force reports, as well as 

other FOIA requests that CCA had received. All of this information 

would be available from federally operated prisons through FOIA. 

To date, CCA has not responded to our FOIA request. Mr. 

Wright has left five messages; they will not call us back. FOIA allows 20 days to respond, which has long since passed. CCA has 

completely ignored our FOIA request. 

The reality is that CCA and other private prison companies simply do not provide the public with records or information concerning their privately operated prisons. Their internal records are 

labeled proprietary and copyrighted or attorney-client privileged. 

Prisoners who are held in private prisons have greater access to internal documents than members of the public. 

My written statement includes a description of how I tried to obtain a copy of the CCA policy concerning the company’s mail policy 

in an Arizona prison. My request was denied. CCA stated that policy was proprietary and they could not provide it. 

I would like to give a visual example of the difference between 

publicly operated prisons and private. Earlier, I mentioned a 2004 

shooting and hostage situation. This is the public report regarding 

that incident from Bay County officials. This is the CCA report. 

And if you can’t see it, it is because it is not here, because CCA 

refused to produce it, either to ourselves, Private Corrections Institute, the county, or the newspapers who requested it. That is the 

difference—public; private. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Friedmann follows:] 

23 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALEX FRIEDMANN


AF-1.eps
24 


AF-2.eps
25 


AF-3.eps
26 


AF-4.eps
27 


AF-5.eps
28 


AF-6.eps
29 


AF-7.eps
30 


AF-8.eps
31 


AF-9.eps
32 


AF-10.eps
33 


AF-11.eps
34 


AF-12.eps
35 


AF-13.eps
36 

EXHIBIT 1 


AF-15.eps
37 


AF-16.eps
38 


AF-17.eps
39 


AF-18.eps
40 

EXHIBIT 2 


AF-20.eps
41 


AF-21.eps
42 

EXHIBIT 3 


AF-23.eps
43 


AF-24.eps
44 

EXHIBIT 4 


AF-26.eps
45 


AF-27.eps
46 

EXHIBIT 5 


AF-29.eps
47 


AF-30.eps
48 

EXHIBIT 6 


AF-32.eps
49 


AF-33.eps
50 

EXHIBIT 7 


AF-35.eps
51 


AF-36.eps
52 

EXHIBIT 8 


AF-38.eps
53 


AF-39.eps
54 


AF-40.eps
55 


AF-41.eps
56 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Jawetz? 

TESTIMONY OF TOM JAWETZ, IMMIGRATION DETENTION 

STAFF ATTORNEY, THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT 

Mr. JAWETZ. Good afternoon. I would like to thank Chairman 

Scott and Members of the Subcommittee for inviting me to speak 

about the critical need for oversight and accountability over the 

private prison industry and the importance of the Private Prison 

Information Act. 

There are many different ways to measure the value of this bill. 

By increasing the public’s access to information in the hands of forprofit prison companies, Congress would empower the public to 

monitor unacceptable risks to public safety and police fraud and 

abuse of government funds. The bill also would help to shine a 

light into the darkest recesses of our society, because, while our 

Nation’s prisons too often lack the necessary transparency, private 

prisons are open to even less scrutiny. 

My work puts me at the center of two important trends in incarceration: the incredible growth in the detention of people facing administrative immigration charges, and the Federal Government’s 

increasing reliance on private prison companies to house those immigrants. 

Since 2001, the number of people held in administrative immigration detention has tripled. Meanwhile, private prison companies 

have received lucrative contracts to house tens of thousands of immigrants in these facilities. For instance, the Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA, recorded nearly $1.5 billion in revenue 

last year, 13 percent of which came from contracts with ICE. 

At the ACLU, we routinely hear about problems faced by immigration detainees, and we sift through these complaints to identify 

particularly egregious facilities. It is therefore striking that all 

three immigration detention lawsuits filed by my office over the 

last 18 months have involved CCA facilities. 

Immigration detainees are held throughout the United States, 

but the privatization boom appears to be focused heavily on our 

southern border. Last month, I visited two privately run facilities 

in south Texas. 

