1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Martha Wright Prison Phone Justice Act . 2. Findings Congress finds the following: (1) Prison, jails, and other confinement facilities in the United States have unique telecommunications needs due to safety and security concerns. (2) Unjust and unreasonable charges for telephone and advanced communications services in confinement facilities negatively impact the safety and security of communities in the United States by damaging relationships between incarcerated persons and their support systems, thereby exacerbating recidivism. (3) All people in the United States, including anyone who pays for confinement facility communications services, should have access to communications services at charges that are just and reasonable. (4) Certain markets for confinement facility communications services are distorted due to reverse competition, in which the financial interests of the entity making the buying decision (the confinement facility) are aligned with the seller (the provider of confinement facility communications services) and not the consumer (the incarcerated person or a member of his or her family). This reverse competition occurs because site commission payments to the confinement facility from the provider of confinement facility communications services are the chief criterion many facilities use to select their provider of confinement facility communications services. (5) Charges for confinement facility communications services that have been shown to be unjust and unreasonable are often a result of site commission payments that far exceed the costs incurred by the confinement facility in accommodating these services. (6) Unjust and unreasonable charges have been assessed for both audio and video services and for both intrastate and interstate communications from confinement facilities. (7) Mrs. Martha Wright-Reed led a campaign for just communications rates for incarcerated people for over a decade. (8) Mrs. Wright-Reed was the lead plaintiff in Wright v.