[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 49 (Monday, April 12, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3595-S3598]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S3595]]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. THURMOND:
S. 763. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the
minimum Survivor Benefit Plan basic annuity for surviving spouses age
62 and older, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
SBP BENEFITS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, as our Armed Forces are engaged
in operations over Yugoslavia, I am introducing legislation that
corrects a long-standing injustice to the widows of our military
retirees. My bill would immediately increase for survivors over the age
62 the minimum Survivor Benefit Plan annuity from 35 percent to 40
percent of the Survivor Benefit Plan-covered uniform services retired
pay. The bill would provide a further increase to 45 percent of covered
retired pay as of October 1, 2004.
Mr. President, I expect every member of the Senate has received mail
from military spouses expressing dismay that they would not be
receiving the 55 percent of their husband's retirement pay as
advertised in the Survivor Benefit Plan literature provided by the
military. The reason that they do not receive the 55 percent of retired
pay is that current law mandates that at age 62 this amount be reduced
either by the amount of the Survivors Social Security benefit or to 35
percent of the SBP. This law is especially irksome to those retirees
who joined the plan when it was first offered in 1972. These service
members were never informed of the age-62 reduction until they had made
an irrevocable decision to participate. Many retirees and their
spouses, as the constituent mail attests, believed their premium
payments would guarantee 55 percent of retired pay for the life of the
survivor. It is not hard to imagine the shock and financial
disadvantage these men and women who so loyally served the Nation in
troubled spots throughout the world undergo when they learn of the
annuity reduction.
Mr. President, uniformed services retirees pay too much for the
available SBP benefit both, compared to what we promised and what we
offer other federal retirees. When the Survivor Benefit Plan was
enacted in 1972, the Congress intended that the government would pay 40
percent of the cost to parallel the government subsidy of the Federal
civilian survivor benefit plan. That was short-lived. Over time, the
government's cost sharing has declined to about 26 percent. In other
words, the retiree's premiums now cover 74 percent of expected long-
term program costs versus the intended 60 percent. Contrast this with
the federal civilian SBP, which has a 42 percent subsidy for those
personnel under the Federal Employees Retirement System and a 50
percent subsidy for those under the Civil Service Retirement System.
Further, Federal civilian survivors receive 50 percent of retired pay
with no offset at age 62. Although Federal civilian premiums are 10
percent retired pay compared to 6.5 percent for military retirees, the
difference in the percent of contribution is offset by the fact that
our service personnel retire at a much younger age than the civil
servant and, therefore pay premiums much longer than the federal
civilian retiree.
Mr. President, two years ago, with the significant support from the
Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was successful in
gaining approval from the Congress in enacting the Survivor Benefit
Plan benefits for the so-called Forgotten Widows. This is the second
step toward correcting the Survivors Benefit Plan and providing the
surviving spouses of our military personnel earned and paid for
benefits. I urge that the Senate act promptly on this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 763
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``SBP Benefits Improvement Act
of 1999''.
SEC. 2. COMPUTATION OF SURVIVOR BENEFITS.
(a) Increased Basic Annuity.--(1) Subsection (a)(1)(B)(i)
of section 1451 of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``35 percent of the base amount.'' and inserting
``the product of the base amount and the percent applicable
for the month. The percent applicable for a month is 35
percent for months beginning on or before the date of the
enactment of the SBP Benefits Improvement Act of 1999, 40
percent for months beginning after such date and before
October 2004, and 45 percent for months beginning after
September 2004.''.
(2) Subsection (a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of such section is amended
by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``the percent
specified under subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) as being applicable
for the month''.
(3) Subsection (c)(1)(B)(i) of such section is amended--
(A) by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``the
applicable percent''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``The percent
applicable for a month under the preceding sentence is the
percent specified under subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) as being
applicable for the month.''.
(4) The heading for subsection (d)(2)(A) of such section is
amended to read as follows: ``Computation of annuity.--''.