The Willacy County Detention Center, also known as ‘‘Ritmo,’’ is 

run by Management and Training Corporation, a Utah-based company whose former director was tapped to set up the now-infamous 

Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Willacy houses over 3,000 immigration 

detainees, 2,000 of whom live in tents. Until recently, the tents had 

no windows, and detainees were completely deprived of natural 

light. 

Walking through the compound during my tour, it was clear to 

see that tears and rips in the walls of the tents had been repaired 

with tape. So I was not surprised when I learned later that detainees routinely complain of water seeping into their living quarters 

when it rains. Yet records pertaining to how MTC maintains or repairs the tents are unavailable to the public. 

Last year, a local news station obtained reports showing that 

dozen of detainees had complained they were being fed rotten food 

57 

crawling with maggots. Copies of MTC’s logbooks recording those 

complaints were obtained directly from security guards who went 

to the media. Had the guards not come forward, those records 

might never have surfaced under our current FOIA law. 

The South Texas Detention Complex is run by GEO Group. I also 

visited that one. It houses just over 1,900 detainees. Last month, 

actually just a day before my visit, a local news station uncovered 

evidence that GEO guards were sexually assaulting female detainees. GEO guards reportedly pressured the women by threatening 

to have them deported. At least one GEO guard and one ICE officer 

reported that they were fired after they complained internally 

about the assaults. 

Now, while most ICE records pertaining to sexual abuse at the 

facility would be available under the FOIA Act, any records possessed by GEO Group, which told a reporter that it had no knowledge of sexual assault complaints, may never be released publicly. 

The issue that has gained the most public attention when it 

comes to immigration detention is poor medical care and avoidable 

deaths. Back in June 2007, the New York Times revealed that over 

60 people had died in immigration custody since 2004. I think this 

is a relevant point for Representative Gohmert. 

The day after that story broke, the ACLU filed a FOIA request 

seeking records pertaining to detainee deaths, including any reports of investigations into such deaths. In January of 2008, ICE 

produced approximately 800 pages of documents, which included a 

list containing the names and locations of last detention for 66 deceased detainees. According to that list, 19 of those 66 detainees, 

their location of last detention was a facility run by a private prison company. And yet, only a single piece of paper produced to the 

ACLU by ICE appears to have been generated by one of the forprofit companies running these facilities. We got nothing from 

CCA. We got nothing from Corrections Corporation. We got one 

piece of paper from GEO. 

It is inconceivable that not one of these 19 in-custody deaths resulted in an investigative report. So the question becomes whether 

ICE failed to produce records in its possession or whether private 

prison companies, as we know, routinely failed to turn over records 

to ICE. 

Yesterday, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in Federal court against 

ICE to answer the first half of that question. But the second half 

of the question that goes to the heart of the Private Prison Information Act is that, without the ability to demand such records directly from private prison companies, how can the public ever be 

confident that it is receiving all of the information to which it is 

entitled? 

In my written testimony, I detail one change to the bill that I 

believe is entirely consistent with the drafters’ intent. Namely, the 

bill speaks exclusively to Federal, quote/unquote, ‘‘prisoners,’’ but 

the more than 300,000 people detained in ICE custody each year 

pursuant to contracts with ICE are detainees, not prisoners. And 

that is throughout the U.S. Code. Unless the bill is amended, there 

is a risk that private facilities housing Federal immigration detainees pursuant to a contract with ICE will not be included and will 

not be required to comply with the bill. 

58 

On behalf of the ACLU, I would like to thank the Subcommittee 

and the Ranking Member. And I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jawetz follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM JAWETZ


TJ-1.eps
59 


TJ-2.eps
60 


TJ-3.eps
61 


TJ-4.eps
62 


TJ-5.eps
63 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

We will now ask you to respond to questions under the 5-minute 

rule. 

And I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

One of the things that we are trying to do is have some consistency. Either we are going to do the same for prisons that we do 

for all other contracts, or we will do the same for private prisons 

that we do for public prisons. I mean, either way, I guess we could 

be showing some consistency. And so let’s try to determine which 

makes more sense. 

The difference with prisons is that, with incarceration, we delegate to the private prisons authority that most contractors don’t 

have: the right to shoot prisoners, when and when not to use fatal 

force, how to feed people. People who are sent to these facilities 

have no choice. Other contracts, you can deal with them or not deal 

with them as you please. 

