Prison phone smuggling now carries 2-year sentence; policy review vague

What it does

This bill increases the criminal penalty for smuggling a phone into a prison from up to 1 year to up to 2 years imprisonment. It also requires the Bureau of Prisons to review and update its policies on contraband within one year to better protect inmates and staff.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a straightforward increase in the maximum prison sentence for phone smuggling from 1 to 2 years. It is a criminal-law amendment, not a broader prison-reform or contraband-control measure.

What the text implies

• The policy review in Section 3 is mandatory but lacks enforcement teeth — no consequences if the Bureau of Prisons fails to update policies or if updates are cosmetic.
• The bill names the offense after a deceased correctional officer (Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati), which is commemorative but does not affect the bill's substance.
• Increased penalties may disproportionately affect lower-income individuals and family members who smuggle phones to incarcerated relatives, as they are more likely to be caught and prosecuted than organized smuggling operations.
• The amendment restructures the penalty framework by inserting a new paragraph (4) and renumbering existing paragraphs, which may create ambiguity if other statutes cross-reference the old numbering.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill strengthens prison security and staff safety by deterring phone smuggling, a genuine public benefit. However, it also increases criminal penalties that will fall on individuals (often low-income) caught smuggling phones, and the policy review requirement is vague about what 'protections for incarcerated individuals' means — it may be overshadowed by the penalty increase.

Named in the bill

Bureau of Prisons, 18 U.S.C. § 1791, Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati

Where it stands

17 cosponsors: 9 Democrats, 8 Republicans.

• Feb 26, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• Feb 26, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary”
• May 14, 2026 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably”
• Jun 10, 2026 — Passed the Senate · Congress.gov: “Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S2723, S2726; text: CR S2726)”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

4 lobbying clients named this bill on 5 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $4,520,426 in lobbying spend. A filing names 24 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 72% of bills with at least one filing.

Chuck Grassley, the sponsor, reported $49,167 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Ctia-the Wireless Association — $3,640,000 on 1 filing
• American Fed of Government Employees AFL-CIO — $840,426 on 2 filings
• Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association — $40,000 on 1 filing
• Afge Local 4070 — $0 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.