(b) Adjusted Supplemental Annuity.--Section 1457(b) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``5, 10, 15, or 20 percent'' and inserting
``the applicable percent''; and
(2) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``The percent used for the computation shall be an even
multiple of 5 percent and, whatever the percent specified in
the election, may not exceed 20 percent for months beginning
on or before the date of the enactment of the SBP Benefits
Improvement Act of 1999, 15 percent for months beginning
after that date and before October 2004, and 10 percent for
months beginning after September 2004.''.
(c) Recomputation of Annuities.--(1) Effective on the first
day of each month referred to in paragraph (2)--
(A) each annuity under section 1450 of title 10, United
States Code, that commenced before that month, is computed
under a provision of section 1451 of that title amended by
subsection (a), and is payable for that month shall be
recomputed so as to be equal to the amount that would be in
effect if the percent applicable for that month under that
provision, as so amended, had been used for the initial
computation of the annuity; and
(B) each supplemental survivor annuity under section 1457
of such title that commenced before that month and is payable
for that month shall be recomputed so as to be equal to the
amount that would be in effect if the percent applicable for
that month under that section, as amended by this section,
had been used for the initial computation of the supplemental
survivor annuity.
(2) The requirements for recomputation of annuities under
paragraph (1) apply with respect to the following months:
(A) The first month that begins after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(B) October 2004.
(d) Recomputation of Retired Pay Reductions for
Supplemental Survivor Annuities.--The Secretary of Defense
shall take such actions as are necessitated by the amendments
made by subsection (b) and the requirements of subsection
(c)(1)(B) to ensure that the reductions in retired pay under
section 1460 of title 10, United States Code, are adjusted to
achieve the objectives set forth in subsection (b) of that
section.
______
By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 764. A bill to amend section 1951 of title 18, United States Code
(commonly known as the Hobbs Act), and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
THE FREEDOM FROM UNION VIOLENCE ACT, MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1999
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to
close a long-standing loophole in our Nation's labor laws. The purpose
of the bill is to make clear that violence conducted in the course of a
strike is illegal under the Federal extortion law, the Hobbs Act. I am
pleased to have Senator Hatch, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
join me once again in introducing this important measure.
Violence has no place in our society. As I have said many times
before, I would, if it were in my power to do so, put an absolute stop,
without any compromise, to the disruption of commerce in this country
by intimidation and violence, whatever its source.
Unfortunately, corrupt union officials have often been the source of
such violence. Encouraged by their special Federal exemption from
prosecution, corrupt union officials have routinely used intimidation
and violence over the years to achieve their goals. Since 1975, the
Institute for Labor Relations Research has documented over 9,000
reported incidents of union violence in America.
Let me make clear that I agree that the Federal government should not
get involved in minor, isolated physical altercations and vandalism
that are bound to occur during a labor dispute when emotions are
charged and tempers flare. Action such as this is not significant to
commerce. However, when union violence moves beyond this and becomes a
pattern of violent conduct or of coordinated violent activity,
[[Page S3596]]
the Federal government should be empowered to act. State and local
governments sometimes fail to provide an effective remedy, whether
because of a lack of will, a lack of resources, or an inability to
focus on the interstate nature of the conduct. It is during these times
that Federal involvement is needed to help control and stop the
violence.
Let me also note that this legislation has never been an effort to
involve the Federal government in a matter that traditionally has been
reserved for the states. Labor relations are regulated on a national
basis, and labor management policies are national policies. There is no
reason to keep the Federal Government out of serious labor violence
that is intended to achieve labor objectives. Indeed, the Congress
intended for the Hobbs Act to apply to the conduct we are addressing in
this legislation today. The decision to keep the Federal government out
was not made by the Congress. Rather, it was made by the Supreme Court
in the United States versus Enmons decision in 1973, when the Supreme
Court found that the Hobbs Act did not apply to a lawful strike, as
long as the purpose of the strike was to achieve ``legitimate labor
objectives,'' such as higher wages. Such an exception does not exist in
the words of the statute. The Court could only create this loophole
through a strained interpretation of the statute and a selective
reading of its legislative history. In his dissent, Justice Douglas
aptly criticized the majority for, ``achieving by interpretation what
those who were opposed to the Hobbs Act were unable to get Congress to
do.''