So, Mr. Flynn, why shouldn’t we be able to get information on 

prisons that are private that we can get from prisons that are public? 

Mr. FLYNN. Because we can get that information. That information, we can get it. As I said, there is no reason that the Bureau 

of Prisons cannot make disclosure of some of these items a contingent part of the contract. You don’t need to extend the FOIA process into an entirely new area to get at this information. 

I mean, we have heard a number of anecdotes about problems in 

certain prisons. We know about those problems, I mean, and these 

things do come up, and we do get information about them. The 

great thing about, with the contract, is that if there are problems 

in the facility you can terminate that contract. 

You know, we make it sound like only private prisons have problems within the correctional system—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, let me ask Mr. Friedmann. 

Most of your examples were with state prisons. Is that right? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. Correct, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. State prisons would not be affected by this legislation 

unless they also house Federal prisoners. 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. That is correct. CCA and GEO Group, the private prison industry primarily houses State and county prisoners. 

CCA, for example, houses around 11,000 or 12,000 out of their total 

70,000 to 75,000 prisoners. But our experience with these State 

public records laws and State prisoners is very representative of 

how we can expect CCA to behave with FOIA. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, why can’t you submit your freedom-of-information requests to the Bureau of Prisons and let them get the information, rather than going to the private contractor? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. We have tried that with other government agencies, State and county, and that has failed. 

We currently have a request into ICE to see if they can produce 

information from their private prison contractors that we specifically asked for and that we know that the private contractors already have. To date, ICE has not been able to produce that information. I am still waiting to get their final result, or I would have 

brought that with me. 

64 

Mr. SCOTT. Why would you be more likely to get the information 

from the private prison than through the Bureau of Prisons getting 

it from the private prisons? If they don’t have it through the Bureau of Prisons, why would they have that information available to 

you? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. The Bureau of Prisons, ICE and other Federal 

agencies only have records that they get from their private contractors. If the private contractors do not give them those records, they 

do not have them, and I can’t request them. We do know that private prison companies have these records—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Wait a minute. You can only request records that are 

on file at the Bureau of Prisons? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. Or that they can obtain. 

Mr. SCOTT. Or that they can obtain. Okay, that is the part of the 

question we are trying to get at. If they can obtain them, why isn’t 

that just as efficient a process as anybody, everywhere, off the 

street, sending in these requests to the prisons? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. Well, partly because that information is not 

available. Mr. Jawetz testified he has produced a number of 

records for ICE, and they produced the records but only one page 

from a private prison contractor, which is very unrealistic, that 

they only have one page. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can a freedom-of-information request require the Bureau of Prisons to obtain whatever information they may have, 

even if it is not on file at the Bureau of Prisons? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. I take it that would be interpreted by the BOP 

or ICE as to whether they can do that through their contract, depending on how their contract is written. 

But when those contracts are written, they are not written with 

FOIA in mind. BOP, ICE and other Federal agencies that house 

prisoners and detain them, their responsibility, first and foremost, 

is to detain those prisoners, whether in public or private prisons. 

They are not as much worried about FOIA. So when they draft 

their contracts, they are more concerned about security and operational-related issues. 

Mr. SCOTT. And how would this bill change that? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. This bill would require private prison companies 

to comply with FOIA to the same extent as Federal agencies already do. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman. 

I do appreciate everybody being here. 

It never ceases that, whether it is a courtroom hearing or a legislative hearing, that credibility is always an issue. 

Mr. Jawetz, you know, you made the statement in here that, 

most importantly, for purposes of your testimony, you said the bill 

also, quote, ‘‘would, for the first time, shine a light into the darkest 

recesses of our society,’’ unquote. 

Are you talking about the private prisons being the darkest recesses of our society? 

Mr. JAWETZ. Yes, that they are among the most dark recesses. 

And I think the point that I would like to make—and this does 

respond to Mr. Flynn’s point. I don’t think, in general, it is our experience at the National Prison Project that we want to suggest 

65 

that publicly run facilities smell like roses. I mean, a number of the 

cases that we file—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Well, that is not my question. My question 

is regarding your statement. 