More specifically, the Enmons decision involved the Hobbs Anti-
Racketeering Act which is intended to prohibit extortion by labor
unions. It provides that: ``Whoever in any way . . . obstructs, delays,
or affects commerce in the movement of any article or commodity in
commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires to do so or
commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property . .
.'' commits a criminal act. This language clearly outlaws extortion by
labor unions. It outlaws violence by labor unions.
Although this language is very clear, the Supreme Court in Enmons
created an exemption to the law which says that as long as a labor
union commits extortion and violence in furtherance of legitimate
collective-bargaining objectives, no violation of the act will be
found. Simply put, the Court held that if the ends are permissible, the
means to that end, no matter how horrible or reprehensible, will not
result in violation of the act.
Let me discuss the Enmons case. In that case, the defendants were
indicted for firing high-powered rifles at property, causing extensive
damage to the property owned by a utility company--all done in an
effort to obtain higher wages and other benefits from the company for
striking employees. The indictment was, however, dismissed by the
district court on the theory that the Hobbs Act did not prohibit the
use of violence in obtaining legitimate union objectives. On appeal,
the Supreme Court affirmed.
The Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not proscribe violence
committed during a lawful strike for the purpose of achieving
legitimate collective-bargaining objectives, like higher wages. By its
focus upon the motives and objectives of the property claimant who uses
violence or force to achieve his or her goals, the Enmons decision has
had several unfortunate results. It has deprived the Federal Government
of the ability to punish significant acts of extortionate violence when
they occur in a labor management context. Although other Federal
statutes prohibit the use of specific devices or the use of channels of
commerce in accomplishing the underlying act of extortionate violence,
only the Hobbs Act proscribes a localized act of extortionate violence
whose economic effect is to disrupt the channels of commerce. Other
Federal statutes are not adequate to address the full effect of the
Enmons decision.
The Enmons decision affords parties to labor-management disputes an
exemption from the statute's broad proscription against violence which
is not available to any other group in society. This bill would make it
clear that the Hobbs Act punishes the actual or threatened use of force
and violence which is calculated to obtain property without regard to
whether the extortionist has a colorable claim to such property, and
without regard to his or her status as a labor representative,
businessman, or private citizen.
In short, the Enmons decision is an unfortunate example of judicial
activism, of a court interpreting a statute to reach the policy result
the court favors rather than the one the legislature intended. This is
a problem that has concerned many of us in the Senate for many years.
We have held numerous hearings on this matter in the Judiciary
Committee since the Enmons decision. Our most recent hearing was in the
last Congress after the UPS strike.
It is time we closed the loophole on union violence in America. It is
my hope that this year we will be successful.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Torricelli):
S. 765. A bill to ensure the efficient allocation of telephone
numbers; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
area code conservation act
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Torricelli and
myself, I am pleased to introduce today the Area Code Conservation Act.
This legislation is designed to spare American businesses and
households the expense and inconvenience of unnecessary changes in
their area codes.
Mr. President, our current system for allocating numbers to local
telephone companies is woefully inefficient. It leads to the exhaustion
of an area code long before all the telephone numbers covered by that
code are actually in use. My legislation will take steps to stop this
wasteful practice and to bring some measure of sanity to our system of
allocating telephone numbers.
When area codes were first introduced in 1947, 86 area codes covered
all of North America. During the three-year period beginning on January
1, 1998, it is estimated that we will add 90 new area codes in the
United States alone. In short, Mr. President, in only three years, we
will add more codes than were originally required to cover the entire
continent. And there does not seem to be an end in sight.
To the extent that additional area codes are needed to bring new
telecommunications services to existing users or existing services to
new users, they are a price we must pay. To the extent they are the
result of inefficient practices, however, they are a price we must
avoid. Unfortunately, the latter is far too frequently the case, as I
shall explain.
The problem addressed by my legislation stems from a very simple
fact. When a new carrier wishes to provide competitive telephone
service in a community, it must obtain at least one central office
code. Because it contains its own unique three-digit prefix within an
area code, each central office code--and herein lies the crux of the
problem--includes 10,000 telephone numbers. Thus, even if a telephone
carrier expects to serve only five hundred customers in the community,
it will exhaust 10,000 phone numbers in the process. And the ultimate
effect of this occurring on a repeated basis is to exhaust all of the
numbers in the area code, thereby requiring that a new area code be
created.
Let me illustrate this further. Let's assume that a town of 12,000
households, each with one telephone line, is served by a single
telephone carrier. The carrier will be able to meet the demand with
only two central office codes and still have about 8,000 numbers for
new customers. Assume further that three new competitors enter the
market, which would be a welcome development and one that the 1996
Telecommunications Act was enacted to promote. Since central office
codes are not shared by carriers, each new competitor would need its
own code consisting of 10,000 telephone numbers. As you can see when
you do the math, we would go from exhausting 20,000 numbers to
exhausting 50,000 numbers to serve our town of just 12,000 households.
My own home state of Maine dramatically reflects the problem inherent
in the current system. With a population of about 1.2 million people,
we have 5.7 million unused telephone numbers out of the roughly 8
million usable
[[Page S3597]]
numbers in our area code 207. However, more than 3 million of the
unused numbers are within central office codes that have already been
assigned, making them unavailable for other carriers. Thus, despite the
fact that more than 70% of the telephone numbers in the 207 area code
are not in use, Maine has been notified by the North American Numbering
Plan Administrator that it will be forced to create a new area code by
the Spring of the year 2000.
As one Maine commentator noted, even if every moose in Maine had a
telephone number, we would still have plenty of numbers left over. Yet,
we are told we will soon need another area code, something that
probably make as much sense to our moose as to our people.
Mr. President, this paradigm of inefficiency in the midst of
America's telecommunications revolution might almost be amusing were it
not for the fact that it causes real hardships for many small
businesses. With its great beauty, the Maine coast relies heavily on
tourism for its economic health. We have heard from businesspeople
throughout our coastal communities--a gallery owner in Rockport, an
innkeeper in Bar Harbor, and a schooner captain in Rockland--who are
among those who are rightly concerned about the cost of updating
brochures, business cards, and other promotional literature, all of
which will be necessitated by having a new area code. And as the
innkeeper also told my office, it takes as long as 2 years to revise
some guide books, the biggest source of information for many of his
guests. Changing the area code could therefore lead to a significant
loss of business and unneeded expenses for these small businesses.
Along with the economic cost, new area codes create tremendous
disruption and confusion for consumers. With geographically split area
codes, States, counties, and cities are split apart, creating new
territorial boundaries that only serve to divide citizens. With overlay
area codes, even more confusion can result. Just imagine having to dial
up a different area code in order to order a pizza from a delivery
service just down the street.
The legislation I am introducing today will resolve these problems
and bring common sense to the process of allocating telephone numbers.
The Area Code Conservation Act will set a date certain by which the
Federal Communications Commission must develop a plan for the efficient
allocation of telephone numbers. Consistent with the provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, the plan must include measures to
ensure that telephone numbers will be portable when customers change
carriers and that unassigned numbers in a central office code will not
be the exclusive property of a single carrier.
The Area Code Conservation Act would also give decision-making
authority to the States, where officials know the best policies to
promote competition while minimizing costs and confusion to businesses
and consumers. Specifically, the Act would authorize State public
utility commissions to implement area code conservation measures while
the FCC is developing its plan and, I would hope, before a new area
code is needlessly forced on the State. These conservation measures
could include minimum fill rates for central office codes, mandatory
1,000-block pooling, individual number pooling, and interim unassigned
number porting.
The legislation would also allow State commissions to require the
return of unused or underused central office codes to the numbering
administrator.
In developing this legislation, I received valuable assistance and
technical advice from the Maine Public Utilities Commission. I have
every confidence in the ability of the Maine PUC and, indeed, State
commissions throughout this country to develop the best policy in this
area.