We have had testimony regarding gangs, MS-13. We have had 

organized crime testimony. There are just all kinds of issues. And 

so it may not affect anybody else, but when you come in before this 

Committee and say that the private prisons, your words are, are 

the darkest recesses of our society, then it causes me credibility 

problems for you. 

Why would you come in and say that? 

You are trying to get information directly from these private 

prison entities. And frankly, Mr. Jawetz, I have had concerns since 

my days as an attorney and as a judge and chief justice about the 

use of private prisons, and this jury is still out on their propriety. 

I was thinking this was something that perhaps would be better 

addressed by oversight hearings from the Federal standpoint, from 

our standpoint, be open to those kind of things. 

But, boy, what is being pushed here in this bill is going to create 

an additional burden for those private entities that is going to open 

the door, as I see it, to the same FOIA requests being laid on private entities, as I said in my opening statement, that could include, 

you know, who carries out the trash. But—— 

Mr. JAWETZ. Can I respond to your question, Representative 

Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, my only question I have asked so far is 

about your belief that the private prisons are the darkest recesses 

of our society. So if you have further comment on that question, 

yes. 

Mr. JAWETZ. Sure. I think the purpose of my statement was to 

note that the public’s ability to access information in the possession 

of private prison companies is incredibly limited. But, even more 

specifically, I can’t walk up to a private prison on any given day 

and say that I want to walk around, look through their facilities, 

take a look through their records and try and get a sense of what 

it is that they are doing behind closed doors. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Have you talked to your Member of Congress 

about going with him or her through a tour of a prison facility? I 

have taken grand juries on tours of both public and private facilities as a judge. 

Yes, I wouldn’t want public or private facilities to have Tom 

Jawetz or Louie Gohmert just come walking up out of the blue and 

say, ‘‘I want in to look around, and let me in.’’ I think that would 

be a huge mistake. That would be counterintuitive to their mission. 

And I am surprised, once again, that you would expect that. 

But, again, credibility is important to me. And when you come 

in and use ‘‘darkest,’’ the superlative, not ‘‘darker’’ or ‘‘dark,’’ but 

just ‘‘darkest,’’ then it sounds to me like you are prone to exaggeration, which affects your credibility. 

How many private prisons have you been in? 

Mr. JAWETZ. I have been in three, at this point. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And how did they come to let you in? 

66 

Mr. JAWETZ. The ACLU is a credible organization, and it is also 

an organization that is a credible threat. That really goes to the 

point of this litigation. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So the ACLU has made requests to go on tours, 

and they were allowed? 

Mr. JAWETZ. In some cases, we have made requests to go on 

tours and they have been allowed. We have gone into facilities— 

I mean, I don’t know what sorts of tours you have had. Perhaps 

you have had all-access passes. But I can say that the experience 

of walking through a facility in a 2-hour period of time is quite different from the experience of living in that facility. And I can also 

say that the experience of walking through that facility blind, as 

compared to the ability to look at records from the facility, review 

serious injuries reports, or do things like that, is quite different. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, there is a way to have an opportunity to live 

in a facility. 

My time is running out, but I was going to ask—— 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman’s time has expired. We will have a 

second round of questions. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me just ask a couple of quick questions. 

I guess, Mr. Flynn, does present law allow FOIA requests to any 

private contractors now? 

Mr. FLYNN. Not Federal law. There has been litigation at times, 

and you could find decisions to go both ways on this. In some very, 

very narrow specific situations, the courts have allowed a FOIA 

process to a private contractor. But that is in a specific situation. 

It is not a blanket thing like this would be in statute. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you agree with that, Mr. Friedmann? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. My research has been narrowly on private prison contracts with State and Federal Government. And I have found 

no cases where, in the Federal level, they provided access to private prison contract records. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, there are a lot of private contractors out there 

doing government functions. Is there any precedent for requiring a 

private contractor to respond to a FOIA request? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. I can speak only to the private prison contracts; 

I am sorry. 

Mr. SCOTT. We are not aware of any. 

Mr. Jawetz? 

Mr. JAWETZ. I am not aware of any. 