The people of Maine welcome technological change and accept that it
may come with a price. They are prepared to pay for innovation and
progress, but they object--indeed, they should object--when they are
asked to pay for inefficiency. When one looks behind its technical
subject matter, this bill is about nothing more complicated than
stopping a form of government waste. Such waste should not be tolerated
by Members of this body, whether they come from States like Maine with
a single area code or from States with cities already divided into
different area codes.
I urge my colleagues to support my efforts to bring an end to this
inefficiency and the unnecessary cost and inconvenience it will impose
on our citizens, particularly our small businesses.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Robb, Mr. Helms, and
Mr. Feingold):
S. 766. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to revise the
requirements for procurement of products of Federal Prison Industries
to meet needs of Federal agencies, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
the federal prison industries competition in contracting act
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, with Senators
Abraham, Robb, Helms, and Feingold, the Federal Prison Industries
Competition in Contracting Act. This bill, if enacted, would eliminate
the requirement for Federal agencies to purchase products made by
Federal Prison Industries and require FPI to compete commercially for
Federal contracts. It would implement a key recommendation of the Vice
President's National Performance Review, which concluded that we should
``Take away the Federal Prison Industries' status as a mandatory source
of federal supplies and require it to compete commercially for Federal
agencies' business.'' Most importantly, it would ensure that the
taxpayers get the best possible value for their federal procurement
dollars.
Mr. President, Federal Prison Industries has repeatedly claimed that
it provides a quality product at a price that is competitive with
current market prices. Indeed, the Federal Prison Industries statute
requires them to do so. That statute states, and I quote, that FPI may
provide to Federal agencies products that ``meet their requirements''
at prices that do not ``exceed current market prices.''
Indeed, FPI would appear to have a significant advantage in any head-
to-head competition, since FPI pays inmates less than $2 an hour, far
below the minimum wage and a small fraction of the wage paid to most
private sector workers in competing industries.
The taxpayers also provide a direct subsidy to Federal Prison
Industries products by picking up the cost of feeding, clothing, and
housing the inmates who provide the labor. There is no reason why we
should provide an indirect subsidy as well, by requiring Federal
agencies to purchase products from FPI even when they are more
expensive and of a lower quality than competing commercial items.
Yet, FPI remains unwilling to compete with the private sector, or
even to permit Federal agencies to compare their products and prices
with those available in the private sector. Indeed, FPI recently
published a proposed rule which would expressly prohibit Federal
agencies from conducting market research, as they would ordinarily do,
to determine whether the price and quality of FPI products is
comparable to what is available in the commercial marketplace. Instead,
federal agencies are required to contact FPI, which will act as the
sole arbiter of whether the product meets the agency's requirements.
The proposed rule states:
A contracting activity should not solicit bids, proposals,
quotations, or otherwise test the market for the purpose of
seeking alternative sources to FPI. . . . the contracting
officer or activity should contact FPI, and FPI will
determine . . . whether an agency's requirement can be met by
FPI.
The reason for FPI's position is obvious: it is much easier to gain
market share by fiat than it is to compete for business. Under FPI's
current interpretation of the law, it need not offer the best product
at the best price; it is sufficient for it to offer an adequate product
at an adequate price, and insist upon its right to make the sale.
Indeed, FPI currently advertises that it offers federal agencies ``ease
in purchasing'' through ``a procurement with no bidding necessary.''
The result of the FPI's status as a mandatory source is not unlike
the result of other sole-source contracting: the taxpayers frequently
pay too much
[[Page S3598]]
and receive an inferior product for their money. When FPI sets its
prices, it does not even attempt to match the best price available in
the commercial sector; instead, it claims to have charged a ``market
price'' whenever it can show that at least some vendors in the private
sector charges as high a price. As GAO reported in August 1998, ``The
only limit the law imposes on FPI's price is that it may not exceed the
upper end of the current market price range.''