But I can certainly say that I think the job that we are asking 

private prison companies to do is really not comparable in any way 

to the job that we are asking private trash collectors to do. And the 

kind of authority that we are giving to private prison companies 

over depriving someone of liberty, of holding disciplinary hearings, 

of using force, is really quite different from the experience that 

most other private contractors have. 

Mr. SCOTT. Including deadly force. That was the point I made in 

my opening statement. 

Mr. Flynn, what additional cost would there be to a private contractor if they had to respond to FOIA requests directly, rather 

than FOIA requests to the Bureau of Prisons? If someone were to 

67 

send the request to the Bureau of Prisons, wouldn’t it not be the 

same cost? 

Mr. FLYNN. No, because the Bureau of Prisons absorbs that cost 

as part of their compliance with FOIA. The private company—— 

Mr. SCOTT. If the information is at the private prison, and that 

is where you are going to get the information, why would it be any 

more difficult to get that information from the private prison if you 

send the initial request to the Bureau of Prisons? 

Mr. FLYNN. Because I think you can expect a—because there 

are—you could expect an avalanche of FOIA requests that go beyond just that particular information. And I think, you know, given 

the stridency that this issue raises and the emotions behind this 

issue, I think it would be used by several organizations as a tool 

against private prison companies, and they would be deluged with 

FOIA requests. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Friedmann, if we allowed the requests to go directly to FOIA, and then if there would be additional costs, who 

would absorb the additional costs? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. Most likely the private contractors. It would 

therefore reduce the costs that are currently being paid by the Federal agencies that have to handle those requests. Of course, contractors are responsible for handling whatever costs are associated 

with their contracts. So that would possibly result in a reduction 

of costs at the Federal agency level and an absorption of cost by 

the private prison contractors. 

Mr. SCOTT. So the private contractor would have to absorb the 

additional cost in responding to FOIA requests? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. That is correct. To the extent they say they already do that, however, and if that is an accurate statement from 

the industry, presumably it would result in no additional cost, if 

they say they already do it. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

The gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I have received a copy of a letter here from Keith Nelson, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General. It looks like you have 

the same copy. It is addressed to Howard Coble, an outstanding 

Member on our Subcommittee. But I would ask that this letter of 

the Justice Department’s reaction, at least their Office of Legislative Affairs, about the bill be made a part of the record. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

68 


C-1.eps
69 


C-2.eps
70 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

And then I haven’t had a chance to read the whole letter, but, 

anyway, it sounds like they have some questions regarding, if this 

were to become law, things that would need to be rectified within 

it. 

But I want to go back to the issue of these dark recesses in our 

society. And, Mr. Friedmann, you had mentioned that you have 

made numerous requests for information from private prisons, and 

your organization, you mentioned, had made numerous requests. 

Did I understand those to be State private facilities? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. The majority of them, yes. We have put in a 

FOIA request both to ICE and to CCA seeking records related to 

private prison companies that contract with the Federal Government. Most of the examples I cited were with State or county government agencies. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. And before making those directly of the 

private entities, did you make the same requests regarding those 

facilities through the appropriate or the governing body controlling 

those facilities? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. No, partly because some of the information 

would have only been available from the private prison company. 

And it was our understanding that they stated that they complied 

already with FOIA. In fact, we called the company, and I spoke 

with their—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Wait, wait, wait, I want to get this. You made requests, and they say they had already complied with FOIA, which 

seems to indicate that there were prior requests made. So had you 

made prior requests and then subsequent requests of the same facility? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. Allow me to clarify. We have submitted one 

FOIA request directly to Corrections Corporation of America and 

an additional separate FOIA request to ICE. 

It was my understanding that the private prison industry has 

stated or claimed that it already complies with FOIA requests, 

which is why we submitted a request directly to the company’s corporate office. After speaking with CCA’s general counsel’s office, 

they stated that we could submit that request to one of their assistant general counsels, which is what we did. 

Mr. GOHMERT. With regard to all these other requests that were 

made from State and local entities, did you go through the governing body controlling those facilities first, or did you make them 

directly to the private facilities? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. All of the other requests that I cited were made 

to the contracting government agency or to CCA. It depends on the 

request. I am sorry to—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. So the contract or government facility, the one 

that made the contract with the private facility; is that correct? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. Correct, or the contractor themselves. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And were you turned down in making that request of the government entity? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. The government entity we have been—I have 

been turned down by four agencies which indicated they could not 

provide the records because they did not have them. 

Mr. GOHMERT. That they were in part of the private facility. 

71 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. Correct. They did not have the information I 

had requested. 

Mr. GOHMERT. What caused you to select those facilities you did? 

I believe at one point didn’t you mention, like, six facilities that you 

had made requests of? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. Right. Actually, we submitted a request to all 

of CCA’s contracting government agencies, which number around 

30. We received responses from around 16 of those agencies. And 

of those agencies, four had absolutely no records that they could 

provide. Six had some records. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, my time is running out. What caused you 

to go after CCA particularly? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. Mainly because there was a news report in 

Time magazine which indicated—this was published in March of 

this year—that the company had a policy or practice of not disclosing information to government agencies. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, Mr. Jawetz said he has been in three private prison facilities. Have you been in any private prison facilities 

yourself? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. Just one, which is the South Central Correctional Facility in Clifton, Tennessee. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Was that a request made at the site that 

you go on a tour of the facility, or how was that occasion? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. Not exactly. Actually, I spent 6 years at that facility while I was incarcerated, from 1992 to 1998. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Was that a CCA facility, or who owned it? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. It was. CCA operated under contract with the 

Tennessee Department of Correction. 

Mr. GOHMERT. That seems to shed a little more light on motivation, anyway. Nonetheless, if there are issues that need to be resolved, I am for resolving them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Just another question. Mr. Friedmann, are their privacy concerns that may be generated with direct FOIA requests to 

private agencies? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. Absolutely. But those privacy concerns are addressed to the same extent that privacy concerns are addressed to 

Federal agencies. In other words, FOIA already encompasses exceptions and exclusions for information that would infringe on privacy, security and so forth, things that cannot be disclosed, things 

such as security operations at prisons, you know, the layout of how 

their locks work and so forth. Those things aren’t subject to disclosure under FOIA already to Federal agencies. 

So by extending FOIA to private prison companies, you would 

also extend the exceptions and the exclusions that FOIA already 

has. That would not create additional or new privacy concerns. 

Those are already addressed. 

Mr. SCOTT. And you have indicated that you have made a FOIA 

request and could not get information. Can you be specific as to the 

information you have requested that you couldn’t get? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. Certainly. The FOIA request that we submitted 

to CCA, based on their statement that we should submit it to their 

general counsel’s office, requested specific information. We examined the number of FOIA requests that CCA itself has received 

72 

over the past 21⁄2 years. We requested the last 20 FOIA requests 

that CCA has received and their responses to those requests. We 

have requested specific statistical information regarding CCA prisons that house Federal prisoners, and that included inmate-on-inmate assaults, inmate-on-staff assaults, use-of-force reports, disciplinary reports and other related statistics. 

All of that information, had we submitted that request to any 

public facility, would be subject to FOIA. Our FOIA request to CCA 

has not yet been responded to. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Flynn, why shouldn’t that information be available if it’s a private prison as it is with a public prison? 

Mr. FLYNN. Well, what Mr. Friedmann just explained is a fishing 

expedition. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let’s ignore the request for FOIA requests and get 

to the information about the assaults and that information. 

Mr. FLYNN. I think that should be available, that should be 

available information. And that is up to the bureau who is making 

the contract to say that information must be disclosed. 

But, again, this bill which Mr. Friedmann just discussed, and I 

do think it is important, is to have this avalanche of FOIA requests 

on a private company that is unrelated to any specific incident or 

any specific problem is what you want to avoid. 

Mr. SCOTT. Any other questions? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Just briefly. 

Mr. SCOTT. Gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Flynn, I hadn’t had a chance, I hadn’t made the chance to 

ask you questions, and I did have some of you. You know, I agree 

with your approach in general; basically, liking the idea that less 

government is usually better than more government. 