Yet, FPI appears to have had difficulty providing even this minimal
protection for the taxpayer. GAO compared FPI prices for 20
representative products to private vendors' catalog or actual prices
for the same or comparable products and found that for 4 of these
products, FPI's price was higher than the price offered by any private
vendor. Moreover, for five of the remaining products, FPI's price was
at the ``high end of the range'' of prices offered by private vendors--
ranking sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth of the ten vendors reviewed,
respectively. In other words, for almost half of the FPI products
reviewed, the FPI approach appeared to be to charge the highest price
possible, rather than the lowest price possible, to the Federal
customer.
One example of FPI overpricing was presented in a December 19, 1997
letter that I received from a frustrated vendor. The vendor stated:
If the Air Force would purchase a completed unit as
described in UNICOR's solicitation directly from a . . . .
manufacturer we estimate the cost will be approximately
$6,500.00. UNICOR is going to purchase a kit for $9,259.00
and add their assembly and administrative costs to the unit.
If UNICOR only adds $1500.00 to the total cost of the unit,
it will cost the Air Force $10,759.00. This is 66 percent
higher than the current market price. If the Air Force
purchases 8,000 units over the next five years it will cost
the taxpayers an additional $34,072,000.00 over what it would
cost if they dealt directly with a manufacturer.
A second frustrated vendor reported a similar experience to me. The
vendor's letter stated:
[FPI] bid on this item and simply because [FPI] did, I was
told that the award had to be given to [FPI]. [FPI] won the
bid at $45 per unit. My company bid $22 per unit. The way I
see it, the government just overspent my tax dollars to the
tune of $1,978. The total amount of my bid was less than
that. Do you seriously believe that this type of procurement
is cost-effective?
I lost business, and my tax dollars were misused because of
unfair procurement practices mandated by federal regulations.
This is a prime example, and I am certain not the only one,
of how the procurement system is being misused and small
businesses in this country are being excluded from
competition, with the full support of federal regulations and
the seeming approval of Congress. It is far past the time to
curtail this `company' known as Federal prison Industries and
require them to be competitive for the benefit of all
taxpayers.
This kind of overpricing has a real and dramatic impact on the
ability of the Department of Defense to purchase the products that they
need to provide for the national defense and for the welfare of our men
and women in uniform. For example, the Master Chief Petty Officer of
the Navy testified before the House National Security Committee on July
30, 1996, and the FPI monopoly on government furniture contracts has
undermined the Navy's ability to improve living conditions for its
sailors. Master Chief Petty Officer John Hagan stated, and I quote:
Speaking frankly, the [FPI] product is inferior, costs
more, and takes longer to procure. [FPI] has, in my opinion,
exploited their special status instead of making changes
which would make them more efficient and competitive. The
Navy and other Services need your support to change the law
and have FPI compete with [private sector] furniture
manufacturers [under GSA contracts]. Without this change, we
will not be serving Sailors or taxpayers in the most
effective and efficient way.
Mr. President, I do not consider my self to be an enemy of Federal
Prison Industries. I am a strong supporter of the idea of putting
federal inmates to work. I understand that a strong prison work program
not only reduces inmate idleness and prison disruption, but can also
help build a work ethic, provide job skills, and enable prisoners to
return to product society upon their release.
However, I believe that a prison work program must be conducted in a
manner that is sensitive to the need not to unfairly eliminate the jobs
of hard-working citizens who have not committed crimes. FPI will be
able to achieve this result only if it diversifies its product lines
and avoids the temptation to build its workforce by continuing to
displace private sector jobs in its traditional lines of work. For this
reason, I have been working since 1990 to try to help Federal Prison
Industries to identify new markets that it can expand into without
displacing private sector jobs.
Mr. President, avoiding competition is the easy way out, but it isn't
the right way for FPI, it isn't the right way for the private sector
workers whose jobs FPI is taking, and it isn't the right way for the
taxpayer, who will continue to pay more and get less as a result of the
mandatory preference for FPI goods. We need to have jobs for prisoners,
but can no longer afford to allow FPI to designate whose jobs it will
take, and when it will take them. Competition will be better for FPI,
better for the taxpayer, and better for working men and women around
the country.
____________________