But you had made the comment that we should be managing outcomes instead of process. And I agree with your concerns about the 

potentially unnecessary dangerous precedent. As I have already indicated, I am leaning against this type of legislation. But as I also 

indicated, I have my own concerns about contracting out certain 

governmental functions. So I am struggling somewhat with your 

idea of managing outcomes only, without regard to process. 

You surely wouldn’t want prisons that used significantly mindaltering drugs or beating a guy about the head or letting other inmates beat him until they are beat into submission and they come 

out this docile, mindless human being or remnant of a human 

being. I mean, I am sure you agree with that, right? 

Mr. FLYNN. Absolutely, yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So it is more than just managing outcomes. I 

mean, we would be concerned about the process, wouldn’t you 

agree? 

Mr. FLYNN. Absolutely. And what I mean by managing outcomes 

is, you know, right now, we have a correctional system that is very 

dysfunctional. And we have very, very high recidivism rates. You 

know, we put oftentimes nonviolent criminals in jail for a long 

time, and they get basically on-the-job training for criminal behavior. In our current system, we just house them. We should be moving in some direction toward rehabilitating them, making sure they 

get an education or job skills, so that when they leave the prison 

73 

system they have an alternative that just doesn’t put them back in 

there. 

Through contracting, by the use of private prisons, you can move 

in that direction, because you can make the contract contingent on 

these things. With the Federal bureaucracy and Federal employees, 

who cannot be fired essentially, you can never start to get those 

outcomes within the institution. You know, if there is a riot at a 

public facility, maybe somebody gets fired. If there is a riot at a 

private facility, you can pull the contract. 

That is a tool that we should use and we should—you know, it 

is the competition that makes them run better. And if you 

incentivize and say ‘‘Okay, yeah, we are going to pay you X 

amount; and if you get X percent in substance treatment of your 

inmates, we will pay extra.’’ And so that is what I mean by managing outcomes; not that you do it at the expense of the process. 

But right now we just pour money into the system and don’t even 

look at what comes out on the other end. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And that is certainly an indictment of the prison system, that we 

can’t use common sense and good practices, whereas we can contract to get those services; that maybe we ought to be looking at 

the public prisons to see if we can’t get some better output. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Is that our next hearing? 

Mr. SCOTT. If you insist. 

Any other questions? 

Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I had two 

other meetings that I had to go to, and I am sorry I missed most 

of the testimony. 

Mr. Flynn, would imposing FOIA obligations on private companies that have government contracts, could that lead to higher 

costs for the government? 

Mr. FLYNN. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. COBLE. Proponents of the legislation have argued that private facilities operate under a shroud of secrecy and, thus, should 

be subject to FOIA. 

Reason Foundation, your group, has conducted significant research into the operation of private correctional facilities. How did 

Reason come into access of this information? 

Mr. FLYNN. Through public sources. 

Mr. COBLE. Pardon? 

Mr. FLYNN. Through FOIA requests and other means. 

Mr. COBLE. Do you want to elaborate on that a little bit? 

Mr. FLYNN. Yeah. I didn’t do the actual requesting, so I don’t 

know what they did. But we looked—and what we also did, which 

I think is even more interesting, is we looked at a bunch of studies, 

I think about 18 or 20 studies, going back to 1989, kind of a meta 

analysis, and found that in about 16 of those 18 cases, of those 

studies, the private prisons were at least as good as the public prison in terms of quality of service and usually better. 

So, I mean, it is too much—I mean, this is a very specific bill 

about the whole private prison industry. But there has been a lot 

of misconception about how the private prison industry runs. And 

74 

they make it sound as if, you know, the public prisons are these 

wonderful daycare centers where everything is nice and light and 

the private prisons are some kind of, like, dark gulag. But the data 

does not show that at all. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Friedmann, the Freedom of Information Act was enacted to 

provide greater transparency into the operation of our Federal Government. I am not aware of any precedent whereby the statute has 

been extended beyond the government and to private entities. Are 

there such precedents? 

Mr. FRIEDMANN. To my knowledge, and my research has mostly 

been in the private prison contracting area, no, which is what H.R. 

1889 would do. 

Mr. FLYNN. Just to clarify, there have been very, very limited, 

maybe, like, two or three, instances of private contractors being 

subject to FOIA as a result of litigation. But those were very particular and specific. But there is no statutory. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Gentleman from Texas? 

Thank you. 

I would like to thank all our witnesses for their testimony today. 

Members may have additional written questions for our witnesses, which we will forward to you and ask that you answer as 

promptly as you can so that your responses may be made part of 

the record. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 1 

week for the submission of additional materials. 

And, without objection, the Subcommittee now stands adjourned. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 2:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(75) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, 

TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing on the H.R. 1889, the ‘‘Private Prison Information Act of 2007.’’ The way the United States treats its prisoners 

reflects greatly on the values of our nation. I have long been an outspoken advocate 

for the rights of detainees and feel today’s hearing is incredibly important. I would 

like to thank our distinguished witnesses, the Alex Friedmann, Vice President, The 

President Corrections Institute, Inc.; Tom Jawetz, Immigration Detention Staff Attorney from The American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project; and Mike 

Flynn, Director of Government Affairs, Reason Foundation. I look forward to their 

testimonies. 

H.R. 1899 ‘‘THE PRIVATE PRISON INFORMATION ACT OF 2007’’ 

This important piece of legislation, introduced by my distinguished colleague, Representative Tim Holden, addresses the release of information to the public regarding 

prisoners, an important step forward in the way of transparency. This legislation 

‘‘requires prisons and other correctional facilities holding federal prisoners under a 

contract with the federal government to make the same information available to the 

public that federal prisons and correctional facilities are required to do by law.’’ In 

effect, this ‘‘good government’’ legislation will require private prison vendors who 

contract with the Federal Government to make the same information available to 

the public as is required of public correctional facilities. 

For years, private prison vendors have hid behind their ‘‘corporate veil’’ to keep 

damaging information from becoming public. H.R. 1889 would put an end to this 

practice once and for all. 

Recently, Time magazine exposed Corrections Corporation of America’s practice of 

keeping two sets of internal audit reports: one for public release and another, hiding 

possibly damaging information from public scrutiny under the guise of ‘‘attorney-client privilege.’’ 

Studies have shown private prison guards receive less pay and benefits, and experience higher rates of turnover than those in the public sector. As a result, employees, inmates, and surrounding communities near private correction facilities are exposed to great risks. At the very least, private contractors should reveal the same 

information about their hiring, training, and management practices which public facilities do. 

While the for-profit private prison contractors, the Department of Justice and the 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement feel that private vendors currently supply 

information to the Federal Government, this is not the point. The public has a right 

to know what is going on inside these facilities, regardless of the limited amount 

of reporting required by the federal government. 

As more and more stories are revealed of the horrific treatment of prisoners both 

within the federal prisons and contracted prisons emerge, it is imperative that we 

hold these facilities accountable. Concerns about internal problems within private 

prisons have been raised by a myriad of organizations and even Representatives 

from within this Congress. One such organization, the Private Corrections Institute, 

recently voiced its concerns stating, ‘‘there are more safety concerns and more escapes in private prisons where guards are not well trained, are poorly compensated, 

and where this is rapid turnover of personnel.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, because we are sending our federal prisoners to these private facilities, there must be some sort of mechanism with the capability of holding them 

76 

up to the same federal standards mandated to federal prisons and correctional facilities. It is our obligation to know under what conditions federal prisoners are living, 

whether they are living in a privately-owned facility or a government-owned facility. 

This bill is an important step toward guaranteeing that federal prisoners—whether 

they are housed in a government-owned facility or in a privately-owned facility contracted by the government—be treated the same. 

Mr. Chairman, we must address the shortcomings of FOIA when it comes to private prisons. Modification is long overdue and I look forward to working with the 

committee to see these issues addressed. This bill is about accountability, fairness, 

public safety, and transparency. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

f 

77 


A-1.eps
78 


A-2.eps
79 


A-3.eps
80 


A-4.eps
81 


A-5.eps
82 


A-6.eps
83 


A-7.eps
84 

f 


A-8.eps
85 


B-1.eps
86 


B-2.eps
87 

f 


B-3.eps
88 


D-1.eps
89 

f 


D-2.eps
90 


E-1.eps
91 

Æ 


E-2.eps